Help Me Configure

Well I am kinda sure I wanna get a Clevo D901C, but I really am not sure how I wanna configure it. First off I definitely think I want 2 250 HDS set up for RAID 0. Next I want a single 2 gig memory stick, since I will be running XP for a while; but I will be able to add more memory if Vista gets its act together.

I play some not so resource intensive games like D2 and GW, and a little GTA; but I also do a lot of image editing using PS (currently cs2 but I will probably upgrade to cs3) and I run C1 as my main RAW converter; but also use ARC.

I am not sure what I should do about the CPU and the video card.

Will I really notice a big difference if I go from a 6600 duo to a 6600 quad?

Same question for the 8700 verses a dual 8700 setup. I sorta think SLI is mainly a game thing and may not help me a lot, but I am not sure.

I have an older Sager 88xx I got like five years ago and it still works well for some stuff, but the video card is really out of date and it kinda goes into bog mode if I do RAW conversions and lots of PS post processing. Anyway five years is a long time to keep a laptop.

If anyone thinks I should add something (other than a third drive for the PS scratch area) or get a different box please let me know.

I dont wanna say money is no object, but if more bucks will be cost effective I will spring for more stuff.

 

I went with a single 8800gtx pre-order because I'm pretty much in the same boat as you. NVIDIA is claiming that a single 8800 GTX will out perform 2 8700's. I could not ignore this in my decision.

By doing a single you will be able to upgrade to the sli later on down the road if your usage demands increase.

Processor..... That has been a big debate. Between the 6600 quad and the e6850 I went with the e6850, since this is a laptop and no chance of overclocking is available. Most of the reviews and comparison of both stated that the e6850 wins when overclocking is not in the picture.

I will eventually upgrade to to a 45nm chipset. I doubt it will be soon (so much exciting stuff on the pipeline for Intel and AMD)

Your Memory is perfect for xp aslong as its 800 mhz.

Are the HDs 2 250gb 7200 rpms or 5400s? If they are the 5400s i would drop them to 200 gb x2 and go with sata300. (despite performance difference the sata300s should have a longer tech life since they are a new generation)

These are the conclusions I came to after 3 months of research and snooping around on this forum!

 

Thanks, your comment about a single 8800 beating 2 8700s is convincing me to maybe wait too.

I also agree with your other comments.

 

I would go with the Q6700 or q6600. Even if your applications don't directly support multi-threaded tasks it will give you more processor to do other things while your a waiting for tasks to complete. I would also wait a week to get at least a single 8800M or SLI if you want to game.

 

Quick note too. not all games but some are starting use all of the cores. Not that it overally affects gaming by giving ungodly frames or anything but they do help with physics and such. I think Hellgate London uses all the cores for example.

This link shows it actually using 8 cores.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2QKoese_aw

 

UT3, Hellgate london, and a few others.

More games are making use of them, which IMO is a good thing.

 

It is good that they are making better use of the system resources. Multi-threaded applications run things much smoother. It can also free your system to do more at once if it is configured for it.

 

Ya, I just called powernotebooks and told them I am gonna wait for the 8800, or at least wait and see what happens to the prices of the older stuff.

As an aside what do you guys think about HDs. Is SATA II really better, or will SATA I @7200 work. I am having problems finding a 250gb HD that is 7200, they all seem to be 5400. I thought 7200 implied SATA II, but seems like it does not.

Would I be better with 3 250gb HDs @ 5400 or 3 200gb HDs @ 7200?

 

I have the 160 Seagate 7200rpm and in my opinion anything in that class is worth the money for the performance. I would sacrifice some storage space for the speed. I not sure of all of your needs but for me I wanted more portable performance. I can always use an external for more permanent storage and transfer what I need for work or active use to my local drives.

 

Kl5167, that makes sense. I have a couple of external drives already with lots of pix on them. Thanks for the tip.