What is the current recommendation for an ASUS m/b and processor

  • Thread starter Thread starter Colonel Blip
  • Start date Start date
C

Colonel Blip

Hello, All!

My ASUS A7V8X m/b and Athlon XP (600 mhz o/c'ed to 800) is getting rather
long in the tooth. I was interested in the latest thinking for upgrading -
what board and cpu - to give performance without being bleeding edge. I
suspect this will be the last upgrade I do (<g>) so I'm looking to have it
last for several years. I would appreciate recent experience and
recommendations. This is the 2nd ASUS I've installed and I've been happy
with both of them and really want to stay with them if advisable.

I expect I will venture out this time and RAID0 the system for performance
although I'll have to rethink my backup strategy. I'm partial to an AMD 64
of some variety since one would expect the OS to head that way.

Again, help appreciated.

Thanks.

Colonel Blip.
E-mail: (e-mail address removed)
 
Colonel Blip said:
Hello, All!

My ASUS A7V8X m/b and Athlon XP (600 mhz o/c'ed to 800) is getting rather
long in the tooth. I was interested in the latest thinking for upgrading -
what board and cpu - to give performance without being bleeding edge. I
suspect this will be the last upgrade I do (<g>) so I'm looking to have it
last for several years. I would appreciate recent experience and
recommendations. This is the 2nd ASUS I've installed and I've been happy
with both of them and really want to stay with them if advisable.

I expect I will venture out this time and RAID0 the system for performance
although I'll have to rethink my backup strategy. I'm partial to an AMD 64
of some variety since one would expect the OS to head that way.
Click to expand...

An Athlon 64 CPU and motherboard is an excellent choice. S939
boards are newer and support faster CPU. The ASUS A8V is
a popular board which we sell a lot of. Send us e-mail for more
info or pricing.
 
Colonel said:
Hello, All!

My ASUS A7V8X m/b and Athlon XP (600 mhz o/c'ed to 800) is getting rather
long in the tooth. I was interested in the latest thinking for upgrading -
what board and cpu - to give performance without being bleeding edge. I
suspect this will be the last upgrade I do (<g>) so I'm looking to have it
last for several years. I would appreciate recent experience and
recommendations. This is the 2nd ASUS I've installed and I've been happy
with both of them and really want to stay with them if advisable.

I expect I will venture out this time and RAID0 the system for performance
although I'll have to rethink my backup strategy. I'm partial to an AMD 64
of some variety since one would expect the OS to head that way.

Again, help appreciated.

Thanks.

Colonel Blip.
E-mail: (e-mail address removed)



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy
via Encryption =----
Click to expand...

Athlon XP is being phased out & replaced by a Sempron.
For something cheap try Sempron + micro-atx motherboard (3d graphics is
quite good.) like Asus A7N8X-VM.

For something moer upmarket , socket 754 is being phased out to so go for
socket 939.

gtoomey
 
Hello, All!

My ASUS A7V8X m/b and Athlon XP (600 mhz o/c'ed to 800) is getting rather
long in the tooth. I was interested in the latest thinking for upgrading -
what board and cpu - to give performance without being bleeding edge. I
suspect this will be the last upgrade I do (<g>) so I'm looking to have it
last for several years. I would appreciate recent experience and
recommendations. This is the 2nd ASUS I've installed and I've been happy
with both of them and really want to stay with them if advisable.

I expect I will venture out this time and RAID0 the system for performance
although I'll have to rethink my backup strategy. I'm partial to an AMD 64
of some variety since one would expect the OS to head that way.

Again, help appreciated.

Thanks.

Colonel Blip.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with your choice of motherboard or CPU, but
have you done a lot of homework on RAID0? Most of the well-done
review articles (search for them at PC Magazine and Anandtech.com)
come to the conclusion that it offers no appreciable performance
enhancement for desktop computers, other than those doing a lot of
video processing/encoding. Essentially the on-board RAID controllers
task the CPU and can therefore actually hinder performance in some
scenarios. Also on the downside, it's consensus that RAID0
approximately doubles the chance of a HD failure that could cause data
loss. If you're well informed on the subject, you'll know best what
to install on your system. RAID0 might be great for your use. I put
it on my last computer, though, and, while I haven't had a HD failure,
it has given me no discernible benefit. I'll certainly not use it on
the computer I'll be building this spring.

Ron
 
milleron said:
This has nothing to do with your choice of motherboard or CPU, but
have you done a lot of homework on RAID0? Most of the well-done
review articles (search for them at PC Magazine and Anandtech.com)
come to the conclusion that it offers no appreciable performance
enhancement for desktop computers, other than those doing a lot of
video processing/encoding. Essentially the on-board RAID controllers
task the CPU and can therefore actually hinder performance in some
scenarios. Also on the downside, it's consensus that RAID0
approximately doubles the chance of a HD failure that could cause data
loss. If you're well informed on the subject, you'll know best what
to install on your system. RAID0 might be great for your use. I put
it on my last computer, though, and, while I haven't had a HD failure,
it has given me no discernible benefit. I'll certainly not use it on
the computer I'll be building this spring.

Ron
Click to expand...

I may be wrong about this but I think that the failure probability goes
up by the square root of 2, not 2x. So, if the MTBF is nominally 10,000
hours of operation, running two drives would give you an MTBF of around
7,000 hours.

arnie
 
I may be wrong about this but I think that the failure probability goes
up by the square root of 2, not 2x. So, if the MTBF is nominally 10,000
hours of operation, running two drives would give you an MTBF of around
7,000 hours.

arnie
Click to expand...

Sounds plausible. (This is an example of why I inserted the word,
"approximately.") However, my point is that for the vast majority of
standalone computers, the only significant difference that RAID 0
makes is an increase in the risk of data loss from a HD failure. For
most of us, there's a distinct downside to RAID 0 without an upside to
balance it. For some users, RAID 0 makes perfect sense. For most, in
my nonprofessional opinion, it's nonsense.
Ron
 
Back
Top