100% ad-free
Nzeddy wrote:QUOTE (Nzeddy @ Nov 30 2010, 01:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hello,
Im planning to get a completely new gaming rig to run FSX and Orbx with very high settings which Im getting from a computer company - http://www.hiteksystems.co.nz/. I've brought a pc from them before which Im using now.
Here are the specs: (not finalised yet, still adding/removing some hardware)
Case: Cooler Master Storm Scout
Motherboard: Asus P6T 1366 MB
CPU: Core I7 950 3.06Ghz - hoping it to be overclocked to 4ghz
Air Cooler: i7 1366 aftermarket cooler
RAM: Corsair 6GB (3x XMS3 2GB) PC-12800 (1600MHz) XMP, DOMINATOR GT +DHX +AirFan, DDR3 For X58 MB/i7 Core, 3x240-pin DIMMs, Triple Kit, 7-7-7-20,
HDD: 4x 500GB Fast SATA2 HDs RAID 5 array
Optical Drive: Samsung DVDRW Drive
GPU: GTX 580 Graphics Card
PSU: 1000W Silverstone PSU
OS: Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit
Cost: NZD $3450 + GST
What do you guys think?
Labour to Build, Install Win 7 O/S, Configure & Test
That's an impressive rig you're looking at getting into - are you looking at FPS gaming as well as FSX?
The only comments I would make are:
Motherboard: Definitely steer clear of Asus - poor warranty when push comes to shove, I've had too many issues with Asus boards over the years to have any real faith in them
HDD: There's as many opinions on RAID as there are techs, I reckon!From everything I've read, I don't really see RAID being advantageous enough for the possible problems it can cause. I think you'd be better off getting a couple of fast SSDs - one for the system / general apps, one for FSX - and then have a WD Black 1TB drive for data. I know RAID is supposed to bring in efficiencies & redundancy, but the problems I've read about just don't seem to justify what could be a marginal increase in performance at best. I've even read somewhere (can't recall where now - sorry) that RAID degrades FSX performance. Would be money wasted to find that was true...
Let us know how you get on building your rig, what glitches you find, and what sort of performance you end up with.![]()
Nzeddy wrote:QUOTE (Nzeddy @ Nov 30 2010, 09:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hey,
Firstly Im not building my computer. I don't even know how to build one in the first place, lol. Steve, one of the guys at HitekSystems is ordering, building, installing OS and testing my computer. He has worked with computer for 15+ years and he suggested that I should go with RAID5 as it's fast or w/e and doesn't fail. But thanks for the offer.
Here's what he said on one of my emails:
"RAID 5 is the next up the list and you can have between 3 to 6 drives and once you start getting 4 drives or more the RAID 5 arrays end up very fast as youend up getting the read speed of all 4 drives combined together, this is why a good & fast RAID 5 array with std fast 7200 RPM Drives can end up faster than a single SSD and even A RAID 0 SSD Array, plus you get the redundancy if you have a single drive failure you get no data loss which is nice."
Thanks. Yup.
So your really saying that I just need a 800W PSU instead of the 1000W?
Well, if the guy building your PC is 100% confident about the RAID, that's fine I suppose. As I said, there are lots of opinions about RAID, and from people with 20-30 years+ experience at that. I've been assembling PCs for 12 years, and have steered clear of RAID: I just don't like the risks involved that I'd read about for relatively modest - if any - gains. I'd dispute the claim that a 4-disk RAID is faster than a fast SSD - for video editing, yes. For gaming, no. RAID is good at managing large, heavy volumes of data. SSD is good for "smaller but more frequent" data management. And this is one of the problems I've seen with those who are RAID proponents: they get myopic and forget that RAID is no a panacea for all computer ills / performance issues. Even though a heavy FPS game like Crysis might, maybe, move big enough chunks of data to make RAID effective, I seriously doubt it. My advice here is to seek a couple of second opinions of a couple of tech or gaming websites that you trust. www.techzonez.com is a good one, and there are a couple of good NZ gaming / overclocker website that will be able to, hopefully, give a balanced opinion. Note also that I've read that RAID does have a lot more failures than it's supporters will admit to, and that good RAID implementation is seldom achieved - either due to cheap chipsets, driver issues or lack of truly in-depth knowledge by the technician.
I also think 1000W is serious overkill - not to mention expensive to run - but it depends if you're thinking of liquid-cooling or a 2nd graphic card (for SLI) at a later date. If yes, go 1000W. If no or very likely not, a good 800W true PSU is plenty.

dart15 wrote:QUOTE (dart15 @ Nov 30 2010, 03:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>If your primary purpose for this PC is FSX dont go the RAID way! There is evidence that it actually degrades performance with FSX.
What? Guys over at Orbx use RAID0 so I don't know...- Eddy
Nzeddy wrote:QUOTE (Nzeddy @ Dec 1 2010, 02:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Ok I've gone for this:
1x 120GB SSD for FSX / addons
1x 1TB F3 drive for OS, games, etc
Cool - I think it's the right decision. If you've got a bit of spare cash, you might like to consider having a 2nd WD 1TB drive - either for all your FPS games, or for the Windows virtual memory (paging) file.
And on the topic of the paging file, do a good bit of digging around as to how to set that optimally - you might even find that you have to change the file size when playing FSX, then put it "back to normal" for FPS. There is a lot of info on this floating about, and I haven't made up my mind yet what is correct. The general "rule" is to set the file at 1.5 x times the size of your RAM, min & max values the same. So, a 4GB system is 4096MB, times 1.5 = 6144: that would be the min & max value on whatever drive you want to plonk it on. BUT: I've heard that FSX likes either a set size of around 4GB, whilst others say the same size as RAM, whilst others say 1GB, and even one school of thought says if you've got 8GB turn it off! My understanding is that Windows needs to have at LEAST 1GB of page file (also called Virtual Memory, VM for short) allocated.
I'm picking that the variance in opinion come down to how people use their PCs, how "pared down" their processes and autoruns are, how geek they are, how fast their hardware is etc etc. I'm sticking with my 1.5 x total RAM for now, but have also tried:
- 4GB only
- 1GB only
- no VM
- Min 1.5 x Max 2 x
The only 1 I really noticed any diff with was no VM - I got random crashes. However, I also found later that my motherboard had got weird, so it's entirely possible that it was the motherboard and not the "no vm" - I just haven't bothered to fiddle with it again.
Food for thought. Oh that gaming computers were easier, eh?Last edited by IslandBoy77 on Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests