Major PC overhaul.... Dual CPU and SATA (replace SCSI)

Major PC overhaul.... Dual CPU and SATA (replace SCSI)

I currently have an AMD Atholon CPU and SCSI 160 with 10 and 15k
drives.

Would a newer Dual CPU AMD chipset with SATA harddrives be an upgrade?

I use a few apps at one time, 2 monitors and do video and photo
editing.

Will the SATA drives be a waste compared to the SCSI?

wrote:
> Major PC overhaul.... Dual CPU and SATA (replace SCSI)
>
> I currently have an AMD Atholon CPU and SCSI 160 with 10 and 15k
> drives.
>
> Would a newer Dual CPU AMD chipset with SATA harddrives be an upgrade?
>
> I use a few apps at one time, 2 monitors and do video and photo
> editing.
>
> Will the SATA drives be a waste compared to the SCSI?


I don't know how many SCSI HDs you have, but note that awhile a SCSI
bus can connect several HDs, SATA is a point-to-point interconnect:
one HD per SATA. So, make sure your new MB has enough SATAs for
the number of HDs you want.

Also, the fastest SATA HD is 10K RPM -- which means (maybe) slower
seek times than your 15K RPM SCSI HDs. Read the specs.

Alternatively, you may want to soup up your current PC by adding RAM.
video and photo editing are both very RAM-intensive.
--
Cheers, Bob

wrote:
>
> Major PC overhaul.... Dual CPU and SATA (replace SCSI)
>
> I currently have an AMD Atholon CPU and SCSI 160 with 10 and 15k
> drives.
>
> Would a newer Dual CPU AMD chipset with SATA harddrives be an upgrade?

It shurely would. Modern boards provide a much faster path to memory,
and, a second cpu usually boosts performance when running more than one
application. Keep in mind, that when running only one app, it depends on
the software to utilize the second cpu. Some do - some don´t.
>
> I use a few apps at one time, 2 monitors and do video and photo
> editing.
>
> Will the SATA drives be a waste compared to the SCSI?

Hard to say - check it out. You should still be able to run your old
drives with the new board. Normally, after a while, the SATA disks
should be faster than older scsi disks, not because of the rpms, but
because of the higher density. It´s the (M)Byte per revolution that
counts! You could still use an array controller to get a higher
throughput.

Regards


Frank