Further Advice PLEASE ..........Four Years on (P5B Deluxe)

Discussion in 'Asus' started by Allan, Jan 15, 2011.

  1. Allan

    Allan Guest

    ?Further Advice PLEASE ..........Four Years on (P5B Deluxe)

    Exactly four years ago through YOUR help and advice on here I built the

    Asus P5B Deluxe 965 Socket 775 Motherboard
    Intel CPU Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40GHz 1066FSB LGA775 4MB cache Retail inc.Fan
    Asus Extreme 7600GS Silent 512MB DDR2
    Antec Sonata II Ultra Quiet Midi Tower
    Microsoft Windows Vista Business 32Bit OEM
    Geil Value DDR2 2.0GB PC6400 Dual Channel memory kit (2 x 1GB)800MHz
    Seagate 250GB Barracuda SATA II 300 7200rpm 16MB cache Hard Disk Drive oem
    Plus a Lite-On DVD/RW

    Since the initial installation I have increased the RAM to 4GB (4 x 1GB) and
    added another Seagate 500GB Barracuda Sata II hard drive; I have also
    changed to Windows 7 Home Premium

    During the four years I have had it I have been absolutely delighted with
    It is very very quiet in operation (don't know if that is because of the
    motherboard as it has a Fanless Design - Heat Pipe ) and performs very well.
    To be honest I could not fault it.

    I guess in the computer world my PC is now quite dated and it is time to
    update and change it.

    I have a budget of about £550 UK Pounds and also it has to be very quiet.
    The PC will NOT be used for gaming. Apart from surfing the net etc the only
    usage would be when converting some AVI files to DVD Quality and also MPEG2
    to XviD (about 5 hours use every other day or so).

    Since January 2007 I am a little out of touch ...... especially with the
    Intel Processors.
    Bearing in mind I am conscious of the cost and it has to be as QUIET as
    my existing PC; IF ANYONE has the time and doesn't mind giving that up
    could they please give my any advice and recommendations for a complete

    Many Thanks In Advance

    Allan, Jan 15, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  2. Allan

    Paul Guest

    Your system is LGA775, where the Northbridge chip holds the memory interface
    and has the PCI Express interface to the video card. Your memory type is
    likely DDR2, and current systems are DDR3, but memory is so cheap, this
    is hardly a limitation (i.e. tossing the old memory).

    Current generation, mature solutions, are LGA1156 (dual channel memory) and
    LGA1366 (triple channel memory), and in both cases, the memory connects
    directly to the processor. In the case of LGA1156, the PCI Express connections
    for video, come directly from the processor. On LGA1366, the PCI Express slots
    are on the chipset. LGA1366 is the high end technology of the two, but it's
    main value might be in constructing gamer systems. You can get pretty powerful
    LGA1156 systems that do much the same. If you needed a system with plenty
    of PCI Express lanes, then LGA1366 is the solution for that.


    The latest thing, is a new socket, and it is only slightly different.
    It is LGA1155, and came out only a couple weeks ago. The processor is called
    Sandy Bridge. It differs from the previous generation, in having the clock generator
    located inside the processor (something I feared would happen, for a long time, and
    it's finally here). That restricts certain overclocking options. Although,
    in this day and age, processors are fast enough, the issue may be an
    academic one.

    You can read about the latest processor here. Read the entire article.
    It's a hard slog, so you'll likely need to make notes along the way.


    It comes with a gimmick, which is the ability to transcode video. The
    question for a user like yourself, is would you compromise the purchase
    of hardware components, in the name of that gimmick or not ? Is it
    worth it ? Is the feature general purpose enough ? Can it support the
    movie formats you want to use or not ? Would it do anything for you ?

    My *opinion*, is you should not be distracted by the gimmick. First
    and foremost, it's "just another processor".

    The processor comes with three potential chipset solutions. (The chipset
    is the stuff on the motherboard, that provides many of the interfaces
    you use.)


    If you buy an H67 based motherboard, you get to play with the "gimmick".

    If you buy a P67 based motherboard, you get a different mix of connectors
    in the motherboard I/O plate area, and such a motherboard solution
    may make a better overall computer. But then you'd lose access to
    the special transcode accelerator. At least, that's my understanding,
    from reading the Anandtech article.

    If you wait until June 2011, the dust will have settled, and you can
    look at the Z68 based motherboards, which will be coming out then.

    This would be an example, of a "compromise" motherboard. It supports
    the QuickSync gimmick. It does that, by using the H67 chipset, which
    connects to the FDI bus. The mean thing that Intel did, is tie the
    operation of the video transcoding feature inside the processor's built-in
    GPU, to driving a video output. If you connected your computer monitor
    to the video connector on the motherboard, then you can play with the
    transcoder function. But we don't really know whether it handles the
    movie formats you're using. And this has always been a problem with
    non-mainstream hardware solutions. If you have a movie editor and
    rendering function that uses CPU instructions, it's always going to
    work. Any time "special" hardware is involved, *much* more research
    is involved. And since this product only came out a couple weeks
    ago, there isn't time to know all the details. Intel provides an
    SDK, so companies writing movie editors can access the acceleration
    feature, but it may take time for new video editing suites to come
    out, to make the best usage of it.

    (H67 on the left, has the FDI bus connector, and connects the GPU to a monitor.
    An H67 motherboard, had connectors for the computer monitor, in the I/O
    plate area.)


    "GIGABYTE GA-H67A-UD3H LGA 1155 Intel H67 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard"
    (This site has pictures and specs for the product, which is why I use
    this site a lot. For the greatest level of detail, go to the
    Gigabyte motherboard website, and download the PDF user manual.)


    Note that in terms of recently introduced motherboards, there are more
    models with P67 chipset, than with H67. And if you find an H67, it
    will most likely be a microATX motherboard, 9.6"x9.6" with few
    expansion slots. The P67 is more likely to be used in full
    sized motherboards.

    If you wait for the Z68 in June, the motherboards using that chipset
    may be slightly better, in allowing the motherboard manufacturers to build
    more well-rounded motherboards (allowing the "gimmick" as well as
    allowing the construction of gamer computers).

    I have trouble believing your system is "too slow", as it's a quad
    and still quite useful. At 2.4GHz, it is roughly the equivalent of
    four P4 3.6GHz processors from the P4 S478 era. You can certainly
    go faster, if you have the money to spend, and that is your
    decision. But you could equally speed up your current system
    by using an SSD SATA drive as the boot drive. At least some of
    the perceived slowness in modern systems, is causes by the OS
    and it's excessive usage of a slow resource, the hard drive.
    The SSD helps fix that.


    Pricing for Sandy Bridge and H67

    Gigabyte GA-H67A-UD3H LGA1155 £109.99

    Intel Core i7-2600K 3.40GHz LGA1155 8MB £269.98

    (Details of 2600K - 4 Core, 8 threads via Hyperthreading, just like the old P4)
    (95W power dissipation.)

    (Note - the following is purely for price estimation purposes. I didn't
    verify all the specs on this, to confirm its the right choice or
    the best choice for the motherboard. This is just to get a price.)

    Corsair Memory DDR3 1333MHz 2x2GB kit £39.99

    We keep everything else the same. Upgrade costs 109.99+269.98+39.99= £419.96

    The end result, is 3.4/2.4 = 1.4x faster core clock, add 10% for
    Hyperthreading to the overall performance, for at least a 1.5x system.
    The processor, being a next generation, may have slight optimizations
    which account for even more speed, clock for clock. So that is
    basically what you're getting, is 1.5x for £420.

    If June comes, and you have second thoughts about the motherboard
    purchase, just throw away the £109.99 and shop for a Z68 motherboard
    with the motherboard features you want. But you might just as easily
    be happy with the GA-H67A-UD3H.

    To use QuickSync video transcoder, you move the monitor connector
    to one of the connectors in the motherboard I/O plate area. If you
    have other things, that relied on your 7600GS, you could later
    move the monitor cable back to the video card. Your computer will
    have two video outputs, and you get to choose which one to use
    at any given moment. Or at least do that, until someone figures out
    a way to bypass the need for a monitor connected to H67.

    Paul, Jan 15, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  3. Allan

    Mandy Allan Guest



    THANK YOU so much for your time.
    I will have a good read and try and understand it all.
    I really do appreciate what you have done

    Mandy Allan xx
    Mandy Allan, Jan 15, 2011
  4. Allan

    Mandy Allan Guest


    I think I will hold back until about June time and then if it is Ok with you
    I will then tell you what I plan and for you to quickly look through it to
    see it will all be compatible

    Many Thanks

    Mandy A xxxx
    Mandy Allan, Jan 18, 2011
  5. Allan

    jk Guest

    I can give you an AMD based layout, where you keep your DDR2 ram (4
    Gb) and your graphics card. If you don't believe in sata3 contra sata2
    advantage then keep your harddisks too. But I would recommend a SSD
    for booting your operative system (windows 7 64 bits ?). This will
    compensate for not having DDR3.
    Maybe a 60 Gb corsair SSD sata2 or a crucial SSD 64 Gb sata3 (120 £,
    it reads 355 Mb/s).

    Motherboard asus:

    You get sata3 and esata3, but just usb2.0

    As CPU: a six core Phenom ll 95 watt:

    There are several coolers on the market.

    Maybe a ZALMAN CNPS 8000A.

    The budget might be below 300£, excl. the SSD.

    best regards

    jk, Jan 19, 2011
  6. Per jk:
    After trying to read up on SSDs as system drives, I come away
    with the impression that there are two different types of SSD
    and, although one is much less expensive than the other, the
    cheaper type is not suitable for use as a system drive bc it is
    more failure prone.

    Anybody want to offer up some expertise/experience?
    (PeteCresswell), Jan 19, 2011
  7. Allan

    jk Guest

    I mentioned the crucial drive since it is the only sata3 drive
    available (in my country). But checking further brings up that it is
    slow writing.

    Crucial 64 Gb read/write speed is 355/70 MB/s.

    But corsair F60 read/write is 285/275 Mb/s.

    So although corsair F60 is sata2 there is not any cheap drives that
    are better. It costs about 100 £. Maybe the secret is the corsair
    controller built-in. I actually don't know.

    Yes, it is for a system boot drive. 60 Gb is suitable for me as a win7
    c-drive. I backup on the fly with acronis, and compressed file is not
    so big.

    I use it myself with a quad Phenom ll 3,1 GHz and 8 Gb DDR2 ram.

    I also have a six core phenom ll 2,8 GHz without any ssd. It is slower
    for some things (reading), but superiour with video encoding.

    best regards

    jk, Jan 19, 2011
  8. Allan

    Clas Mehus Guest

    For practial use as a system drive, you don't get a difference between
    SATA 3 Gbps and 6 Gbps (this ain't SATA-3 - SATA 6 Gbps is one of
    sevreal features under the SATA-3-spec).

    The Crucial C300 depends on that you have a system with TRIM-support -
    the Corsair F60, which is Sandforce SF-1200-based, don't. The
    performance difference between these drives ain't huge, but the F60
    have an edge with faster write-speed and a somewhat better IO-rate.

    At least here where I live, the SF-1200-based SSD's are a bit cheaper
    then the Crucial C300. Because of that, I would have gone for a

    I personally use Corsair F60 and A-Data S599, which is also
    SF-1200-based, in two of my systems and have a very good experience
    with them.
    Clas Mehus, Jan 19, 2011
  9. Allan

    Paul Guest

    What does the manufacturer quote for lifespan ?

    The problem is, honesty is not the industry's strong suit.

    Some, you can tell by the reviews on Newegg, not to
    buy them. Either the controller sucks, or users have
    experiences early failures.

    This is an SLC based drive.

    "Intel X25E SSDSA2SH064G101 2.5" 64GB SATA II SLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) $725"


    "Write Endurance

    64 GB drive supports 2 petabyte of lifetime random writes."

    To burn up the 2x10**15 bytes, at 2x10**7 bytes/sec (20MB/sec)
    would take 10**8 seconds or a little over 3 years. That would be
    roughly equivalent to me backing up all the sectors on my C: partition,
    once an hour, 24 times a day, for a period of 3 years. On an average
    day, I might deal with 1/60th that much data, so the drive would
    last for 180 years (or whatever the MTBF failure by other means
    might predict).

    Some companies don't even quote write endurance for their MLC
    drives. Which is going to make comparison difficult. This
    is the first one I could find. (On one of the other "big
    name" sites, a search on "write endurance" yielded nothing!
    The word "endurance" would appear in their marketing announcements,
    but with no numbers of any sort.)


    "Super Talent MasterDrive MX 64GB MLC

    Write Endurance >32 years @ 50GB writes/day"

    which is 1.6*10**12 bytes of write endurance, compared to the Intel 2x10**15.
    I would have expected the ratio to be closer to 10:1, but
    write amplification, bad block sparing factors, also
    play a part in how long they'll last. Some have a lot
    more flash inside, than the "capacity" figure would
    indicate, and the extra flash makes room for some block

    The solution is simple, buy garbage... do frequent backups.
    That's what the industry wants you to do. You get the
    speed on random reads, and when your OS boots. And your
    backup scheme, makes up for any shortcomings. Then,
    it's just a matter of working out the projected lifespan
    based on endurance, and as a result, how many dollars per
    year it's costing you for that kind of storage. For
    example, if a $10 drive fails 100 times per year,
    or a $100 drive fails 10 times per yeat, it's costing
    you $1000 per year, and then that Intel drive doesn't
    look so bad.

    As for the "failure prone" part, we seem to be rather
    accepting of the failure prone nature of regular
    hard drives, and have adapted our usage and backup
    patterns for a reasonable level of reliability.
    The fact many people have no backups, tells you
    what their data was worth in the first place.

    Paul, Jan 19, 2011
  10. Allan

    Paul Guest

    By sorting the Newegg reviews by ratings, this is the first
    drive I could find, where the rating was falling below the
    ideal, and people were reporting failures. And this device
    weighs in at $90. So this is an example of the
    value of reviews.


    Paul, Jan 19, 2011
  11. Per Paul:
    I think SLC vs MLC was the distinction I was groping for.

    Is it fair to say that MLC drives are not suitable for use as
    system drives bco reliability?
    (PeteCresswell), Jan 19, 2011
  12. Allan

    Paul Guest

    Lots of people are using MLC for system drives. If the
    Newegg reviews aren't reporting a lot of failures, I take
    that as a generally good sign. I've seen some products in
    the past, where barely any of it worked, when it got in
    the hands of customers. Now, you can find more success

    The thing is, if you change drives out every two years
    anyway, as part of your general maintenance strategy, the
    lifetime of the SSD probably isn't a factor. Unless you
    like to pound them mercilessly for days on end, running
    IOMETER or something :) Under normal usage patterns,
    I don't see a reason to worry.

    Paul, Jan 19, 2011
  13. This is a very helpful post Paul. Thanks very much. I have checked in
    to ask virtually the same question as the OP. My system has evolved a
    bit over the past three or so years, but I'm still in about the same
    situation he is in. I'm doing some major (for me, anyway) video editing
    and DVD authoring -- Blu-Ray too. My system took 33 seconds short of
    six hours the other day to render a Blu-Ray iso I'd authored. That was
    when I began wondering if it was time to build a new system. Here's
    what I have:

    ASUS P5Q Pro Turbo
    Core 2 Quad, 2.40 GHz
    4 GB DDR2 RAM
    Radeon HD 2600
    Boot Drive SAMSUNG 1000 GB, 7200 RPM, SATA-II

    So ... I want more speed but it looks like I'd be smart to wait until
    June. My system is working just fine, actually, so I'll just exercise
    some patience and wait. Again, thanks as always for your informed counsel.
    Bill Anderson, Jan 31, 2011
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.