Skybuck's Dream PC for 2006 Full Report, Posting 1

Discussion in 'Asus' started by Skybuck Flying, May 5, 2006.

  1. Skybuck Flying

    John Lewis Guest

    Er, I am not sure that the money was earned by him.
    A legacy, perhaps ? Or something from his family to help
    shut off his ranting within the family circle.

    He boasts about his computer, just like the average
    male teenager these days might boast about losing his
    virginity.......... Um, does that give us a clue as to why
    he is flooding these newsgroups ? Somebody find him
    as girlfriend ..... quick....

    John Lewis
    John Lewis, May 6, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. You can't even get 4 GB at DELL only 2 GB and you even and up
    Oh gee, he c/posted this to comp.arch - I bet they love you there.

    Buyer -- "I just bought a 4GB PC, why can't I use all the memory"
    Dell -- mutters, I'm going to kill Gates the next time I see him

    Windows isn't too smart at using all 4GB, and if you use Photoshop
    you can use up 5 lives just trying to get it to use more than 3.5GB.
    Sadly denies revenge on Dell Bangalore IT support staff though...

    Which is why people still bought expensive Dual G5s (not as first
    thought because it was the worlds most expensive cheese grater).
    A black SGI Onyx, now that was about 1980s design & envy :) Until
    the courier asks whether it matters if it slid down the concrete stairs.
    Whereupon he is dragged with head bouncing ee-aah-oo-ow down each.

    Unfortunately I think you are down to 1 life after the cross-posting.
    Qualifying you for to be in charge of a) UK Gov't IT Design Specification
    (box with LED wins min bid, rest at 1M per item) & Procurement or
    b) FEMA Foresight Planning, Procurement & Rumsfeld Pension.
    Dorothy Bradbury, May 6, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Skybuck Flying

    Craig Sutton Guest

    Random number generator? umm HELLOOOOOOOOOOO I said use HDTACH
    random ramblings from a twit

    huh what??
    I suggest you ask your dealer
    You won't get near 500MB/sec

    Nope fantasyland

    Why don't you tell us all what software you actually use for benchmarking so
    we can all have a good laugh at your expense.
    Craig Sutton, May 6, 2006
  4. GT's make more noise.

    I saved 600 bucks by buying a X2 3800+.

    600 bucks is enough to buy a new cpu in the future if I want one ;)

    I went for two GTX 512 MB because they are hard to get.

    Buy now they probably sold out everywhere.
    For me it makes sense see above.
    You will love to have more graphics power.

    You can throw away your graphics card in less than one or two years.
    Gje I wonder why... maybe that's because they pushing all that textures
    stuff to your graphics card... because it does not have enough ram to cache
    it all ?

    Go for the 512 MB ram graphics cards.

    That's the golden rule for pc's... Always stuff it full with RAM.
    You're confusing graphics performance with cpu performance.

    Even rendering programs can use graphics cards nowadays.

    The most important thing for games nowadays is good graphics cards with
    lot's of ram and system ram.

    The cpu is on the bottom of the list.
    There will always come something better along....

    I definetly did not want to wait any longer :)

    Skybuck Flying, May 6, 2006
  5. Are you serious ?

    That's crap.

    Skybuck Flying, May 6, 2006
  6. Yup :)

    Skybuck Flying, May 6, 2006
  7. Random number generator? umm HELLOOOOOOOOOOO I said use HDTACH

    Ok, I downloaded, installed and run HDTach I was a bit worried if it would
    overwrite anything but it only does read tests.

    The cores are running in power saving mode... though it seems this piece of
    software forces the cores to run between 1800 MHz and 2000 MHz.

    Here are the results of HDTach:

    Quickbench 8 MB

    Random Access: 12.9 ms
    Burst Speed: 124.5 MB/sec
    Average Read: 51.1 MB/sec
    CPU Utilization: 7.0% + - 2.0%

    Longbench 16 MB

    Random Access: 12.8 ms
    Burst Speed: 127.7 MB/sec
    CPU Utilization: 6%
    Average Read: 51.2 MB/sec

    The program says:

    MB = 1.000.000 bytes which is wrong ! but ok.

    I only test drive D:

    Drive C: is the same kind of drive though.. but not gonna risk it.

    I hope this statisfies your curiosity.

    I however I am still not convinced that this is the maximum performance of
    the drive.

    The HDTach benchmark itself could be the limiting factor.

    And that's all I have to say about it. Believe what you want.

    Skybuck Flying, May 6, 2006
  8. Skybuck Flying, May 6, 2006
  9. Skybuck Flying

    Pooh Bear Guest

    Which part of " Sustained data rate (MB/sec) 64.8 - 31 " don't you
    understand ?

    The interface speed has relatively little to do with the drive's actual
    practical ablity to transfer data.

    You need to learn how to read a spec !

    Pooh Bear, May 6, 2006
  10. Skybuck Flying

    Pooh Bear Guest

    It's how disk drive makers specify MB actually.

    51 MB/sec is exactly what you might expect from the spec ! You need to learn
    something about how hard drives work !

    Pooh Bear, May 6, 2006
  11. see what units they specify the acoustic noise levels in.....

    martin griffith, May 6, 2006
  12. Ok,

    I just did a test with my own harddisk/file read benchmark...

    This time I payed close attention to what happens and this is what happens:

    First the read speed is around 50 MB/sec (testing with a 5 Gigabyte file).

    It continues for about 10 to 15 seconds or so... at this rate.

    I can clearly hear the harddisk rattle and the hd led is burning.

    Then after this time it starts to make a bit of less noise and the led
    starts to go off sometimes.

    The read speed begins to climb to 100 MB/sec, 150, 200 MB/sec and within a
    few seconds it's at 500 MB/sec or even over it.

    And at this point the harddisk is no longer making any sound and the
    harddisk led is off.

    So I must come to the conclusion that windows xp 64 bit with 4 GB's of
    memory simply cashes enough so that it doesn't have to read anymore... or
    maybe only a little bit.

    However the benchmark should prevent such caching from taking place..
    because the file is so big, actually I should use an even bigger file...
    like 50 GB or 100 GB. I also know the benchmark is bugged/limited because
    the random function works with 31 bit integers... so a read offset can only
    be 2 GB at most.

    Some day I will write a 64 bit benchmark which can properly test everything,
    the harddisk, the file system, the operating, the caching etc.. all in one
    go ;)

    For now the HDTach benchmark seems accurate ;)

    Actually my benchmark does random reads (I think though... source code not
    on this computer yet though) while testing the speed (with 1 MB buffers). I
    think sequential read/write speed should even be higher... though some
    benchmark websites show lower speeds... that's kinda weird... Some
    benchmarks even show faster write speed than read speed... that's also
    weird... because caches should make read speeds even faster... but then
    again there is also a write cache. So the point of the story is... there is
    more to benchmarking then meets they eye ;) (Never trust a single benchmark
    or even multiple. Yup. )

    Skybuck Flying, May 6, 2006
  13. Skybuck Flying

    Pooh Bear Guest

    Seems to quite typical for hard drive manufacturers actually.

    Pooh Bear, May 6, 2006
  14. Then what does it have to do with ? :):):)
    I am just seeing if you stupid enough to fall for it =D

    Skybuck =D
    Skybuck Flying, May 6, 2006
  15. Skybuck Flying

    Craig Sutton Guest

    He is a funny fellow isn't he.

    Also the Specs page lists 2 lots of specs one for the Pata Model (133meg)
    and the other (300 sata2) and just as you wrote. These are the limits of the
    Pata/Sata and nothing to do with the speed of the HD.

    Say he writes he's only get 51 Mb /s wow the specs list it as 64.8 ;-) geee
    seems he has a lemon! wonder if he installed the software to enable SATA2
    Craig Sutton, May 6, 2006
  16. Skybuck Flying

    Craig Sutton Guest

    here is another benchmark list of results using drivemark2006 . Your 51
    MB/sec reading is rather poor your burst speed is mediocre as well
    Craig Sutton, May 6, 2006
  17. Skybuck Flying

    Craig Sutton Guest

    Actually that reading is rather poor. I wonder if in all his fiddling with
    settings if he has stuffed something up.

    Anyway if he's so concerned with the hd speed he should be using raid mode.
    Craig Sutton, May 6, 2006
  18. Skybuck Flying

    Pooh Bear Guest

    This makes no sense since it's beyond the drive's ability to read data that fast
    ( see spec ).

    The capacity of the drive to transfer data is highly determined by mechanical
    constraints ( moving the head etc ) like you heard. That's the *real* transfer

    I understood these specs long before you probably ever touched a computer !
    Don't think you're smarter, 'cos you're *not* !

    Pooh Bear, May 6, 2006
  19. Skybuck Flying

    Pooh Bear Guest

    The interface speed needs to be faster than the real data transfer rate ( the
    important spec ) or it would become a 'bottleneck'. The data transfer rate
    would then be limited by the interface, so interfaces are always faster than
    the drive *really* is to stop this happening.
    You haven't the first clue what you're talking about.

    Typical dumb kid who reckons he's smart. Do you wear a baseball cap backwards
    too ?

    Pooh Bear, May 6, 2006
  20. Skybuck Flying

    Pooh Bear Guest

    He probably doesn't know what it is.

    Graham ( a pair of raid drives here btw )
    Pooh Bear, May 6, 2006
    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.