Help with New System

[CitizenCain]

RAID 0 is not the dumbest thing ever. It is recommended for gamers mainly who don't have much to loose except their games which can be re-installed.

You've got a point there, I suppose. Shows how big of a gamer I am.

RAID 0 chances of fails is actually 1/1000 which is not a single percent thats .1%

Um, no. Where are you getting that number?

PC World - Hard-Drive Failures Surprisingly Frequent

And that's of one hard drive failure. When you have two hard drives, your odds of *either* one failing are ~1.5 times higher than the odds of just the one failing. So your RAID 0 failure rate is 50% higher than a non-RAID container, which, would mean it's somewhere between 3 and 6 percent *per year*, using the numbers from that link.

 

[Brinson]

I love people who pull numers out of their ***...I mean, no test is going to come up with stats like exactly 1/1000.

I don't game, either. At all, really. I edit videos on occasion, but mostlu just fold browse the web, heh.

 

[Sora]

I edited that a minute later because I was thinking something else but actually yes they do make tests up with numbers. Go check the wiki on raids and there is a formula for RAID 1 on its failure rate. So yes the stat is actually 1/25000 with RAID 1

 

[CitizenCain]

I edited that a minute later because I was thinking something else but actually yes they do make tests up with numbers. Go check the wiki on raids and there is a formula for RAID 1 on its failure rate. So yes the stat is actually 1/25000 with RAID 1

Per second? Per minute? Per hour? Per millenium?

Really, the surest way to let everyone know that your pulling numbers out of your *** is to give a failure rate without a time unit. Because actually, there is a 100% failure rate for RAID1 arrays. After all, you don't think that the same RAID1 array is still going to be operational in 5 billion years when the Sun swells up to a red giant and engulfs Earth, do you? <rollseyes>

Come on, I provided a source for my numbers, you haven't - you just keep putting a "1/" in front of some random number in the thousands and saying that there are numbers out there.

 

[maroon1]

There is no such thing called QX6600 !! There is something wrong.......

And get WD 750GB because it is on par with Raptor but it has 5 times the capacity. It is only $199 on newegg

 

[maroon1]

theres a qx6600 now??? wtf!!!!

EDIT: Page 2 - Core 2 Quadro Review

theres one...

Just look at the date of the review

Once upon a time that product was going to exist but it never happened.

 

[veedubfreak]

I thought the lowest QX was the 6700 @2.66. Either way, the q6600 is plenty. You might also look into getting a p35 motherboard rather than the 680i as the p35 is the newest chipset out right now and has better performance than the 680i and also allows you to upgrade your chip to the 45nm cpu's when they come out later down the line.

 

[b1gapl]

The QX6700 is the lowest model, of the quad core extremes. I guess it was a mix up.

Some motherboard manufacturers, such as ASUS, will release a BIOS update for the 680i, to support the 45nm CPUs, as well as the 1333FSB. But he should go P35 anyway, for native support.