Subject:
|
Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 May 2000 14:06:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
138 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Matthew Wilkins writes:
> I believe that this is the reason SCSI is a better drive interface solution
> for many gamers. UDMA and ATA66 might have equal to or better throughput than
> Ultra2Wide and LVD SCSI, but you don't get the processor hit from SCSI that
> could mean the difference between getting fragged and dodging.
Maybe if you're gaming on a crappy machine. I love these "SCSI vs IDE"
talks. I own and use systems with both. The _only_ times I notice the
differences are when I'm copying gigantic amounts of data from one drive to
another. And I mean hundreds of megs.
Its not like you see a lot of disk-intensive activity during games in which
you might be fragging or dodging anyway, other than at the beginning of a
level.
I think SCSI on just about any machine you might use for most things in a
personal way is a waste. At least it isn't a ridiculously expensive waste
anymore, with prices on most SCSI drives dropping right now, but you can get
so much more bang for your buck by going ATA66 right now, as has always been
the case, and performance is not as much of an issue anymore.
Now for servers or even workstations that require a lot of disk-intensive
activity, sure, SCSI makes sense. For the 566/850 I just had built that
serves as my gaming (UT, SOF, soon to be Diablo II and Vampire: Redemption),
web surfing, Office 2000 machine it would have been a senseless waste of
money. Even if I'd gone with a Tekram SCSI card (I use them in two machines
for DVD/CDR) I'd still be spending around $100 or so, and at least $440 for a
36gb hd. $540 versus the $160 or so I paid for my ATA66 drive. To give me,
as a gamer, probably no measurable performance increase. That $400+ will be
better spent on a GeForce 2 or maybe towards a 21" monitor.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
| (...) Probably true for gamers, and certainly for someone who just wants to browse the web / do office stuff. People just shouldn't say that IDE performs as well as SCSI without some serious clarification. It reminds me of a computer expert friend (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
| See, the promary reason I'm squarely on the SCSI side of this debate is that I've been a Mac dude for years; I've got piles of old SCSI drives lying around. Everytime I build a new (PC) box, I tend to use an inexpensive SCSI controller, and one or (...) (24 years ago, 27-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
| This is a result of the Number One difference between IDE/UDMA and SCSI; IDE 'borrows' number-crunching from the system processor (thus affecting processor load and responsiveness), whereas SCSI has all the number-crunching built into the controller (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
29 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
