Subject:
|
Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Sat, 27 May 2000 00:30:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
161 times
|
| |
|
|
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 two of the drives I already own. If I had to go out and
buy these drives new, heck no I wouldn't go SCSI! The differences between the
two formats with respect to what I use the computers for is so slight as to
not warrant any discussion.
But on the other hand, the part of me that makes me drool over souped-up cars
is the same part that tells me that I _have_ to put Ultra2LVD 7200 RPM drives
into the Athlon 1Gig system I'm building. *smirk* Not doing so would be akin
to building a 67 Camaro Super Stock dragster, and settling for cheap wheels
and tires (not really, but there is some comparison...)
-Cheese
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Mike Stanley writes:
> 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 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
| (...) Kinda funny that a Mac person would still be squarely on the SCSI side of things since it has been a _long_ time since Macs have come standard with anything but IDE drives. :) (...) Yep, and there are inexpensive controllers to be had. I just (...) (24 years ago, 27-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
