Quantity vs Quality...which do you prefer?

[Baron_Davis]

I was thinking about this, and although quantity boosts the ego, I think quality usually reigns supreme because it tends to be more simple and it ages more gracefully.

ie.

x25-e 32gb vs 4x array of Caviar Black's

or

2 gtx 285 ftw's vs 4x 4890

or

3x2gb of super high quality, low latency ddr3 vs 12gb of good ram

I know that a lot of people wouldn't want 4 video cards, or 12gb ram, or even a RAID array, because it hurts performance, or overclocking, or reliability, respectively, but you have to admit, that sometimes quantity really does feel good.

Anyway, just wanted to spark some conversation.

[zanzabar]

2 285 and 2 489 once u get both oced are the same so 4x 4890 is much better. and the only one that really works with yours is the ram

[Baron_Davis]

2 285 and 2 489 once u get both oced are the same so 4x 4890 is much better. and the only one that really works with yours is the ram

i've never seen 4x 4890 benchmarks, but I've seen 3x vs 2x and sometimes 3x is slower than 2x, so I wonder what 4x crossfire would do. I think the sweet spot for performance right now is sli/crossfire with 2 4890's/285's. If I got another 4890 setup, I'd prolly go with the Sapphire Atomic, since the cooler is better, and it's overclocked to 1GHz. The EVGA 285 FTW is really nice, too.

[5ILVgearX]

some times quantity is not always the best. If you consider power usage and thermal heat.

i would go x25-e 32gb, gtx 285 sli and 6gb rams.

with 4 cavier blacks and quad 4890 your gonna need to spend a lot of money on PSU :( and not to mention the power it consumes when not gaming :eek:

Is there even possible to use 4 x 4890? they don't make them in like the 4870x2 and there seems to be no word from ati that 4890x2 will be produce.

[Baron_Davis]

some times quantity is not always the best. If you consider power usage and thermal heat.

i would go x25-e 32gb, gtx 285 sli and 6gb rams.

with 4 cavier blacks and quad 4890 your gonna need to spend a lot of money on PSU :( and not to mention the power it consumes when not gaming :eek:

Is there even possible to use 4 x 4890? they don't make them in like the 4870x2 and there seems to be no word from ati that 4890x2 will be produce.

ps price isn't that big of an issue imo, since a $220 HX1000 would do the trick. Hard drives don't consume much power, and 4x 4890's is roughly the same as dual 4870 x2's. As for actually running four 4890's, you'd need something like this:

http://www.ncix.com/products/?sku=37088&vpn=790FX-GD70&manufacture=MSI%2FMicroStar

http://img.ncix.com/images/37088_l.jpg

[zanzabar]

look on the ORB that msi board with 4x 4890 was used in the amd record

[perkam]

This isn't an actual "build me a rig" thread :stick:

@ SSDs, X-25M 160GB should end up under $500 by 2010.

Perkam

[antiacid]

This isn't an actual "build me a rig" thread :stick:

@ SSDs, X-25M 160GB should end up under $500 by 2010.

Perkam

SSD's are so expensive! If they were closer to 1$/gb like 10k rpm drives, then I'd jump on them but atm, barely breaking 3$/gb...

Anyway, I remember reading a thread on XS where a dude got 4x 4890 on his board and had to use a special extension link between his slot and the card and run the card "outside" the mobo to get it to fit. He found it to be only 2-3% faster than 3x cards in crunching apparently.

[YMAA]

I'd rather have the 80GB X25-M than the 30GB X25-E. The E isn't that much faster and has less than half the capacity.

Quality isn't everything. It's important to find a balance that works for you.

[Baron_Davis]

I'd rather have the 80GB X25-M than the 30GB X25-E. The E isn't that much faster and has less than half the capacity.

Quality isn't everything. It's important to find a balance that works for you.

Take a look at this...the E is a LOT faster

http://techreport.com/articles.x/15931/6
http://techreport.com/articles.x/15931/7
http://techreport.com/articles.x/15931/8

etc.

There's a reason it costs a :banana::banana::banana::banana: load...it's the fastest ssd in the world right now

And quality IS the end all be all when it comes to products. People unfortunately have to settle for less because of money problems. But if you separate the $$$ from the idea, you realize that quality always beats out quantity. In war, you can make a case for quantity over quality, but that's also an issue of money. Money basically limits our progress as a people...

[YMAA]

1) I won't take TechReport's SSD reviews seriously until they lose the ICH7R controller. I highly doubt a 7200.11 can beat an X25-M in file creation tests.
2) The fact that it's the fastest SSD in the world doesn't make it worth the premium. Case in point...remember the 8800 Ultras when they first came out? An 8800GTX with a different cooler and a slightly faster core/mem clock at twice the price? No thanks.

I agree with you that people have to settle for less than the best sometimes due to money problems - in fact that's my point. You can't abstract a real-world limitation like that away from a real-world product, specifically in terms of hard drive space. And that's why my original point still stands, I'd rather have an 80GB X25-M than a 32GB X25-E because I need more space than the smaller drive offers. I found a balance that works for me. In fact, a 120GB OCZ Vertex for roughly the same price would fit my needs even better. You are not in the position to tell me something faster would automatically fit my needs better...doesn't the thread title specifically ask "which do you prefer?"

As an extreme example, by your logic FilePlanet would be better off hosting their files on a 32GB X25-E than whatever multi-terabyte setup they're using because it's faster. Speed means nothing if your data doesn't fit on the drive.

[Baron_Davis]

Fileplanet can't afford to do that, and that's what I'm saying.

If you have to choose between two set ups that cost the same, but one is quality, and the other is quantity (ie. x25-e vs 2 60gb Vertex's), quality pretty much always pays off sooner or later.

In the x25-e's case, the hard drive will last longer (SLC vs MLC), it's clearly faster, and it offers a better upgrade path (2 vertex's may come close to its performance in some cases, but when you go raid 0 with the x25, the Vertex set up needs to get 2 more to match the performance. It's a 2:1 upgrade path, which sucks).

When I built my AMD pc years back, the only things that survived the test of time were my Raptor (which I payed 400 bucks for, and my cousin thought was a rip off), and my Sennheiser HD280 (which I paid 150 for).

Those high quality components lasted for years, and I still use them in my PC now. You can make the obvious and predictable point that motherboards and cpu's change, and so obviously headphones and an easily transferable hard drive can be used for another build, but that's not why I still use them. I still use them cause they were quality things that at the time of purchase, I felt a slight reluctance (cause I thought they "weren't worth it"). But oh they were. The rest of my stuff was thrown out without pity, cause they aged so so badly.

I guess I'm a believer in quality lasts. Maybe some go the lesser route cause it's "almost as good" or w/e they tell themselves. Point is, a nice investment pays off in the long run, yes, even in the PC world.

And come to think of it, the idea that something will age in a few years, and it needs to be replaced is a brain washing tactic done by the media. Good high quality stuff can last a LONG time. But of course, nobody in power wants their minions to think like that, cause if people actually demanded great quality, the business wouldn't be in the business of ripping people off for maintenance and repair, and car manufacturer's wouldn't be able to get a new car off the poor people every 5 years.

[Baron_Davis]

I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're in denial. You think you're telling me something new with the whole "value" argument, but as i said, it comes down to money. When you're poor, your mind automatically takes the value argument to keep your ego and wallet alive, but if you've ever had serious money (which I haven't, but I'm pretty well off), you'd know that going for the best is the most logical action.

Anyway, as I said, when you don't have a lot of cash, those vertex/falcon drives look real good, and when you got a bit more, the x25-m's look tempting, but anyone who can afford the e's will buy them without hesitation.

ps. Not everyone cares about space...even if they had a million bucks. I don't use much space at all, never have. 32GB is more than enough for me. I listen to my music online, and I only play one or two games. I have a few movies, but that's about it.

[5ILVgearX]

http://img.ncix.com/images/37088_l.jpg

Wow what a monster board. But i see no point in filling up the board with GPUs and have no room for a decent sound card :rolleyes:

Its good that you can use your $400 harddrives or $150 headphones a few years down the road. But i personally don't like to use old components in new computer build, even those they are decently fast they still produce more heat/waste more power.

Its more of a personal reference if a certain individual want to spend 5k on a new system, even if there poor they can get a loan at the bank ;)

[Easybeat]

Its more of a personal reference if a certain individual want to spend 5k on a new system

It is indeed, I however am the other way and I get a great deal of satisfaction from building a system with the maximum bang for buck.

I recently built a low end gaming machine for another project through a mix of ebay, trades, hacks and cannibalisation to keep the price really low. In the end it gave me far more enjoyment doing that than sitting down and ordering a pile of high end new bits.

[5ILVgearX]

It is indeed, I however am the other way and I get a great deal of satisfaction from building a system with the maximum bang for buck.

I recently built a low end gaming machine for another project through a mix of ebay, trades, hacks and cannibalisation to keep the price really low. In the end it gave me far more enjoyment doing that than sitting down and ordering a pile of high end new bits.

Yep thats the best way to get the best bang for the bucks if you have time and not worry about warranty :up:




http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denial
.

Taken it easy. DementeD is just trying to help.
What DementeD is say is that a technology from 2 years a go that cost you $400 bucks will give the same performance as a 2009 tech that only cost you $100 and its the same speed and 3 times the space.

Ohh i see so your gonna spend your extra $$ on quality.

make sure you get 4x SAPPHIRE Atomic Radeon HD 4890 1GB (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102839)1000mhz/4.2gbs $299
instead of the XFX HD-489A-ZDEC Radeon HD 4890 Xtreme 1GB (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150360) $225 875mhz/3.9gbs

I am sure that few extra mhz will justify your $75 dollars :up:

[Baron_Davis]

Yep thats the best way to get the best bang for the bucks if you have time and not worry about warranty :up:





Taken it easy. DementeD is just trying to help.
What DementeD is say is that a technology from 2 years a go that cost you $400 bucks will give the same performance as a 2009 tech that only cost you $100 and its the same speed and 3 times the space.

I don't think he's trying to help.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/04/21/EgyptNileSailboats_wideweb__470x302,0.jpg

Demented: When they promote you at your call center job, maybe you'll be able to afford a x25-e.

[5ILVgearX]

wow i take back the xfx 4890 1gb for $225 after MIR

Try an MSI R4890 1gb 880mhz/4.0 gbs for $170 after MIR

Its a no brainer which a normal person would pick. but in your case you migh go for the atomic :p:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=227413

[Baron_Davis]

wow i take back the xfx 4890 1gb for $225 after MIR

Try an MSI R4890 1gb 880mhz/4.0 gbs for $170 after MIR

Its a no brainer which a normal person would pick. but in your case you migh go for the atomic :p:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=227413

Yeah the 4890's are a sick deal. The Atomic is actually what I was looking at. I don't think it will be that expensive either. And you gotta admit, stock 1GHZ is really nice (better heatsink, too).

http://punctit.ro/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/004676211.jpg

Anyway, about the whole value thing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a snob, and I'm not rich. The i7 920 is obviously the best buy since it gets faster than the Extreme processors with a nice heatsink, but in my eyes, some investments are worth every penny. Sometimes you gotta go big :D

[STEvil]

Thread cleaned, next time I bring out the axe.

[YMAA]

Sometimes you gotta go big :D

Yes, I agree, sometimes it is necessary to buy the best. And I can empathize about the Raptor drive - I still have MY 74GB 16MB Raptor from MY first AMD build (circa 2006), one of the few things I still have from that build. I was able to buy it because at the time I could afford it without sacrificing too much on anything else.

But at the same time, the mark of a good enthusiast is to know where the best point on the price/performance curve is for them. Quality is important - no doubt there. But it really isn't everything. You're mistaking the best in performance for the best choice. It's great if you can get away with it, more power to you if you want to buy an X25-E. I don't believe that for my needs and budget they're worth it over an X25-M, and even that's stretching it over a Vertex. Considering the rate at which SSDs are being developed it doesn't make much sense to buy an X25-E.

Buying the best and expecting it to last is a gamble. I bought the Silverstone TJ09 last year expecting it to last for several years...and then I wanted watercooling. Sold the case for a little over half what I paid for it a year ago to get a Black Pearl.

Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding why you posted the the thread as a question to be asked of ourselves if you're just going to tell us what we should do anyway.