Looks great, the only thing I would change is switching out the 8800GTS for an 8800GT, gives much better performance over the older GTS for almost the same price. On a side note, may I ask what you'll be using 2 terabytes of HD space for? :eek:
Well, since it's in RAID 5, one is used for redundancy, so I've only got 1.5 terabytes. But I'm using it for... um.... homework....?
I'd have gone Intel Core 2 and yeah, the original 8800GTS is old school now, esp the 320MB. My question on the HDs is not so much why 2 TBs but why RAID? You gain very little speed with RAID and you're giving up a whopping 500GB/$120 on redundancy. For that much you could have easily afforded a much better Intel CPU/MB, still had 1.5TB, and a cooler runing case. Other than that you would have gotten much more response had you not made us separately click each link just to find out what each of the parts you chose are.
I'm not looking for speed, I'd much rather use the 500gb for safety. Besides, I still have 727.9gb free, so I've got a long way to go before I'll ever fill this up. And as far as heat is concerned, the Antec 900 takes care of it pretty well.
Sorry about the lack of descriptive links, didn't think about it. Case - Antec 900 Motherboard - Asus M2N-SLI Deluxe PSU - Thermaltake 700w (Modular) HDD's - Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500gb 32mb cache (4 in a RAID 5 config) Video Card - eVGA 8800GTS 320mb CPU - AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ RAM - Corsair XMS2 2GB DDR2 800 (PC2 6400)
Nice, but you should use Raid 0, It is faster then RAID 5, easier to setup, cheaper, and cooler (heat wise :p) and Dont really worry about redundency like Omen said, you are wasting space, because HDD's dont even fail that often, and under a normal load of gaming or app's its like almost never going to happen, you only really need redundency in a server or similar
Sgt. D. Pilla;4171070Nice, but you should use Raid 0, It is faster then RAID 5, easier to setup, cheaper, and cooler (heat wise :p) and Dont really worry about redundency like Omen said, you are wasting space, because HDD's dont even fail that often, and under a normal load of gaming or app's its like almost never going to happen, you only really need redundency in a server or similar
You're obviously someone who has never had a drive fail on them. RAID 5 or better are the only RAID options I would consider, but I would've put the fifth drive into the array as well. The percentage of storage space lost to parity is inversely related to the number of drives in the array, after all.
At any rate, on a desktop I'm not sure I would've gone with the RAID array at all (drives tend to cycle out of my computers well within their NLE), but whatever. Video card is dated for a recent purchase, and I can't help but wonder about the decision to use AMD at this point as well.
All told, it isn't a bad system, though. But please, replace the PSU.
Your right I havn't, but that still doesnt change the fact they that don't often fail, I know they do, but its not like you replace them every year or 2, unless you buy cruddy brands like Maxtor. I have a mate with RAID 0, he's had his system running as his webserver for 4yrs now, never replaced a HDD in the array, never needed to format either, and he's using standard 120GB Seagates My TAFE server's have Raid 0+1 and having been using it for 12 years, and there drives have never failed, but have been upgraded once to SATA and a larger capacity (in the year 2000)
Well on the PS, at least it's not as bad as going CoolerMaster, but you could do better price wise if you don't insist on modular cables. Something like this is the best deal of what's been mentioned IMO, and has 617 reviews averaging 5 eggs: [COLOR=blue]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817341002[/COLOR]