New Computer: Which Upgrades Are Worthwhile?

[Brian]

Hi,

This is an update from my previous post, located here. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=inet&Number=2045002&Forum= All_Forums&Words=&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=20450 02&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=4153&daterange=1 &newerval=1&newertype=w&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyp rev=#Post2045002)

To sum that post up, I am buying a new computer which will be used with 6 monitors to run a lot of tables, Poker Tracker, player view, etc.

Since that post, I have decided to go with a Digital Tigers Stratosphere Elite (http://www.digitaltigers.com/stratosphere-elite.shtml), and am curious about which of these upgrades are worthwhile, keeping prices in mind. Here's what I am looking at doing (please feel free to add anything you would upgrade that I haven't listed):

1) Upgrade from 1GB of RAM to 2GB of RAM. $375. I have been told by quite a few people that "Nothing out there uses up more than 1GB of RAM", but I'm not sure if they took into account 20 "nothings" together eating up 1GB of RAM. I can always upgrade later, but I'd rather get it now if I'll need it to run 20+ tables.

2) Upgrade one of the GeForce 6600 GT's (it comes with 2 of those, and 1 Quadro card) to a GeForce 6800 Ultra for use with World of WarCraft, Doom 3, etc. I don't have a price on this yet, but I assume around $300.

3) Upgrade the 2 hard-drives to 400GB for use with RAID-0. This will cost $599 per drive. Again, some have recommended it, while others have said it's barely a noticeable difference. I'm not sure what kind of difference I could tell specifically using poker programs, so I defer to the Zoo. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

4) Upgrade the dual Xeon Processors from 2.8ghz to either 3.0ghz, 3.2ghz, or 3.4ghz. The price to go from 2.8 to 3.4 is $1500. I've heard that as you get to the top of the line stuff, there isn't much noticeable difference for the price you pay. Is that worth $1500? Would there be much of a difference for what I'm doing?

That's all that I can think of right now.

Thanks a ton,

-Brian

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Upgrade from 1GB of RAM to 2GB of RAM. $375. I have been told by quite a few people that "Nothing out there uses up more than 1GB of RAM", but I'm not sure if they took into account 20 "nothings" together eating up 1GB of RAM. I can always upgrade later, but I'd rather get it now if I'll need it to run 20+ tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

you won't know if you'll need more than 1 GB until you get everything up and running. if you do, you can buy another 1GB of RAM for far less than $375 (like under $150), and it's easy to install. wait on this one.

or, just order 1 GB of ram from someplace like newegg when you order your PC, and install it right away.

[ QUOTE ]
The price to go from 2.8 to 3.4 is $1500. I've heard that as you get to the top of the line stuff, there isn't much noticeable difference for the price you pay. Is that worth $1500?

[/ QUOTE ]

I highly doubt it.

[Freakin]

You're always paying a premium for the latest and greatest processors. It's definitely not worth the money. Those harddrives seem excessive. I would get 2 10k RPM raptor drives and stripe them. Much less storage space, but much better speed. They use 18gig platters, so the sizes are either 36gb or 72gb. Ram is overpriced when upgraded by the OEM. Buy it later and put it in yourself (or have any monkey with a screwdriver put it in if you don't want to).

My .02

Freakin

[astroglide]

- start with 1gb and buy more when you actually need it

- the 6600gt is enough for most gamers

- striping won't have any impact on typical single user performance

- the cpu upgrade isn't worth it. neither are dual cpus. and xeons are profoundly bad deals for home users.

looks like a complete ripoff from soup to nuts, but it will function just fine no matter how much money you dump into it. whatever floats your boat.

[otctrader]

Brian -

I echo the other comments on here; most important, I agree the Xeon dual processor setup is a waste of money unless you intend to run some commercial server. For high-end gaming and general home use just get yourself the fastest Intel out there (3.6, 3.8 or whatever it is). The Xeon will probably cause performance degradation with games and many applications since cutting-edge software coded in low level languages isn't going to be optimized for the Xeon chipset.

Can't help on the graphics card, but if you want to play fancy games don't skimp on it - I would get the top of the line Geforce/Nvidia model. You'll pay for it, but these things become obsolete pretty fast so if you buy the top model you'll at least get a few years out of it.

Memory is important IMO; spend the money on the 2 gigs - check prices through your manufacturer and a 3rd party; if you go the 3rd party route make certain your motherboard can handle the upgrade.

Don't know much about the RAID hd, I've heard pros and cons. Don't have one in my rig and I'm glad since when my motherboard fried I was able to just pop my hd into my old Dell and I had access to my data in a few minutes - this would have been impossible if it was a RAID setup.

Good luck

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are Xeons such a bad deal for a home user? Cost too much? I won't get the maximum out of them? Or are they just not good processors period? Are these better than AMD Athlon's for what I am going to be doing? I heard AMD's are better for gaming, but I'm not sure which is best for multiple applications/databases/monitors.

I can tell you are against buying from a company, but if you were computer illiterate and willing to pay more than they are worth to get a tech support line/decent customer service and a warranty ([censored] always breaks for me), what would you do in my situation?

Thanks,

-Brian

P.S. The degree to which I have had computer problems in the past makes me want to go ahead and buy the extra gig of RAM upfront because I know I'd either void my warranty/screw things up if I installed it myself, or the RAM would wind up not being compatible, or I'd have to go into the BIOS to get it my computer to detect the extra RAM, or there wouldn't be a slot for the extra RAM (because both slots are used by 2 512's), etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

quoting his private message (please keep the conversation here).

the most aggressive chipsets/fsbs are found in the consumer space, and the additional cache found on xeons will be largely worthless for your applications.

if you want to buy from a company, dell xps is still a highly affordable option. shuttle (http://us.shuttle.com/) (click the name) sells prebuilt small form factor systems as well, which are great in terms of resale/movement/noise. you could also consider the venerable highly overpriced alienware, i can't attest to the quality of their service. there are many technically competent english speakers at shuttle but the service isn't in-home.

i would honestly suggest getting a dell xps with an in-home warranty, monitor techbargains.com for coupons. you can pay extra for upgraded support options. if you want to pay a lot extra you could go for a single processor precision workstation with dedicated support, it would probably still be much cheaper.

[Nfinity]

1) A Gig of RAM should fit your needs, and it's painfully easy to install, and you can definently get an extra Gig later for less than $375. Wait on this one.
2) I think your good on graphics, but if your one of the hardcore gamers who absolutely must be able to se the fine detail of every leaf on every tree, go for it.
3)800 Gig of storage is a TON. I still haven't been able to max out my 250 I got 2 yrs. ago. I don't think RAID-0 will be a noticeable enough difference for this set up to shell out the extra $1200 for it.
4)Your processors are good, especially since there are 2 of them. The dual processor may seem a little overboard but if your going to be 20 tabling with Playerview, they might just come in handy.

So to sum up, if you really must sink more money into this machine, go with the graphics card and maybe RAM later. On the plus side this should be all the computer you will ever need.

[Nfinity]

I forgot about those processors being Xeons in my last post. Astroglide is correct as they are geared towards higher end server functions. Not sure about the performance degradation of games but it is possible. If you can see if you can downgrade to the highest end Celeron or the like. You can still get 2 of 'em, cuz your hardcore like that. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Kev7554]

2 processors are pointless unless the software program is designed to use both processors. Windows XP Pro will Benifit slightly but not pokertracker. Stick with the Single processor and don't pay for the very fastest due to the premium and IMHO Stick with AMD processors to save a buck. Stay away from raid if all you want is a speed performance. If you want a fast hard drive go with SCSI even though its not necessary.

[waffle]

Don't use RAID0. It wil increase your performance marginally, but it will also double your mean time between failures. (If one disk goes kaput, you lose the data on both drives).

[waffle]

You are correct: having two processors won't speed up pokertracker because it is not multithreaded. However, it will make your computer 'smoother'. While Pokertracker is doing a large import or a huge notes export, your computer will be more responsive while you do other things, as it can offload the non-intensive tasks to the other processor.

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Upgrade from 1GB of RAM to 2GB of RAM. $375. I have been told by quite a few people that "Nothing out there uses up more than 1GB of RAM", but I'm not sure if they took into account 20 "nothings" together eating up 1GB of RAM. I can always upgrade later, but I'd rather get it now if I'll need it to run 20+ tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a different kind of question. As far as I'm concerned no living human can efficiently play 20 tables of poker at a time. I do four right now, while I'm surfing the web, watching TV, etc., so I feel I could do eight without too much problem--but 20? I have serious doubts.

Care to elaborate?

[Nfinity]

I think he wants a computer that would be able to do so, should he feel up to the challenge.

[Malificent]

I have to echo the majority here:

The only I would probably spend the money upgrading would be the video card because you do some gaming and you're playing the graphics intensive FPS games. The RAM can wait - you may end up upgrading, but everyone is right - RAM is ridiculously easy to add. Even your grandmother could do it.

[jmgurgeh]

DDR 333 is what they've got for RAM? That surprises me greatly. You might not need to add more than 1GB, but you would certainly want it to be the fastest RAM your motherboard can handle.

I can't speak to the striping performance issue from experience, but I can from reading up on it. Quoth Anandtech:

"If you haven't gotten the hint by now, we'll spell it
out for you: there is no place, and no need for a
RAID-0 array on a desktop computer. The real world
performance increases are negligible at best and the
reduction in reliability, thanks to a halving of the
mean time between failure, makes RAID-0 far from worth
it on the desktop."
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101&p=11

[hate]

Perhaps with regular desktop use I'd agree, but anybody who does a lot of dvd and TV show ripping like I do, I've found a more than adequate use of a good hardware raid5 card. I personally don't like striping all that much because of the reliability issues.

[Terry]

I've never heard of Digital Tigers.

The website really tells nothing about the system they are selling -- except that it uses slow RAM -- which motherboard, what brand graphics card, what kind of drives, etc ???

It's your money ... but I wouldn't go near that thing.

The deal from newegg in your other thread still looks ideal to me. It is a known and trusted source, and all the components are absolutely top of line, exactly what I would buy.

[Brian]

Despite the warnings of the 2+2 computer gurus, I went ahead and ordered with DigitalTigers. Over the past few days, I've heard a flurry of computer advice from friends, family, and 2+2, and much of it has been conflicting, confusing, and stressful. I looked into customizing a Dell Dimension/XPS, and it came out to be about the same as the Digital Tigers system, but with 1 Intel P4 with HT Technology instead of 2 Xeons. I'm not sure which would be better, but ultimately I couldn't go with Dell because they told me I'd have to install the extra 2 video cards for myself. If I wanted to put stuff in the box myself, I'd learn how to build my own computer. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

AlienWare said that they wouldn't customize a computer that had support for 6 monitors, and when I called Falcon-NW, the manager there actually recommended Digital Tigers for what I am going to be doing (I didn't even mention the name to him), though he said they could build me something that would work just fine for around 6.5k.

In the end, this little line from Digital Tigers helped to ease my mind over their bad RAM and GeForce 6600GT:

"Target users:

Business users with demanding multi-tasking, multi-screen requirements. Especially suited to financial traders and others who run multiple simultaneous applications, which operate more fluidly across multiple CPUs."

As well as:

"Dual Xeon processors offer a much-improved experience for all users of multi-screen workstations, which by their nature are constantly multi-tasking applications. Dual processors offer especially critical performance benefits for financial traders, who run multiple applications crunching live financial data in real time."

Probably just a sales pitch, but I fell for it hook, line, and sinker. I'm sure as astroglide said, the whole thing is a rip-off soup to nuts, but it's hard to put a price on the peace of mind I have now.

To Timer: You're welcome to come over and watch me play 20+ tables once I get my computer up and running. I'll be sure to post screenshots here as well and keep you guys updated on my DigitalTigers experience.

Thanks very much to you all for your advice throughout my threads,

-Brian

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
To Timer: You're welcome to come over and watch me play 20+ tables once I get my computer up and running. I'll be sure to post screenshots here as well and keep you guys updated on my DigitalTigers experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Posting a screenshoot doesn't really prove that you can efficiently play 20 tables. But maybe you can. I have no way of knowing, but I just don't see how it can be done without making numerous errors, timing out, and keeping up with the street by street action when you're involved in a pot. That being said, more power to you if you can do this successfully. My hat is off to you. It's just that I have my doubts about it being feasible.

I used to have three 21" monitors and I've played as many as eight games, but I fell behind--I timed out a lot and it was just too much. I didn't do it for very long, but I think I could handle it better now without too much problem--but I wouldn't want to do any more than that. I did OK playing five and six games. Four is not a problem. I only have one 21" monitor right now,and a smaller 15". I just don't want to play five or six games with this setup.

The biggest pain in the ass is getting in and out of games, changing games, getting in new games, etc. Screens are popping up all over the place. I just don't see how you can keep track of everything with 20 + games going and still play winning poker.

But what do I know? Maybe your great at it.

I will say this:

If you can do this as well as I suspect, then maybe you should consider the stock market--or futures trading. In fact, I think a lot of poker players should consider this. It pays a hell of a lot better than poker.

[Trix]

Make sure you get some low noise cooling stuff, thats my only advice I guess.

[Brian]

Hi Timer,

[ QUOTE ]
Posting a screenshoot doesn't really prove that you can efficiently play 20 tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

The screenshot I talked about posting was meant to show the others how the whole 6 monitor thing wound up looking. As for you, I figured a simple screenshot would not do you justice, thus the offer to come over to my house and watch me play. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
It's just that I have my doubts about it being feasible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many people also have the same doubts about 4 tables being feasible, which you said you can do without a problem. And some 4 tablers have the same doubts about 8 tables being possible, which *many* on these forums do without a problem. And those same people have doubts about 12 tables, and so on and so forth. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif Everyone has their own limit, and it can be hard to see how someone could do more.

I've dedicated a few summers of my life to RTS games such as StarCraft and WarCraft III; these games require great multi-tasking abilities as well as strategic thought. The same could be said of multi-tabling. I was far from the best at those games, and I'd often download "replays" of some of the best players to watch them play. I couldn't conceive of how fast they were clicking and how well they were managing everything that was going on, and I'm sure that some of the greats at those games would be able to play 30 tables or more, if given the chance.

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see how you can keep track of everything with 20 + games going and still play winning poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning poker is not a difficult thing to play. Any fish who reads and understands Winning Low Limit Hold'em by Lee Jones can probably play winning poker. I'd like to think that I play a notch above Lee Jones level, but I play far from expert poker. The point, though, is that winning, robotic poker is quite easy to play over multiple tables, because you don't really have to think in-depth about your decisions. After that, it's only a matter of how many tables can you cram onto your monitor without timing out a bunch. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
It pays a hell of a lot better than poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't pretend to know anything about stock trading, but I have heard of more stocks traders changing to poker for primary income than vice versa.

-Brian

[Blarg]

I think putting it all on one computer was a mistake and you picked a very costly way to do it.

Computers are cheap these days, and so are the upgrades on the cheap ones you would want to run 4 and 8-tabling successfully. If you spread your tables across different computers, you would gain valuable redundancy if any part of your system(s) went down or became corrupted or sluggish or whatever, plus you would very likely gain speed and even component longevity.

For under $1000, you can get yourself set up perfectly well with an AMD-based computer with a gig of RAM and 7200 rpm hard disk of 160 gigs or more, plus dual monitor capability and two 19-inch CRTs. You can get 8 tables running very smoothly on that set up.

Double that and you're talking 16 tables displayed on four monitors off only two computers.

Add another computer set-up and you're up to a possible 24 computers off six monitors. This at perhaps as little as $2100.00 for the three computers alone, and an extra $600 for the CRT's, for a total significantly under $3000.

And you have tremendous redundancy in case anything goes wrong. One whole computer goes down and you're still on 16 tables! The way you have it set up now, one computer goes down and you're out of business, maybe for a long time.

When it comes to businesses or anything treated like a business, redundancy is very important, maybe critical. For the amount of time and money you're investing in poker, I think you'd be much better off not putting all your eggs in the basket of one single, constantly grinding, highly stressed computer.

[Nick-Zack]

Blarg,

the problem with this set up is the multiple mice that you need. I tried playing 8 tables this way and it is really tough (for me at least) to use 2 hands and 2 mice. 8 tables with 2 monitors and 1 computer (although not easy) is manageable for me. With your idea and the insane # of tables that Brian is talking about he would have 4 mice, and 4 keyboards to deal with.

[astroglide]

you can use software like synergy2 to use one keyboard and mouse for multiple pcs (it detects when you get to the edge of the screen and transfers input to the other computer over your lan, it's the same feel as a single pc with multiple monitors).

[Freakin]

[ QUOTE ]
you can use software like synergy2 to use one keyboard and mouse for multiple pcs (it detects when you get to the edge of the screen and transfers input to the other computer over your lan, it's the same feel as a single pc with multiple monitors).

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy [censored]! Where were you 2 years ago when I fumbled around with my KVM switch all the time?

Freakin

[BusterStacks]

Having a 6800 and a 6600 in the same computer means one of these is going to waste. You will not be able to run both cards using SLI and only one PCI-e slot is x16.

Oh, and striping WILL yield performance gains for a single user.

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and striping WILL yield performance gains for a single user

[/ QUOTE ]

NO (http://faq.storagereview.com/tiki-index.php?page=SingleDriveVsRaid0) it WON'T (http://storagereview.com/articles/200406/20040625TCQ_6.html). the difference is extremely small. it's a waste of money and a risk of data for basically no reason.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Blarg,

the problem with this set up is the multiple mice that you need. I tried playing 8 tables this way and it is really tough (for me at least) to use 2 hands and 2 mice. 8 tables with 2 monitors and 1 computer (although not easy) is manageable for me. With your idea and the insane # of tables that Brian is talking about he would have 4 mice, and 4 keyboards to deal with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was saying to put 8 tables/2 monitors per system. That's 8 tables per mouse/keyboard. That's what I do now, and it's a snap.

[astroglide]

http://synergy2.sf.net/

[BradL]

Ok so I have a RAID 0 setup and I have no idea if it improves performance or not. Question is what is the best solution for backing up my harddrive(s) now, or at least my databases and financial records?

-Brad

[BusterStacks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and striping WILL yield performance gains for a single user

[/ QUOTE ]

NO (http://faq.storagereview.com/tiki-index.php?page=SingleDriveVsRaid0) it WON'T (http://storagereview.com/articles/200406/20040625TCQ_6.html). the difference is extremely small. it's a waste of money and a risk of data for basically no reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you in for a proposition bet? 100$ says a single user will experience over 20% gain in HD related tasks.

[astroglide]

$100 says you're a retard if you want to disagree with storagereview on the subject.

standard crap str-based benchmarks (sandra, atto, hdtach, etc) are not "hd related tasks", actually using your computer is. the sr testbed does low level traces of single-user use, multitasking. the details are outlined in the current testbed article, but it involves copies of office, playing mp3s, browsing the web, etc. these traces are played back so the exact disk access is simulated, and the results are published for all to see.

they are the world's authority on consumer storage performance. there's a reason that many manufacturers actually quote them (and them alone) on their advertising/boxes. if you think this makes them a shill, consider the fact that their correct down position on raid is a terrible thing for manufacturers' business.

you are completely wrong, they are completely right. if you want to try disagreeing, bring whatever 'proof' you have to their forums and watch it get ripped to shreds if everybody isn't so sick of repeating themselves that they don't even bother responding. they made the faq for that reason, droves of idiots asking nonstop about striping when it ultimately wouldn't help them.

i would do a prop bet for much more than you're willing to bet on standard single user performance gains. go read the articles and post on the forums there to make sure you want to set your money on fire.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
http://synergy2.sf.net/

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks astro. I think I have that link on my old computer, but now I have it on this one too.

I don't know if I'll ever go past 8 tables, but it's nice to be able to consider the options.

[Brian]

I received my new Digital Tigers system via UPS late Wednesday afternoon. Well, I received *MOST* of my new Digital Tigers system. There were 5 boxes in total to be shipped, containing:

1) The computer itself
2) Mouse/Keyboard/etc.
3) 2 21" LCD Monitors
4) 2 21" LCD Monitors + Stand
5) ?????

I'm not sure what was supposed to be in box 5, but I assume it's 2 21" LCD Monitors and hopefully some sort of instructions on how to assemble the stand, as there were no instructions included in the box that contained the stand. I checked the UPS site for details, and supposedly Box #5 will arrive tomorrow.

I went ahead and set up the computer with one of the 21" Monitors I received. It's got a pretty ghetto "stand" for the time being (it's leaning against 2 boxes that are standing up on top of each other behind it), but all was well and good with the world.

Or did I speak too soon? I let World of WarCraft install while I ran out to Wal-Mart to buy Norton AntiVirus. I came back, and, after finishing the WoW installation and loading NAV, I began to play WoW. 30 minutes later, the power cut off. Hmmm... Did my foot hit the switch? Nope. Ok, let's turn the computer back on... *Push the button* Nothing. *Push it again* Nothing. It wasn't the power supply, as the Speakers and Monitor were still on.

*sigh*

I felt the back of the case and it was pretty hot, but not too hot to touch. I tried a number of different things, such as switching the on/off button on the back of the case, plugging the main power cord into a different power supply, etc., but with no luck. I discussed the situation for about 30 minutes with my friends, and then decided to give it another go. Voila. Back on.

As I re-loaded WoW, I was hoping to god that it was just a one time thing. I really like how smoothely, quietly, and quickly the new system is running. But, of course, around 30 minutes after re-loading WoW, the system shut off again. And, again, I was unable to turn it back on immediately.

Now, I sit here typing this update at 3:30 A.M. Digital Tigers customer support opens at 9:00 EST, so hopefully I will get some sort of answer then. If they want me to ship it back to them and wait another 2 weeks for a new one, I will probably drive down to Atlanta (I am from Memphis, it's about an 8 hour drive) myself to ensure that things are done as fast as possible.

I hope this post doesn't come off the wrong way, but I am obviously pretty upset at the moment. I'm hoping that DigitalTigers can just tell me to flip a switch and everything will be O.K., but nothing is ever that simple with me when it comes to computers. Terry and others can go ahead and say "I told ya so" now, but I really don't think I had too many other options. AlienWare said that they wouldn't make a system that supported 6 monitors, Dell said they would but I would have to install the video cards myself, and Falcon-NW actually recommended Digital Tigers when I told them I was looking to do a 6 monitor setup.

I was hoping tonight I was going to be posting a screenshot of the new setup, but that will have to wait. Thanks all for your help so far,

-Brian

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
Dell said they would but I would have to install the video cards myself

[/ QUOTE ]

do you realize best buy, compusa, and every computer/it shop in your area offer installation services for peripherals?