Originally posted by cincyrob:

---

got a question guys. the last week i guess things have seem to be lagging for me. everything i do at times seems like it takes for ever for windows to respond. i looked into event viewer and found this error. it is the same error from today back to 12-4-10

i know it says ide port but i dont have anything ide pluged into my mobo. i do have my main OS hdd pluggd into the sata port 0... i dont think its the port itself maybe the cable????

any thoughts, suggestions?


Log Name: System
Source: atapi
Date: 12/13/2010 12:47:53 PM
Event ID: 11
Task Category: None
Level: Error
Keywords: Classic
User: N/A
Computer: BigRedHemi
Description:
The driver detected a controller error on \Device\Ide\IdePort0.


EDIT:
well just tinkering around inside the case. i switched out the sata cable that the OS was useing and no more errors.(knock on wood) my 4 hdd's i was useing the yellow gigabyte cables and my 4 odd's i had the newer red ide cables i bought a few months back. i put one of the red ones on the hard drive and all is well right now..lol

EDIT
ok now im getting a JRAID error. im not running any kinda Raid setup???

Log Name: System
Source: JRAID
Date: 12/13/2010 1:26:11 PM
Event ID: 117
Task Category: None
Level: Error
Keywords: Classic
User: N/A
Computer: BigRedHemi
Description:
The driver for device \Device\Scsi\JRAID1 detected a port timeout due to prolonged inactivity. All associated busses were reset in an effort to clear the condition.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

I don't think anyone here is rich enough to have tested an HSDL SSD yet!

The i7 hex-core CPUs are a bit much, the 970 is only $880, but that's still an enormous amount to pay for what is just half more of an i7 950 (albeit at 133mhz higher clock speed)
There's no such thing as a W1320EURS? Not sure what you're referring to here.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

I don't really get the point you're trying to make. You spend more, you get more. How much people spend is relative because the scale between price and performance is logarithmic. Always has been, always will be.
The i7 950 is 30% faster, and overclocks a lot further than the AMD will too.
There's no arguing that overclocking is irrelevant, because frankly only enthusiasts would be buying high-end hardware like that.

Anyone defending AMD for AMD's sake and not that of reason always chooses the i7 as a comparison as it's so comparatively expensive.
The X4 955, 890XA-UD3 and 4GB of Corsair XMS3 RAM at 1600mhz costs $344, a bit less with a rebate.
An i5 760, P55A-UD3 and the same 4GB of Corsair XMS3 costs $398.
That $54 rise represents 16% more cost. Considering the i5 760 is a 20% faster CPU, that seems a perfectly viable option to me!
Now add the fact that the i5 760 is a 95W CPU versus the AMD's 125, and the final nail in the coffin is the 50% overclocking, versus the AMD's 25%.
The whole 'AMD is better value' ideal does not apply in this sector.
The only sector AMD have an absolute value advantage is in the low-end sector with dual cores. This makes up the largest portion of the market, and for that reason AMD are doing well. But for high-end CPUs like this, you can clearly see why I spec i5s in builds. They're if anything, better value!

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Shaff: You've made two rather conflicting arguments there, brushing off the high-end as an unnecessary [which the vast majority of the time, it is] and brushing off the low-end as "we're all enthusiasts".

As for the i7 argument, frankly most people who buy i7s on LGA1366 now that the i5s are out, don't know what they're doing. There are a few specific situations where they work well, but they're older, less efficient CPUs, often don't overclock as well as i5s, and per-clock they're actually marginally slower. They're simply good at certain specific programs.
Anyone who wants to take at pick at the i7 does not typically go "this is why you should buy an i5", they usually go "this is why Intel are bad and you should buy AMD" completely oblivious to where the actual value offerings are.
Intel sell overpriced high-end products that most people shouldn't buy. Congrats, nothing new here. The point is, they also sell decent value CPUs and that is very much the Core i5.
As for the Asus pronunciaton, for the last year or two I've been pronouncing it as I heard someone from the company pronounce it, ərzuːs [IPA]

Russ: The i7 950 is relatively cheap, but it's also relatively expensive. It's hugely more than its LGA1156 counterparts, as are the motherboards for X58.
H/P55 offers cheap boards, with acceptable brands starting from $80, and a good-spec Gigabyte being included in the comparison I made earlier.
Your argument about multi-threading only adds to the reason why I steer people away from Phenom II X6 CPUs.

I assume the extra cost is tax in your state, but wow, you wouldn't pay 13% more for a 20% faster system? You do see the folly in that right? It's hardly a bad deal.
Your sig tells the world you're willing to overclock, and quite significantly too. You've achieved just under 20% out of your X4 955. I could effectively guarantee you, you could get 45% out of the i5 760, and just as easily, in fact more easily than you have overclocked your AMD, and with less power too.
Whether you're the type of user you're describing or not, fact is, if it were you, you'd get a system almost half as fast again as your AMD, yet only pay an extra $50 for it. I think turning that down is frankly barmy.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

If you looked up what I posted in IPA, that is exactly what you said :P
You can never be entirely sure everyone pronounces anything the same way, so I decided to use IPA to be sure.
I would pronounce A Zeus, as in a singular king of the gods, in the same way as Asus.

While you do have to get an i7 for hyper-threading, you don't have to buy an LGA1366 chip to do it.
The i7 860 fits the bill quite well for an extra $75.
The i7 860 beats the 6-core X6 1055T by 34% in Photoshop CS5, 1% in x264 encoding and 6% in Adobe Premiere.
It's faster than the 1090T in 3DSMax by 9%, and 2% above the 1055T in Cinebench's multi-threaded test.
In POV-Ray, the i7 860 surpasses the 1055T by 7%.

Right now, using the 890XA-UD3 board you posted for $148.49, the X6 1055T CPU for $179.00 and the XMS3 RAM for $53.99 [ignoring the $10 rebate] comes to $381.48
Using the i7 860 for $279.99, the P55A-UD3 board for $142.98 and the same XMS3 RAM at $53.99, comes to $476.96.

As you see, this is quite a substantial rise. In the less well-threaded applications it's more than worth it. For the applications that are truly multi-threaded, however, the benefits of the 6-core AMD really shine through. They use an enormous amount of power, but they're very cheap and very powerful.
The software issue is what I stress to people. Given your level of research into the right software, I'm sure you will be using properly multi-threaded applications.
The problem is, most people who think they need 6-core CPUs do not, and the extra cores are wasted.

---