5boxing on one computer - need help with speccs

[Seraphaw]

Was this the case you had in mind then? Antec P190 Super Advanced Miditower, Ext. ATX, 1200W PSU, 200/120mm fan

I get 1200W PSU thrown into the price and a CPU fan.

No, that case actually uses two PSU's.. and it's about a year and a half old.

I was talking about this one, the Antec Twelve Hundred (which is new):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...elve%2bhundred

There's a special now.. for $50 more you get an Antec 1000W PSU, but I tend to stick with SeaSonic/Corsair (or Enermax Galaxy series) PSUs. So far, planning for my next machine has me going with the Antec 1200 and a Corsair 1000W PSU.

Thanks for your help, golden mate. So far my to buy list looks like this:

Asus Rampage Extreme, X48, Socket-775, DDR3,ATX,2xGbLAN,Firew, 2xPCI-Ex(2.0)x16

Corsair Dominator TWIN3X 2000MHz DDR3, 4GB, DHX, FAN, (KIT),CL9-9-9-24

Sapphire Radeon HD 4870X2 2GB GDDR5, PCI-Express 2.0, 2xDVI/HDMI/HDCP

Intel Core™ 2 Quad Q9550 2.83GHz Socket LGA775, 1333MHz, 12MB, BOXED with fan

WD VelociRaptor 300GB SATA 3,5" 10000RPM, 16MB

Antec Twelve Hundred Gaming Case(Without PSU)

Corsair Powersupply 1000W Black ATX/EPS, 140mm fan, SLI



So far so good? Do I need an extra CPU fan to keep it cool in there?

[-silencer-]

The case will have a spot for a 120x25mm fan on the side, so you could add one there. If you don't plan on overclocking, you don't *need* an aftermarket heatsink/fan for your CPU - that case has plenty of good airflow. Your CPU will be sitting right next to that HUGE top exhaust fan and 2 rear 120mm fans.

Looks like a kickass machine. If money isn't much of an issue, why not add a $200 32GB SSD drive to host the /data directory of WoW? That's about final bottleneck you're going to have. The Velociraptors are incredibly fast, but they can't compare with the access times of flash memory (.22ms SSD vs 5.9ms Velociraptor) I'm waiting to hear back the results from someone who's tried this, although I may end up being the first..

The main bottleneck of WoW is small random reads from the hard drive. Any time a player walks into your "area", the hard drive has to be read for all objects & textures on that player. This is a big reason why cities are a problem - there are so many small files to load into memory. Of course, there are a lot of polygons and processing too, which is why the CPU, RAM, and videocard combo are all important. However, compare the chart for "random read performance of small files" between an SSD and Velociraptor.. it's not even close:
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/IDE/SSD_v...or_Raptor.html
SSD: 18021 vs Velociraptor: 676. This is for the bandwidth in accessing and transferring 10KB files, in KB/s. The most important aspect of WoW bottlenecks, by far. And for this test, the Velociraptor had to be formatted to a 32GB partition for maximum performance (smaller area to search = faster times), which virtually no one would do to a 300GB drive.

[Seraphaw]

[quote='-silencer-',index.php?page=Thread&postID=107283#post107283]The case will have a spot for a 120x25mm fan on the side, so you could add one there. If you don't plan on overclocking, you don't *need* an aftermarket heatsink/fan for your CPU - that case has plenty of good airflow. Your CPU will be sitting right next to that HUGE top exhaust fan and 2 rear 120mm fans.

Looks like a kickass machine. If money isn't much of an issue, why not add a $200 32GB SSD drive to host the /data directory of WoW? That's about final bottleneck you're going to have. The Velociraptors are incredibly fast, but they can't compare with the access times of flash memory (.22ms SSD vs 5.9ms Velociraptor) I'm waiting to hear back the results from someone who's tried this, although I may end up being the first..

The main bottleneck of WoW is small random reads from the hard drive. Any time a player walks into your "area", the hard drive has to be read for all objects & textures on that player. This is a big reason why cities are a problem - there are so many small files to load into memory. Of course, there are a lot of polygons and processing too, which is why the CPU, RAM, and videocard combo are all important. However, compare the chart for "random read performance of small files" between an SSD and Velociraptor.. it's not even close:
[url]http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/IDE/SSD_vs_VelociRaptor_vs_Raptor/SSD_vs_VelociRaptor_Raptor.html[/url]
SSD: 18021 vs Velociraptor: 676. This is for the bandwidth in accessing and transferring 10KB files, in KB/s. The most important aspect of WoW bottlenecks, by far. And for this test, the Velociraptor had to be formatted to a 32GB partition for maximum performance (smaller area to search = faster times), which virtually no one would do to a 300GB drive.[/quote]



Wow that's so much faster... Do I just treat and plug this in like a harddrive then?

I found this: [url]http://www.dailytech.com/OCZ+to+Crash+SSD+Party+With+259+64GB+479+128GB+Mod els/article12248.htm[/url]

"OCZ is looking to trump Super Talent push down-market with faster SSDs at even lower price points. The company today announced its [url='http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/ocz-technology-announces-core-series/story.aspx?guid=%7b92621F37-10E4-43B4-B823-53DE282CE70E%7d&dist=msr_20']new Core Series 2.5" SSDs[/url] which are the most affordable, large-capacity SSDs that we've seen to date. The 32GB, 64GB, and 128GB models are priced at $169, $259, and $479 respectively -- the drives also feature a two-year warranty."

only 250 dollars~ for a 64gb, and it says it's faster and cheaper than MemoRight. What say you sir?

If I would put all my 5 WoW directories for it to read will this mean insanely fast startup/zoning times and STILL be as fast loading small amount of data compared to if I would only let the SSD read the /data directory only? I need your wisdom!

[-silencer-]

new Core Series 2.5" SSDs[/url] which are the most affordable, large-capacity SSDs that we've seen to date. The 32GB, 64GB, and 128GB models are priced at $169, $259, and $479 respectively -- the drives also feature a two-year warranty."

only 250 dollars~ for a 64gb, and it says it's faster and cheaper than MemoRight. What say you sir?

If I would put all my 5 WoW directories for it to read will this mean insanely fast startup/zoning times and STILL be as fast loading small amount of data compared to if I would only let the SSD read the /data directory only? I need your wisdom!

That's the series I ordered. Once it arrives, I'll start testing. Since I haven't seen any discussions anywhere about using an SSD for the WoW/data folder, I'm not getting my hopes up yet for massive performance gains. However, based on the typical SSD benefits (great at small file reads, not as good at large file sequential transfers), it *should* work very well to host the WoW/data directory. I wouldn't put *anything* on it that I'd need to write to (I have my RAID0 Raptors for that), which means leaving the rest of WoW off it.

Also, I'm not expecting super-fast loadup times of instances or maps (ok, maybe if I RAID0 two of them later..). I'm expecting less lag from hard drive fetching in busy cities.

[Seraphaw]

new Core Series 2.5" SSDs[/url] which are the most affordable, large-capacity SSDs that we've seen to date. The 32GB, 64GB, and 128GB models are priced at $169, $259, and $479 respectively -- the drives also feature a two-year warranty."

only 250 dollars~ for a 64gb, and it says it's faster and cheaper than MemoRight. What say you sir?

If I would put all my 5 WoW directories for it to read will this mean insanely fast startup/zoning times and STILL be as fast loading small amount of data compared to if I would only let the SSD read the /data directory only? I need your wisdom!

That's the series I ordered. Once it arrives, I'll start testing. Since I haven't seen any discussions anywhere about using an SSD for the WoW/data folder, I'm not getting my hopes up yet for massive performance gains. However, based on the typical SSD benefits (great at small file reads, not as good at large file sequential transfers), it *should* work very well to host the WoW/data directory. I wouldn't put *anything* on it that I'd need to write to (I have my RAID0 Raptors for that), which means leaving the rest of WoW off it.

Also, I'm not expecting super-fast loadup times of instances or maps (ok, maybe if I RAID0 two of them later..). I'm expecting less lag from hard drive fetching in busy cities.[/quote]
Alright, please let me be one of the first to know how your testing goes. Thanks for being an invaluable help to me in getting a new computer, I'll send you 10 bucks if you got paypal.

Cheers!

[Otlecs]

This has turned into a really interesting thread for me.

I've gone from five machines down to just one for my five-boxing over the past few months, and even on my monster rig, loading lag is a big problem in places like Shattrath. Bad enough that I lose my followers unless I wait for it all to load.

In other words, the bottleneck is indeed the small reads.

I use two WoW installations - one for main, one for the drones. Initially, I had them both running from my striped 1TB internal disks.

Last weekend, I butchered an old machine, put one of its disks into a spare slot and moved the drones to there. It was better, but I still had to stop.

This weekend just gone, I butchered another machine and put a second disk in the final spare slot of my main rig. I set it up as a stripe set and expected big things. It was disappointing though, with pretty much the same performance.

I put that down to mis-matched disks, or maybe a naff nVidia RAID controller. In the absence of any way to diagnose how good the RAID controller is, I've just spent €500 on a pair of 300GB WD Velociraptor drives.

Once they arrive, I'll drop them in and set them up as a stripe set to see how it goes. I'll also mess about with the stripe set block size, to optimise it for smaller transfers.

That all turned into a bit "stream of consciousness", I'm afraid, but the bottom line is that I'm really interested to see how the solid-state drives you're talking about here work out, because for five-instancing, the disk is a definite bottleneck!

[-silencer-]

I put that down to mis-matched disks, or maybe a naff nVidia RAID controller. In the absence of any way to diagnose how good the RAID controller is, I've just spent €500 on a pair of 300GB WD Velociraptor drives.

Onboard RAID controllers (ICH9R / ICH10R) are much better now than the earlier versions of the past. However, one of the best inexpensive controllers is the Areca ARC-1200.. around $180US. Since I'm already using my ICH9R, I'll get the ARC-1200 if I decide to RAID0 the SSDs. Still waiting on the delivery of the OCZ Core 64GB SSD.. supposed to be Thursday, so expect results sometime this weekend.

[Seraphaw]

Bah I still can't decide if I'm going to be cheap and get a

Intel Core™ 2 Quad Q9550 2.83GHz Socket LGA775, 1333MHz, 12MB, BOXED w/fan

or



Intel Core™ 2 Quad Extreme QX9770 3,2GHz,LGA775,1600MHz,45nm, 12MB, BOXED

The pricegap is somewhere around 1300~ dollars...

How much better is the processor REALLY compared to Q9550 to handle todays games (and most important: multiboxing)?

[-silencer-]

Intel Core™ 2 Quad Extreme QX9770 3,2GHz,LGA775,1600MHz,45nm, 12MB, BOXED

The pricegap is somewhere around 1300~ dollars...

How much better is the processor REALLY compared to Q9550 to handle todays games (and most important: multiboxing)?

The QX9770 is not worth it unless you plan on overclocking the crap out of it. Otherwise, you're paying $1300 extra for about 0.4GHz increase in speed (which you could easily get by overclocking the Q9550). That's about a 13% stock gain for more than twice the price, and there's not even a larger cache on the Extreme (unlike many previous extreme models compared to the standard CPUs).

If my SSD test results this coming weekend turn out how I expect, I'd rather put that $1300 into two 64GB SSDs ($520 total), an ARC-1200 controller ($180), and two 300GB Velociraptors ($590).

[Seraphaw]

Intel Core™ 2 Quad Extreme QX9770 3,2GHz,LGA775,1600MHz,45nm, 12MB, BOXED

The pricegap is somewhere around 1300~ dollars...

How much better is the processor REALLY compared to Q9550 to handle todays games (and most important: multiboxing)?

The QX9770 is not worth it unless you plan on overclocking the crap out of it. Otherwise, you're paying $1300 extra for about 0.4GHz increase in speed (which you could easily get by overclocking the Q9550). That's about a 13% stock gain for more than twice the price, and there's not even a larger cache on the Extreme (unlike many previous extreme models compared to the standard CPUs).

If my SSD test results this coming weekend turn out how I expect, I'd rather put that $1300 into two 64GB SSDs ($520 total), an ARC-1200 controller ($180), and two 300GB Velociraptors ($590).

If your test comes back with a very good result I might do this but the wallet is starting to scream in agony. I have also decided to stick with the 9550 .