Page 1 of 1

Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 15:23
by 1mpar_
I´m buying a dell inspiron 9100 laptop and I´m in doubt about the hardware config.
What would be best for resolume playback:
- ATI 9700 128M and 60G 7200rpm HD
or
- ATI 9800 256M ahd 40G 5400rpm HD
unfortunatly I can´t have both - the best card and HD. So witch setup would play smoothier resolume?

Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 15:50
by Vj De-X-teR_
Buy it with ati 9800 256m and without HD:)
Best HD is Hitachi travelstar 7k60(7200 rpm,8MBcache,60GB)

Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:33
by SuperficiaL_
Hi 1mpar,

i would go for the ATI 9700 128M and 60G 7200rpm HD, but read the config very carefully.
much things in a lappie are different from desktop pc's like speedstep for the processor, hd speed, video memory sharing with RAM and stuff like that.

De-x-ter's got a point.
i dont know under what type of circumstances u are buying the lappie, but a dell computer is kinda short on options.
since it only supplies a couple of brands of hardware.
it is cheaper than the rest but if it doesnt fit your need exactly its a lot of money for something u cant use to full extend...
and if u let someone else than dell build-in your other hd u are screwed guarantee wise...

Greetz,
SuperficiaL

Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 14:20
by 1mpar_
Superficial,

Today I got a Compaq PIV 2.5G, 512, HD 40G 4.200 rpm, ATI 345 with 64M shared memory.

I´m choosing this Dell because it´s the one that best suits my needs. It´s a PIV 3G, 512RAM, and has this 2 options of video card: ATI9700 and 9800. Many laptops more expensive don´t have these cards.
My actual compaq can´t handle 3 layers in resolume without getting slower playback.
That´s why I´m trying to choose the best config. I need to know what would give me the best performance: a better video card or a HD with a higher speed. For me this config is very good and I won´t need to extend it (don´t even know what I could extend).
About the options of Dell, for me they are fine, since it has everything I need. What could be better?

Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 15:49
by bart
a faster HD will probably improve the performance more then the diference between the 9700 and 9800!

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 20:25
by Ruud
Would a Hitachi travelstar 7k60 internal hd and any other ATA-6 7200rpm 8MB cache external on USB 2.0 make any difference?

atm i have 4200 internal in my compaq laptop, and while all my specs are great, this really fucks speed up a lot !!
'
btw usb2.0 faster than firewire?

depends...

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 21:40
by SuperficiaL
hi Ruud,

usb 1.0 = +- 100 mbit
usb 2.0 = +- 480 mbit

normal firewire = +- 400 mbit
newer firewire (only on macs till now) = +- 800 mbit...


greetz SuperficiaL...

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 14:04
by therandelman
Originally posted by SuperficiaL
hi Ruud,

usb 1.0 = +- 100 mbit
usb 2.0 = +- 480 mbit

normal firewire = +- 400 mbit
newer firewire (only on macs till now) = +- 800 mbit...
why is firewire plus/minus 400? i thought, that using firewire means having always the full rate and only with USB, it is deending on how many devices you are using... am i wrong?

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 14:35
by SuperficiaL
well firewire can be used with more devices in one thread to but im not sure about if it uses the full bandwith all the time...

i found this on the net

usb <---> firewire

usefull info.

greetz SuperficiaL...

[Edited on 12-10-2004 by SuperficiaL]

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 21:03
by AlexEtJeremy
1. You will not see any performances differences between Firewire and USB2 with an external HDD during your Live performance.

2. Desktop Internal 8mb 7200r U133 HDD are cheapper, UBS2/Firewire box for IDE HDD are cheapper too.
Build it yourself. (you can upgrade your HDD later on... or the box)