Quote:
The legion hardware test is a 240GB revodrive X2. The 480GB is a revodrive 3 X2. Yes, one little number ('3') makes a difference. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
People put oversized power supplies into computers these days. Unless you are running some nasty, power-hungy 'gamers' video card, in most cases max power draw will under 200 watts. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...e_9.html#sect0 i7-2700K, 150 watts max draw (CPU load), and that is a system with a video card. Remove the video card and idle power/max power draw would be even lower. Apart from overclocking, or high GPU load tasks with high end video cards, systems have been drawing under 200-250 watts for years now, even 'top end' setups. More info/older CPUs here- http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...ocking_14.html It makes sense. CPUs with a TDP/draw of over 125watts haven't been released. Add another 10-50 watts draw for the motherboard and cards, and 10-15 watts on a HDD and CD/DVD drive, you're still under 200 watts draw. Quote:
You wont notice any real world difference for desktop (or server/internet use unless you've got a far bigger pipe to the net than the cable/ADSL almost all of us run) with a revodrvie vs a slightly slower single SSD. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Compaing a revodrvive 3 x2 240GB to normal, current SSDs is fair. The only specs difference between the revodrive 3 x2 240GB and 480GB is the 240GB is rated 200,000 I/O sec, the 480GB is rated at 230,000 I/O sec. From all the performance tests I've seen, the difference between the 240GB and 480GB is very low, virtually nothing. Quote:
|
I have said this before. The Revo is one of the best and fasted when used in a high performance pc. The title of your post is clear that you require a low power system. I don't believe you will get the revo to run at those numbers on an atom based board.
State what is the real order of your desires. I hate to keep bringing this up but you can't get both low power and high speed. |
Lower consumption does not mean lower power, here is the proof:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-...st.2436.0.html Among the cpu's that are powerful enough for the revo, some have a lower consumption. These are the cpu's of interest. Which of the cpu's in the list might be powerful enough for the revo? (guesses welcome) Likewise for the motherboard, likewise for the graphics where I do appreciate the ability to play HD flash movies off youtube, probably the most demanding graphical thing I ever do. If a virtual machine can do it too, even better, but not essential. |
Those mobile processors may or may not be able to be used in a desktop. They sometimes are very special devices and can't be used in any desktop.
A VM wouldn't improve the ability of the native system. Almost all modern systems can run hd flash. What exactly do you need this massive revo card for then? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
There are lower power consumption desktop CPUs, but I dont see any listed in that notebookcheck page. I think you might be a little confused with 'powerful enough for the revo'. But since you dont feel any need to explain what you want it for, I'll leave it alone. Quote:
But even assuming that you do belive it...where are you going to get 850MB/sec to write? You arent, unless you are running another revodrive to read from. The revodrive 3 X2 is just a couple of SandForce flash controllers and a RAID controller (set to RAID 0). You can get similar performance (better in some cases) with 2 x SSDs in RAID 0. |
It is for a privacy, anonymity and security scheme that needs a large number of networked VMs that are instantly suspendable and resumable. Why don΄t I buy a ton of ram instead, you might say. I'd hate to wait for ages to start this thing up off a slow hard disk and also ages to save it back to disk when finished. Also there are other ideas for things to do with a very fast drive.
Where's a list of desktop cpu's that shows both scores and consumption? EDIT: oopsa, now I noticed the following. Quote:
|
Does a laptop exist with raid+SSD's as fast as 850 Mbytes/s?
|
Might look at this processor. http://ark.intel.com/products/53401/...Cache-2_20-GHz
|
Do I benefit from more than 2 cores if VM's are running, or the same wattage is better spent on fewer faster cores?
|
More cores helps more processes if the OS and drivers and the apps are fully smp. That means most common OS's and most apps. One could use tests to prove a 2X is faster than a 4X based on real speed usually. Complex processes running tend to do better on more cores. That and many Intel processors use hyperthreading which stunk on the first models and OS's. It has greatly improved. Most linux will consider that to be a 4X processor if enabled in bios. As to real speed, well, only testing on real hardware would reveal. One board may do much better than a competing board so you have to test.
|
Alright, the processor you recommended seems just right. How did you choose it?
Will it work on this motherboard? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...e%20GA-X79-UD3 |
As you can see in the descriptions the CPU is for socket LGA1155, the board you chose is for socket LGA2011.
It would be nice if we would be told what actaully are you trying to do before we can recommend hardware. All we know now is that you want to be able to start/stop an unspecified number of VMs really fast. That is not enough to give any reasonable recommendation. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:54 PM. |