My current hard drive (thanks to games like UT4 requring over 5 gigs of space) is about maxed out and I’ve noticed it running pretty slow lately because of it. I’m getting ready to purchase a new hard drive but want to keep the old one installed and functional because I have a lot of files/programs on there I want easy access to without having to transfer the data to the new hard drive. The new hard drive will become my primary drive that I use for everyday use and the old will be only for storage/reference. My question is: will the old and cluttered hard drive have any impact at all on the speed of the new drive if I leave both as active drives? Also, my current drive is 7200. Can I run a 10000 drive as well with the old one remaining active? Any conflictions at all?
Before I start, I have seen previews/screenshots/gameplay movies of UT4, and it does look badass.
The new hdd itself won’t suffer in its performance from the status of the other drive. Although whenever you’re computer wants to access the “clogged drive” it will act the same. Just as a general maintenanace, before going to bed one night, defragment your clogged HDD. When HDD’s are that full, they almost always could use some defragging.
As far as the difference in drive speeds… It shouldn’t matter. Even if they are on the same IDE chain. If they are on the same chain, make sure you adjust the jumper settings designate them as primary and slave/secondary appropriately.
A second thought, assuming you have some/all of the application media… Install the new drive. Since your OS is already on the first drive, leave it there (I doubt you’ld be able to go in and delete it manually completely, and if you left it that would be about 1-2gigs of space you’ld be wasting). Then remove apps from the old drive, reinstall them to the new drive… especially you’re UT4, and other large apps, ie MS Office, other large entertainment programs/files, drag over your MyDocs folder (if yo use it), etc. Of course this only would work if you had you’re application media and wanted to keep the same OS.
goodluck and have fun with UT4
I just wanna clarify that the amount of data you have on your HD doesn’t really affect its performance. What will affect it is the number of bogus and outdated registry entries from long deleted programs and spyware, and fragmentation of the current data requiring more “seek and find” type operation.
You can do what anborn says and that’s the easiest way. If you wanna get really anal - fresh install your OS and apps on the new drive and then set it as master. Slave the old one and copy all your “data” files (office files, mp3’s, pics, video, saved games, etc), and then wipe that old drive. Leave it as your slave and use it for storage (copy mp3’s, docs, etc back onto it).
I have a 60 GB 7200rpm (2MB buffer) main drive and I’m thinking about getting a WD Raptor II (74 GB, 10,000 rpm, 8 MB cache) as my new main. That’s the process I will employ. My registry is chock full of garbage from the past 2+ years and I havent defragged in months. To me, its actually easier, though the file transfers can take a while unless you have a specialty program to speed it up.
BTW - you can run any 2 IDE devices on a single channel. The only consideration is what transfer speed (interface) they use. As long as theyre both ATA100 or 133, you’re fine. spindle speed (rpms), drive size and cache dont matter. Just dont ever put a HD and an optical drive (CD or DVD) on the same channel or you’ll cripple the HD’s transfer speed.
BTW, some of those big### drives are too big for windows XP, so they come with a little utility you have to install, first (I think). It’s the drives > 160 GB I think.
IBM or somebody just made a 400 GB drive. 400 GB. That’s an AWFUL lot of pr0n.
Thanks for the advice guys. I defragmented not too long ago but I’m still pretty sluggish. The biggest difference I’ve noticed is just loading Windows. Seems to take forever these days and I figured it was because my hard drive is just crammed full. It’s definitely not my CPU or RAM that’s bogging me down. Other than startup, I don’t really notice many problems. My biggest reasoning for getting another hard drive is because I’m simply out of space with my current drive. And I want a faster drive with a larger (8MB) cache.
Anborn, UT4 is awesome. I preordered it and got it the day it arrived at Best Buy. Came with 6 CD’s just for the install and took up 5.5 gigs of space. It’s one of the most graphically rich games I’ve ever played. The environments and player skins are phenomonal. I got kind of burnt out on it after playing it so much but it’s still a blast when I get the urge to play online. Probably the smoothest engine I’ve played and I love the voice command/chat functions. But I’m still waiting for Doom3 to come out. Release date keeps getting pushed further and further. I upgraded my computer a few months ago just for its release and now it’s looking like it will be August. And don’t even get me started on Half Life 2 because it will be 2005 before that one hits stands. But hey, maybe by then I’ll be able to upgrade my video card to to an X800 XT. :drool:
[i]Originally posted by NinerAdvocate[/i]@Jun 28 2004, 02:08 PM
[b] BTW, some of those big### drives are too big for windows XP, so they come with a little utility you have to install, first (I think). It's the drives > 160 GB I think.
IBM or somebody just made a 400 GB drive. 400 GB. That’s an AWFUL lot of pr0n. [/b]
Can’t imagine having a 400GB drive…that’s insane and definitely a lot of pr0n.
I’m just looking at around 80GB for to suit my needs. When Newegg has a good deal, I’ll jump on one…no big hurry unless I hear D3 is coming out sooner than expected.
JCL, you need to stop playing that UT garbage and pickup Call of Duty and Battlefield Vietnam.
I’ve played BFV. It’s a great game but it just depends on my mood. I tend to have more “fun” with UT4 when there’s about 30 of us on an Onslaught map though. It’s a lot more wide-open but not just a frag-fest either. When I want to playing something requiring more strategy, I’ll play BFV or Far Cry (which I think is one of the best FPS games ever made in terms of realism and difficulty…just a strain on my vid card though).
All these games are just holding me over until D3 and HL2. :sigh:
I play those on a GF4 Ti4400. Stock clock speeds too. Runs flawlessly. Can’t rationalize buying another card. I do have a gig of system ram, which I think helps.
I’ve never had any problems EVER with a game until Far Cry. Based on countless posts I’ve read, I’m not alone and there are people struggling with 9800PRO and 5900’s. That’s the only game that I’ve found to be so demanding. I’m running a 2.5 Barton, 1024MB PC3200 and R9600Pro OC’d to 485/328 so it’s definitely the game. I could use a little more CPU power but that’s not what’s hurting my frame rates. Of course, I’m picky about my graphics so I can’t bring myself to play below 1024x768 and all the eye candy turned on. Gonna jump on a 9800XT when the X800 drives the prices down some more or just rev up a Pro until I more games force me to the X800 for better performance.
[i]Originally posted by NinerAdvocate[/i]@Jun 28 2004, 04:16 PM
[b] I play those on a GF4 Ti4400. Stock clock speeds too. Runs flawlessly. Can't rationalize buying another card. I [/b]
Don't know if you have any interest in Doom3 but if so, I think you'll see a significant dip in performance unless you play at 800x600 and most of the eye candy turned off or way down. Based on what Carmack has said, that game is going to require one helluva rig to truly appreciate what it's capable of. Apparently, ATI and nVidia took that into consideration with their latest line.
I think the last FPS I played with any regularity was Quake TeamFortress But I could own the hell out of it with an engineer or a spy. But then again I only have a P3-450 with a tres old ATI Rage 4mb card. Hehehe (thats even me laughing at my system). I’ve got UT but that just was too much for my system to really handle with more than 2 ppl on the screen. D3 => hopeful for Diablo3? or some other game?
jcl - you just described the machine I’m looking to build for myself except with a 9600xt card, and probably a 2800+. maybe one of these days i’ll get around to it.
[i]Originally posted by Anborn[/i]@Jun 28 2004, 09:16 PM
[b] D3 => hopeful for Diablo3? or some other game?
jcl - you just described the machine I’m looking to build for myself except with a 9600xt card, and probably a 2800+. maybe one of these days i’ll get around to it. [/b]
D3 = the much anticipated Doom 3 which has been delayed, delayed and delayed again. I’m fine with that if it means less bugs/patches but I dropped a good bit of money awhile back to upgrade my computer for it and by the time it comes out, I’ll need to upgrade again based on some of the system requirements I’m reading.
The 9600XT is a good card but for the money, you’re better off getting a 9600Pro and overclocking it. You can get a Pro on Newegg for around $111 (Retail) and the XT for just a hair under $150 (OEM). My Pro is overclocked but I’ve been able to achieve some very solid benchmarks with it that compare well to many I’ve seen for 9800Pros. Both the Pro/XT are great mid-range cards but I would advise against them if you have any desire to play the next generation of games. They’ll run but you’ll have to lower most of the settings to get decent framerates.
The 2500 Barton is a solid CPU but at stock settings, the FSB is limited to 333MHz. In hindsight, I wish I had gone with 3000 Barton at 400Mhz. I tried to OC my CPU to reach 400Mhz but I didn’t get very far before I started crashing. Just wish I could afford the 64 bit 3400 Clawhammer but at $416, that’s not happening unless I want to receive divorce papers.
Ahhh… young JCL. You didn’t know of the Athlon-M, did you? Much better overclocker. Was intended for large notebooks.
I have zero interest in a game like Doom 3. I’m pretty strictly RTS, sports and stuff like BFV & CoD. And due to that whole divorce thing, I don’t play that much, and only have time for one “mistress” at a time.
All that said, I’m sticking with my 2600+/GF4ti4400 for a while. 2+ years running at stockcpu + 66mhz memory (333) bus/ti4600 speeds and still cranking it out. Sad truth is, the newer nVidia cards just dont outperform my vid card, except that stupidly priced 5950. I had a 5700 for a week and it was slower, louder, and hotter. My GF4 plays all the above games really well, and I don’t see anything coming out soon that will replace that list. If anything, I’ll switch back to the xbox for some ESPN NFL 2k5 & NCAA Football 2005. That should occupy me until the Niners start up again in November.
NA, ever gave Counterstrike a spin? Seems to me that you would like a game like that if you like realistic 1st person shooters. Top multiplayer Real FPS on the market IMHO.
[i]Originally posted by NinerAdvocate[/i]@Jun 29 2004, 12:12 PM
[b] Sad truth is, the newer nVidia cards just dont outperform my vid card, except that stupidly priced 5950. I had a 5700 for a week and it was slower, louder, and hotter. My GF4 plays all the above games really well, and I don't see anything coming out soon that will replace that list. If anything, I'll switch back to the xbox for some ESPN NFL 2k5 & NCAA Football 2005. That should occupy me until the Niners start up again in November. [/b]
That Ti4400 may run the games but it's not going to hold up to the GeForce 6800/X800 in terms of graphics and framerates. The graphical differences may not be significant but they make a huge difference in framerates when you try to play at high resolutions with all the eye candy on. Comparing 4 pipelines to 16 pipelines is comparing apples to oranges IMHO. You may get more bang for your buck with the low-mid range cards but if you're a graphic/framerate junkie then you gotta spend the big bucks, though I can't justify dropping $450 for a X800 Pro or for the 6800 that's gonna require me to drop another $100+ just for the recommended 480W PSU.
[i]Originally posted by 49erFan1[/i]@Jun 29 2004, 02:04 PM
[b] NA, ever gave Counterstrike a spin? Seems to me that you would like a game like that if you like realistic 1st person shooters. Top multiplayer Real FPS on the market IMHO. [/b]
Yeah. I didn't stay long. By the time I got into it, it was littered with cheaters. I played some on a private server with a bunch of after-6pm-"warriors" like myself. I don't know if fragging a member of a municipal zoning board or a police sargeant makes you "l337" though. Guess I've got no geek cred, as GWill would say.
I pretty much stink anyway. I can’t hold my own with the hardcore players so I just try to outsmart them, or attempt stupid tricks. Whatever makes me laugh the hardest while I’m sucking down a cold one.
[i]Originally posted by jcl49er[/i]@Jun 29 2004, 03:04 PM
[b] That Ti4400 may run the games but it's not going to hold up to the GeForce 6800/X800 in terms of graphics and framerates. [/b]
Yeah, probably so, for all the good that ATi x800 [b]PCI Express[/b] card will do me with my KT333/AGP 4x mainboard. Man, i don't even have serial ATA support or AGP 8x.
I’ll spend money on an upgrade when it’s genuinely justified (and cheaper). I dont wanna waste money in anticipation like you did. Besides, you don’t need all that junk to listen to mp3’s while you surf message boards and news sites, which is mostly what I do. Hey, it’s marginally better than TV.
I’ll add my $.02 on hard drives… Next time I upgrade, I’m going with a couple of cheaper SATA drives (80-120 gigs each) and do a little RAID action on them. Individually, they wont’ be as fast as the WD 10K rpm drive, but together in a RAID setup they should be a bit faster with much more storage. Of course the ultimate would be the WD’s in a RAID setup.
As far as PC’s go, I’m on teh Intel side of things at teh moment wanting to get desperately back to AMD land. I took the plunge while in Dallas last week on a marginal upgrade at Fry’s (I could live there). I’ve been a litttle disappointed in what I ended up with. In order to overclock like I had planned, I’ve got to do the new motherboard plunge. Damn the PC industry!