Installing the s1366 CPU really worried me - it seemed like so much force was required to push down the socket lever after (hopefully) installing the processor correctly. I have to wait for the memory to arrive thanks to a payment screwup.

I like the AM2 range for ease of installation.

_________________
My PC spec

Color me jealous, I am dying to move to an i7 system.

Let us know how she goes.

_________________
"All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct." -- Carl Sagan

It's for a customer, not for me

_________________
My PC spec

I'm having a little difficulty soak-testing this computer, considering it is a lot more powerful than what my tests usually cater for.

Memtest86 v3.4 reports a core i7 920 as a Pentium 3 2.6GHz It reckons the L1 can go at 133GB/sec, no L2 cache, and main memory can go at >3GB/sec IIRC (might have been 33 but that doesn't seem sensible).

Orthos can only do dual-core, even if I run multiple instances of it.

Vista 64 isn't very quick to boot, even on this system. I have a few Vista tweaks to do on it, but nothing startling, and that's without any software installed on it yet.

_________________
My PC spec

Quake 4 ran flawlessly, unsurprisingly (only 1024x768 8xAA 16xAF, ATI HD4830). I could set up the 1280x1024 monitor I've sold the customer, but I don't see the point, I don't have any games that would test it sufficiently (and also I'm worried about installing my games on it in case that something securom'y decides that I've had my total amount of installs.

The only test I've found so far that gives this processor a run for its money was the WinRAR x64 benchmark test (under the tools menu I think) - my Athlon XP 3200+ can do about 350KB/sec, the Core i7 920 can do about 3.8MB/sec! Triple channel DDR3 Crucial Ballistix memory, 3GB. The cores were all showing about 70% usage on that test.

I wish I had suggested something like a velociraptor (sp?) teamed up with a capacity-centric test, rather than just a Seagate terabyte disk (the customer wanted the latter), as I would like to have seen vista boot quicker for example.

Vista's performance scores for this setup were all max'd out at 5.9.

_________________
My PC spec

I wouldn't of even bothered with a Raptor drive and instead gone with an SSD.

Price-wise I see what you mean, but SSDs worry me, in terms of their newness. I would rather see them become more common before trying to inflict them on customers.

_________________
My PC spec

Uhmmm, essentially SSD's are flash memory. Pretty sure that has been tested quite well. How many of us have a USB drive?

Do you demand the same amount of hours per day of constant activity on a flash drive as you do a normal hard disk? Do you trust a USB flash drive as much as you do a hard disk?

Admittedly one thing that would cause bias in my answers to those questions is that I wouldn't trust a portable device as much as a non-portable, as there is a greater potential for physically nasty things to happen to portable devices because they get moved around.

I back up my files on a regular basis, but I still trust the hard disk to a certain extent. I would probably go for an SSD out of curiosity, price aside for a moment, but I can't trust that my customers fully understand the potential for a new technology to be unpredictable, and I don't want them screaming at me for recommending it in the first place.

Also, we all use pen drives, sure. But to how large a capacity? Also, we use them in special casing outside of a computer, what happens when they go inside a computer and are subject to different stresses? Might they react more disagreeably to say a power issue than a normal hard disk?

Changing the normal scenario for a device brings in new considerations. After a recent experience with a 2.5" HD plugged into a single USB port with no mains power, the hard disk got killed almost on the spot due to a faulty USB port causing the disk to power cycle multiple times per second, I now only go for either disks with two USB plugs or mains power, to offset this possibility. Hard disks are normally quite resilient to the sort of power issues that can happen inside a desktop.

_________________
My PC spec

Well, no.

Flash drives are meant to be bounced around, as there are no moving part in them what so ever. Unless you count the cap you remove to plug them in. SSD is the same.

Stress test wise, I use mine on my laptop as a ready-boost drive, so it gets tons of usage on a daily basis. And before that I would shuttle documents and video files on it, still do actually.

I actually trust a flash drive more than I do a hard drive. I've had more hard drives die on me over the years than I care to recall. Never had a flash drive die on me.

Hard drives have moving parts in them. The slightest wobble by the read/write head and boom, there goes the drive.

Size wise for flash/pen drives is up there. I've seen 40 gigs around, and 64's are hitting the market now. Remember though, they are size limited because they have to be portable. Everyone expects them to fit easily in their pocket. SSD drives are still small compared to regular hard drives, gig wise, but Raptor's are also small due to the increased RPM they must spin at, and the heat generation.

SSD's are pricey still yes, but I also remember buying a 250 gig hard drive for a hundred bucks only a couple of years ago, and now you can get 500 gig for that price, even a terabyte on sale for that price.

I don't know about you, but the first hard disk I had fail was after four years of using computers (nine years ago), and I haven't had one fail since. I haven't changed hard disks excessively, let me think:

(pre 1996 I was using an Amiga with floppies)
1996 - 2GB
1998 - 10GB, then + 4GB
1999 - 40GB Deathstar (went pop)
1999 - Seagate 60GB
2004 - Seagate 120GB (60GB is now running in my server - the 10GB went into my wife's machine)
2008 - Seagate 400GB (120GB is now running in my wife's machine)

How will SSDs compare? Sure, they should be better because of no moving parts, and I imagine in ten years' time they'll have a much better track record than hard disks.

In my previous post I was trying to point out how changing the role and environment of a device changes the playing field and risks significantly.

I would also like to learn what the most likely symptoms of SSD (impending) failure are. I would like the manufacturers to develop a track record of making SSDs. Performance-wise, what I've seen so far suggests that sometimes hard disks still outpace SSDs in some cases - sustained data transfers aren't normal as far as the average user is concerned.

_________________
My PC spec

Something odd - the customer wanted a Windows 7 upgrade, so I did a clean Win 7 x64 install. I've installed the most up-to-date drivers and the latest BIOS update, then I tried a WinRAR benchmark, and the throughput has dropped to ~2.7MB/sec. Eek.

HT is enabled, advanced C-state stuff is enabled (I assume that I spotted this before, but I can't be sure since I only checked BIOS options after the update). All 8 cores are showing up on task manager.

- edit - I've tried disabling all C-state and speedstep options, but there isn't any performance difference. The only thing that is different that I can think of is that WinRAR has changed revision since I came up with that benchmark on Vista, and interestingly, I have a 3.9 x64 beta 2 installer that I didn't download today (b1 is on their website). Perhaps the author cocked up in some way that also caused inaccurate benchmark readings?

_________________
My PC spec