Ordering the Parts

Ok, I am building a new computer, and it will have the following parts:

ATI Radeon 9550 AGP card - FROM MY CURRENT COMPUTER
CD-RW Drive - FROM MY CURRENT COMPUTER
DVD Drive - FROM MY CURRENT COMPUTER
Cool Tower Case - Recently purchased it

Things I DONT have, but I am planning on GETTING:

Motherboard:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813128307

RAM:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820145574

Processor:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103529

I will repeat, I am NOT getting a new graphics card.
I have my reasons, and I like my current one, getting a new one is not in the picture, nor is it in my budget. IF I need a new card later on, I will just upgrade to a new motherboard and graphics card.

I thought long and hard about Dual Core and Single Core AMD's.
The disadvantage of Dual Core is that it hinders the frame rate of single core coded games. I figure, there won't be any multi threaded games withing the next year or two, or at least not many, and there are bound to be better AMD dual cores coming out with the new socket type. Besides, the processor I have listed should be able to handle XFire running, perhaps AIM, and a game. I won't be compiling any DVD's while gaming, or anything like that. Even if tMulti Threaded games come out, there will probably be those with the option of not using the multi threaded coding, and they would work with my processor.

Any thoughts on compatability of the items I have listed, Dual Core vs Single Core, and drivers for things like the Disk Drives that I already have are very welcome. I am planning on purchasing these items tomorrow.

I would get a Dual Core....you are not going to see that much of a difference in speed like you are saying about it compared to a single core. I just can't see that much of a hinder to a single core game.

the new catalyst ati driver actually gives up to 20% boost

Catalyst 5.12

Catalyst 5.12 improves a variety of CPU-bound performance cases when an ATI product is installed in conjunction with a dual-core or hyperthreading CPU. Performance gains include:

3DMark05 gains as much as 5.7%
3DMark03 gains as much as 3.3%
3DMark2001 SE gains up to 10%
Aquamark 3 gains up to 16%
Comanche 4 improves as much as 20%
Far Cry gains as much as 25% on some product configurations
Half-Life 2 performance improves as much as 8%
Splinter Cell improves as much as 8% in certain parts of the game
Tomb Raider Angel of Darkness runs as much as 10% faster
Unreal Tournament 2004 frame rates improve as much as 10%

Ouch, so I think I might get it then, but according to a chart where you can compare processors on Tom's Hardware, the 4200X2 doesn't perform as well on most games as the 4000+ single core I have selected.

Also, for dual core would you go with 3800+ or 4200+, price isn't that much of an issue for this, I mean I would like to pocket the extra $80, but if the 4200+ is worth it, I will spend it.

according to maximum pc the present and future of gaming is dual core (AMD for now)

In reality I think get either or. When the time comes sell your old processor or something and upgrade.

I mean if you can get a dual then get one if you think it'll save you money in the long run.

I got the 3200+ and it works perfectly with my games.. and I can upgrade later if need be.

If you want your PC to last longer get Dual core. (P.S. get Athlon 64s, Intel is behind in the Dual core business and is more expensive)

If you are multitasking the multithreading should help...

Hmm. I think I am going to go with a single core and upgrade later. When gaming titles start to frequently coem out multi threaded, I will upgrade. At the moment, the AMD Athlon 64 4000+ is sick for gaming. I just want to know, when I minimize the game or something, will my computer get all glitchy and freeze?

I am just getting a single core based on Toms Hardware.com and I think that dual cores don't really show many signs of running games better.

Dual-Cores are for multi-tasking...like, having a Game up, some intense webpages, winamp/windows media player, msn/aim/yahoo/icq etc.

It shares and spreads the CPU load and usage.

well from what I've seen.. really the overclock that'll give you the boost- get the fsb up to around 240 or higher and you'll see some good returns.. only games you'll really be struggling with on the ultra quality nowdays is quake 4 and fear- as long as you have a ati x800 256mb or better you should be fine.. I know some people like to say cache size matters but even the 64s with 256k cache and 1600 bus speed has no problems with the high end cards.. make sure have least a gig of memory and get your memory timings down as low as they can go- like 2.5-3-3-7 or lower.. if your running the top end stuff like the 7800 with 512mb you can pretty much call it quits for a year or 2 cause it'll run everything with all the eye candy- if your lookin to run like halflife 2 full out all eye candy 1280x960- even a x800 will do it fine with some o/c.. for the money can't really beat the new sempron 64's came out- far as gaming at least.. if you need the raw speed for other apps then I guess spend the money on the higher end cpu's- I think they're not necessary but I'm a avid overclocker.. more on the video card after you've done all this tweaking (even a 1.6 bus won't ever be fully used- the 2ghz bus on the 939 is just sick)

Thats all cool, but I am not getting a different graphics card. I am staying with the ATI Radeon 9550. I want my computer to be able to run Half Life 2, and Battlefield 2, but not necesarily on high settings.
I might have one or two instant messaging programs open in the backgorund, or ventrillow or something. Should I go with the AMD X2 4200+, or the AMD Athlong 64 4000+. I will probably press teh windows button and minimize and stuff, and I dont want that to lag. I will never be burning DVD's, or CD's or compiling things in the background.

Based on my computer specs, what would be better to go with, AMD Athlong 64 4000+ or AMD X2 4200+?

x2 is the way to go.. I was just tryin to point out for gaming even the low end does it on the 64- if your looking to run several things at once with no loading it's really about the amount of memory.. run tweak xp and have windows load it's core so it never has to swap for system files.. there's some other things you can tweak out too but I'd go with the x2- tom's is really biased noticed cause he gets paid.. alot of peeps spend way more money on systems than they need to- you can build a high end pc gaming rig for 500 bucks minus the monitor and harddrives (most of that is just for the video card).. that radeon you have is going to be the bottleneck on your system unless your planning on upgrading it later.. what I noticed it's just better to spend all that money up front on a decent card and go with a lower end cpu and the socket 939 nowdays- can't go wrong

I dunno if I can post links but here's a decent deal out right now.. kill 2 birds with one stone

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...&sku=E145-7810

later I will upgrade graphics card and mobo. At the moment, I really just want lots of ram and a good processor, and of course a new mobo to support it all. I find it sort of hard to believe that I am spending $700 on 2 gigs of ram, a processor, and a mobo.

I think I am going with dual core. Should I get X2 4200+ or X2 3800+? I know I can overclock and stuff, but does that void the warranty? And I have zero experience overclocking, but I think that the 3800 might just be the way to go.

Some sites say that the Dual Core isn't the way to go for gaming, and until multi threaded games come out, I sort of have to agree. I just wonder, how soon will these multithreaded games come out?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04...al-core_games/

Think about it tho....they are fast enough for games now....today...how much more speed do you need? I would rather be ready with a Dual Core then with out...I would have got a Dual core on my Dell 5100 if it was available....the HT 650 chip set was the best I could get...

Well dual core is nice if you what to play GW and rips music or dvds or maybe watch a dvd while you play GW, and down load music and porn all at the same time, just make sure you have more than 1gig of memory!!! I have a Daul core, dual video card setup and i must say that it is the shitnitz!!! Playing GW and ripping audio tracks or burning Netflix Movies at the same time, saves alot of time!!! LOL I would go dual core/ or dual processore ahy day, just becareful you dont buy dual proc, much slower than dual core!!!! oh and Get AMD 4000+ or higher 64bit chips, thats the future and the new Windows operating system thats coming out will take full advantage of dual everything!! Video, core, evereytihng!!!!!

True...Windows Vista will be more Dual Core friendly...I have noticed more and more even with my HT Processor that each "core" (lack of a better term) have different demands on them. One side will be at 80% while the other is at 40%...and so on. Seems more and more programing is taking advantage of this now....

No, it doesn't. The Athlon64 4000+ gets on the average of 5% better framerates in games in CPU-limited situations because games only use one core and the San Diego 4000+ is clocked 200MHz higher than the cores in the X2 4200+. Dual-core doesn't 'hinder' anything -- it's simply a difference in clockspeed.

No offense, but I highly recommend getting your information from somewhere besides Tom's Hardware. I've oftentimes found their information to be flat-out wrong. My current favorite PC tech site is www.AnandTech.com. They're far more reliable and professional than THG.

@ 4runner
4000+? Are you talking about for the dual cores? I heard that the 4200+ X2 is the same as 2 3500+ single cores. Should I get single core 4000+ and wait for the 4800+ X2 to lower to around $300? I think that it will probably take a while to go that much lower.

or

Should I get the 3800+ or 4200+ both dual cores?
I am almost decided on getting the 4200+ X2, but noticed that the 3800+ is the same, just lower clock speed. I have no experience in overclocking, but should I save the $80 and attempt to overclock it? And does overclocking void the wararnty?

Yes, and they can tell that you've done it. CPUs rarely go bad, though. If you're careful about temps and voltages you won't hurt your CPU. Read some guides on overclocking the X2's before you try it. Personally I don't overclock anymore. In my "old age" I'd rather pay more for easy stability than to have to worry about my hardware overheating. That's me though.

Ya, I have no experience, so I will eat the $80 more it costs, and get the 4200.
If it was a AMD Athlon 64 3000+, I would try to overclock it, but not a 4200+ or 3800+.

Now, will a computer with
2 gigs of ram
ATI Radeon 9550 256mb card
AMD X2 4200+
and other stuff be better than

A computer with
256mb of ram
Pentium 4 1.7ghz
ATI Radeon 9550 256mb card

I think so, so this computer will pwn what I have now.

ATI Radeon 9550 AGP card - FROM MY CURRENT COMPUTER
CD-RW Drive - FROM MY CURRENT COMPUTER
DVD Drive - FROM MY CURRENT COMPUTER
Cool Tower Case - Recently purchased it

Things I DONT have, but I am planning on GETTING:

Motherboard:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813128307

RAM:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820145574

Processor:
ATI Radeon 9550 AGP card - FROM MY CURRENT COMPUTER
CD-RW Drive - FROM MY CURRENT COMPUTER
DVD Drive - FROM MY CURRENT COMPUTER
Cool Tower Case - Recently purchased it

Things I DONT have, but I am planning on GETTING:

Motherboard:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813128307

RAM:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103547

Does it look like everything is compatable?
Because my processor has 64bit support, do I have to use a 64bit OS?
Is my motherboard revision ok for my processor?

Please, don't suggest another graphics card. I know mine isnt good for the long run, but it handles GW fine, and Battlefield 2 on medium settings should run. Aggre/disagree?

Looks like everything would be compatible. I'm assuming that you're going to use the stock heatsink/fan that comes with the CPU. The capacitor arrangement around the CPU socket doesn't look like it will allow for a very big heatsink. You don't need a 64-bit OS. 32-bit Windows XP will be fine. It states that the board is compatible with the X2, so I would assume that it should accept the X2 4200+ just fine. Good luck!

Your 64bit Processor will run fine on the 32-Bit Windows XP, but with a 64-Bit Windows XP version, it'd be a wee-bit better I think? But don't get 64-bit if you don't already have it, save up for Windows Vista! Like Mr Dood said, Vista should be more Dual-Core friendly.

Also, your latest's posts links are broken, but I presume there from your original post links as they have all the dots so I'll presume again you tried to paste them to your post again (meaning your using the same Motherboard and RAM).

On another note, they all look compatible to me.

well your setup won't 'pwn' games.. your going the wrong route for having a budget- look at the benchmarks on current video cards- your 9550 agp won't be able to even compare- it basically looks like a voodoo to the newer cards.. if your a gamer your going the wrong way =] spend more on the video card and less on the overpriced cpu's- you'll end up with a system that 'pwn's games and is fast enough for everything your looking to do.. without a budget sure go with the x2 and don't even mess with the others- but you'll be dissappointed until you get better video.. with what your lookin to do with it (gaming) it's better you start right and get a pci-e board anyway

My GeForce 4 ran Guild Wars fine.
My ATI Radeon 9550 runs it better.

I think that my loading times taking a while etc (in guild wars) are caused by my ram etc.

I will purchase a new video card in around a year or so. I am watching as prices steadily drop. In fact, I will probably end up buying another copy of Windows XP, a new hard drive, and 2 cd-rw/dvd drives and put back together the computer I have now, and put my vid card in it, then put my new video card/s in my other computer.

Right now, I mainly play Guild Wars. I want to play CS:S, or Battlefield 2, but I can handle playing those on medium settings, and screw benchmark tests. All the benchmark tests I read told me that my current 256mb of ram, old ram at that, Nvidia GeForce 2 MX, and 1.7ghz Intel P4 didn't have a crap shot at running Guild Wars, where in fact they ran it pretty well. When I download and run the Half Life 2 demo onto my computer, same settings as above, but with ATI Radeon 9550, once it booted up, which took a while, it ran fine.

I am looking for gaming in my new computer, and I am also looking for power. My current computer, and past build with the GeForce 2 MX show that gaming can be done! I am looking for an improvement in gaming. I was going to just upgrade my ram, but it is an old type, so I threw away that idea.

When the time comes, I will purchase two 7800s and a new motherboard.

Until then, I think that this computer will do fine. I don't want to know about all of the maxxed out cards, and builds that can run BF2 fine, I want to hear about the junk computers that can run it fine. Does anyone difinitively know if my new build will or will not be able to run Battlefield 2 on medium settings?

I would do the dual core 4800s the price is slightly higher but the performance is 2nd to none!

Buy the best available processor you can afford spending an extra $150 to $200 dollars is quite worth the investment 4800s will be good for atleast 2 to 4 years before your next upgrade, also consider this when purchasing your mobo's.

Overclocking is a tricky art and science many factors must be considered especailly cooling critical, extremely critical!!

With the speeds of current hardware overclocking has become more for the extreme hard core gamer, if you havent had much expirence in this area i would recommend to avoid overclocking buy the best hardware availble for your dollar you will be quite satisfied with the results.

Also consider dual video cards as a future upgrade if you are considering a mobo upgrade i recommend looking into dual pci-e slots for future upgrades no need to replace a mobo again if you plan on adding an additonal video card in the future duall everything is going to be pretty much be main stream in the upcoming months.

Also consider Asus a8n mobos SLi;s series they ROCK!!!!!!!

Agreed I found Toms to be some what biased and inaccurate as to there information!!

yeah know what u mean- I own a geforce 4 and that's what I used to say before I got a higher end card.. heck I even got a voodoo 3500 running in a server that does'nt do games.. the high end 64's out right now are definitely for people without a budget.. you'll see no real difference unless your ripping- even that gonna be slim gains.. I guess I see things differently because I've pushed the supposed budget 64's and seen they are just as good as the higher end caches with some o/c.. long as you get a 939 you can always upgrade later when the next platform comes out.. overclocking is'nt really an art anymore like it used to- the voltage mods are done on most good motherboards and if you wanted to go higher with water cooling just better to go with a faster chip than volt modding the board- the nforce chipset is definitely the way to go too if your gonna buy a new mb.. sounds like this is your first upgrade in a long time- I can see you want the best for the least amount of cash why I was posting in here.. that memory your buying is overpriced too.. see guys who run the top end are'nt really elite- they just have alot of money to waste I guess.. I never buy cutting edge it goes out really fast- the only thing new out that's really impressed me is the 7800's with 512mb.. some real performance gains there but it still overpriced compared to an sli config- don't get me started on that nvidia quad card.. only a total newbie would buy that thing =]

I agree for the most part. The top-end of anything always comes at a huge premium. Only buy the 'best' for bragging rights as far as I'm concerned. The best 'bang-for-your-buck' Athlon X2 is still the 3800+. I went ahead and dropped the $80 on the 4200+, but that's a rare move for me. I have the money, I'm just not keen on throwing it away (I don't care about the bragging rights lol). I got my GeForce 7800GT for $309. I could have gotten a GTX for around $150 more, but a 50% price increase for a 5-15% frame rate increase? I don't think so. I don't need 160fps. 144fps is fine with me right now (those are made-up numbers, but you get the idea). Instead I just spent a tad more on a good SLi motherboard (EPoX EP-9NPA+ SLi, which IMHO is second only to the DFI LANPARTY UT nF4 SLI-DR Expert in overall quality) so later on I can add a second 7800GT in SLi for what I would pay to get the GTX now.

By the way, with that mail-in rebate that memory is not a bad price. Memory problems can hose your whole Windows install and waste a lot of your time. I've had a lot of memory go bad in my day, and it's the pits. If you're going to spend the cash to get memory that can do a CAS Latency of 2, spending ~$200 for 2GB is not that bad. Then again that's me. I don't like to skimp on the memory, however there might be better deals out there. Can't beat Newegg's customer service, though.

The only reason I am purchasing the mobo that I have selected is for the AGP slot. I would go with an ASrock which has PCIe and AGP, but it sounds sort of crappy, and it got bad reviews. I am fine with spending the extra on a new mobo later on, because all of my components are pretty up to date except for the vid card, so my 939 processor will still work in it, etc. Right now I have a $700 budget. I am going to get Mobo, RAM, and a Processor. Later when I get more cash I will go all out on the video cards.

I think I am going to get the AMD X2 4200+. I know I could save myself money, but it is worth it to me to have the extra .2ghz, making it 2.2ghz. I don't want to go any further in price than that.

I am all set to order the parts, and I am going to do so IF I don't find a better deal on 2gigs of ram.

How does DUAL CHANNEL work? Do you plug two stick of ram into two different slots as you usually would? or is there something different you do with dual channel?

For RAM should I go with that dual channel, and I still am not sure of what the DUAL CHANNEL benefits are, or two of the following:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820223041

Dual-channel allows your memory controller to access system memory using two 'pipelines', which increases your memory bandwidth and allows for fewer sequential 'traffic jams', providing an overall boost in memory sub-system performance.

Dual-channel has more to do with the memory controller (on the cpu in the case of Athlon64) than the memory itself. The most important thing is that the memory modules are the same, or 'matched', (and hopefully purchased at the same time so you don't get different revisions of the module), and that you're using 2 of them (sorry, Cannonfodder, but I did some more research and dual-channel does not work properly in other module configurations). They must also be placed in the proper slots on the motherboard. Consult the manual with the motherboard to find out which slots to put them in. This is a decent article about dual-channel:

http://www.devhardware.com/c/a/Memory/Dual-Channel/

It's not the best article, but it's OK and doesn't get too technical.

The Rosewill modules you linked to don't list any information about timings. This may or may not matter, but memory that will run at a CAS latency of 2 is desirable, especially if you don't plan to do much overclocking of the FSB. I'm sure the Corsair memory that you originally linked to are lower-latency modules, which would make them a bit faster. The Rosewill memory might run in dual-channel mode if the modules are close enough. Usually, if the revision of the modules are the same and their SPD settings come up the same they will probably run in dual-channel mode (~75% chance from what I've read).

Oh Yes...always go with Dual Channel now a days. Go as fast as your bus speed will allow and then some....

I have PC-4200 in my Dell. It si 533Mhz speed...works great. The trick with Dual Channel it is best to always match in same pairs. I would go with sticks og 1Gb and get a min of 2Gb. (Or at least 2x512Mb sticks....just don't mix 2x1Gb..then...add 1x512Mb...it will wipe out your dual channel) When you upgrade you can upgrade in 1Gb sticks. I have read on the forums that you should not mix different size sticks. It will work fine but you can lose up to 25% overall effecency. There was a chart somewhere...I can't remember where it is... *sigh*

The poster above me article is not bad...explains allot.

What is P ATA RAID, and SATA? I have absolutely no clue... should I be concerned with it?

Also, someone posted and talked about all sorts of random stuff like bus speed etc, what is that?

And what the hell is the difference between http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820145575

and

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820145574

Corsair seems like a good brand, and I saw a set of dual channel one gig that ran a wee bit faster, but I am going to go with Corsair. I think that the only difference in the ram is the color. I am going to buy the white one, because it is cheaper.

Yes, I am still here. As you might have seen in another post of mine, I am concerned about ordering a certain pair of OCZ dual channel sticks. They are "thick" with big heatspreaders, and I don't think they will fit in my motherboard. I am fine with that though, I had planned to just buy 2gigs of the cheaper Corsair Ram. I came across another motherboard that would support my hardware, so can anyone tell me the difference in the following two boards?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813131541
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813128307
I noticed one has an FSB speed listed, and the other doesnt.
Also, what is SATA, RAID 0 , P ATA, etc? What do all of those terms mean?

C&P'd from: http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index....rddrivesupport

The above article also explains a lot of basics about buying a motherboard...wouldn't hurt to check it out.



The three main types of PC hard drive interfaces on a motherboard are the parallel ATA (Advanced Technology Attachment), also known as the IDE interface, the serial ATA (SATA) and SCSI (small computer system interface).

Most consumer motherboards you buy now will have a mix of parallel ATA (PATA)/IDE ports and SATA ports. Typically, you would use the PATA ports to plug your CD or DVD drives into, while you plug your hard disks into the SATA ports. The important thing is that your motherboard has interfaces that support your devices. Hard disks, for instance, come with either SATA or IDE attachments. You motherboard needs to have the right one for your hard disk (or visa versa).

A very few motherboards support the third connection standard -- SCSI. SCSI is fast and can support more devices, but tends to be more expensive than its counterpart and is difficult to set up.


EIDE/parallel ATA

The EIDE interface evolved from the IDE interface, which supported both CD-ROM and hard drives. This then became UDMA (ultra direct memory access), which evolved from DMA and provided faster maximum data rates. In general, motherboards have one or two UDMA channels. Each channel can support two devices (so if you motherboard has two EIDE ports, it can support up to four EIDE devices).

Up to UDMA33, a 40-pin cable was used for all drive connections. The next advance, UDMA66, required an 80-wire cable but was backwards compatible, in that it also used a 40-pin connector. To obtain a UDMA66 (or faster) connection, the motherboard and all devices you attach must support UDMA66.

Ultra-UDMA is also referred to as Ultra-ATA or EIDE, and typically will be advertised as Ultra ATA33, Ultra ATA66, Ultra ATA100 and Ultra ATA133.

Ultra-ATA 133 is the most common interface today, providing a peak data transfer of 133MBps.


Serial ATA

In addition to the above ATA ports, which are a parallel interface, newer motherboards now feature Serial ATA ports. Serial ATA is a replacement for PATA, being faster, easier to configure and using much less bulky cabling. SATA and PATA are likely to co-exist in motherboards for some time, however, as the older PATA is phased out.

SATA hard drives work with current operating systems and are software compatible with parallel ATA. Adapters can be used to plug parallel ATA drives into SATA ports, but these are not a sure thing and not all adapters work with all chipsets.


The biggest benefit of SATA is its increased data transfer rates. While the fastest performing parallel ATA drives offer data transfer speeds of 133MBps, SATA operates with a data transfer speed of 150MBps. SATA drives also take up less room within the PC case due to smaller cabling (making them great for use within compact systems), and are more effective than parallel drives for cooling.

You will find at least two Serial ATA ports on the latest motherboards, with most boards boasting four or more ports. Unlike PATA, SATA works on a one-port, one-drive basis, so you don't need to "daisy chain" drives as you do with PATA. With SATA, drives can be arranged in RAID configurations for up to two drives.

If the motherboard you are looking to purchase is enabled for SATA, it will be noted on the board packaging with the SATA working group's official logo, or in the motherboard manual.

If you're really a bleeding edger, you can look for motherboards that support the new SATA2 standard, which is technically capable of speeds twice that of SATA. With current drives, however, the speed of the interface is not the limiting factor (150MBps is more than enough to support the peak speed of any available hard drive), so the benefits of SATA2 will not be seen for some time. One major benefit of SATA2 is a feature called NCQ (native command queuing). This feature organizes the flow of data from the motherboard chipset to the hard drive controller in such a way that the hard drive does not have to stress itself too much when retrieving your data.

For example, if a set of data requests are sent at different times that are located near the centre of the hard drive, but there are also some requests within that group of data that are located on the outer edge of the disk, then the data requests will be organized so that all the requests for data near the centre of the drive are performed together and then the ones at the outer edge are performed together. This improves seek times as it cuts the amount of travel the hard drive heads have to go through. To benefit from NCQ, your hard drives need to support the SATA2 interface and so does your chipset.


SCSI

Pronounced "scuzzy", this interface allows users to connect up to 15 devices (depending on bus width) on a single SCSI port in a "daisy-chain" fashion. SCSI was originally developed by Apple and is supported by most operating systems.

SCSI has also been through a variety of evolution stages, from the original SCSI, now known as "plain" SCSI-1, right through to the latest Ultra-320 standard, capable of 320MBps transfer rates.

However, the increased performance and functionality of SCSI does come at a price: motherboards that feature dedicated SCSI ports are at the higher end of the spectrum, and are usually designed for servers.



Here's a decent RAID guide:
http://arstechnica.com/paedia/r/raid-1.html

Hope that helps. You can find any of this stuff using good ol' Google...