Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




Does anyone have an Antec Nine Hundred case? How loud is it with stock fans running, and does it do a decent job of air-cooling?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




edit: wrong thread, sorry.

CLAM DOWN fucked around with this message at 11:14 on Dec 7, 2007

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




I just bought a new 500gb hard drive. It is SATA 2.0. I am trying to copy files from an "old" hard drive, which is also SATA 2.0, to the new one. However, the transfer rate isn't even going above 10MB/s, should it not be going much faster than this? Why would this be?

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




Intrepid00 posted:

Are they PCI-E attached?

Is the source disk very heavily fragmented?

Are you using XP? Vista is actually faster at file copy?

Are you copying tons of small individual files. This actually ads tons of time the copying one large file of equal total size. If this is the case, you could image the disk instead.

Are your partitions not aligned at 64?

Sorry for the delay replying to this.

1) All my hard disks are SATA 2.0 connections.
2) Source disk was fragmented pretty bad, no improvement in performance after a defrag.
3) Using Vista Business 32 bit.
4) Files being copied were multiple 4.7gb dvd images.
5) No partitions being used, all disks are one continuous section.

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




I just got an Nvidia card (GTX 570) for the first time in ages, so I'm learning the software again. There is an option to optimize performance for a single monitor or multiple. I currently have 2 monitors but I only game on 1 of them. I just use the 2nd for school work or videos or having a webpage open during a game or something like that. What option should I set this to?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




Factory Factory posted:

I'd say single, but you could always find a game with a benchmark (like Batman: Arkham City, which is fantastic and you should own), then try both ways.

You're like the 3rd person this week to tell me to buy that game, guess I have no choice now. Thanks!

  • Locked thread