Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Reaper90 on February 07, 2011, 09:31:06 AM
-
Well, I think I've finally narrowed down to a list of specific components for my build.... the question is "are there any compatability problems with all of the parts that I have selected?"
Case: NZXT Tempest EVO mid-tower
Motherboard: ASUS Sabertooth X58 LGA 1366 Intel X58 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
CPU: Intel Core i7-950 Bloomfield 3.06GHz LGA 1366 130W Quad-Core Processor BX80601950
Memory: CORSAIR DOMINATOR 6GB (3 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Triple Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model TR3X6G1600C8D
Vid Card: XFX HD-587X-ZNFC Radeon HD 5870 1GB 256-bit DDR5 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card with Eyefinity
Cooler: CORSAIR CWCH50-1 High Performance CPU Cooler
PSU: CORSAIR CMPSU-850TX 850W ATX12V 2.2 / EPS12V 2.91 SLI Ready CrossFire Ready Active PFC Power Supply
HDD: Western Digital Caviar Black WD2001FASS 2TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive
Card Reader: Koutech IO-RCM621 All-in-one USB 2.0 3.5" USB 2.0 Front Panel Multi-format Card Reader with USB 2.0 Port
Optical Drive: ASUS DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS Black SATA 24X DVD Burner
The MB has 6 240-pin slots so I can always upgrade memory if I need to, the only thing I conceded on for now was the video card, opting for the Radeon 5870 instead of the 6970
Anything obviously wrong with this combination of parts? Am I missing anything?
-
the only thing I conceded on for now was the video card, opting for the Radeon 5870 instead of the 6970
Something to keep in mind. For very little more money over the 5870, you can get a 6950. Newegg lists a cheap 220 dollar Saphire 5870, but preferring the warranty of XFX their 5870 lists at 250 dollars. Their reference 6950 lists at 290 dollars and Saphire has one at 280 dollars. XFX have other 6950's, but you might want the reference versions that have the fan on the right, not in the middle.
You might want this because the reference 6950 can be "unlocked" turning it into a full blown 6970 by following these instructions.
http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/vidcard/159 (http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/vidcard/159)
If you are not planning 2 video cards, then I might question the need for an 850 watt PSU. Perhaps some money could be freed up there.
So for around 280 bucks you can have a top of the line single GPU card and save 80 bucks or so. But yes, depending on the 5870 you are looking at, it can be more money.
Just FYI.
-
Something to keep in mind. For very little more money over the 5870, you can get a 6950. Newegg lists a cheap 220 dollar Saphire 5870, but preferring the warranty of XFX their 5870 lists at 250 dollars. Their reference 6950 lists at 290 dollars and Saphire has one at 280 dollars. XFX have other 6950's, but you might want the reference versions that have the fan on the right, not in the middle.
You might want this because the reference 6950 can be "unlocked" turning it into a full blown 6970 by following these instructions.
http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/vidcard/159 (http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/vidcard/159)
If you are not planning 2 video cards, then I might question the need for an 850 watt PSU. Perhaps some money could be freed up there.
So for around 280 bucks you can have a top of the line single GPU card and save 80 bucks or so. But yes, depending on the 5870 you are looking at, it can be more money.
Just FYI.
+1
-
I would think twice before risking to void the warranty of the newly purchased card with a serious danger of bricking it. Bios flashes are nothing to play with.
-
I would think twice before risking to void the warranty of the newly purchased card with a serious danger of bricking it. Bios flashes are nothing to play with.
If you do your research, and understand the risks, they sure are something to play with! :D
I had a 9800 Pro that acted like it was a year newer thanks to BIOS flashing. That thing was a rocket...
Realistically, you probably won't need to do any modifications for some time, that card will be able to take most whatever you throw at it right now.
-
Realistically, you probably won't need to do any modifications for some time, that card will be able to take most whatever you throw at it right now.
Absolutely. Given the choice between a 5870, I would easily take the 6950. Especially, knowing the BIOS flash is an option to unlock to full 6970 potential.
Remember as well, these cards have Dual BIOS. Flashing them is no where near as risky.
-
Reaper,
Any reason for choosing 3 GB SATA HDD instead of 6 GB SATA HDD?
Also, is this just a gaming machine? Do you have other HDDs that you're going to use as backups, or other backup means to the one 2 TB HDD?
-
You might want this because the reference 6950 can be "unlocked" turning it into a full blown 6970 by following these instructions.
Just so that it's clear, I'll add that you would want the 2GB versions, not the 1GB versions of the 6950.
-
Just so that it's clear, I'll add that you would want the 2GB versions, not the 1GB versions of the 6950.
That would depend on the speed of the RAM. More often than not, the video card companies use slower RAM for the higher capacities to keep the price down. It is worth checking, or you could give up quite a bit of performance, while paying more for the card.
-
Absolutely. Given the choice between a 5870, I would easily take the 6950. Especially, knowing the BIOS flash is an option to unlock to full 6970 potential.
The 5870 is BETTER than the 6950... Pure marketing. They changed how they name the cards in the 6000 series. The "6900" is only about par with the "5800" -- and even then it depends. For example, the stock 5850 out-muscles the stock 6950. It's pure BS. Until ATI gets their act in gear I suggest folks boycott the 6000 series cards. Pure misdirection, lies (IMO), and trying to make a buck off a card that wasn't ready to begin with.
-
Seems everyone already has the other things pointed out that I would of. The only other thing I see is the CPU Cooler, I'm not familiar so I would make sure that the CPU cooler will fit the 1366 socket, and you may want to pick up some after-market thermal compound to further increase cooling capability. I'd recommend Arctic Silver 5 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835100007&cm_re=thermal_compound-_-35-100-007-_-Product Be careful applying it though, since it contains silver it's conductive and can short out a mobo. if you apply to much and it leaks over the CPU onto leads.
-
If you use Arctic Silver I HIGLY suggest you read the instructions carefully and follow them to the letter!
-
The 5870 is BETTER than the 6950... Pure marketing. They changed how they name the cards in the 6000 series. The "6900" is only about par with the "5800" -- and even then it depends. For example, the stock 5850 out-muscles the stock 6950. It's pure BS. Until ATI gets their act in gear I suggest folks boycott the 6000 series cards. Pure misdirection, lies (IMO), and trying to make a buck off a card that wasn't ready to begin with.
I take it you are boycotting NVidia for doing the same exact thing as well?
ATI and NVidia play name games all the time.
-
Honestly, I'm confused as heck with Nvidia's latest renaming issues... I don't like the way both are doing this. From what I understood, ATI will be reverting back to the "Normal" naming conventions for the 7000 series. I would clarify my boycot to say "skip the 6000 series; stay with the 5000's until the 7000's are out" -- as for nvidia I express a bit of ignorance one what they've done lately, aside from noting new releases.
-
That would depend on the speed of the RAM. More often than not, the video card companies use slower RAM for the higher capacities to keep the price down. It is worth checking, or you could give up quite a bit of performance, while paying more for the card.
Exact same RAM and speed. The only difference in that regard is a 20-30 dollar price point. There is little to no difference in frame rate between the 1Gb and 2Gb versions except at higher resolutions and in particular 3 monitor Eyefinity resolutions where the 2Gb buffer really comes into play.
"From a specifications standpoint, nothing has changed between the 2GB and 1GB HD 6950 cards other than the amount of allotted memory. Instead of making a completely new product with lower clock speeds, AMD has decided to port over the Cayman Pro core en masse"
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/40165-amd-radeon-hd-6950-1gb-review.html (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/40165-amd-radeon-hd-6950-1gb-review.html)
If you are playing at 1080p resolutions or less, and don't plan to "unlock" to a 6970, then definitely the 1Gb version will save you a little money.
-
They are talking about the core being the same. Does anything list the actual RAM specs?
Frame rates are not a good indicator. The RAM speed will impact different things in each application.
-
For example, the stock 5850 out-muscles the stock 6950. It's pure BS.
I can't find a single benchmark to back up that claim. They don't even seem to be close. Perhaps you could share one. Or perhaps you have the 5850, 6850 and 6950 confused?
5830 -> 6850
5850 -> 6870
-> 6950 (class by itself)
5870 -> 6970
5970 -> 6990 (as yet unreleased)
In most benchmarks (not all) the 6950 even beats out the 5870. Not by much and not always, but yes. Given the extra benefits of the 6950 I'd happily call it a wash. If that is "Marketing BS", then so be it.
-
They are talking about the core being the same. Does anything list the actual RAM specs?
Yes, the second page of that link has a chart of some of the various 6000 line GPU's. For the 6950, 1 or 2 GB GDDR5 RAM both at 5000Mhz on a 256 bit bus. Not sure if that's exactly what you are looking for.
Ultimately though, if you wish to unlock a 6950 to a 6970, the 2GB version is the only option as it is essentially a 6970 with BIOS limitations in place.
-
I can't find a single benchmark to back up that claim. They don't even seem to be close. Perhaps you could share one. Or perhaps you have the 5850, 6850 and 6950 confused?
5830 -> 6850
5850 -> 6870
-> 6950 (class by itself)
5870 -> 6970
5970 -> 6990 (as yet unreleased)
In most benchmarks (not all) the 6950 even beats out the 5870. Not by much and not always, but yes. Given the extra benefits of the 6950 I'd happily call it a wash. If that is "Marketing BS", then so be it.
First: I must say "sorry" -- as I was talking about the 5870 vs the 6950 as in that original post I was replying to. I simply mis-typed it (again, sorry for confusion).
I wouldn't believe those benchmarks entirely... The chips are almost the same from what I've read, because the design they intended wasn't ready.
You look at the pure raw computing power of the cards (not the in-game benchmarks) and the 5870 noticably outperforms the 6950:
Card: 5870 | 6950
Core: 850 | 800
Memory: 2400 | 2500
memory bandwidth GB/sec: 153.6 | 160
Shader operations/sec: 1,360,000 | 1,126,400
Pixel fill rate MPix/s: 27,200 | 25,600
Texture fill rate MTex/sec: 68,000 | 70,400
They trade off in a few areas, but the areas the 5870 has over the 6950 are by a much larger lead than vice versa. At least with the 5870 you are getting a tried and true gaming card with tested and known performance capabilities and driver stability.
So you're going to pay more for a new label with a larger number on it, not get any performance on top of the older card, and have to worry about drivers issues the whole time?
Meh... Pass!
P.S. the way I heard it, a better comparison would be:
5850 -> 6950
5870 -> 6970
-
The card manufacturers have been aiming for efficiency over power recently, from what I'm reading. Since the advent of consoles, games have not been pushing graphics as far (except for games like Crysis) since most companies make their engines capable of running on both console and PC (thanks to Direct X Box).
The 6-series cards are also aimed at using the Direct X 11 technology better, ie. the tessellation cores were changed around a bit. Older games will not take advantage of this, but brand new DX11 games will.
If you like less heat and less power usage (I think only like 62 watt difference though), the 6-series cards will be your preference. But real-life benchmarks tend to show both cards are very comparable to each other with the 6-series cards just barely beating out the 5'ers.
-
Yes, the second page of that link has a chart of some of the various 6000 line GPU's. For the 6950, 1 or 2 GB GDDR5 RAM both at 5000Mhz on a 256 bit bus. Not sure if that's exactly what you are looking for.
Ultimately though, if you wish to unlock a 6950 to a 6970, the 2GB version is the only option as it is essentially a 6970 with BIOS limitations in place.
Nope. The clock rate can be the same, regardless of the RAM specs. The clock rate is not indicative of the actual data rate. The speed of the RAM, itself, will dictate the actual data rates.
What you are getting fed, is called "Marketing data".
-
Nope. The clock rate can be the same, regardless of the RAM specs. The clock rate is not indicative of the actual data rate. The speed of the RAM, itself, will dictate the actual data rates.
What you are getting fed, is called "Marketing data".
Care to elaborate a little more on this? I was under the impression that if the memory is running at 5000Mhz, that it sent a bit at the top and bottom of each frequency wave, wouldn't that mean that you could calculate the bandwidth using that? Are you talking about CAS timings?
-
The clock rate defines the highest possible data rate, but that is all. The data rate is fixed by all the timings on the RAM. The clock does not carry the data. That is carried on data lines to/from the RAM.
It is not just CAS. There are several different timing settings involved in GDDR5 memory. They all impact the data rates.
-
The card manufacturers have been aiming for efficiency over power recently, from what I'm reading.
[snip]
If you like less heat and less power usage (I think only like 62 watt difference though), the 6-series cards will be your preference.
Funny... because the 5870 uses about 180 Watts, and the 6950 uses 200 Watts.
Also, I don't buy your argument about consoles. They are totally separate markets, in all honesty. Consoles are so integrated that the underlying architecture may share some similarities, but they aren't going to be using ATI 6950 chips in Playstation 3's (for example).
Not to mention, the chip alone is part of it, but the performance is dictated by the entire combination of components on that video card. The VRAM, the other components, etc. So, you can have different performance (in a PC) using the same core GPU on 2 different graphics cards -- one with 128-bit memory, one with 256-bit memory, or one with 1100MHz memory clock and one with 2400MHz memory clock. The core alone won't be the only deciding factor. It's the whole card.
-
Something to keep in mind. For very little more money over the 5870, you can get a 6950. Newegg lists a cheap 220 dollar Saphire 5870, but preferring the warranty of XFX their 5870 lists at 250 dollars. Their reference 6950 lists at 290 dollars and Saphire has one at 280 dollars. XFX have other 6950's, but you might want the reference versions that have the fan on the right, not in the middle.
You might want this because the reference 6950 can be "unlocked" turning it into a full blown 6970 by following these instructions.
http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/vidcard/159 (http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/vidcard/159)
If you are not planning 2 video cards, then I might question the need for an 850 watt PSU. Perhaps some money could be freed up there.
So for around 280 bucks you can have a top of the line single GPU card and save 80 bucks or so. But yes, depending on the 5870 you are looking at, it can be more money.
Just FYI.
The 5870 is the better card for Reaper's application, as you don't have to run the risk of voiding a Lifetime Warranty. The 6950 uses less power, but is not as "high performance" in some areas as the 5870. Why some are thinking the "69series" is "automatically better" is beyond me.
The 850 is not much more than the 750 and it does give more "cushion" for future upgrades (Crossfire).
Reaper that build looks good. Stick with the 5870XFX, don't budge. :rock
-
If you are not planning 2 video cards, then I might question the need for an 850 watt PSU. Perhaps some money could be freed up there.
The pattern of thought is this: Initially, there will be a single monitor. Eventually I plan on a triple monitor set-up, and the PSU is there in case a 2nd 5870 is needed in order to do 3 monitors maxed out detail at the highest possible FPS.
I have to say I'm pretty %$@* confused about the whole Radeon 5xxx and 6xxx naming issue and what card is better in what areas. I considered the 6970 to begin with because the reviews I had read had a common theme... for multiple monitors, a lot of people thought ATI needed more than 1GB of memory, and the 6970 delivered that with 2GB. The reality is 2X 5870's will outdo a single 6970.... so that is my "expansion plan" should I ever get to that point.....
I'm going with the 5870 because it is a known quantity. If it doesn't work out and I need more, look for a barely used 5870 in the classifieds! :P
As far as a single 2TB HDD, the thought never crossed my mind to have more than one. I back up to an external flash drive..... I may look into this more.
Thanks for the input, guys, good discussion...... kepp it coming!
-
If you are considering multi-monitor setups and want to run antialiasing at those ultra high resolutions you get with multiple monitors, you really do want the vid cards with more memory. HardOCP did some comparisons, both "highest playable settings" and "apples to apples" with various nvidia and AMD cards, and it was very clear from the results that the video cards are fast enough to push 3 monitors, but you MUST have a lot of memory on the cards if you want to use antialiasing.
I think AH looks a ton better with antialiasing, so if you're considering multiple monitors for gaming and want to be able to use antialiasing at high resolutions, you want more memory on the vid card even if that memory is a bit slower than the smaller memory versions. The reason is that the cards are "fast enough" to push the pixels even with the slower memory, but antialiasing bogs down badly when you run out of memory.
Then again, if you're going to be using a single monitor, you won't be needing all that memory to run some pretty hefty antialiasing settings. Just remember that AH runs great even without superfast video cards, so you'll probably have some extra GPU power you can use to improve the image quality by turning on antialiasing.
I assume you'll be using win7 64 bit? I like win7 pro because it has a few additional features over home premium, and you can sometimes get the system builder OEM license for under $100.
The western digital caviar black hard drives are great drives. The only other thing you could consider is getting a smallish SSD to use as a boot/system drive, in addition to the caviar black.
Finally, if you can wait until April then the sandy bridge cpus and motherboards will be viable options again. Those cpus are supposedly quite a bit nicer than the current generation, faster speeds and lower power consumption, at good price points.
-
As far as a single 2TB HDD, the thought never crossed my mind to have more than one. I back up to an external flash drive..... I may look into this more.
The WD Drives allow use of an OEM version of Acronis True Image software, so you can do backups to a second drive in the form of image files. It's a very nice feature.
I do a Full backup every week, then differentials nightly. It's just better being safe with data.
Backing up key data to a Flash Drive is good though, so you're on the right track. :)
-
I'm going with the 5870 because it is a known quantity. If it doesn't work out and I need more, look for a barely used 5870 in the classifieds! :P
Fair enough Reaper, and I too think the 5870 is a great card that you really can't go wrong with. I was only trying to provide an alternative to consider. Play close attention though to what eagl said in his post in regards to memory and Eyefinity. It really is important.
The HardOCP Triple Monitor AMD vs NVIDEA review he refers to is this:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/01/11/amd_69706950_cfx_nvidia_580570_sli_review/ (http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/01/11/amd_69706950_cfx_nvidia_580570_sli_review/)
The larger framebuffer in multi-monitor Eyefinity rigs play a big part in being able to drive those resolutions. For Aces High soley it likely is not as big a factor as certainly people here do it with 5870's.
:salute
The 6950 uses less power, but is not as "high performance" in some areas as the 5870. Why some are thinking the "69series" is "automatically better" is beyond me.
I'm afraid you have that completely backwards. The 6950 will use very slightly more power and will be more "high performance" in some areas. As for your second statement, dunno, why do people make wild claims with no proof to back it up?
This is just one review. You can't base anything on one review. I can provide others if you like and they will all say essentially the same thing.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/38899-amd-radeon-hd-6970-hd-6950-review.html (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/38899-amd-radeon-hd-6970-hd-6950-review.html)
So ... I've documented 43 tests.
6950 win = 30
5870 win = 13
Most 'wins" are marginal at best. 1 or 2 fps at the most, usually less. Play close attention though to Heaven and Metro numbers. They are not close, especially once high AA and Tesselation is factored in. There are a number of advances in the 6900 series cards that leave the reviewers stating:
"Performance is well above that of the $270 GTX 470 and even AMD’s previous single GPU flagship –the HD 5870- struggles to keep pace; particularly when AA is enabled. To our way of thinking, this is the closest thing to perfection we have seen for a while."
And again, the 6950 is not the direct replacement for the 5870 the 6970 is. That it's able to match and generally beat the 5870 is a telling statement to me.
It's easy to be dismissive of reviews, especially when they don't work in your favor. ;)
-
I know that a person cannot believe all the reviews and charts put out on web sites.
From my understanding the 5870 is between the 6950 and the 6870 performance wise. There is yet other things to consider, resolution, amount of AA used, if your gaming which game is being played, and more. The 6000 series cards have better scaling then the 5000 series when using two cards from what I have read.
I have been reading many reviews and it is almost mind boggling, all the charts,the differrent settings, and different games. Then trying figure if it is a honest review.
I am just posting what I have read and not trying to suggest to anyone buying a 6000 card or a 5000 card.
-
I have and have flashed a Sapphire 9750. It has to be the 2gb version, its the only one with a bios switch. Postion one will flash, two is default. So you could dead board it I guess, no reports of this particular card going dead I could find. Just switch to bios position 2, the flash is gone.
It is running flawless and cool for the last week.
The .v2 shipping soon will not have the bios switch. As well it is not flashable. Only this first series of reference boards.
I do not recommend doing this unless you are very tech smart. (I overclock every one of my machines, for over 10 years now)
I followed their directions to the letter.
http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/vidcard/159
My card matches their gpu-z report exactly
And yes its fast. With a 45% fan speed it idles below 45*C, the highest I have seen it go in AH2 is 56*C
DX11 vs DX10 as well 6950 and 5870 respectively
Buy or don't buy what you want. Just posting because I have done it.
My system:
Intel Core2Duo E6850('Conroe')3.0 @ 3.4
Asus P5E Rev 1.03 903 bios
Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro
OCZ EL DDR2 PC2-8800 4GB @850mhz 4-4-4-12 (1to1 ratio)
150GB WD Raptor 10,000RPM x2 Raid0
300GB Maxtor 7200rpm
640GB WD 6400AAKS x2
Sapphire 6950 2gb @ 6970 (second one on the way)
E-MU E-DSP Audio Processor 1616m
PC Power & Cooling 750 Quad PSU
Antec SX830 Modded
Windows 7 Pro 64bit
Viewsonic VX2255wmb x2
-
Funny... because the 5870 uses about 180 Watts, and the 6950 uses 200 Watts.
Also, I don't buy your argument about consoles. They are totally separate markets, in all honesty. Consoles are so integrated that the underlying architecture may share some similarities, but they aren't going to be using ATI 6950 chips in Playstation 3's (for example).
Not to mention, the chip alone is part of it, but the performance is dictated by the entire combination of components on that video card. The VRAM, the other components, etc. So, you can have different performance (in a PC) using the same core GPU on 2 different graphics cards -- one with 128-bit memory, one with 256-bit memory, or one with 1100MHz memory clock and one with 2400MHz memory clock. The core alone won't be the only deciding factor. It's the whole card.
You're right, recalled that stat backwards.
You completely missed what I was saying about the consoles. And the graphics chipsets don't matter in the sense that DirectX is DirectX no matter where you use it. That's the beauty of using a graphics API, the hardware is irrelevant. So yes, games made on consoles tend to have their game engines geared toward consoles. Take the Frostbite engine for example, it was made specifically for performance and looks on consoles (which are now very aging technology). It's pretty limited in terms of features on the PC compared to advanced PC-only games. You can also tell when a game is made for console, it tends to use more CPU over GPU. Neither of the GPU's on the XBox or the PS3 were ever anything to gawk at, even when they came out. I believe this is the programmers way around this.
This is actually why Microsoft made the XBox in the first place, it was trying to deal a fatal blow to OpenGL.
Yes, in general, that is true, it takes the whole card to make a good card, however, the Tessellation units were made more efficient. So in this case, just adjusting the core makes a difference (albeit a small one). Read up on tessellation, it's actually cool stuff and things are going to look a whole lot smoother.
-
The WD Drives allow use of an OEM version of Acronis True Image software, so you can do backups to a second drive in the form of image files. It's a very nice feature.
I do a Full backup every week, then differentials nightly. It's just better being safe with data.
Backing up key data to a Flash Drive is good though, so you're on the right track. :)
Heya Mir,
are you using Windows 7 yet?
Windows 7 has Disc Recovery & Disc Image built in, and from what I have experienced on several machines since beginning of 2009, I have not had any issues with it doing Disc Image back ups......... outside of trying to do a Disc Image back to DVD-R which the instructions in Windows 7, itself is worded wrongly... says to use DVD-R, except you actually need DVD-RW disc if you go this route..... you cannot "Format" a DVD-R since it is removable media / one time only media...
I used to use a program called "Paragon Hard Disk Manager Pro" which is kind of similar to Acronis back when I was using WinXP....... but have decided that Windows 7's BackUp & Recovery Utilitys seem to work better for me than loading an extra program just to do this...... Paragon Pro just seemed to be un needed now...
TC
-
Heya TC,
Yeah, I've been using Win 7 since beta, but I just ignored the built-in backups, and it appears out of ignorance with Windows 7! I will look into the options it offers now.
I know Paragon Pro as well, so if the built-in Win 7 feature replaced it for you, it may just replace Acronis for me.
Thank you for the heads up on that!
-
Thank you for the heads up on that!
no prob Mir, anytime, Sir
also, as long as a person does not have their "pagefile size" set "manually"........... one can go in and create new partitions on the fly, resize partitions by either shrinking or increasing them........ please not though, if you have your pagefile manually set you can seriously mess up yor windows OS partition and/or other partitions...
you just might find that you'll like the new "Hard Drive Management" section of Windows 7
(note * I assuming all windows 7 versions are capable of this, but I have only ever used Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit.... for the extras like network extras and bitlocker , etc. )
:cheers:
TC