thank you everyone for your help! I ended up getting the 2 gbs at 8 mhz instead of 3 gbs at 667mhz. maybe it was a mistake ?? I can always add another 2 bgs of ram later. the difference of choice was the the extra gb of ram was $100 more.
rice rocket, I did not know the hard drive made a difference I just got a 320GB Serial ATA 2 Hard Drive (7200RPM) in my new comp. are you using databases or are you using retail charting like TS Qt software?
This is still generally untrue. While DDR3 is next generation, the performance still lags DDR2 because of the high latencies inside the memory. I'd say go DDR2 with the following key thoughts in mind: 1) The optimal bandwidth performance is achieved if you have matched pairs running in dual channel. 2) The FSB to memory clock rate is set to 1:1. You can run the memory faster than the FSB in ratios such as 2:3 or 4:5, but you will not see any bandwidth improvement. 3) as a follow-up of 2), in general, the bandwidth of your northbridge chipset limits your overall system bandwidth. It serves as a sort of "switch" or traffic-handler between memory, processor, and other device chipsets (HDD, DVD, etc.) RoughTrader
I have the wraptor also. I went with the 36 gig unit because my trading computer doesn't store anything exept my applications. The smaller the hard drive, the faster the seek times. The wraptor 10K is the best hard drive I've ever had. Pretty quite too. Runningbear
don't bother with ddr3 right now. it's barely faster than ddr800, and it's much more expensive. plus, the ddr3 motherboards are $$$ and still uncommon. i agree with recommendation for the 10k rpm hard drive. i can't believe all these people who spend extra money on a raid-0 array of 7200k drives when a 10k is generally faster and more reliable for the same price. if you don't mind ponying up the money, get a 15k rpm drive.
totally untrue. are you saying an 80gb 5400rpm 2.5" drive is faster than a 300gb 15k rpm sas 3.5" drive? i think not.