Comparing apples and organes again.

The legion hardware test is a 240GB revodrive X2. The 480GB is a revodrive 3 X2. Yes, one little number ('3') makes a difference.

That is a comaprison between the intel 520 and a 240GB revodrive 3 X2, not the older model.

If you belive the legionhardware test, which I dont. Payola is everywhere.

:S Playing number games, 'moving the goalposts' again? You said '100-200 watts' now its 100 watts.....

People put oversized power supplies into computers these days. Unless you are running some nasty, power-hungy 'gamers' video card, in most cases max power draw will under 200 watts.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...e_9.html#sect0

i7-2700K, 150 watts max draw (CPU load), and that is a system with a video card. Remove the video card and idle power/max power draw would be even lower.

Apart from overclocking, or high GPU load tasks with high end video cards, systems have been drawing under 200-250 watts for years now, even 'top end' setups.

More info/older CPUs here-

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...ocking_14.html

It makes sense. CPUs with a TDP/draw of over 125watts haven't been released. Add another 10-50 watts draw for the motherboard and cards, and 10-15 watts on a HDD and CD/DVD drive, you're still under 200 watts draw.

Yeah, normal SSDs in some RAID setup. Not that its worth it.

You wont notice any real world difference for desktop (or server/internet use unless you've got a far bigger pipe to the net than the cable/ADSL almost all of us run) with a revodrvie vs a slightly slower single SSD.

Any specific raid and ssd's supported by benchmark results whereby they beat the 480GB revo?

Then from these sites no statement can be made about the coveted $650 480GB revodrive 3 x2 versus the intel 520 like you did, no overlap, comparing apples and oranges too.

I know what I'm doing, I've checked the specs and seen more than a few hardware reviews over the years since the revodrive came out.

Compaing a revodrvive 3 x2 240GB to normal, current SSDs is fair. The only specs difference between the revodrive 3 x2 240GB and 480GB is the 240GB is rated 200,000 I/O sec, the 480GB is rated at 230,000 I/O sec. From all the performance tests I've seen, the difference between the 240GB and 480GB is very low, virtually nothing.

I'm pretty sure I've seen at least one. I wont be searching for it though. If you demand benchamrks from a revodrive 3 x2 480GB vs current SSDs in RAID, your might be SOL.

I have said this before. The Revo is one of the best and fasted when used in a high performance pc. The title of your post is clear that you require a low power system. I don't believe you will get the revo to run at those numbers on an atom based board.

State what is the real order of your desires. I hate to keep bringing this up but you can't get both low power and high speed.

Lower consumption does not mean lower power, here is the proof:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-...st.2436.0.html

Among the cpu's that are powerful enough for the revo, some have a lower consumption. These are the cpu's of interest. Which of the cpu's in the list might be powerful enough for the revo? (guesses welcome)

Likewise for the motherboard, likewise for the graphics where I do appreciate the ability to play HD flash movies off youtube, probably the most demanding graphical thing I ever do. If a virtual machine can do it too, even better, but not essential.

Those mobile processors may or may not be able to be used in a desktop. They sometimes are very special devices and can't be used in any desktop.

A VM wouldn't improve the ability of the native system.

Almost all modern systems can run hd flash.

What exactly do you need this massive revo card for then?

If anyone knows of a motherboard that takes one of these cpu's and is fast enough for the revo, please say it.

That's not what was implied when a VM was mentioned, it was implied that the gpu hardware acceleration is not used in linux VM's under vmware or virtualbox so more cpu power is required to do software rendering, therefore hd flash in a VM should only be a bonus if the cpu is already powerful enough and not worth spending extra money for (or watts), won't buy a bigger cpu just for hd flash software rendering in a VM.

Certainly it is massive, no need for that much storage space, but you can't get 850 Mbytes/s in smaller size for $650 or less. Or can you?

You sort of can. Sure, wattage is connected to performance, and a 65 watt TDP CPU is going to be slower than the same series CPU rated at 95 watts.

You've posted a link to 'notebookcheck.net'. Its no help for you......notebookcheck.net is mainly interested in laptops (hence the name). All the CPUs listed are 'full power' normal desktop CPUs, or mobile CPUs. You wont be able to use the mobile CPUs in desktops, as you cant get desktop motherobards with mobile CPU sockets.

There are lower power consumption desktop CPUs, but I dont see any listed in that notebookcheck page.

I think you might be a little confused with 'powerful enough for the revo'. But since you dont feel any need to explain what you want it for, I'll leave it alone.

850MB/sec from legion hardware, but I believe the test has been cherrypicked.

But even assuming that you do belive it...where are you going to get 850MB/sec to write? You arent, unless you are running another revodrive to read from.

The revodrive 3 X2 is just a couple of SandForce flash controllers and a RAID controller (set to RAID 0).

You can get similar performance (better in some cases) with 2 x SSDs in RAID 0.

It is for a privacy, anonymity and security scheme that needs a large number of networked VMs that are instantly suspendable and resumable. Why don΄t I buy a ton of ram instead, you might say. I'd hate to wait for ages to start this thing up off a slow hard disk and also ages to save it back to disk when finished. Also there are other ideas for things to do with a very fast drive.

Where's a list of desktop cpu's that shows both scores and consumption? EDIT: oopsa, now I noticed the following.

So which are the desktop cpu's in the list? We do want them, not extremes like the 10 watt atom, and they do not all have the same wattage.

Does a laptop exist with raid+SSD's as fast as 850 Mbytes/s?

Might look at this processor. http://ark.intel.com/products/53401/...Cache-2_20-GHz

Do I benefit from more than 2 cores if VM's are running, or the same wattage is better spent on fewer faster cores?

More cores helps more processes if the OS and drivers and the apps are fully smp. That means most common OS's and most apps. One could use tests to prove a 2X is faster than a 4X based on real speed usually. Complex processes running tend to do better on more cores. That and many Intel processors use hyperthreading which stunk on the first models and OS's. It has greatly improved. Most linux will consider that to be a 4X processor if enabled in bios. As to real speed, well, only testing on real hardware would reveal. One board may do much better than a competing board so you have to test.

Alright, the processor you recommended seems just right. How did you choose it?

Will it work on this motherboard?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...e%20GA-X79-UD3

As you can see in the descriptions the CPU is for socket LGA1155, the board you chose is for socket LGA2011.
It would be nice if we would be told what actaully are you trying to do before we can recommend hardware. All we know now is that you want to be able to start/stop an unspecified number of VMs really fast. That is not enough to give any reasonable recommendation.