Right now I have two 74Gb Raptor drivers (the old versions) in RAID0 for my boot drive. So I guess I could just keep those until SSD reaches a better price point.... hopefully by Q1 2010...
Right now I have two 74Gb Raptor drivers (the old versions) in RAID0 for my boot drive. So I guess I could just keep those until SSD reaches a better price point.... hopefully by Q1 2010...
Cogman
Lifer
- Sep 19, 2000
- 10,277
- 125
- 106
I wouldn't call them big advantages. From all the numbers I've read, you're looking at about a 10% increase in performance all around with an SSD drive. But is that 10% worth the 500% price tag increase? (10 gb / $ vs .3 gb / $)
I'm all for SSDs, but they aren't there yet, once they get to the point where a 500GB SSD is roughly the price of a 1 TB hard-drive, then I'll be tempted.
I think my biggest hesitation is the fact that it seems there is performance degradation over time....
I keep hearing that when Windows 7 will be released they will include a technology called TRIM which should prevent this.... so I think it would make sense to at least wait until then...
MrK6
Diamond Member
- Aug 9, 2004
- 4,458
- 4
- 81
Yup. Right now it's I think it's still "too new" in that the price premium isn't worth the performance increase. Any decent 1TB HDD out there now will be faster than one of your raptors, so grab one of those. From the $200 you save, take ~$30 and grab a 4890: http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/...p?ProductCode=10010263 . Really, I can't recommend a 4870 1GB at this time. If you want to jump up from the 4870 512MB, it's more than worth it to grab the 4890. Other than those items, the system you posted looks great, have fun with it
.Wow, okay that surprises me.... a 1TB drive will be faster than my Western Digital raptors? Man I didn't expect that...
MrK6
Diamond Member
- Aug 9, 2004
- 4,458
- 4
- 81
Well, one of them. If you have them in RAID 0, then they probably will have faster read speeds than a single 1TB drive (although the write speeds will be much slower). What happens is the platter density of the 1TB drive more than makes up for its slower rotational speed of 7200RPM.
SSD Awesomeness Video
Granted thats an extreme build but the point still stands. HDs are by far the biggest bottleneck in modern computers. A 60GB SSD can be had for around $150. Thats enough space for OS, program files etc. Put your media and other large files on standard HDs. You'll have a system that blazing fast. Trust me, you'll never want to go back to using PCs with standard HDs as their main system drive again.
Cogman
Lifer
- Sep 19, 2000
- 10,277
- 125
- 106
Hard-drives are only a bottle neck if you are accessing it all the time. The only time it should be touched is when you load stuff into your ram. If your slow hard drive is causing you to wait for a while, you will benefit more by getting more RAM rather then getting a faster hard-drive
The only time you should be touching the hard drive is when you:
A. Start a program
B. Save data
C. Load data
After that, the HD should remain untouched for most of the operating experience. A faster hard drive won't give you more FPS in your favorite game (Unless you are paging to the HD constantly in the game, in which case, more ram would do you much more good then a bigger hard drive)
Again, is the 10% performance increase, for a piece of hardware that you should be accessing infrequently, worth the 500% cost?
Keep the 620HX over getting a lesser quality 750W, it would be plenty even if you added another vid card. I went with the PC Power & Cooling S61EPS 610W when it was on sale.
Drop the SSD, consider the 320GB platter 640GB WD drives also.
I was really close to going i7, but i mostly game, and the motherboards are much better feature wise for the money on the AMD side. $40 LESS gets you a board like the MSI 790FX-GD70
enjoy your new rig.
LOL, your essentially saying "HDs are only a bottle neck if they're being used, if you aren't using them they're not a bottle neck".
I mean I guess thats true. But those lists of tasks you mentioned happen allot during computing. At least for me. I do a lot of work dealing with postgres databases. But even in normal everyday computing you will definitely notice the difference. So IMO its definitely worth it if your talking about a small SSD. The larger more expensive drives are harder to justify at this point though.
MrK6
Diamond Member
- Aug 9, 2004
- 4,458
- 4
- 81
No, he's correct - the differences between an SSD and a fast HDD aren't that noticeable in everyday usage, at least not to justify the cost. If you short stroke an HDD for your programs and OS and leave the rest for storage, you'll have close to the same experience with about 15x more space at about 1/2 the cost. SSD's probably are the future as they have many more benefits over HDD's. However, they're still new tech that needs to mature before they will be a worthy replacement.
2March
Member
- Sep 29, 2001
- 135
- 0
- 0
When you take a stock I5 or I7 and don't OC it, the I5 is faster multithreaded: 2.66 vs 2.8 GHz and Singlethreaded: 2.93 vs 3.46 GHz for 280 bucks. But the I5 will have to drop the extreme turbo features when OC'ed and then it is likely it will run just as fast as an I7 OC'ed. So then you have two procs, just as fast but one with an added memory channel and twice the PCIe lanes.
SunSamurai
Diamond Member
- Jan 16, 2005
- 3,914
- 0
- 0
He is not correct. Saying there is no real differance if you dont use them is likew looking for a car, one functions, one doesnt turn on, and saying they preform the same if you dont drive them. What BS is that?
EVEN in everyday use the SSD will preform many times better than the HDD. You hear people say everything seems 'snappier' is because the access times are nearly TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE FASTER than the fastest 7200 RPM drives.
People that usually say the SSD isnt all the much faster dont really know much about it and rarely own one. The performance is not up for question, its obviously faster both in testing and most of all real world everyday use. If you _do_ something on your computer, you will notice a difference. Even emailing/Looking at youtube or even writing something up in Word. The only real choice you need to make is if the upgrade in speed is worth the still premium in price.
Cogman
Lifer
- Sep 19, 2000
- 10,277
- 125
- 106
You're full of crap. Once you load up word, you will NEVER see any sort of difference in speed because of hard drive speed. Even saving a file will not give you any noticeable feel in speed.
Yes, the seek time is two orders of magnitude faster, so what does that mean, really, That means by the time a regular hard drive has gotten to its location, you have transferred about 720 kb (9ms * 80MB/s). Big whoop. I suppose if you are dealing with tons of 720kb pieces of data scattered all over the hard disk, then a difference might be noticed, however not in any other circumstance. (and mind you, data is stored on HD such that related data is in the same area. IE all your files in your folders are roughly in the same location on your hard-drive. So the seek time for those files after the first one are basically 0)
And as for the youtube comment. LOL. Tell me, when does youtube load data onto your local hard drive. Say it with me, RAM, Random Access Memory. Guess what, youtube lives in that mystical place.
Look up the memory hierarchy. Computer engineers have dealt with slow hard drives a LONG time ago. This is by putting frequently used data in, say it again, RAM.
I've seen all the benchmarks for the SSD drives. In almost all of them, the performance of reading and writing is about 10% higher then that of a regular 1TB hard drive. Not exactly the money winner.
Modern computers from the ground up have been made to access the slower memory systems as little as possible. In general, the only time a computer user is going to access the hard drive is when they are loading a program. After that initial load, the programs reside completely in ram (unless you don't have enough RAM, in which case I would definitely recommend more ram over a SSD hard drive). The programs will see NO performance increase from using an SSD hard drive over a regular one. I repeat, NO performance increase.
So what do you gain by having an SSD Drive:
* Programs start up faster
* OS starts up faster
* When programs need data from the hard drive, they can fetch it quicker. (Most programs DON'T do this)
Again, that is a 10% increase in speed. not a show stopper.
ZimZum actually posted one good reason to get an SSD drive, and that is database manipulation. with small packets being grabbed quickly from random disk locations, a SSD drive will definitely show some marked performance increases.
However, general computer use (Surfing the web, playing games, Photo shopping, Watching movies, encoding movies ect) Aren't going to show any sort of difference after startup. A claim otherwise is the placebo effect at its best.
Cogman
Lifer
- Sep 19, 2000
- 10,277
- 125
- 106
Really, that does sum up my response. Computers and OS's are made to access the HD as infrequently as possible. So why get a piece of equipment, based on "its faster" that you are going to try and avoid using throughout your computing experience? Why not get a faster CPU that you are ALWAYS using?
And don't get me wrong. I am in no way saying that SSDs aren't the future, or that I wouldn't take one if offered. they do offer some pretty good speed increases, and pretty solid drives that won't die under pretty much any circumstance. However, they just aren't there yet. Give it 2 years and I could easily see SSDs being the way to go.
That is a pretty good idea if you can live with the noise/heat characteristic of those (my suggestion for the Velociraptor was because that is low noise/heat). It would mean concentrating your purchase on stuff that you can use for a while and leaving things that are simpler to upgrade for the future.
best bang for buck assuming you game at 1920x1200 is PhII, gtx20 sli, and SSD. SSD will make your system feel faster than Core i7.
My recommendation still stands, but obviously there are two factions about the SSD. I'm definitely no fanboy, heck, I don't even own an SSD myself. But I build computers for others and have seen tested them and imo it is, as I wrote before, a HUGE difference. And you don't want a TB of SSD-space, all you need is a few GB for your programs, which, as has been said often enough, you get get for $150. Your MP3s etc can go on the cheap TB HD. Yes, SSD will get cheaper (so will normal HDs and everything else in the IT world), yes, they will get better and faster (see PRAM, etc.). But you want a fast computer now and actually use it for work - imo SSD is a must there and I haven't seen any real arguments against it. Forget the Raptors or a fast TB hard drive - a correctly configured SSD WILL make a huge difference!
Cogman
Lifer
- Sep 19, 2000
- 10,277
- 125
- 106
Yes, for background tasks, IE indexing and defragmenting.
Oh boy, vista now indexes my HD faster then ever before when I'm not using it, that makes such a huge impact on my perceived performance!!!11! [/sarcasm]
There's a reason for these background tasks, and there is a reason they are called background tasks. The user doesn't see them, so what does it matter that they get done faster? They are meant to be tasks that can be done frequently, but don't have to be observed by the user of the HD. Vista aborts these tasks the moment the user requests uses of the HD.
As I said before, where you will see differences is in program startup time. Other then that, there isn't going to be any noticeable difference (and again, that is on the order of a 10% increase. Good, but worth it for that 25ms speed increase?) The money is better spent on more ram, faster CPUs, and a better video card then on a small fast hard drive. Heck, even 3 TB HD in raid 1 will provide the user with read speeds much faster then a SSD drive will offer for roughly the same price as an 80GB SSD drive.
Have you ever used a modern SSD? The benefit to the end user (perceived speed) relative to an HDD is far greater than the benefit of going PhII -> i7 unless you're encoding all day. See Anand's opinion below and tests.
" the biggest upgrade you could do for your PC - whether desktop or notebook, wouldn't be to toss in a faster CPU, it would be to migrate to one of these SSDs." -Anand La Shimpi
Well, I think the only reason I'm leaning against getting an SSD right now is hte lingering issues with fragmentation and the price premium. As far as I'm concerned, the only one I would get would be the Intel X25-M.
But for me, being able to load Photoshop is 7sec as compared to 15sec is a big deal, since i use the Adobe suite all the time. I know the performance difference won't be during use, but really, the time I have to wait the most is when I first start something, and if I can cut that in half it's worth it to me.
But for me, being able to load Photoshop is 7sec as compared to 15sec is a big deal, since i use the Adobe suite all the time. I know the performance difference won't be during use, but really, the time I have to wait the most is when I first start something, and if I can cut that in half it's worth it to me.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter