Best Low cost storage set-up for revitalizing a SATA 3 Gbps Workstation being repurposed for gaming?

[cbn]

What do you think would be the best low cost storage set-up for revitalizing a SATA 3 Gbps Workstation being repurposed for gaming?

Assume the Game library is in the range of 200GB to 400GB.

(Prior to voting please see notes below. However, if you voted prior to reading the opening post I did keep the option for forum members to change their vote if they want to)

1.) Used Intel 320 Series 80GB SSD* + used WD5000AZLX 500GB 3.5" (7200 rpm) hard drive**. (Consider the possibility of using Steam Mover to selectively move games back and forth between the hard drive and the faster SSD)

2.) 2 x used WD5000AZLX 500GB 3.5" (7200 rpm) hard drive** in RAID 0.

3.) New 1TB hard drive purchased at Newegg.

*Intel 320 Series SSD confirmed to have 15% or less wear on it.

**These short stroked hard drives use 1TB platters/32MB cache and for the purposes of this thread assume they have a manufacture date of 2015 or 2016.

P.S. All these options are $50 (or below).

 

[cbn]

Here is a benchmark of the 80GB Intel 320 Series SSD:

http://www.pc-master.jp/blog/parts/2563.html

 

[cbn]

A benchmark of the WD5000AZLX:

https://translate.google.com/transl...blog/wd5000azlx/index.html&edit-text=&act=url

And here is one of a 1TB Seagate Barracuda (ST1000DM003) found at Newegg:

http://www.hdl.pl/hddtest/Seagate-ST1000DM003-1TB.php

P.S. I don't think that 1TB Seagate drive I posted (ST1000DM003) would benchmark significantly different than the newer version as I platter density, cache and spindle speed are the same.

 

[VirtualLarry]

That's really hard to say. If the usage is strictly gaming and nothing else, no productivity apps, not much web browsing, then I might vote for the RAID-0 500GB HDD config, or a 1TB new HDD.

But if you plan on doing office-type tasks, or using it as a primary browsing box, I would say an SSD is essential.

Edit: I voted for the new 1TB HDD option, primarily because, if you're going to spend the money, might as well get the warranty. Plus, room to expand the game library.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

If you're willing to spend $50 on an HD, you should be willing to spend $70 on a 250GB SSD. Any junk heap hdd will work as a steam drive, but 250 is enough that you can just install the games you're playing. With Steam, you can reinstall your games at any time and you get cloud saves, so...

Well, as long as you're not on metered Internet.

The old template we have for Windows Server 2008 VMs at work starts with a 50GB vmdk and 30 free. It takes about six months of use in most cases for Windows to chew that up.

 

[cbn]

If you're willing to spend $50 on an HD, you should be willing to spend $70 on a 250GB SSD. Any junk heap hdd will work as a steam drive, but 250 is enough that you can just install the games you're playing. With Steam, you can reinstall your games at any time and you get cloud saves, so...

Actually not all the games on Steam have Cloud save.

And Origin does not have cloud save that I know of. EDIT: Origin does have it---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mekdoWSHtzc

 

[cbn]

Just checked on the price of 240 to 256 GB SSDs at Newegg.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100011693 600038485 600038487 600038500 8000 4814&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&order=PRICE

Amazingly they now start at $72 shipped....and this $72 only gets a person a dram-less 15nm TLC SSD (OCZ TL100).

If the NAND price increase continues I do wonder if a pair of new 1TB HDDs on sale would eventually be cheaper than a 240GB planar TLC dram-less SSD? (And the RAID-0 1TB drives would have higher sequential read than a 240GB SSD if both were using a SATA 3 Gbps port),

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Just checked on the price of 240 to 256 GB SSDs at Newegg.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100011693 600038485 600038487 600038500 8000 4814&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&order=PRICE

Amazingly they now start at $72 shipped....and this $72 only gets a person a dram-less 15nm TLC SSD (OCZ TL100).

If the NAND price increase continues I do wonder if a pair of new 1TB HDDs on sale would eventually be cheaper than a 240GB planar TLC dram-less SSD? (And the RAID-0 1TB drives would have higher sequential read than a 240GB SSD if both were using a SATA 3 Gbps port),

Not higher, but possibly equal. That said, sequential read isn't the reason SSDs are preferable to HDDs.

And if you limit yourself to newegg, you're not even coming close to getting the best price or selection.

 

[cbn]

And if you limit yourself to newegg, you're not even coming close to getting the best price or selection.

When I take a look at PC part picker the lowest price I can find for 240GB to 256GB SSD is ADATA SP550 which is $69.99 plus $8.99 shipping (according to checkout when I visited the NCIX website).

http://pcpartpicker.com/products/internal-hard-drive/#t=0&S=230000,256000&sort=a10&page=1

(Newegg has the same drive for $72.99 plus .99 shipping)

With that mentioned, I don't see 240GB OCZ TL100 listed on PC Part Picker. This drive priced at $71.99 shipped at Newegg is the lowest priced 240GB drive I can find overall (without a rebate).

With rebate the lowest priced 240GB to 256GB drive I can find is the ADATA SU800 256GB for $68 AR free shipping:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820215016&ignorebbr=1

 

[VirtualLarry]

And if you limit yourself to newegg, you're not even coming close to getting the best price or selection.

Sorry to disagree, Dave, but I've been scouring ebay and Newegg, almost daily, for SSD and HDD and video card and CPU and motherboard deals, and Newegg's SSD prices are, more often than not, cheaper than anybody else on ebay, if you are looking for "new". It's just that SSD prices really have increased that much lately. (Something that it seems you didn't really want to admit in another thread, you seemed to dismiss it as that they just weren't on sale right now.)

 

[cbn]

That said, sequential read isn't the reason SSDs are preferable to HDDs.

I believe for loading game levels it is though.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I believe for loading game levels it is though.

People who focus on that should be tied to their chairs and forced to use Outlook and Office while a "deep" AV scan is running, until they repent.

 

[cbn]

People who focus on that should be tied to their chairs and forced to use Outlook and Office while a "deep" AV scan is running, until they repent.

Which deep scan AV are you thinking about? (It could be run off hours).

And regarding office, I think I will get the 2 x WD5000AZLX to see how well they work. (So far, I've been playing around with 2 x WD1600HLFX Raptors in RAID-0 and they seem decent enough)

P.S. My reference SSD is PNY CS2211 240GB.

 

[Spicedaddy]

It's 2017, no OS should be installed on a HDD anymore.

 

[cbn]

It's 2017, no OS should be installed on a HDD anymore.

I think for a Kid's (and probably even for a young adult's) computer it would be an acceptable option. (In fact, there are adults in the workforce who still use a desktop HDD that is slower than a single WD5000AZLX).

Remember we are talking about a SATA 3 Gbps Workstation with an entry level sized game library. Think of this as an alternative to a game console, but with the ability to do tasks besides games.

With that mentioned, what is the most optimal?

 

[cbn]

How would the amount of RAM factor into folk's storage decisions?

LGA 1366 Workstations have six DIMM slots (and use DDR3 1066 or DDR3 1333 depending on the processor).

So 6GB is super easy with dirt cheap 1GB DDR3 sticks that ebay sellers practically give away for free.

12GB, of course, uses 2GB sticks but these (especially 1066 or 1333 speed) are still pretty cheap per GB. (Unlike the new market, based on my observation, used 2GB DDR3 sticks are cheaper per GB than used 4GB DDR3 sticks)

P.S. For a gamer using Xeon X5670, X5675, X5677, X5687, or W3670 I would go with 12GB RAM. Perhaps 6GB (using either 6 x 1GB or 3 x 2GB) for a machine with W3530.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

How would the amount of RAM factor into folk's storage decisions?

Not in the least?

Are you a bot or something?

 

[PingSpike]

None of the above, find a 250GB $50 used SSD and forget the HDD. Suffer the winSxS cancer and steam size constraints. Never go back.

 

[cbn]

None of the above, find a 250GB $50 used SSD and forget the HDD. Suffer the winSxS cancer and steam size constraints. Never go back.

After leaving 25% spare area it would only have 192GB of storage area (.75 * 256= 192). With the OS taking up 17GB that only leaves 175GB for the game library and other apps.

And even a 480GB to 512GB SSD only has 384GB area available for OS + Game library + apps after leaving 25% spare area (.75 * 512 = 384).....but I might have included this size SSD as a option (if it were available for $50) because it is close enough. It would just have to get by at the upper end of the installation by using less than the ideal size spare area (suffering more performance inconsistency than it would if it were to use 25% spare area).

 

[dave_the_nerd]

After leaving 25% spare area it would only have 192GB of storage area (.75 * 256= 192). With the OS taking up 17GB that only leaves 175GB for the game library and other apps.

And even a 480GB to 512GB SSD only has 384GB area available for OS + Game library + apps after leaving 25% spare area (.75 * 512 = 384).....but I might have included this size SSD as a option (if it were available for $50) because it is close enough. It would just have to get by at the upper end of the installation by using less than the ideal size spare area (suffering more performance inconsistency than it would if it were to use 25% spare area).

SSDs are overprovisioned at the factory. You don't need to allocate any additional spare area unless you're doing some weird server workloads or a big ol' RAID array and need the performance consistency. (Performance will degrade a little bit on an overstuffed SSD, but not enough to fret about. Certainly not as much as it did in the SF228x era.)

That said, you should try to keep ~50GB free on your boot drive just 'cuz.

 

[cbn]

SSDs are overprovisioned at the factory.

Yes, that is right. For example, a 480GB SSD is typically based on 512GB NAND (This leaves 32GB spare area). After formatting the 480GB it will have 447GB storage space (this effectively increases spare area to 65 GB.)

With that mentioned, I wouldn't actually reduce the partition size to 384GB to increase spare area to 25% (based on the total of 512GB NAND)....the extra 63GB (447GB after formating vs. the 384GB calculation for usable space after 25% spare area) would remain usable (just in case). Apparently modern controllers treat free space the same as over-provisioning.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Yes, that is right. For example, a 480GB SSD is typically based on 512GB NAND (This leaves 32GB spare area). After formatting the 480GB it will have 447GB storage space (this effectively increases spare area to 65 GB.)

That is not how GiB vs. GB works. 447 GiB is 480GB.

 

[cbn]

That is not how GiB vs. GB works. 447 GiB is 480GB.

When I look at my drive volume is says "GB" not "GiB".

Also see below an example of OCZ Trion 150 480GB formatted to 447 GB, not 447 GiB:

However, I did find the following thread explaining why confusion exists:

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/true-ssd-capacity-gib-and-gb-vs-overprovisioning.2476952/

With that noted, when Anandtech did the OP testing the author is using the term "GB" for the spare area calculation:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6489/playing-with-op?_ga=1.41657954.1321143297.1487004993

(So 240GB or 256GB SSD which have 256 GiB NAND has 192GiB (reported as 192GB in Windows drive manager) left over when 25% area is set aside as free area)

I'm assuming this is being done so the end user can easily apply the findings to their own PC.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

When I look at my drive volume is says "GB" not "GiB".

Also see below an example of OCZ Trion 150 480GB formatted to 447 GB, not 447 GiB:

OS's have been reporting GiB as GB since before there were GiBs. (See: IEEE 1541.) It's a holdover and is still a very common use/misuse.

 

[cbn]

People who focus on that should be tied to their chairs and forced to use Outlook and Office while a "deep" AV scan is running, until they repent.

Which deep scan AV are you thinking about? (It could be run off hours).

And regarding office, I think I will get the 2 x WD5000AZLX to see how well they work. (So far, I've been playing around with 2 x WD1600HLFX Raptors in RAID-0 and they seem decent enough)

P.S. My reference SSD is PNY CS2211 240GB.

So (out of curiosity) I did end up getting the 2 x WD5000AZLX drives to see how well they would do in RAID-0 with multi-tasking while AV is running in the background (more on this later).

In the meantime, here are my Crystaldiskmark and HD tune results:



EDIT: The read above looks slow, so I reran Crystaldiskmark (below)