In fact, if you open 30 tabs in any browser with an 8-16GB RAM computer and check your memory usage, it will be well below 8GB, but then proceed to use the computer for 10 days, leaving it turn on at night, it will become unbearable slow without restarting at least once. This doesn't happen with an SSD.
OK, so we went from browsing with 100 tabs open being slow on systems that use mechanical drives, to now browsing being slow after having leaving the computer on for
ten days straight?
Goal post shift much? :sneaky: Not that it really matters, because you're wrong on both accounts. If you have enough memory, there will be no slowdowns at all.
If you're experiencing that much of a slowdown, then it's because you were running low on RAM and hitting the pagefile.. Seeing that you have 8GB of RAM in your system, you can easily use up half or more of that by having that many tabs open, in addition to the OS itself and other programs.
In the real world app usage an SSD is
3-10X faster than a mechanical drive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQjc-XW0G7Y
In boot times into desktop on a system with many programs/games installed, it's a night and day difference, in the magnitude of 4-5X faster:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRu9OeKNk28
And here is an inclusive test including boot time (
SSD is almost 600% faster for a power user), and loading 25 apps (SSD takes 24 seconds or nearly 450% faster vs. 1 min 50 seconds on a mechanical drive):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv5dCXiXFaw
If you combine booting up and loading your apps for work and so on, the difference will add up to 5 minutes or more which is a lot when you are just sitting there and waiting for things to happen! Worse, when you start working and switching between various apps, you will run into Not Responding browser errors, Flash Crashes that hang everything you are working on, random stuttering and complete unresponsiveness for prolonged periods of time in Windows 7/8 on a mechanical drive.
I would go as far as to say any 2014 system without an SSD/M.2/PCIe SSD or similar storage cannot be considered a modern system no matter what CPU and GPU it has because outside of games this computer will get outperformed by a MacBook Air. I refuse to spend $300 on a modern CPU + $500 on a modern GPU and then end up in the year 2007 in overall system feel. D:
All this was completely unnecessary. You act as though I'm anti SSD or something, when I'm not. I own a Samsung 850 Pro SSD myself, so I know the benefits of having one.
My only disagreement is that the benefits of an SSD don't really impact web browsing, unless you're using a machine that has a suboptimal amount of RAM..
Arguing with me on this is ridiculous, unless you believe SSDs are faster than RAM which is just retarded..
1) NEVER in the history of any GPU generation did the first generation card with next generation DX could ever play the next generation's DX game effectively. Not once. I remember all the NV marketing that 7800GTX 256MB was ready for the next gen UE3 game engine and that was all but marketing gimmick. By the time UE3 games came out, they wiped the floor with that card. You always need 2nd or 3rd generation card of the last DX generation to max out next generation games. That's why right now we are using 3rd or 4th gen DX11 cards to play DX11 games (HD5870 was the first DX11 card in Sept of 2009).
Thats a massive generalization. Fermi handled DX11 very well. I played Crysis 3 at 1440p max settings with SMAA x1 with overclocked GTX 580 SLI with an average frame rate of 35 FPS, and Crysis 3 was by far the most cutting edge DX11 game when it launched years after the GTX 580 first became available.
And what's this obsession you have with maxing games out? Just because you can't max a game out, doesn't mean that the hardware is incapable... You can make the fastest GPUs dog slow by choosing certain settings..
Is a Titan Black slow because it can't handle Crysis 3 at 1080p with 16x MSAA? Of course not!
2) Since Fermi and Even Kepler and GCN 11.2 will have partial support for DX12, unless you can tell us specifically what exactly does 970/980 have in DX12 that makes "full" DX12 support such a killer feature, it's meaningless to keep bringing this up.
The only people that know the full details of DX12 are those that work for the relevant IHVs and ISVs. I'm sure it will be disclosed later. But if you think DX12 won't be more than just performance enhancements, then you're naive.
DX12 will almost assuredly come with new rendering technologies or techniques, that will require GPUs with full hardware support..
Fact is, 970/980 are already struggling in today's games (AC U, FC4, DAI), so what makes you think they will be fast enough for native DX12 games?
Again, just because the games can't be maxed out, doesn't mean the hardware is "struggling" or incapable. Also, those games are all recently launched, so full driver and patch optimizations have yet to take place..
3) You keep talking about future proofing but it's better to buy a $220-250 290, save $80-100 on not buying the 970 and in 12 months, sell the 290 and use that $80-100 + resale value from the 290 towards a much faster card. You know what, let's talk about a real world example: someone bought 7970 1Ghz for $300 when you bought 770 4GB for $450. Now both 7970 1Ghz and 770 4GB are about the same in performance in the last 6 months but person 1 has $150 left over in the bank/savings towards his next upgrade, while the latter gamer has a 770 4GB that isn't any faster and $150 less. Your idea of future-proofing for 5-10% more performance has been disproven historically with previous generations. Future proofing comes into play if you are considering $250 7850 vs. $400 670 when there is a big performance difference.
You honestly think the OP's friend is going to sell hardware and buy more hardware later on? He's obviously not a computer enthusiast, otherwise he wouldn't get his friend to help him build it.
Only hardware enthusiasts swap out parts and upgrade frequently... Everyone else has much longer upgrade cycles.
How are all those PC gamers who paid $100s extra to future proof with 680 4GB against 7950/7970 doing, or Titan users where Titan is often only as fast as a 280X/290 but cost $1000 at launch?
I don't know what you're talking about. Just because a few recently launched games are currently close in performance, doesn't mean that the performance advantage the Titan held over the 280x etcetera in the past has suddenly vanished..
And I've told you repeatedly. You can't know a game's final performance on any hardware after just a few weeks. It usually takes months before we see final performance, as patches and driver optimizations need time to take effect.
Far Cry 3 and Crysis 3 ran faster on AMD hardware at launch, but then Nvidia caught up and is now faster in both games..
Facebook
Twitter