Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: 428CJ on December 01, 2010, 06:23:06 PM
-
Help needed in deciding on new computer, dont want to spend more than AH needs to run all the eye candy at 60 fps. Looking at Digital Storm computers site & trying to decide
1. i5-3.2 duo core or i7-3.06 quad core ?
2. video cards GT240, GTS 450 1gigbyte, GTX 460 1 gigbyte, GTX 470 1.2 gigbyte
3. SSD 40 gig for boot and game with 500gig 7200 rpm for storage or 1TB 7200 rpm for all
You that know - Skuzzy and the other gurus what would you do ?
Thanks in advance
-
if your gonna do it right go i7 and GTX 460
if those are already in your buy plans as a option dont beat around the bush.
-
i7 950 and a gtx 470 will do it. That is what I have.
Don't know if the gtx 460 will?
Maybe someone will reply.
-
To be fair the i5, GTX460, and 1TB hard drive should be plenty good enough to max out AH except MAYBE not being able to max out the self shadows. I'm not sure I would bank on an SSD drive just yet.. it's still a developing technology which still has issues.
But, also to be fair, a good C2D processor, DDR2 ram, and GTS250 video will run AH at 95% maximum.
You won't see much difference in AH performance on a i5 vs. an i7 processor... BUT as Aces High evolves, we're obviously going to see higher system requirements in the future.. granted this could take years, but it all really comes down to how 'future proof' you want your system to be.
-
How maxed do you want? Maxed, or so close to maxed it may as well be maxed?
If you want fully maxed one thing you'll need is a GPU with at least 1GB VRAM (only way to handle 8K shadows at ~60FR). Aside from that I'll let other who know Intel/SSDs better comment.
-
Buy the best components you are willing to spend the money on.
Be careful of bottle necking performance by mixing mid-grade and high-grade parts. Your PC will perform only as well as its worst component, example : a slow CPU / fast GPU combo will be a waste of money on the GPU since it's performance will be throttled to some degree by the CPU speed. The only real exception being system memory (RAM) in which you should not go super high-end even in bigger rigs, just stick with reputable brands and get as much capacity as you can for your price range.
-
I'm not sure I would bank on an SSD drive just yet.. it's still a developing technology which still has issues.
For the record "SSD drive" (Solid State Drive drive) is a redundant statement, a very common mistake. (people also tend to make the same mistake with "HDD drive" for the same reason)
SSDs perform and operate perfectly fine. With the introduction of TRIM and other functions specific to SSDs, the only inhibiting factor remaining is capacity to price ratio.
Even that is ultimately a good thing when you consider it drives down the price of HDD storage options. Also my Crucial C300 comes with a 3yr warranty, and I store only re installable programs and games on it.
So if for some unforeseen reason it fails, I'm out nothing. (esp. since I have a system image on my storage drives that would allow my PC to cont. operating seamlessly without it)
The performance, I'm sure your all well aware of, is simply comparing bicycles to motorcycles.
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/zeromajin/New/20-November-2010_20-14.png)
Single HDD 7200 rpm read speed
The same HDD in a x4 Raid 0 Config
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/zeromajin/New/Raid0x4.png)
A single Crucial C300 128 Gig SSD
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/zeromajin/New/CrucialSSD.png)
As you can clearly see, even a x4 Raid 0 config falls considerably short of a single SSD.
Now you could make the same comparison using 10k RPM Raptors, however you'll see little difference and still be confronted with the problem of volume/cost.
Also rememberer, that the more HDDs you add to an array, the greater the risk of a single drive failing and losing all the stored data.
The question you should ask yourself before purchasing an SSD is if the cost is worth the performance to YOU. The performance, even to the casual PC user, is very noticeable, but not worth the added cost to most people.
-
For the record "SSD drive" (Solid State Drive drive) is a redundant statement, a very common mistake. (people also tend to make the same mistake with "HDD drive" for the same reason
First of all, welcome to Aces High! I'm assuming you're fairly new here, due to your low post count, but if not then I'd imagine this would be a very common mistake.
While I completely understand that the term "SSD Drive" is redundant I did so to remove any confusion. I.E. had I said "SS Drive" or "Solid State Drive" then there was a chance the OP may have mistaken what I was referring to. The point that you pointed out this redundancy in the manner in which you did makes you appear to be certified Mensa and we all know how popular THOSE guys are!
Nobody was arguing that SSD drives (drives you crazy, doesn't it?) don't perform many times faster than a conventional HDD drive. This is common knowledge... BUT referring back to the OP's statement, "dont want to spend more than AH needs to run all the eye candy at 60 fps" I can vouch that an SSD drive is NOT REQUIRED to run Aces High at full settings. Also since not all operating systems support the TRIM function and since the long-term usability of these drives still has yet to be established I have a hard time recommending SSD drives to anyone, ESPECIALLY when the most intensive thing they plan on doing with their system is Aces High.
To me it doesn't make much sense financially, it doesn't make much sense as far as reliability is concerned, and it just simply isn't necessary.
Now if you wanted to see just how fast you could make your system go, or if you really wanted something fun to play with and bragging rights "I booted Linux is 3 seconds flat!" then by all means go buy an SSD drive... but for 90+% of computer users out there, and probably 99.9+% of Aces High players... I can't recommend it.
-
Thanks for the welcome Tigger29! I am new to these forums and the game, I've been a FPS, RTS, RPG etc. enthusiast my whole life and I'm just now breeching the flight combat sim. genre.
Your absolutely correct in stating that SSDs are unnecessary for an average user/gamer. As I clearly stated in my post
The performance, even to the casual PC user, is very noticeable, but not worth the added cost to most people.
However, the only reason I addressed your post is because this wasn't your core point. You implied that the tech was imperfect and in a preliminary state. This is simply inaccurate, and outdated.
In so far as the requirements of AH@Max settings, I would certainly have to defer to the knowledge and experience, of the senior players/forum users. I tend to play far more resource intensive games and my PC doubles as a workstation at home so my needs differ greatly from many users.
However, you seem to be under the impression that using an SSD is akin to having a i7 980x hex-core, in that it provides little practical gain, for a premium price tag.
SSDs provide a substantial net-gain in performance aside from boot times and benchmark bragging rights.
It loads nearly all programs instantaneously within windows and this will be the most noticeable gain for casual users. It more or less eliminates loading screens in games that are not stored on a media disc (such as AH/Steam/Most modern games).
However, perhaps the best gain is the ability to manipulate large files (copy/encode/compress) very quickly ,so that wielding 10gig+ files isn't an overnight ordeal. I noticed you guys have a pretty good "Fraps" caps crowds here that deal with large game play videos, this will certainly benefit them tremendously.
Also, lacking moving parts, makes them far more reliable then HDDs.
So, to portray them as undeveloped (SSDs have been used/developed for 40+ years), or only for the e-Napoleon complex inflicted, is a false argument. Now, if these gains are not worth the cost to you, thats fine, but it's misleading to say it's faulty or unreliable tech simply because you feel its too expensive.
This is of course the case with any new emerging tech, it launches at high price points because the the manufacturers are attempting to recover the, sometimes years of, research and development cost.
If thats the case just say so, "It's too darn expensive for me to justify". But, rehashing concerns that were unfounded even a year ago, I feel will confuse people seeking advice about new components.
-
While I don't quite understand why you are so adamant *FOR* the use of SSDs, I suppose you are wondering why I am so adamant *AGAINST* their use. In any case regardless of the maturity of the technology you have to admit that they are still more expensive than traditional drives.
This still comes down to the OP's statement, "dont want to spend more than AH needs to run all the eye candy at 60 fps" and since the use of an SSD is not necessary to run Aces High with full eye-candy at 60fps I feel that recommending an SSD would defeat the purpose of the original post.
For the record, I'm not necessarily against the use of SSDs, but you have to understand that the vast majority of users here have limited computer experience as most of the people here are older, using dated systems, and will likely rarely (if ever) use their systems for anything more demanding for Aces High. Keeping that in mind will reveal that there are other things that money can be spent on for recommendations of system upgrades that will improve AH performance much more than a SSD.
Upgrading from a conventional Hard Drive to an SSD while producing a noticeable improvement in bootup speed, the speed in which programs load, and an increase in any application that requires constant disk access, is not a good real life solution for someone who is trying to get a few extra frames out of Aces High. Personally, I don't care if my computer loads in 5 seconds instead of 25.. and I don't do any video editing or any manipulation of large files (And I think I fall in the 99% class of Aces High users) so to me while an SSD might be a fun 'toy' to play with, it really wouldn't improve my game play experience any at all. If I wanted the best of the best then YES an SSD would be high on the list, but if I wanted to get the most 'bang-for-my-buck' out of a computer rebuild and/or upgrade then it would not even make the list.
Why? Because even if the price difference were only $50, I could invest the $50 in a faster processor... more ram... or a better video card that would provide a much faster system than simply upgrading to an SSD ever would.
And I still stand by my claim that SSD is still a developing technology. If I had one, I would definitely not store anything critical on it (especially not backed up) and I can even quote you as stating, "I store only re installable programs and games on it". If you were so confident in its reliability, then why not store anything else on it? I'm sure that you are correct in your statements that they are a lot more reliable and durable than they used to be, but I still don't feel that they are up to the same level as traditional hard drives are.
Most people here simply have a single drive/single partition because it is the easiest to deal with. I've even seen several people convert from RAID arrays and multiple drives/partitions because it just became too much of a hassle to keep track of, especially when something failed. While the difference in drive speed is significant, what it comes down to is that the significant increase in drive speed simply isn't needed for the vast majority of people. Recommending an SSD to them would be like recommending a Firebird to a family of seven. Yes, it can get them there fast but it's not at all practical and becomes very uncomfortable to use.
So while you are taking my posts as a bash against SSDs, that's not necessarily the case. When someone is asking about the 'least expensive' way to get something to happen and then someone else recommends an option such as... SSDs that is more expensive, "traditionally" less reliable, and more complicated... well I'm going to express my argument against that case.
-
Really quickly.
1) SSDs have not proven they are more reliable than HDs. Get back to me in 5 years and tell me how well your SSD is doing. I have already killed one SSD (trimmed its brains out), while I have Seagate Cheetahs that have been operating for 10 years nonstop. There is not an SSD, which would survive at all, for anything close to that time period. Not yet.
2) Windows caches executables once they are loaded, unless Windows needs more memory space for the next loaded executable, it stays in memory.
If you use an SSD to mostly read data from it, they are fine to use. They still are not the best solution for constant read/writing, over a long period of time where data integrity is the primary concern. TRIM is not a panacea for the fixing the problems with SSD. It simply works around a limitation in the design of the current SSDs. Eventually, all SSDs will fail due to lack of spare cells.
-
And I will will (LOL) chime in with my 2 bits.
SSDs are a waste of money anyway. SSDs make sense in heat producers like the XBox 360 but in a PC running Windows they only help by trimming a few seconds off of boot times. Your really worried about a few seconds? If you have more wait time then you would be better off uninstalling a few hundred programs.
As to starting AH and the time it requires to load... again a few seconds. And once the page file has loaded the program once it will load no faster with an SSD than it does off a HD.
An SSD is good news for archives. So if you back up to a True Image or other type archive then using an SSD makes sense and it will speed up your restores. Other than that I dont see the need.
-
A single Crucial C300 128 Gig SSD
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/zeromajin/New/CrucialSSD.png)
excellent bandwidth and more importantly, access times. :aok :aok :aok
i have a mushkin on the newegg cart for $99.00. mind running ATTO on the C300 please?
be patient with the risk-averse folks, as with all things you become one with age. :D :D :D
to OP:
if you want performance, go with an SSD. it's the slowest I/O you have on a 'puter second to the one between the K/B and chair.
just dont use it as a heavy write/erase/write drive, you have about ~10,000 write/erase cycles MTBF on those cells.
HDD's are just as prone to failure, if not more. there's a reason why theyre called hitachi deathstars.
-
Your advice is like telling people that "if you want the fastest gaming experience you should run a 64 bit OS." It simply isnt true and your wasting their money.
-
Your advice is like telling people that "if you want the fastest gaming experience you should run a 64 bit OS." It simply isnt true and your wasting their money.
32-bit and 64 bit cost the same actually with windows 7 you get both versions with the upgrade version. not sure about vista not that i would use it but 64 bit vista is roughly 10% faster then 32 bit vista. from what i read the windows 7 64 bit is only a small percentage but it is faster then its 32-bit version. the only real advantage of both is using more then 4 gigs of memory.
-
No its not. 64 bit might be faster because you have fewer programs loaded on it but the two OSs are the same speed.
The cost difference is in telling people to get more RAM (more than 4 GB) for a 64 bit OS. Most people will never use the extra memory and the 64 bit OS is no faster. Waste of money.
-
a 64 bit data path will put more data through then a 32 bit data path. 64 bit OS will be faster even is just a small percentage 5%-10%.
you dont have to have more then 4Gigs to run the 64 bit OS. it just takes advantage of it if you do. keep in mind i am talking about the OS, some 32 bit apps may actually run slower on a 64 bit OS.
-
Ok, so what is the verdict on hybrid drives? Looking at one for my rig. I'd like to hear some opinions.
-
a 64 bit data path will put more data through then a 32 bit data path. 64 bit OS will be faster even is just a small percentage 5%-10%.
you dont have to have more then 4Gigs to run the 64 bit OS. it just takes advantage of it if you do. keep in mind i am talking about the OS, some 32 bit apps may actually run slower on a 64 bit OS.
No sir. The OS doesnt run any faster. It provides an environment in which some programs can address more memory. You think because 64 bit is larger than 32 bit that it moves data faster? Its simply not true. All the 64 bit or 32 bit name means is that it can address memory with a larger or smaller address length. Unless your program is specifically designed to use more than 3.5-4 GB it wont even make use of more memory and the 64 bit environment isnt doing anything for you. Most of the 64 bit games available dont really get anything out of being 64 bit. They dont give you a single frame more and usually will give less because people think since they are on a faster OS (which they arent) that they can run higher settings or enthusiast textures or whatever. If you want things to run faster spend money on better hardware (and dont waste money on SSDs) like faster CPUs or memory SATA 3 HDs and so on.
Now if you have a program that can make use of larger memory addressing AND can make use of multi-core CPUs then you probably want to run an i7 system on Windows 7 64 bit because it is probably the best memory handling OS going and especially with multi-threading apps (mostly limited to engineering programs like AutoCAD or video and audio processing). The best game I have seen for i7 systems is FSX and even it doesnt use much of the latter cores and none of the virtual cores but it will use more memory. AutoCAD or AeroCAD (the Lockheed Martin version) probably BRLCAD (the Army version) may and 3D Studio will use multicore and the larger memory (all you got) but the only real reason they are faster is because they dont have to swap data off and on the HDs.
-
No sir. The OS doesnt run any faster. It provides an environment in which some programs can address more memory. You think because 64 bit is larger than 32 bit that it moves data faster? Its simply not true. All the 64 bit or 32 bit name means is that it can address memory with a larger or smaller address length. Unless your program is specifically designed to use more than 3.5-4 GB it wont even make use of more memory and the 64 bit environment isnt doing anything for you. Most of the 64 bit games available dont really get anything out of being 64 bit. They dont give you a single frame more and usually will give less because people think since they are on a faster OS (which they arent) that they can run higher settings or enthusiast textures or whatever. If you want things to run faster spend money on better hardware (and dont waste money on SSDs) like faster CPUs or memory SATA 3 HDs and so on.
Now if you have a program that can make use of larger memory addressing AND can make use of multi-core CPUs then you probably want to run an i7 system on Windows 7 64 bit because it is probably the best memory handling OS going and especially with multi-threading apps (mostly limited to engineering programs like AutoCAD or video and audio processing). The best game I have seen for i7 systems is FSX and even it doesnt use much of the latter cores and none of the virtual cores but it will use more memory. AutoCAD or AeroCAD (the Lockheed Martin version) probably BRLCAD (the Army version) may and 3D Studio will use multicore and the larger memory (all you got) but the only real reason they are faster is because they dont have to swap data off and on the HDs.
That's a pretty general statement there.
For example wikipedia states the following:
Pros and cons
A common misconception is that 64-bit architectures are no better than 32-bit architectures unless the computer has more than 4 GB of main memory. This is not entirely true:
Some operating systems and certain hardware configurations limit the physical memory space to 3 GB on IA-32 systems, due to much of the 3–4 GB region being reserved for hardware addressing; see 3 GB barrier. This is not present in 64-bit architectures, which can use 4 GB of memory and more. However, IA-32 processors from the Pentium II onwards allow for a 36-bit physical memory address space, using Physical Address Extension (PAE), which gives a 64 GB physical address range, of which up to 62 GB may be used by main memory; operating systems that support PAE may not be limited to 4GB of physical memory, even on IA-32 processors.
Some operating systems reserve portions of process address space for OS use, effectively reducing the total address space available for mapping memory for user programs. For instance, Windows XP DLLs and other user mode OS components are mapped into each process's address space, leaving only 2 to 3 GB (depending on the settings) address space available. This limit is currently much higher on 64-bit operating systems and does not realistically restrict memory usage.
Memory-mapped files are becoming more difficult to implement in 32-bit architectures.[citation needed] A 4 GB file is no longer uncommon, and such large files cannot be memory mapped easily to 32-bit architectures; only a region of the file can be mapped into the address space, and to access such a file by memory mapping, those regions will have to be mapped into and out of the address space as needed. This is a problem, as memory mapping remains one of the most efficient disk-to-memory methods, when properly implemented by the OS.
Some programs such as data encryption software can benefit greatly from 64-bit registers (if the software is 64-bit compiled) and effectively execute 3 to 5 times faster on 64-bit than on 32-bit.[citation needed]
Some 64-bit architectures, such as x86-64, allow for more general purpose registers than their 32-bit counterparts. This is a significant speed increase for tight loops since the processor doesn't have to go out the second level cache or main memory to gather data if it can fit in the available registers.
Example:
for (a=0; a<100; a++)
{
b = a;
c = b;
d = c;
e = d;
}
If a processor only has the abillity to keep two three values/variables (registers) in fast memory it would need to stop executing and push and pop the stack to be able to process variable d and e as well. A process that takes a lot of CPU cycles. A processor that is capable of holding all the values/variables (registers) in memory can simply just loop through this without needing to halt execution for each iteration just to get the proper data in memory. This behavior can easily be compared with virtual memory.
-
I would warrant that 99.9% of 64-bit OS users wouldnt know how to do that Ripley. Yes I agree its very much like a virtual disk/memory. However... as to the rest of what I said you can refer to the expert Paul Thurrott (Windows 7 Secrets and SuperSite for Windows) and his comments from Windows Weekly #166 (or possibly #165) where he sad the same thing.
Wikipedia? Really? :D
-
Wow, I am very fortunate to have attracted this many intelligent board users so quickly. For the record, I enjoy civil debates that are based in fact, not arguing/flaming/fanboying/trolling. If we are willing to admit this or not : it's the way we all learn, by often being proven wrong.
The cost difference is in telling people to get more RAM (more than 4 GB) for a 64 bit OS. Most people will never use the extra memory and the 64 bit OS is no faster. Waste of money.
Wow, that clears up quite a bit for me in that statement alone. I am obviously well outside my element on this board. No wonder you guys are not ready for SSDs if your using systems/apps that have difficulty saturating 4GB of RAM. I run 12GB personally, but I also run 3D engineering software tracking/manipulating vast amounts of data.
I also enjoy often playing, video recording , encoding, resizing and broadcasting my game play all in real time.
And the fact you guys are still discussing 32vs64 bit OS? (esp. now when they cost the same?)
To address other questions/statements that were actually directed to me
Tigger29
If you were so confident in its reliability, then why not store anything else on it?
You've misinterpreted my reasoning, I store only OS, programs, games and current projects on my SSD not because of a question of reliability, but because of volume limits.
Also, a Blu-ray movie, music file, or picture isn't going to benefit from he added speed (movies won't play any better). My SSD is only 128GB whilst my storage is 4TB. So I prioritize the programs, and data that will benefit the most.
Skuzzy
1) SSDs have not proven they are more reliable than HDs. Get back to me in 5 years and tell me how well your SSD is doing. I have already killed one SSD (trimmed its brains out), while I have Seagate Cheetahs that have been operating for 10 years nonstop. There is not an SSD, which would survive at all, for anything close to that time period. Not yet.
....
Eventually, all SSDs will fail due to lack of spare cells.
Nearly all the arguments you state are non sequiturs. "Get back in 5" is a rhetorical statement that pre assumes failure in that time frame. I too posses at least 2 WD drives that have ran for 10 years, now ask me/and yourself how many HD drives you and I have worked with that failed in 1-3 years? I've worked with literally hundreds of HDDs over the last 12 years, and have 2 that lasted that long. I would argue that an SSDs mean time to failure would be much more impressive.
To help everybody understand, good-high end SSDs will last far longer than the cheap SSDs due to the nature of the wear leveling design, write amplification and finally the quality and type of the NANDs (SLC/MLC).
And remember cheap vs high-end is just as analogous to HDDs
First of all, all NANDs have finite WRITE lifespan, not READ. They can have unlimited read lifespan, it doesn't take much to read. Write lifespan is dependent on which NAND type it is and the quality of it.
SLC: Single Layer Cell,
MLC: Multiple Layer Cell, it means one bit is written per cell for SLC where as MLC can have multiple bits per cell.
SLC can have 100,000 P/E cycles (Program and Erase), meaning it can be written 100,000 times before it can no longer be written, what this mean that while you can still read those data, you can no longer write to it. Unlike HDD, once a sector is dead, you can't read data off it.
MLC are now around 5,000-10,000 P/E cycles depending on the quality of it.
The smaller the the capacity of the SSD, the faster that P/E cycle get used up per cell, which means 30GB SSD will die "gracefully" much faster than a 120GB SSD. However understand that, in order for the SSD to die completely, each cell has to be dead or the controller itself crapped out.
What this mean is that 30GB will decline in capacity for writing capacity. Suddenly 30GB becomes 29.8GB only, slowly dying over time yet all data is still there.
Good SSDs usually have extra reserve of NANDs for this purpose as well, 60GB probably have 4GB of NANDs in reserve for multiple purposes.
So a good 30GB MLC SSD can last 3-5 full years of hardcore usage (24/7 intensive workload). The same SSD but with SLC NANDs will last far far more than that, maybe 10-20 years. 60GB MLC would probably last far more than 10 years. 120GB should last 20+, 1TB would last a century.
I will concede the point that this is all extrapolation, and am willing to cut these figures in half to increase their reliability.
Also consider the my "hardcore usage" is not likely under the usages we discussed. Your only WRITING to the drive when you install new programs. How often are you doing that? Furthermore, how often do people use the same PC for 10+ years?
Lets just say that you erase/write every cell once a week, @ 1000 write limit per cell, that is still 19 years of usage.
I think people are just intimidated by the term finite, which is surprising when you consider no tech is EXPECTED to last 10+ years.
So yeah, I think they are pretty darn reliable.
If you don't endorse a certain tech because you think its impractical for a specific application, or cost prohibitive, just say so. Don't imply false ideas about it though, to support this position.
On a more personal note, I'm glad I did find this forum. The forums I normally post in are mostly "preaching to the choir" since they are all high-end users already, and I apologize if some of my perspectives overreach the needs of the avg user on this board.
That being said, I feel I have far more to contribute to this forum. It seems there is a distinct lack of "advanced" users and a quick flip through the pages it seems my new found friends Skuzzy and Tigger29 are somewhat overworked. My goal is not to be contrary, but to provide good information to those who ask for it.
-
Skribetm
mind running ATTO on the C300 please?
Here you go mate np.
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/zeromajin/2010_12_04_06_08_31.jpg)
-
Skribetm
Here you go mate np.
that does it for me, one 40GB ssd coming my way. :t :t :t
should work very well with this eight core i snagged a few days ago. (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180591648871&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT)
btw, on your bench, atto is likely writing to previously written cells.
hence the less than spec-rated write speeds. (is trim working for you?)
even so, it still performs a lot faster than an hdd.
this is on an empty mushkin ssd. (http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1307/7/)
(http://www.legitreviews.com/images/reviews/1307/mushkin_atto.jpg)
on top of trim, even older ssd's take advantage of wear-leveling algorithms via the OS/AHCI.
that should ensure no flash cells are used more than others.
thanks for the bench run! <S>
-
I would warrant that 99.9% of 64-bit OS users wouldnt know how to do that Ripley. Yes I agree its very much like a virtual disk/memory. However... as to the rest of what I said you can refer to the expert Paul Thurrott (Windows 7 Secrets and SuperSite for Windows) and his comments from Windows Weekly #166 (or possibly #165) where he sad the same thing.
Wikipedia? Really? :D
Yes, Wikipedia. Please direct link to the actual text of your webcast you were referring if you may :D
The speed of the 64-bit system comes from the extra registers and yes it takes a coder to take advantage from it. This is again one of those discussions like 'a format deletes all your data' :D
-
that does it for me, one 40GB ssd coming my way.
should work very well with this eight core i snagged a few days ago.
Yeah, the write speeds are a bit below spec, but I honestly don't take advertised specs for their word anyhow. Often manufactures run specific benchmarks under specific circumstances to achieve optimal values to promote. Write speed doesn't really concern me a great deal, although your Mushkin appears to be slower, it's far more balanced.
At the risk of sounding like a hypocrite (defending SSDs) I'll say that a 6-8 core processor will provide little to no measurable gain outside of benchmark results.
That being said, I understand your only paying $200 for this CPU so it's certainly is not as if your losing money on the purchase. (In fact you could probably flip it and sell it for more when people say "8 CORES OMG!")
But I'm sure your also aware that the G34 Socket is primarily a server board as oppose to a workstation/gaming board, prioritizing large workload over actual speed.
-
Yes, Wikipedia. Please direct link to the actual text of your webcast you were referring if you may :D
The speed of the 64-bit system comes from the extra registers and yes it takes a coder to take advantage from it. This is again one of those discussions like 'a format deletes all your data' :D
Wow! Dont know how to use google all of the sudden like? :D
http://twit.tv/ww?page=0%2C0%2C2
Bottom right corner. :aok
-
you guys are getting too technical for the rest of us. there's about 10 threads from past year dealing with the same is ssd crappola yes/no question. so please stop trying to prove who's right/wrong, only time will tell :salute.
semp
-
This is good stuff to read. For the stuff I don't understand, I can just google and dig deeper and learn. :)
-
Actually... Ridley just said that even a 32 bit system can access more memory than 4 GB which proves the original "you dont need 64 bit" remark.
As to SSDs go get one. I have three. THey arent worth the price. After you have it installed you look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself "why did I do that?" and if you are so impatient that two or three seconds is all that important (I do the stealth defrag at every boot so dont look at me!) then you still wont be happy in a few more days after you get used to it.
SSDs are great for restoring an OS though. There is no disputing that.
-
Wow! Dont know how to use google all of the sudden like? :D
http://twit.tv/ww?page=0%2C0%2C2
Bottom right corner. :aok
I said link to the TEXT not the whole video who has time to start viewing a whole podcast? ROFL!
Actually... Ridley just said that even a 32 bit system can access more memory than 4 GB which proves the original "you dont need 64 bit" remark.
If you want to call me Ridley, I'll call you Chalenged, deal? ;) You don't seem to know the PAE limitations imposed by MS and current software code. While theoretically a 32-bit system can access more memory in practise it's not possible due to MS drivers being coded for memory spaces below 4gb. Going over 4gb and using these drivers would seriously mess up memory addressing and cause probably an instant bluescreen.
-
a 64 bit data path will put more data through then a 32 bit data path. 64 bit OS will be faster even is just a small percentage 5%-10%.
you dont have to have more then 4Gigs to run the 64 bit OS. it just takes advantage of it if you do. keep in mind i am talking about the OS, some 32 bit apps may actually run slower on a 64 bit OS.
Uh, 64 bit versus 32 bit is NOT the data path, but the address width.
The data path width is fixed by the hardware bus and varies according to the bus being used. The PCI bus has a 32 bit data width, the PCI-X bus has a 64 bit data bus, the USB bus has a 1 bit data bus, the PCI Express bus varies based on the number of lanes available, but generally is either 1, 4, or 16 bits wide.
A 64bit OS uses up much more memory than a 32bit OS. Performance between the two is the same.
zeromajin, I have been beating up hard drives since the original 8MB 8inch Winchester hit the market, which was the predecessor to the 5 1/4" full height 5MB drive. Just FYI. I also happen to be a EE.
SSDs are fine for many things, but they should not be considered for use as primary storage, due to the rapid degradation of service life due to the number of writes they would incur in a primary position. There is a reason why you do not see them being used in data centers as primary devices.
I am not saying SSDs should never be considered at all. I am simply stating there is a proper place for them and as a primary storage solution there are better alternatives than SSD, today. Technology is on the way that will render that statement false, but it is not here yet.
If you have the money to throw at it and are willing to do it fairly often, then SSDs might be the thing for you. I do not call that an impediment to the technology, just a reasonable provision to it.
-
Wow, this thread has certainly overshot the OP, which is partly my fault. But thats ok, discussion has a way of evolving on their own. Ever talk with friends/family and wonder "How the hell did we get from topic A to topic F?"
Honestly, I don't follow the 32vs 64 bit deal. They cost the same,and 32bit has limitations that do not exist in 64bit. The ONLY possible reason to run with a 32bit system is if you have very specific soft/hardware that is not YET supported by a 64bit OS. But in the end, I agree, if your using = or < 4GB of RAM you'll be hard pressed to know the difference.
Skuzzy I certainly respect your veteran status on this board, it's obvious to me that you've aided countless users over a considerable amount of time, and I am not here to p*** in anyones pool as the new guy.
But understand that I'm a 28 yr old Tech. Engineer, and I've been working w/ and over colleagues that are, on average, 15-20 yrs my senior, my entire adult life.
People can discuss how many more years of experience they possess, work they've done etc. but in the end this is an empty argument from authority/antiquity if the position is not supported by the real and relevant data.
I only deal in fact, and logical premise. Rhetoric and hand-waving criticism, may impress most people,but have very little impact with me.
Your still promoting subjectivist implications (SSDs are unreliable and have unreasonably short life spans) that are not supported by any current data.
I argue that if modern SSDs cost the same as HDDs you'd see them in every new PC on the market, it would be a no brainer.
Things as they are, if you are not willing to pay 6 times the cost for 3-4 times the performance, then fiscally that makes perfect sense.
However, you still have to admit your sacrificing performance to save cost, and down playing the premium option isn't changing that.
e.g.
"I drive a Mustang, and I am not willing/able to invest the money necessary to purchase a Ferrari.
Therefore the Ferrari is an inferior vehicle, possessing many flaws that do not exist in my Mustang."
I know, car/PC analogies are generally terrible , but its the first thing that came to me and I don't have tons of time to think about this post.
BTW, I drive a Mitsubishi, not a Mustang. lol
-
Your still promoting subjectivist implications (SSDs are unreliable and have unreasonably short life spans) that are not supported by any current data.
Subjectively, I have to force a re-get of code every other week, and a forced rebuild about once a week, due to source or build files corrupted on my work SSD.
Also subjectively, that has still cost me less time than I gain by building on an SSD in the first place.
That is a common thread at work.
However, those are recoverable errors. No way I'm putting something not easily recoverable on one. At least on a non-enterprise-class SSD.
-
Your still promoting subjectivist implications (SSDs are unreliable and have unreasonably short life spans) that are not supported by any current data.
Where did I say they were unreliable and have unreasonably short life spans? Rapid degradation in the life span due to constant writes is not guessing. It is the nature of the technology and in the context of being compared to an HD, the term "rapid" is perfectly acceptable.
If you take something out of context, the basis for the discussion becomes moot. Is it your contention that an SSD can suffer as many writes as an HD, without any detrimental side effects? If so, what do you base that on? Is it your general contention that there is no negative aspects of using SSD over HD? If so, what do you base that on.
In terms of mechanical reliability the SSD is absolutely a better choice than any HD. However, as to data reliability, again, it is going to be strictly based on the environment. An HD can write, without consequence millions of times on the same spot, an SSD cannot. While that is an extreme example, I am using it just to make a clear point. If you think that is in error, then please elaborate as to why.
When I was talking about the additional costs being a provision, I was referring to having to replace the SSD more often due to potential data reliability issues. You do not wait until the data starts to fail before acting on the problem. Failure, after so many writes, is going to happen. It is designed into the media itself, making it easy to know when you should replace the unit, before failure occurs. Or is it your contention that an SSD can be written, ad infinitum, without any long term issues?
-
Subjectively, I have to force a re-get of code every other week, and a forced rebuild about once a week, due to source or build files corrupted on my work SSD.
As in many alleged software/hardware/virus circumstances a generalized anecdotal experience doesn't offer much. And such anomalies tend to be more user/application/overall build related (in that order).
I, as well as many people I work/game with, have used SSDs for nearly 2 years, and never experienced such persistent issues. (Ok ONCE my icon cache got corrupted and I had to manually force a rebuild)
I've already addressed the differences between low-end SSDs and high-end ones in a previous post, but you wouldn't purchase a low-end HDD from an unreputable manufacturer to store important data either.
Purchasing a "cheap" SSD is no more or less reliable then buying "cheap" anything. Especially in the PC market where, if you buy new, you usually get what you pay for.
It's like people purchasing an Eclipse,(an economy Japanese sports car), and assuming it will perform on par with an Evo X. They're both Japanese tuner/sports, made by the same company even, but perform on vastly different scales. So the Eclipse owners proclaims Japanese built tuners are all poo-poo based on his experience.
(OMG again with the pc/car analogies what is wrong with me today?)
-
HDD more reliable than SSD? :rofl
heck i lost a lot of data on a POS seagate. (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1050374/seagate-barracuda-7200-drives-failing)
the only reliability you'll get is if you do regular back-up.
-
As in many alleged software/hardware/virus circumstances a generalized anecdotal experience doesn't offer much. And such anomalies tend to be more user/application/overall build related (in that order).
I, as well as many people I work/game with, have used SSDs for nearly 2 years, and never experienced such persistent issues. (Ok ONCE my icon cache got corrupted and I had to manually force a rebuild)
Why does his "anecdotal experience" weigh in less than yours?
-
Skuzzy I am starting to believe you don't really read my post since all your questions were addressed in my previous post.
I never said SSDs would last forever, I said NOTHING will. And given the known lifespan of modern high-end SSDs you'll almost certainly be replacing your PC entirely before having catastrophic failures.
Is it your general contention that there is no negative aspects of using SSD over HD? If so, what do you base that on.
The only negative aspect of using SSD over HD is cost per GB. (on avg. about 6 times more). So yes, for mass storage HDDs are definitely better since you'll see no real gain from stored data, only data that being manipulated (current project). Again I stated as much in a previous post.
-
Why does his "anecdotal experience" weigh in less than yours?
It doesn't, no single, uncontrolled, data point is reliable.
-
Skuzzy I am starting to believe you don't really read my post since all your questions were addressed in my previous post.
I never said SSDs would last forever, I said NOTHING will. And given the known lifespan of modern high-end SSDs you'll almost certainly be replacing your PC entirely before having catastrophic failures.
The only negative aspect of using SSD over HD is cost per GB. (on avg. about 6 times more). So yes, for mass storage HDDs are definitely better since you'll see no real gain from stored data, only data that being manipulated (current project). Again I stated as much in a previous post.
I never stated you said "SSDs would last forever". I have read all our posts. They contain a lot of general statements and vague conclusions. You also tend to put words where there are none to begin with when stating what others have said.
What is the known lifepsan on a modern high-end SSD and what tests were used to make that conclusion? Claiming the PC would die before the SSD would is pretty subjective as there is no way to guarantee how the PC is being used.
One off example is a video editor. Millions and millons of writes, per project over many gigabytes of space. Do that 20 or 30 times a month and is it your contention the SSD would outlive that PC?
The question is rhetorical. I already know the answer.
As a technology I am not against SSD at all. I have been waiting for it to mature for a very long time. It is far better than it used to be and there is promise in the near future the final limitations are going to go away.
I maintain SSD has its place. I also maintain you cannot blindly drop in an SSD without understanding the potential limitations of the technology and how it may impact your own deployment of the technology. Generally speaking, i think we are in agreement. We just view the deployment of the technology from different perspectives.
-
Or is it your contention that an SSD can be written, ad infinitum, without any long term issues?
I never stated you said "SSDs would last forever".
Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of the Latin phrase ad infinitum?
I have read all our posts. They contain a lot of general statements and vague conclusions.
Particularly my bulky (if not long winded) post on page 2, I did my very best to site very specific points of information for everyones benefit. Going well beyond "SSD bad!" "NO SSD good!" "NO HDD good....SSD very bad!"
You also tend to put words where there are none to begin with when stating what others have said.
If this is true, it is due to my neglect and not my intention. I tend to insert quotes to avoid this very mistake.
Generally speaking, i think we are in agreement. We just view the deployment of the technology from different perspectives.
Well spoken, it's very easy to get caught up in semantical arguments, and minute differences of opinion. Esp. on boards where sentiment can be easily lost in cold text.
-
One off example is a video editor. Millions and millons of writes, per project over many gigabytes of space. Do that 20 or 30 times a month and is it your contention the SSD would outlive that PC?
A PC built for that caliber of video editing is simply special pleading. A workstation meant for that type of workload would need to be specifically designed and assembled from the ground up to that purpose.
Its certainly not comparable to a gaming/at home general workstation that an SSD would be well used in.
-
A PC built for that caliber of video editing is simply special pleading. A workstation meant for that type of workload would need to be specifically designed and assembled from the ground up to that purpose.
Its certainly not comparable to a gaming/at home general workstation that an SSD would be well used in.
That description was of my own home workload. It is my PC. I do a lot of video editing as a hobby and to create all the videos from the cameras used in my family. After the holidays, it will be rendering projects for about 3 months. For final pass renderings of large movies, I have a cluster of 4 PC's to do that, which also includes my own. It is not uncommon for a rendering to take 3 or 4 days.
I also use it to create software utilities/programs, design various 3D projects I make on my mill and vacuum mold (another write intensive application as they have to be rendered), and so on. I am always engineering something. I do not play games anymore. I used to be a big gamer, but then games got to be more trouble than they were worth and I grew tired of that frustration so I quit.
My point was you cannot make a blanket statement about how long any SSD would last, for any given PC, due to the very many ways any PC can be used. An SSD in my computer would die relatively quickly, compared to an HD. There is also very little performance to be gained if your computer is spending a great deal of time writting data to the storage device. I think it is fair to say SSDs shine on reads, but not so much on writes.
In the forums I hang about, there are hundreds of people that use thier PCs just as I do.
-
Even so, having an SSD as a boot drive in your PC would not prohibit that type of usage.
Since you can perform such task on your HDD, sparing your SDD the load.
For reason previously stated having an HDD (or an array) in you PC is still essential for storage, and even redundancy. ( I doubt that anyone will purchase 2 SSDs to place in a mirror config, I wouldn't even do it for stripe since Raid configs disable all but a few Intel SSDs, TRIM features)
-
Sure, you could make it work. Move the swap off the primary and only store the programs on the primary and move everything else to an HD, but then there would be no real benefit to having it as I never boot the computer (it stays on 24/7) and the programs are all loaded out of Windows memory anyway.
The only time the HD gets hit is when data needs to be written or read for the application. In my case, an SSD is a waste of money.
-
Wow, I am very fortunate to have attracted this many intelligent board users so quickly. For the record, I enjoy civil debates that are based in fact, not arguing/flaming/fanboying/trolling. If we are willing to admit this or not : it's the way we all learn, by often being proven wrong.
You see, this right here is exactly why Engineers typically can not function in a 'normal' social setting. Think of it.. how many arguments based on a REAL LIFE interaction are based only in fact... with no arguing, flaming, 'fanboying', and trolling being done?
That's right.. NONE. Yes you can argue that some 'official' debates... whether political or otherwise might meet your criteria, but really all they do is find clever ways to do exactly that - and the fact that those kinds of discussions aren't open to everyone adds the the unrealistic approach of such.
Engineers simply possess an "I'm better than you because I possess knowledge and people listen to me!" (don't worry, pilots often have the same) attitude and while it MAY be true to an extent, the truth is that most of them have no CLUE how to function when it comes to translating their thoughts and ideas in a manner in which the average 'Joe' can understand. I'd like to see Zeromajin try to become successful in a sales environment... or a customer service position... or God forbid work in a Customer Complaints department! I'd be willing to bet that it just wouldn't happen!
I mean just look at this thread. There is a user that asked about three options available to him/her and of which of these three options are a cost-effective means in which to improve the performance of Aces High. It really is that simple! I noted that an SSD would not be a cost effective option, and also that it's still a developing technology with 'issues' and I got SLAMMED by not only my redundancy in my saying "SSD Drive", but also in the fact that someone else did not agree with my statement that SSDs still have 'issues'.
Zero also forgot to take into account what exactly I meant when I said they have 'issues'. Yes, I still maintain that they are not as reliable as traditional drives, but I have also heard a lot of nightmares from 'normal' computer users who tried to install and use SSDs with massive failures shortly after. Perhaps the drive was of poor quality. Perhaps they didn't properly configure it. Perhaps there was a setting that they SIMPLY DID NOT KNOW THEY HAD TO MAKE, but regardless one has to admit that SSDs require a lot more configuration and knowledge to maintain as compared to a traditional drive, even if it's a 'simple' matter of configuring two drives. Well that still makes things more confusing, doesn't it?
So by 'issues' I was factoring in not only technical information, but also social and economical details as well... but I can see how an engineer could easily simply not consider that to be a factor at all, since a 'non-educated' argument is of no interest to them.
I'm sure there are many teenagers/young adults that are extremely impressed at the proposition of an SSD speeding up their systems, and I'm sure that an SSD helps Zero out with all of the massive 3d rendering and video rendering he performs on his monster system, but the simple truth is that an SSD will NOT benefit the VAST MAJORITY of computer users out there, and will only complicate matters and aggravate the end users more. Even if it were just as easy and reliable (and inexpensive) as a standard hard drive, an SSD still wouldn't make that much of a difference in system performance.
It's quite obvious to me that Zero needs to learn his audience and post accordingly. Aces High is a game that is comprised of mostly middle-aged adult males using less than state-of-the-art systems. While there are a considerable number of young adults who play as well the simple truth is that recommending an SSD to improve AH performance would be like recommending a Ferrari to a little blue-haired grandma who only uses her car to drive 2 blocks to bingo and 2 blocks to the grocery store once a week.
I should note that I am a 35 year old Automotive Master Technician, but also with MCSE Certification (2k track FWIW) and also that I turned down a Full Boat Engineering scholarship at UM-Rolla as a kid (looking back it wasn't a wise choice but I didn't really see it as a choice I could make at the time). I try to stay in-touch with computer technology, even building them quite frequently as a hobby. I note this because I DO get to see both sides of the fence. Computer technology is not new to me and while I don't know everything about it, I feel that I know enough to make an 'educated' guess as to what technologies are actually going to be useful, and what technologies are not.
With that being noted after all of the arguments and discussions that have been made, no one has addressed the OP's questions in a long time. As a matter of fact, he hasn't even been back to contribute... so being that this has become way off topic.. perhaps it should be considered to lock this due to a violation of Rule #2.
(Or would it now be a violation of Rule #5 due to me mentioning the Rule #2 violation?)
-
Well, you could simplify that process by installing your Vid/Ed software to the HD drive, and still running your less data intensive programs and games (I do assume your a gamer) off your SSD to enjoy things like < 1 sec loading screens in-game.
But, I agree, that would be somewhat convoluted just to gain a few seconds here, and a few seconds there if you had no interest in SSDs to begin with.
I also agree that SSDs are not for every system, esp. at the cost. But then, some people, (even most, given the ubiquitous nature) only need a Pentium 4 single core, 2GB ram, onboard video (they still make those right? lol) to check their e-mail and lurk Farmville.
For some users my Droid's specs would be overkill rofl.
Thanks for the back and forth Skuzzy, and making my introduction the forum thought provoking, it was fun.
-
You see, this right here is exactly why Engineers typically can not function in a 'normal' social setting.
Wow....did I just get called a nerd? rofl
And BTW, I function quit well in social circles, I even captain a weekly bowling team and previously captained a regional billiards team, if thats "blue collar, common man" enough for you. So not only do I excel in social circles, but even in positions of leadership. How socially awkward could I be?
Funny you should mention sales, since I worked my entire way through college working as a sales associate/customer assistance for Sears in all the hardline (Lawn, electric appliances) for years on commission sales. And paid for my education on those commission sales, so while I don't know that I would say I was wildly successful, I was did pretty well.
As far as your claim that I "SLAMMED" you (note capitalization, its serious business) over "SSD drive" I distinctly recall calling this a "common mistake".
If you feel like I was being mean or condescending in that statement, maybe you should think about adjusting your sensitivity level to criticism.
As far as your sardonic implications about my "monster system" ...... well..... yes my PC is WAY overkill even for 99.9% of the world. But what can I say I'm an enthusiast, some people spend thousands of dollars restoring old cars, building RC planes, hunting,manicuring their lawn, [insert frivolous hobby here] it's just my thing.
Then again,I'm not running a dual loop water cooling system w/ a waterfall reservoir and compression fittings on a hex-core CPU, and 4-way SLI like many other "enthusiast" I know. All of which could easily double the overall cost on my build.
It's quite obvious to me that Zero needs to learn his audience and post accordingly.
I would hate to believe that "dumbing down" my post would be any less condescending then you think I am.
the simple truth is that recommending an SSD to improve AH performance would be like recommending a Ferrari to a little blue-haired grandma
Er, if you review my post I never recommended and SSD for AH, in fact I openly deferred to your judgment on the matter.[I know, I'm so snobby :p] In fact I didn't bring up SSDs to begin with, the OPer had it listed as a potential component for his new build. So, he was at the very least interested in an SSD, and looking for good information regarding them.
My only point has always been, if it's too much for the game ok...fine, but don't scare him away from it with bad information.
All that being said, if I offended you I am sincerely sorry. Its apparent to me you gentlemen have put a great deal of effort and time in this forum, and I'll not assume to know its mechanics or its audience better then you.
-
That description was of my own home workload. It is my PC. I do a lot of video editing as a hobby and to create all the videos from the cameras used in my family. After the holidays, it will be rendering projects for about 3 months. For final pass renderings of large movies, I have a cluster of 4 PC's to do that, which also includes my own. It is not uncommon for a rendering to take 3 or 4 days.
skuzzy,
what clustering OS do you use?
what are the hardware specs of your "cluster?"
what fabric/interconnect do you use?
-
The only negative aspect of using SSD over HD is cost per GB. (on avg. about 6 times more). So yes, for mass storage HDDs are definitely better since you'll see no real gain from stored data, only data that being manipulated (current project). Again I stated as much in a previous post.
Intel 120 GB X-25M = $229 = $1.91/GB
WD Caviar Black 640GB = $65 = $0.10/GB
$1.91 / 0.1 = 19 times more per GB.
And that's a "cheap" SSD (defined as "reasonable MLC-based design"; I had a hard time finding many under $2/GB). An SLC-based SSD designed for reliability (long life) is, say, an Intel X-25E 32 GB = $375 = $11.72/GB and can go much higher.
-
Intel 120 GB X-25M = $229 = $1.91/GB
WD Caviar Black 640GB = $65 = $0.10/GB
$1.91 / 0.1 = 19 times more per GB.
I arrived at my figures by comparing my WD 10K RPM Raptor (to make it a bit more even since you probably wouldn't use such a slow drive in lieu of a SSD anyways) and my personal Crucial C300.
Western Digital VelociRaptor = 300GB @ $170 = $0.56
Crucial C300 = 128GB @ $280 = $2.18
$2.18 / 0.56 = ~ 4 times more per GB
So, I rounded up on my estimates. But, non of that detracts from what we all already know, SSDs are a LOT more expensive.