Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: BoilerDown on September 03, 2014, 09:33:53 AM
-
Apparently you can get the GTX780 Ti for just over $500 now on Newegg and others. A month or two ago, they were $700.
Well don't fall for it:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1832205
Wait two weeks instead.
-
Chalenge and myself were talking about this in a couple threads here in hardware. I'd said that with the last few new generations with nVidia this has happened, just like this. The 7xx series was going to drop drastically just a couple weeks out from the 9xx series (they are skipping 8xx except for gaming laptops for some reason). Same thing with the Intel x99 new 2011 socket MB and CPUs, which just came out, and has forced down the price of the x79 remaining stock on a lot of sites.
I'm waiting for the 9xx series, I've been patiently waiting for both that and the x99 platform release, and it's 1/2 way there now. As tempting as some of the 7xx deals are, I have a 780ti in one box, and still have the fastest 680 cards x2 in SLI in another, but I'm going to wait for the 9xx for that one to upgrade to vid cards.
-
There's conflicting rumors about whether this GTX 980 will beat the 780Ti performance at the $500 price point, or if it will land between the 780 and the 780Ti at a lower price point (but with lower power consumption, noise, etc).
If it isn't faster than the 780Ti by a not-insignificant margin, I'll pass on this generation as well, and wait for the parts from the upcoming process shrink. They're rumored to be out soon as well, 6-9 months, and should be a significant speed bump by anyone's calculations.
The reasoning for the number skip is to get the mobile and desktop parts on the same "generation" numbers.
-
Apparently you can get the GTX780 Ti for just over $500 now on Newegg and others. A month or two ago, they were $700.
Well don't fall for it:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1832205
Wait two weeks instead.
The 780Ti is $650 and up, the 780's with the ACX Coolers are $500+. Just for clarifications sake. I got this one from TigerDirect on sale in Jun for $620 + shgipping: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487001 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487001)
-
The 780Ti is $650 and up, the 780's with the ACX Coolers are $500+. Just for clarifications sake. I got this one from TigerDirect on sale in Jun for $620 + shgipping: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487001 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487001)
From the thread I linked:
(http://i.imgur.com/of7GVgH.png)
Right now the best deal on Newegg is just less than $560 after rebate, two others at $619:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600480021&IsNodeId=1
For re-clarifications sake.
-
For the twin fan models that exhaust the air into your case, yes. I prefer the reference cooler with the solo fan that exhausts the air out of the case. Not to mention the reference cooler card is a lot quieter when gaming.
-
For the twin fan models that exhaust the air into your case, yes. I prefer the reference cooler with the solo fan that exhausts the air out of the case. Not to mention the reference cooler card is a lot quieter when gaming.
Interesting! Do you say this by experience or simply because there's two fans instead of one? I'm asking this because for what I have learned more fans usually lower the noise level while producing the same airflow. And if the dual fan thing really is noisier, isn't there any means to reduce RPM to balance cooling vs. noise ratio?
-
It appears that all of the cards, including the reference cards, have an open shroud at the power end. Since there isn't a duct forcing airflow in any particular direction it doesn't make since to claim any primary direction of flow. Any of these cards are basically heat sources with the fans merely preventing even greater heat.
-
Interesting! Do you say this by experience or simply because there's two fans instead of one? I'm asking this because for what I have learned more fans usually lower the noise level while producing the same airflow. And if the dual fan thing really is noisier, isn't there any means to reduce RPM to balance cooling vs. noise ratio?
Experience. EVGA 770 GTX Classified 4gb. The reference cooler cards exhaust out the back. On the twin fans, minimal air exhausts out of the rear of the case. The card I sold was loud when playing all games. Noise is night and day in comparison, temperatures are also more stable.
-
Experience. EVGA 770 GTX Classified 4gb. The reference cooler cards exhaust out the back. On the twin fans, minimal air exhausts out of the rear of the case. The card I sold was loud when playing all games. Noise is night and day in comparison, temperatures are also more stable.
Thanks! It appears that although the twin fans basically should generate less noise for the same airflow, the fact that they don't transfer the heat out of the case is producing more heat. Which again requires another fan to blow from inside out... I can see the pattern. There's a point when more fans will actually increase the noise instead of decreasing it. Good to know. :salute
-
You're welcome Biz :cheers:
-
Experience. EVGA 770 GTX Classified 4gb. The reference cooler cards exhaust out the back. On the twin fans, minimal air exhausts out of the rear of the case. The card I sold was loud when playing all games. Noise is night and day in comparison, temperatures are also more stable.
Not all twin fans are made alike. I've read hundreds of reviews and according to measurements there are a huge amount of non-reference single or dual fan designs that beat the reference cards by order of magnitude.
If you're worried about the noise of your to-be card, read a review or two and check how they measure up.
-
The design of the ACX system was more of an issue for me than the noise. My Fractal Design Arc Midi R2 case is cold and just didn't want the added turbulence inside. The noise was secondary to be honest.
-
I got my reference GTX 780Ti from EVGA's B-Stock for $579.95 w/ a 1 yr warranty. Came w/ a high-airflow rear bracket as well.
Been solid right out of the box....have had it for 2 months now...............
I also prefer the Nvidia reference cooler design over the EVGA ACX design...............
:salute
-
Aaand here we go:
http://hardocp.com/article/2014/09/18/nvidia_maxwell_gpu_geforce_gtx_980_video_card_review
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review
-
And so why would you buy a reduced 770, or 780 when you could have the 970 for the same price?
-
And so why would you buy a reduced 770, or 780 when you could have the 970 for the same price?
the 770's and 780's are being discontinued. they will be cheaper. when I got my first evga 465 they were going for about 360 bucks. less than a year later I got my second one re manufactured for 100 bucks.
point is get your money's worth for the use you gonna get.
semp
-
Taking that a step further. . . why upgrade before the card burns out?
-
Taking that a step further. . . why upgrade before the card burns out?
exactly why would you buy the 970 when the 770 or the 780 can give you the same performance on the games we play for less money.
semp
-
exactly why would you buy the 970 when the 770 or the 780 can give you the same performance on the games we play for less money.
semp
Don't ask him, he'll suggest SLI before you know it lol.
-
Don't ask him, he'll suggest SLI before you know it lol.
I am thinking of buying it so I can sli :rofl.
semp
-
I wouldn't recommend it for AHII, but this new update may change that. I don't know what other games you play, but some of those I play even the 980 can't get to 60fps and therefore you want the most horsepower you can buy. What I do like about these new cards are the large memory frames, the new features not available on other cards (primarily VXGI), and the dynamic super resolution which appears to force anti-aliasing on games that don't include it. The multi-frame sampled anti-aliasing (MFAA) is something I really want to check out and I am very curious how this card will perform in games that allow super-sampling, which is a favorite texturing method of mine. Still waiting for the later process.
Some of these early reviews went up so fast you have to wonder. Just to be fair, I don't care if someone uses SLI, or not, but I will always try to give the most accurate information I can including all options. When someone reports (falsely) that SLI and Surround does not work with AH, then I will tell him he is wrong. That does not mean it is for everyone, because there are more factors in play and knowing the full details of a users system before you make a recommendation is something you absolutely must do.
-
The reason I tried SLI after first buying a single 680GTX back in late 2012 was due to Chalenge correctly giving me information about it working here in AH. SKuzzy also chimed in, saying that although the profile was older, it DID exist, and did work. Huge changes and increases in performance weren't as obvious in AH as in other games, and back then Skuzzy explained it pretty well, how the drivers, AH code, and SLI cards all worked together IN Ah. Other programs like DCS, and many Steam related games like CS GO and piles of others benefited greatly from going SLI in my experience with the systems I built, but it could be a giant PITA at times, no doubt, and there are some games that don't use it at all, like Arena Commander/Star Citizen at the moment, where it hasn't been implemented properly yet (it sort of works, tons of bugs though).
-
The reason I tried SLI after first buying a single 680GTX back in late 2012 was due to Chalenge correctly giving me information about it working here in AH. SKuzzy also chimed in, saying that although the profile was older, it DID exist, and did work. Huge changes and increases in performance weren't as obvious in AH as in other games, and back then Skuzzy explained it pretty well, how the drivers, AH code, and SLI cards all worked together IN Ah. Other programs like DCS, and many Steam related games like CS GO and piles of others benefited greatly from going SLI in my experience with the systems I built, but it could be a giant PITA at times, no doubt, and there are some games that don't use it at all, like Arena Commander/Star Citizen at the moment, where it hasn't been implemented properly yet (it sort of works, tons of bugs though).
So to put your story short, you saw only marginal gains in AH while investing double the money to the cards. Extremely bad use of money to me.
-
So to put your story short, you saw only marginal gains in AH while investing double the money to the cards. Extremely bad use of money to me.
not sure you realize but a while ago the only way to have 3 screens was to sli. now most video cards will allow to have 3 screens. but then again it's like having an ssd, saving 15 seconds of boot time is an extremely bad use of money. but yet you bought one just like I did.
having 2 vc's to play on 3 screen was a good investment. saving 15 seconds of boot time each day is just a marginal gain for the 140 bucks i paid for the ssd.
it's just a matter of opinion ripley, you cant say the other is wrong without asking if it was worth it to him.
the same thing is happening with the new video cards. the 770's and others are being discontinued which means they're gonna drop in price like crazy. will the new vc be worth the money? it's really up to each player to decide if it's a good return on the investment. to me and I am being honest, I saw no improvement whatsoever over getting rid of my 465's and replacing them with a single 770 when I got my new monitor.
semp
-
not sure you realize but a while ago the only way to have 3 screens was to sli.
Wrong. Matrox triplehead and AMD supported it just fine. Only Nvidia was ***-backwards on multi-monitor.
The SSD will benefit you every time you have to make a file copy, start an application etc. It makes a huge difference if you spend a lot of time on the computer doing other things than just gaming.
SLI benefits only a few AAA games as Skuzzy said, for most other games its just a gigantic waste of money. I would never recommend anyone to SLI their cards for AH. A single faster card is always the better option.
-
I would say the bang/buck ratio is really inflated with SSDs. The only benefit is how you perceive the system to be running, and really the difference between an SSD and a HDD installed under a UEFI MB is not that noticeable. When you add to that the fact that you don't really want to install any program that is going to be writing to the root drive repeatedly and you have a flop because the HDD will boot up just as fast. Of course, if you load the HDD down with lots of programs then it makes a bigger difference, but it also kills the SSD more quickly.
Also, what Gman said might have been indicating that AH doesn't need SLI with the cards that we have had for the last two years, while it is also more noticeable the difference that SLI makes on games like CS, F1, DCS, and so on. AH would not be alone there, because games like Tomb Raider see a negative impact under SLI (not a big negative, but negative). The difference at the time was me telling people you would see a 10-15% increase in FPS, and you saying it wouldn't work at all. The SLI scaling effect has greatly improved, yet you continue to say the same thing. Clearly, you just don't know.
-
I would say the bang/buck ratio is really inflated with SSDs. The only benefit is how you perceive the system to be running, and really the difference between an SSD and a HDD installed under a UEFI MB is not that noticeable. When you add to that the fact that you don't really want to install any program that is going to be writing to the root drive repeatedly and you have a flop because the HDD will boot up just as fast. Of course, if you load the HDD down with lots of programs then it makes a bigger difference, but it also kills the SSD more quickly.
Also, what Gman said might have been indicating that AH doesn't need SLI with the cards that we have had for the last two years, while it is also more noticeable the difference that SLI makes on games like CS, F1, DCS, and so on. AH would not be alone there, because games like Tomb Raider see a negative impact under SLI (not a big negative, but negative). The difference at the time was me telling people you would see a 10-15% increase in FPS, and you saying it wouldn't work at all. The SLI scaling effect has greatly improved, yet you continue to say the same thing. Clearly, you just don't know.
LOL you're so far off. SSDs nowadays have much better endurance than HDDs :) You won't be able to kill one even if you try, by just writing stuff on it. They're rated for tens of gigabytes of writes a day, coincidentally the throughput of a regular HDD would not even enable you to write that much data per day.
If you think a SSD doesn't make a difference it means you haven't used one. It makes everything you do (except executing an already running application) faster.
The SLI is very poor return for money especially for someone who plans to play mostly AH. SLI scaling is horribly bad also on many other titles. For example Battlefield 3 that get a sizeable gain from SLI when using triple monitors, scale only a laughable poor 4% when used in a single full-hd monitor lol. So you pay 400 bucks to get a 4% increase in speed. Similar situation is with many other games when playing at lower resolutions and especially lower settings. The situation gets even worse with 3-way sli that gives only 14,5% gain on AVERAGE.
So if you play AAA titles and run a triple-head system, SLI can be worth while. I wouldn't use it on a single monitor system but upgrade the single card instead.
http://us.hardware.info/reviews/4632/33/geforce-gtx-700-series-sli-review-geforce-gtx-760770780-in-sli-and-3-way-sli-geforce-gtx-760---scaling
-
I have an SSD in the computer I am using right now, and a server running with one. I have tested them as the main drive, as a storage drive for immediate reinstalls, and as a page file drive. SSDs do not suck, but they are not worth the hype you give them. They fail as often as HDDs if not even more frequently. And it gets even worse in the SAS arena, where SSDs cost $30/GB. If I replaced every drive in my system today with SAS SSDs it would cost $960,000. No thanks.
I also have a socket 2011 computer with SLI and nearly 100 games installed on Steam, the vast majority of which benefit from SLI. Even your SLI review demonstrates that. TripleHead2Go sucks, because you quite often have to shut it down and restart right in the middle of a gaming session. Using SLI versus TH2Go comes down to one simple thing. Just like WHS versus a Linux box, you install it and it works. No configuration hassles, and no wife calling you to come fix the stupid TH2Go that keeps failing. It's not stable, and as future resolutions come in that means more headaches.
-
I have an SSD in the computer I am using right now, and a server running with one. I have tested them as the main drive, as a storage drive for immediate reinstalls, and as a page file drive. SSDs do not suck, but they are not worth the hype you give them. They fail as often as HDDs if not even more frequently. And it gets even worse in the SAS arena, where SSDs cost $30/GB. If I replaced every drive in my system today with SAS SSDs it would cost $960,000. No thanks.
I also have a socket 2011 computer with SLI and nearly 100 games installed on Steam, the vast majority of which benefit from SLI. Even your SLI review demonstrates that. TripleHead2Go sucks, because you quite often have to shut it down and restart right in the middle of a gaming session. Using SLI versus TH2Go comes down to one simple thing. Just like WHS versus a Linux box, you install it and it works. No configuration hassles, and no wife calling you to come fix the stupid TH2Go that keeps failing. It's not stable, and as future resolutions come in that means more headaches.
Thats bs chalenge and you know it. SSDs are more durable today than hdds as they have no mechanical parts and they're provisioned to handle a few dead cells. My experience with SSDs has been totally the opposite to yours, perhaps because I've been using the state of the art models that shadow even the 'regular' sata ssd:s. You don't need to have a SAS ssd by the way, you can use a regular sata one instead.
Once you've used to having computers with SSDs installed, going back to a hdd model will make you gnaw your nails off while waiting for stuff to happen. I hate nothing more than wait time after I start a program or a function on a computer. Granted for a light user who maybe surfs the net or plays a couple games per day the difference won't be that big. But for someone who works at the computer it's a game changer.
Nobody was comparing triplehead2go with SLI, I just corrected semps wrong information about multi-monitor not being supported without a SLI. It is supported by other brands than Nvidia using single cards.
I would personally only invest to SLI if I already had the top model GPU available and that wouldn't be enough to run my games (but at that point I would seriously look in the mirror and doubt my sanity, other things go in front of games in my priorities). So far I haven't run into a situation where a single card wouldn't be enough. Actually I even play games through Wine on linux which drops the fps considerably compared to native windows. Perhaps when I buy the rift and I need to have a steady 75fps at full hd it may become an issue.
-
Sorry, but no, what I said about SSDs is absolutely true. Most of the review sites concern themselves with how many writes an SSD can see before failure, but that is only part of the story.
-
Sorry, but no, what I said about SSDs is absolutely true. Most of the review sites concern themselves with how many writes an SSD can see before failure, but that is only part of the story.
No it is not true. SSD adoption is growing at a huge rate at datacenters and workstations. There is still an experiment going where they try to break SSDs by writing them to death. They have been writing now for a year or so as fast as the drive can be written to, 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The weakest consumer drives in the test all went past 700 terabytes of writes. So even the weakest consumer drive takes 10 gigabytes of daily writes for 100 years. The average amount written on consumer use is 4-8 gigabytes a day typically. The stronger drives are going past petabyte writes. Yes you read correct, petabyte.
Now, considering that the average lifespan (before I retire them or give away the old box that uses them) of hdds in my use is 4-5 years, there's no way imaginable you will manage to wear your drives out.
You're just stuck with the old myths that were caused by immature firmwares that bricked some SSDs. Those problems are long gone in history.
-
So to put your story short, you saw only marginal gains in AH while investing double the money to the cards. Extremely bad use of money to me.
Wow, that's great to know, thanks! Good thing I have lots of money I guess. Thanks again for telling me this though, your opinion is very valued in this regard.
I guess it's fortunate that AH isn't the only game I play, and in fact wasn't the primary reason I even bought the extra card. All Chalenge told me is that SLI would WORK with AH, and it did, which meant I wouldn't have to go and disable SLI and change a bunch of settings every time I wanted to play AH as opposed to the other games I regular play, all of which saw a huge performance gain in SLI. You can say what you like about SLI not making a difference performance wise, and that Skuzzy told you this was the case - I can retort with thousands of screen shots before and after SLI in many, many games, as well as piles of reviews and articles with in depth comparisons and testings, which show that SLI, while perhaps not being the best in terms of $/fps, certainly increases FPS significantly in many games over the single card comparable option. 5760x1080p with a single 680 vs 2 in SLI in any of the games below all had a large, more than just noticeable difference in frames per second.
So, while buying an SLI card for AH alone would be a waste of $, I agree, not once did I say that I went SLI FOR Aces High, or that it was the only game I play, in fact, sort of the reverse. So, again, thanks for your well considered opinion yet again Ripley.
-
Evidence to the contrary:
http://www.ssdready.com/measure/?value=200&msr=Gb&submit=Estimate!
While there are a few drives listed that are capable of longer lives from a write standpoint, every drive listed is still susceptible to heat and electrostatic discharges. It's not all about writes, Ripley.
-
Evidence to the contrary:
http://www.ssdready.com/measure/?value=200&msr=Gb&submit=Estimate!
While there are a few drives listed that are capable of longer lives from a write standpoint, every drive listed is still susceptible to heat and electrostatic discharges. It's not all about writes, Ripley.
LOL so you think a life span of 50 years is not enough for you? According to your site, using the average writes per day of 4Gb which is about right for any home user:
Intel X25-V Value Solid State Drive - 40Gb 25.25 years intel.com
Intel X25-M Mainstream Solid State Drive - 80Gb 50.5 years intel.com
Intel X25-M Mainstream Solid State Drive - 160Gb 101 years intel.com
Intel X25-E Extreme Solid State Drive - 32Gb 684.93 years intel.com
Intel X25-E Extreme Solid State Drive - 64Gb 1369.86 years intel.com
WD SiliconEdge Blue Solid State Drive - 64Gb 14.03 years wdc.com
WD SiliconEdge Blue Solid State Drive - 128Gb 28.05 years wdc.com
WD SiliconEdge Blue Solid State Drive - 256Gb 56.11 years wdc.com
WD SiliconDrive N1x Solid State Drive - 32Gb 224.44 years wdc.com
WD SiliconDrive N1x Solid State Drive - 64Gb 448.88 years wdc.com
WD SiliconDrive N1x Solid State Drive - 128Gb 897.75 years wdc.com
Crucial m4 SSD (CT064M4SSD2) - 64Gb 25.25 years crucial.com
Crucial m4 SSD (CT128M4SSD2) - 128Gb 50.5 years crucial.com
Crucial m4 SSD (CT256M4SSD2) - 256Gb 50.5 years crucial.com
Crucial m4 SSD (CT512M4SSD2) - 512Gb 50.5 years crucial.com
Keep in mind that generally the larger the SSD, the longer life it will have. So if you choose a proper sized SSD 0,5 - 1 terabytes it's going to outlive you most likely.
I like it that you conveniently 'forgot' about the mechanical wear and tear traditional drives get and their vulnerability to impacts while in operation. SSDs do not have any of those problems.
Thanks for proving against your point Chalenge.
A traditional HDD sucks royally in random read/write operations which are typical for desktop use. A Western Digital blue 1Tb drive gets 0,44Mb/s write performance (source: http://www.storagereview.com/western_digital_caviar_blue_1tb_review_wd10ealx). Multiply that by 3600 you get 1584Mb/hour. So if you do something extremely intensive with your computer that puts your hard drive to 100% load for hours, you reach the 4Gb write limit in 2,53 hours of use. How many of us does something so intensive for many hours at a time every day? None?
Lets be generous and think you'll absolutely load your drive to the max for 10 hours non-stop every day (meaning your whole computer is actually jammed at that time because the drive is max busy). You get 16Gigs/day writes.
According to your websites even the POOREST and the smallest/weakest of drives still last way past their warranty period:
Intel X25-V Value Solid State Drive - 40Gb 6.31 years intel.com
Intel X25-M Mainstream Solid State Drive - 80Gb 12.62 years intel.com
Intel X25-M Mainstream Solid State Drive - 160Gb 25.25 years intel.com
Intel X25-E Extreme Solid State Drive - 32Gb 171.23 years intel.com
Intel X25-E Extreme Solid State Drive - 64Gb 342.47 years intel.com
WD SiliconEdge Blue Solid State Drive - 64Gb 3.51 years wdc.com
WD SiliconEdge Blue Solid State Drive - 128Gb 7.01 years wdc.com
WD SiliconEdge Blue Solid State Drive - 256Gb 14.03 years wdc.com
WD SiliconDrive N1x Solid State Drive - 32Gb 56.11 years wdc.com
WD SiliconDrive N1x Solid State Drive - 64Gb 112.22 years wdc.com
WD SiliconDrive N1x Solid State Drive - 128Gb 224.44 years wdc.com
Crucial m4 SSD (CT064M4SSD2) - 64Gb 6.31 years crucial.com
Crucial m4 SSD (CT128M4SSD2) - 128Gb 12.62 years crucial.com
Crucial m4 SSD (CT256M4SSD2) - 256Gb 12.62 years crucial.com
Crucial m4 SSD (CT512M4SSD2) - 512Gb 12.62 years crucial.com
SSD manufactuers are not dumb. They would not give SSDs a 5 year warranty if they thought a typical user was going to write it to death before that. How many years a traditional HDD gets? 1 years? Maybe 3 max? :)
-
Estimated life expectancy of my SSD if I treat it like I do my HDD, but optimized for SSD usage:
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/SSDlife_zpsd5416e36.png)
They give the same warranty on HDDs.
-
LOL so you think a life span of 50 years is not enough for you? According to your site, using the average writes per day of 4Gb which is about right for any home user:
Intel X25-V Value Solid State Drive - 40Gb 25.25 years intel.com
Intel X25-M Mainstream Solid State Drive - 80Gb 50.5 years intel.com
Intel X25-M Mainstream Solid State Drive - 160Gb 101 years intel.com
Intel X25-E Extreme Solid State Drive - 32Gb 684.93 years intel.com
Intel X25-E Extreme Solid State Drive - 64Gb 1369.86 years intel.com
WD SiliconEdge Blue Solid State Drive - 64Gb 14.03 years wdc.com
WD SiliconEdge Blue Solid State Drive - 128Gb 28.05 years wdc.com
WD SiliconEdge Blue Solid State Drive - 256Gb 56.11 years wdc.com
WD SiliconDrive N1x Solid State Drive - 32Gb 224.44 years wdc.com
WD SiliconDrive N1x Solid State Drive - 64Gb 448.88 years wdc.com
WD SiliconDrive N1x Solid State Drive - 128Gb 897.75 years wdc.com
Crucial m4 SSD (CT064M4SSD2) - 64Gb 25.25 years crucial.com
Crucial m4 SSD (CT128M4SSD2) - 128Gb 50.5 years crucial.com
Crucial m4 SSD (CT256M4SSD2) - 256Gb 50.5 years crucial.com
Crucial m4 SSD (CT512M4SSD2) - 512Gb 50.5 years crucial.com
Keep in mind that generally the larger the SSD, the longer life it will have. So if you choose a proper sized SSD 0,5 - 1 terabytes it's going to outlive you most likely.
I like it that you conveniently 'forgot' about the mechanical wear and tear traditional drives get and their vulnerability to impacts while in operation. SSDs do not have any of those problems.
Thanks for proving against your point Chalenge.
A traditional HDD sucks royally in random read/write operations which are typical for desktop use. A Western Digital blue 1Tb drive gets 0,44Mb/s write performance (source: http://www.storagereview.com/western_digital_caviar_blue_1tb_review_wd10ealx). Multiply that by 3600 you get 1584Mb/hour. So if you do something extremely intensive with your computer that puts your hard drive to 100% load for hours, you reach the 4Gb write limit in 2,53 hours of use. How many of us does something so intensive for many hours at a time every day? None?
Lets be generous and think you'll absolutely load your drive to the max for 10 hours non-stop every day (meaning your whole computer is actually jammed at that time because the drive is max busy). You get 16Gigs/day writes.
According to your websites even the POOREST and the smallest/weakest of drives still last way past their warranty period:
Intel X25-V Value Solid State Drive - 40Gb 6.31 years intel.com
Intel X25-M Mainstream Solid State Drive - 80Gb 12.62 years intel.com
Intel X25-M Mainstream Solid State Drive - 160Gb 25.25 years intel.com
Intel X25-E Extreme Solid State Drive - 32Gb 171.23 years intel.com
Intel X25-E Extreme Solid State Drive - 64Gb 342.47 years intel.com
WD SiliconEdge Blue Solid State Drive - 64Gb 3.51 years wdc.com
WD SiliconEdge Blue Solid State Drive - 128Gb 7.01 years wdc.com
WD SiliconEdge Blue Solid State Drive - 256Gb 14.03 years wdc.com
WD SiliconDrive N1x Solid State Drive - 32Gb 56.11 years wdc.com
WD SiliconDrive N1x Solid State Drive - 64Gb 112.22 years wdc.com
WD SiliconDrive N1x Solid State Drive - 128Gb 224.44 years wdc.com
Crucial m4 SSD (CT064M4SSD2) - 64Gb 6.31 years crucial.com
Crucial m4 SSD (CT128M4SSD2) - 128Gb 12.62 years crucial.com
Crucial m4 SSD (CT256M4SSD2) - 256Gb 12.62 years crucial.com
Crucial m4 SSD (CT512M4SSD2) - 512Gb 12.62 years crucial.com
SSD manufactuers are not dumb. They would not give SSDs a 5 year warranty if they thought a typical user was going to write it to death before that. How many years a traditional HDD gets? 1 years? Maybe 3 max? :)
ssd's havent been around for 50 years so 50 years life span is based on the number or writes. which in itself is just a marketing thing.
but one question I ask and answer as best as you can. who will still use an ssd that they bought today 50 years from today? wont most of them end up in the trash in about 2 or 3 maybe 5 years when something better comes along?
think in terms of vc's. they used to have a lifetime warranty. and guess what within a few years they were obsolete. lifetime warranty was just a marketing scheme.
semp
-
Estimated life expectancy of my SSD if I treat it like I do my HDD, but optimized for SSD usage:
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/SSDlife_zpsd5416e36.png)
They give the same warranty on HDDs.
Hahahaha you should have at least hidden that 8 minute timeframe that you used to make completely manufactured stats. You copied a few movies or ISOs in 8 minutes and claim that's all you do during the whole day. Aren't you ashamed? Your HDDs can't maintain even close to 5Tb throughput a day in normal use even if you tried it.
Hilarious :rofl Desperation at best.
-
ssd's havent been around for 50 years so 50 years life span is based on the number or writes. which in itself is just a marketing thing.
Those numbers are a mathematical estimate of endurancy according to writes/day vs writes rated for the drives. And mind you, in tests most drives have FAR exceeded their rated write endurancy. http://techreport.com/review/26523/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-casualties-on-the-way-to-a-petabyte
but one question I ask and answer as best as you can. who will still use an ssd that they bought today 50 years from today? wont most of them end up in the trash in about 2 or 3 maybe 5 years when something better comes along?
think in terms of vc's. they used to have a lifetime warranty. and guess what within a few years they were obsolete. lifetime warranty was just a marketing scheme.
semp
Exactly, it's even more futile to worry about write endurancy considering what you said, technology is advancing at such a pace that your old drives are going to be collecting dust on the shelf in a few years anyway.
-
Exactly, it's even more futile to worry about write endurancy considering what you said, technology is advancing at such a pace that your old drives are going to be collecting dust on the shelf in a few years anyway.
then why push that ssd's will last 50 years when in 2 or 3 years they will be obsolete?
semp
-
then why push that ssd's will last 50 years when in 2 or 3 years they will be obsolete?
semp
Because they are built to do that?
-
Because they are built to do that?
you mean the marketing thing?
semp
-
you mean the marketing thing?
semp
It's a tested fact that using the average writes per day of an average user, the average new SSD will last for multiple decades if not centuries. Nothing marketing about it.
What Chalenge did is a clear demonstration that he's not interested in truth, he just wants to appear being right no matter if he has to cheat. He copied 268 files with an average size of 365Mb in 8 minutes. He then used this as his 'typical HDD use' scenario. A feat his HDDs could never even achieve if they weren't sequential writes. If he posted one months statistics they would show that he probably on average writes 8-10 gigs per day maximum. Also his 'approx ssd life' indicates that his SSDs would have a puny 20Tb life lol. As tests I provided show even the cheapest drives go to 700 Tb (you know, if it was even theoretically possible for him to stay awake 24 hours a day copying 20 gigabyte files non stop with no coffee breaks). Chalenge has lost the last bit of credibility he ever had in my eyes.
-
An awful lot of assumptions out of you there Ripley. What I did was run the test while rendering a video, which is something I do nearly every day. So half of the day when I am not doing that the SSD would get a break, but even so if it says 4 days to EOL it will last no more than 8 days in actual usage. Meanwhile, the HDDs I use have been doing this very task for the last four years without fail.
Now I could switch SSDs and get a lot more expensive one (that I don't need) and it would die in six months instead, but it is not worth doing. Your mileage is quite different because you are not involved in any form of content creation. Good for you! It is quite a different matter for me, and whether you chose to defend SSDs or not seems to be, as you say, related to your desire to be right. Well, you can be wrong today. It's free and relatively painless and I would bet you can get over it after a few days. Now, I will go back to working on a few models, and render another video while you type another three pages of fruitless argument.
-
An awful lot of assumptions out of you there Ripley. What I did was run the test while rendering a video, which is something I do nearly every day. So half of the day when I am not doing that the SSD would get a break, but even so if it says 4 days to EOL it will last no more than 8 days in actual usage. Meanwhile, the HDDs I use have been doing this very task for the last four years without fail.
Now I could switch SSDs and get a lot more expensive one (that I don't need) and it would die in six months instead, but it is not worth doing. Your mileage is quite different because you are not involved in any form of content creation. Good for you! It is quite a different matter for me, and whether you chose to defend SSDs or not seems to be, as you say, related to your desire to be right. Well, you can be wrong today. It's free and relatively painless and I would bet you can get over it after a few days. Now, I will go back to working on a few models, and render another video while you type another three pages of fruitless argument.
Quit the BS unless you're running a fully automated render farm you will not utilize your disks 100% for 24 hours a day like your 8 minute sample indicated. You got caught either cheating or failing to understand what 'average use' means. Hint: It doesn't mean a 8 minute snapshot of you rendering lol.
-
No, Ripley, I told you what I do everyday. Sorry you choose not to accept it. You should probably stop giving advice now.
-
No, Ripley, I told you what I do everyday. Sorry you choose not to accept it. You should probably stop giving advice now.
You should probably stop being so arrogant and think everyone uses computer like you do. 100% sure even you do not render 24 hours per day as you tried falsely to present. This discussion is on a general level, it's not about you.
-
Quite to the contrary Ripley. You have basically just confirmed that it is possible to kill an SSD rather quickly. The problem is that most people never ask how someone might use the drive and like you just tell someone to go ahead and get an SSD for some ripping speed! I like how you threw the arrogance thing in there, though. That's cute. People do that here when they got nothing, and you got nothing.
Now, unlike you I just showed everyone how to find out what their data usage is and how long one of these drives will last in their particular situation. I can tell you, for instance, that the longest lasting SSD for my situation would go for 27 years, but it isn't big enough to hold the programs I use. In my situation I need a drive that is at least 640 GB. With that in mind and checking the data again I see that an SSD will last about one year, at best. Because that hard drive will cost more than $400 I decide I will buy an Enterprise level HDD. The slated lifespan of a WD Re drive is 6 years in the median term, while the longest lasting 640 GB SSD is six years if all I do is cruise the Internet and answer a few forums posts. WD Re 4TB = $275. 1 TB SSD = $459.
I suppose my arrogance in deciding to share that information is so offensive I should stop, huh? Instead, why don't you stick to the facts.
-
Quite to the contrary Ripley. You have basically just confirmed that it is possible to kill an SSD rather quickly. The problem is that most people never ask how someone might use the drive and like you just tell someone to go ahead and get an SSD for some ripping speed! I like how you threw the arrogance thing in there, though. That's cute. People do that here when they got nothing, and you got nothing.
Now, unlike you I just showed everyone how to find out what their data usage is and how long one of these drives will last in their particular situation. I can tell you, for instance, that the longest lasting SSD for my situation would go for 27 years, but it isn't big enough to hold the programs I use. In my situation I need a drive that is at least 640 GB. With that in mind and checking the data again I see that an SSD will last about one year, at best. Because that hard drive will cost more than $400 I decide I will buy an Enterprise level HDD. The slated lifespan of a WD Re drive is 6 years in the median term, while the longest lasting 640 GB SSD is six years if all I do is cruise the Internet and answer a few forums posts. WD Re 4TB = $275. 1 TB SSD = $459.
I suppose my arrogance in deciding to share that information is so offensive I should stop, huh? Instead, why don't you stick to the facts.
LOL you pull numbers out of your behind again. The 640Gb SSD will outlive you and everyone on this forum if all you do is surf and play games with it. You got caught cheating, admit it like a man and move on.
You tried falsifying statistics on multiple occasions: First you tried posting the site with a 200Gb daily writes as baseline. The average computer user has average writes of 8-10 gigs/day, not 200 gigs. Then you manufactured a 'worst case scenario' usage statistic from your computer by pushing i/o to the max for 8 minutes and then pretending like your computer crunches 5 terabytes per day. Second lie. Then your statistic showed an estimate of mere 20Tb for the life of an SSD. Third lie.
For a general user write endurancy will never become a problem. I highly doubt it would become an issue to you either. Go ahead and post a 1 week statistic of your write/reads. If they continue showing 5Tb a day then I will believe you. Your usage patterns are atypical anyway, not something you should ever bring into discussion. Did I bring into the discussion that I get maybe 1 gig a day writes on average in my own use (on my gaming machine)? Or I don't even boot my game machine every day? No. There's no point discussing anything but the typical usage scenario.
-
No, Ripley. There are actual utilities available that I used to make this determination. Every one of them says the same thing. If I switched out the SSDs for the HDDs I have now the best I could hope for is six years, but the SSD of the proper size that I need would not live long. I am testing based upon my usage, not the 'standard user.' Depending on 'standard' figures would be stupid.
Here is a run that I did today for 16 hours:
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/Test2_zpse2bdb7aa.png)
Now if I did as you suggested (you suggested I fudged the numbers), then the daily usage would have dropped more significantly than it has. However, what I did instead is stop the test before I commit to another render. After a second render the writes/day would go up, and the lifespan would drop. Now, according to your theory my hard drive would have died more than a year ago. Yet,. . . not so much.
Your advice is costing people money whether you choose to accept it, or not.
-
No, Ripley. There are actual utilities available that I used to make this determination. Every one of them says the same thing. If I switched out the SSDs for the HDDs I have now the best I could hope for is six years, but the SSD of the proper size that I need would not live long. I am testing based upon my usage, not the 'standard user.' Depending on 'standard' figures would be stupid.
Here is a run that I did today for 16 hours:
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/Test2_zpse2bdb7aa.png)
Now if I did as you suggested (you suggested I fudged the numbers), then the daily usage would have dropped more significantly than it has. However, what I did instead is stop the test before I commit to another render. After a second render the writes/day would go up, and the lifespan would drop. Now, according to your theory my hard drive would have died more than a year ago. Yet,. . . not so much.
Your advice is costing people money whether you choose to accept it, or not.
Ahh yeah so you went from 5 terabytes to 141 gigabytes and still 8 hours of idling per day to go (or was part of that 16 hours night time?) so that would make it 94 gigs of writes per day in reality. If we mirror that to the tested write endurance of cheap SSDs (700 terabytes) you end up with a 7000 day life. That's 20 years. The more expensive drives you should use for work last past 1 petabyte writes.
You think 5tb vs 94 gigabytes is not that much different? It was only 53 (fifty-three) times higher. And this is without counting weekends and holidays when you obviously don't work lol (which would show in the 1 week or 1 month statistic I asked for true usage pattern). You can see your workload is in reality read heavy, your write/read ratio is only 0,079 and that's an extremely low ratio. Your usage pattern is actually just perfect for a SSD.
-
You're fantasizing too much about this Ripley. The lifespan of the drive at the point I tested it last had gone from 4 days to just under half a month. The first test was done when moving the 5TB project files into place. As the project changes it happens again, and the lifespan drops again to less than 3 days.
And now you're the one pulling numbers out of thin air.
-
You're fantasizing too much about this Ripley. The lifespan of the drive at the point I tested it last had gone from 4 days to just under half a month. The first test was done when moving the 5TB project files into place. As the project changes it happens again, and the lifespan drops again to less than 3 days.
And now you're the one pulling numbers out of thin air.
Which drive are you using as your reference point? To my knowledge outside of USB flash drives there are no solid state drives that have a mere 20Tb write endurancy. Is it some 16Gb model perhaps? LOL!
I just presented you with a link to a test that shows that even the cheapest SSDs last up to 700Tb writes. Where did you pull your imaginary 20Tb model?
I'm not pulling numbers out of thin air like you are: http://techreport.com/review/27062/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-only-two-remain-after-1-5pb
YOU WON'T BELIEVE HOW MUCH DATA can be written to modern SSDs. No, seriously. Our ongoing SSD Endurance Experiment has demonstrated that some consumer-grade drives can withstand over a petabyte of writes before burning out. That's a hyperbole-worthy total for a class of products typically rated to survive only a few hundred terabytes at most.
-
Ripley, the entire point is that SSDs should be selected based upon specific usage trends for any particular user. As I have told you, and that you refuse to accept, is that there are users that you will run into that have usage patterns outside of your experience. There are usage models that exist outside of the capabilities of the larger SSDs to handle. Therefore it is cost prohibitive to have both an extreme usage model and a large capacity SSD. That's not the end of problematic environments for SSDs, either. SSDs are simply not ready, yet, for every potential usage model that exists, not for every potential environment. Therefore, you need to start asking more questions before making any further SSD recommendations.
You won't, but there it is. Now you can go back to insults and repeating exhaustive argument patterns, but I am going to leave it there. Instead of replying for another three pages all you have to do is say 'okay' and you will get the last word (as is your habit).
-
Ripley, the entire point is that SSDs should be selected based upon specific usage trends for any particular user. As I have told you, and that you refuse to accept, is that there are users that you will run into that have usage patterns outside of your experience. There are usage models that exist outside of the capabilities of the larger SSDs to handle. Therefore it is cost prohibitive to have both an extreme usage model and a large capacity SSD. That's not the end of problematic environments for SSDs, either. SSDs are simply not ready, yet, for every potential usage model that exists, not for every potential environment. Therefore, you need to start asking more questions before making any further SSD recommendations.
You won't, but there it is. Now you can go back to insults and repeating exhaustive argument patterns, but I am going to leave it there. Instead of replying for another three pages all you have to do is say 'okay' and you will get the last word (as is your habit).
I admit there are users that do some scientific calculations that last 24 hours a day and push massive amounts of data which may cause durability problems with consumer grade SSDs. But those users have super computers to begin with and the price of enterprise level SSDs is not a problem for them. Most certainly, you weren't a part of this group of users according to the stats you posted yourself.
You just can't admit being wrong. Your own statistic showed you that had no problems with SSD durability in reality when the false estimated durability of 20Tb was corrected. I have no idea if it was an honest concern caused by a brain fart (you saw the amount of data you temporarily push during rendering) or if you maliciously tried to jolt your statistics by sampling only the few minutes per day that your i/o is maxed out. I can see how hard you wanted to justify your point but the fact is that for the vast majority of users SSDs are a great option. There aren't just enough hours in a day for the average person to kill the drive by writing. Even you with your atypical 10 times higher writes per day will have a 20 year estimated life on a consumer level SSD. 20 years is a darn long time when speaking of computer hardware.
Where did I insult you? Your posted stats lead to only one logical consumption - either you're jolting data deliberately i.e. cheating/lying or you did not understand that you have to monitor more than 8 minutes to find out your true i/o load. You also refused to still say where on earth you managed to find a SSD model capable of mere 20Tb writes as reflected in your durability estimate in those stats.
So you see, I have no reason to say 'okay' when I just proved your point wrong. You're the one who should say 'okay I was wrong' and walk away. You have posted zero proof, zero links - nothing to back up your arguments so far.
-
Well I pulled the trigger on a single 980 when it came in stock for a short time yesterday at Newegg. The "whether to buy" drama is over, for me. Now comes the "how well does it actually work" drama.
-
Well I pulled the trigger on a single 980 when it came in stock for a short time yesterday at Newegg. The "whether to buy" drama is over, for me. Now comes the "how well does it actually work" drama.
Good luck. I hope you have a faster than average computer to run it to get the full benefit. Personally I would have picked the 970 instead - only a little less performance but a lot less price.
-
The good news with these early ref 980s is the reports coming in on overclocking are excellent. The lowest priced eVGA 980 is oc/ing up into the 1450 range and 7800 to 7900 oc/ing on the RAM very consistently. The 970 hasn't o/c'd quite as well, the eVGA 970 superclock which is the most expensive 970 from eVGA isn't seeing the massive o/c gains that the 980 is, however as stated, for the $, it's fantastic, and due to the low price, it's going to end up SLI'd in a lot of systems for guys looking to run 4k sub 2000$ systems.
So, when you get your 980, if you overclock it, I'm interested to hear how the Precision utility works if you're going to use that, and see if you can match the reviews/reports out there of 1460 and 7800 to 7900 being easy to achieve.
-
A nice thorough overclocking review:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014/10/08/nvidia_geforce_gtx_980_overclocking_video_card_review/12
To sum up, the reference GTX 980 pulls away even more from the GTX 780 Ti and especially the AMD 290X when overclocked. Its an overclocking beast, and non-reference designs should achieve far more when overclocked.
-
Not surprising really. I think it's the new features of the card that are the best thing about them. If you already have a 780 it simply does not make sense to upgrade, but rather wait for new drivers to include the additional features of the 980, unless power and heat are borderline issues (the 980 requiring less power and generating less heat).
Anyone looking at buying one should be aware that there are several on Amazon priced far over market value. Patience is a virtue in this case.
-
I recently changed from an XFX AMD 7950 to a Zotac NVidia GTX 980. It works very well on my three-screen rig: http://kenshelby.us/docs/pc-parts.htm (http://kenshelby.us/docs/pc-parts.htm)
I have the Aces High in-game Anti Aliasing set at the first click (maybe that's 2X ?), textures maxed out, most of the Advanced settings turned on, but environment updates turned off. FPS holds steady at 58-60 all the time. My card temperature has never gone over 60 C. A bit pricey at US $550, sure, but it does the trick for me.