Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Navy84 on July 17, 2015, 03:23:14 PM
-
I would like your opinions on this build. I need a new computer to get back into flying and have been thinking about trying to build my own. Have never done it before and thought it would be fun and keep all the crappy software off that you get with a store bought computer. I think everything is compatible but how well will it run the game?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119233
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131851
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113286
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202113
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231568
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817438017
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236339
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832416806
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827135204
-
I would like your opinions on this build. I need a new computer to get back into flying and have been thinking about trying to build my own. Have never done it before and thought it would be fun and keep all the crappy software off that you get with a store bought computer. I think everything is compatible but how well will it run the game?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119233
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131851
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113286
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202113
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231568
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817438017
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236339
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832416806
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827135204
not bad for $687.78 ( plus a couple extra $10 to $15 dollar mail in rebates after purchasing )
I myself do not see where anyone needs 6 cores, I would opt for the following CPU
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113326
AMD FX-4350 Vishera Quad-Core 4.2GHz Socket AM3+ 125W FD4350FRHKBOX Desktop Processor currently going for $79.99 and currently has a $10.00 off promo code to drop it to $69.99 ( I have the black edition unlocked version of this particular CPU )
I would opt for Windows 7 Pro SP1 64 bit, instead of Home Premium version, it is worth the extra $40 increase in cost in my personal opinion........ Home Premium Win 7 tops out at total use of 16 GB's of System Ram, to where Win 7 Pro tops out somewhere around 192 GB's of Sys Ram ( least I think it is 192 GB, am quickly trying to draw from memory about this, I know it is a lot higher than 16 GB , heh )
Everyone has their own views regarding memory brands, PC component brands etc...
I would opt for Crucial Ballistx DDR3 1866MHz 2 x 8 GB Dimms ( then can upgrade to doubling it to 32 GB later on if you'd like )
I have switched 3 different PC's over from using Corsair Vengeance 1600MHz DDR3 Ram to either Crucial Ballistix or Muskin Stealth, and have found that they run better and load up right at start up at their advertised speed, without having to go in to the BIOS and use Intel's XMP profiler or tweak it on AMD boards to get the advertised/bought at speed........ all my Corsair Vegeance DIMMS that were bought advertised at 1600MHz DDR3 loaded up either at 1066MHz or 1333 MHz, and maxed out after overclocking to 1600MHz......
as for the Western Digital Blue 1TB Drive..... I have had 1 go bad ( bad sectors, etc in least than 1 year, I have lost a 450GB Velociraptor WD 10,000 RPM HD in less than 16 months, and have lost 2 WD Black 1 TB Drives in under 3 years ( all since 2009 ), I have lost 2 Toshiba drives ( one was actually in a sony VIAO Laptop ), and have lost 3 Seagate HD's varying from 250 GB up to 1 TB , all Seagate Drives lost since 2013......when I say I have lost them, they were not mine, but belonged to the people who came to me to fix/repair their computers, some of them were family members who picked out some of these parts when they built their PC's or when I built their PC's for them.. only the 2 Black 1 TB drives and the WD Velociraptor 450GB drive were my own....
I know Western Digital bought out my favorite Hard Drive maker, Hitachi, but they still seem to be using Hitachi and/or HGST on their hard drives, and some hard drives now have "A Western Digital Company" on the placard spec decal on the HD's these days.......
I have not lost not one Hitachi Hard Drive going back to the 90's.. YMMV
if I was going to purchase a Western Digital Hard Drive today, I would go with WD black or WD Red................. and not mess with WD Blue nor WD Green, again my personal opinion
as for SSD drives............ I am strictly Crucial(Micron) SSD user in my own PC's or for my Parents or Daughter's computers..... with the exception of using 1 Muskin 120 GB SATA III SSD
I think you have a good solid cheap build, Navy84, I would consider dropping down to the FX4350 4.2GHz quadcore CPU and I would consider opting for Windows 7 Professional SP1 64bit
Good Luck on your Build, Sir
TC
edit: regarding your AMD PC Build, comparing it to my current build I recently did a few weeks ago, and I am using windows 7 Ultimate SP1 64bit for my OS ( I also am using Windows 8.1 Pro 64 it on this computer, I have 2 Crucial SSD drives in it and 2 Hitachi 2 TB Drives in it )
Mushkin Memory I converted to:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226404
Mushkin Enhanced Stealth 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model 997069S
I am using my Mushkin Memory on an AMD build using the FX4350 Black Edition 4.2GHz(4.3 GHz Turbo )( using 4 X 8 GB Modules : total 32 GB Sys Memory ), I am using the exact same Motherboard you have chosen, as well as the same DVD-DL Re-Writer, and I am using a Sapphire DUAL-X AMD Radeon R9 270X OC 2DVI/HDMI/DisplayPort pci-e 4GB GDDR5 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA5751XU3271
Crucial Memory I converted to:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148740
Crucial Ballistix Tactical 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1866 (PC3 14900) Gaming Memory Model BLT2KIT8G3D1869DT1TX0
I am using the Crucial Memory on my Intel i7-2700k PC Build ( using 4 X 8 GB Modules : total 32 GB Sys Memory )
-
Thanks for the input TC. Do you think this build will be enough for AH III when it's released?
-
That should be enough for AH3, it's been said to be much more GPU dependent as the current one. Perhaps a video card of that quality but with even more memory might be better if you'd like to use higher than HD resolutions or triple monitors or something like that. But for that price, I believe that's about the best you could get. I'm planning to use my HD6970 with the new AH as long as it's playable.
For what I've understood, AMD processors and AH are still somewhat of a game of win or lose: AH might be able to use two cores or then again only one. Intel would be a safer bet. Other than that, a beautiful build.
TC mentioned SSD, but they don't add a single digit in the frame rate. They "only" make Windows and games installed on it load much faster. If you can afford using two minutes more for getting into AH, an SSD is not needed.
Also, as TC mentioned, everyone has their own views regarding brands, components etc. I've read that memory MHz speed doesn't actually play a significant role, at least not within the next higher or lower speed. Higher speeds often have higher latencies, which may nullify the benefit of the higher MHz rate. I've been quite happy with both Seagate and Western Digital hard disks, a friend has had very bad luck with Hitachi's during the last decade or so. I recall someone (Skuzzy, Chalenge?) having some knowledge about the different models within a brand. It was something about consumer (=who cares) and professional (=built to last) models, which only show in the price tag and model number.
Statistically a hard disk will show its manners in mere weeks in frequent use. If it lasts more than a couple of months, the prediction is it probably will be good for a couple of years, after which the countdown will start. It may last a decade, or only a few years. It depends on multiple variables, starting from physical damage caused by accidental impacts to solar flares.
-
Thanks Bizman. Was a little worried about having to redo this when AH III came out. So I guess nobody sees any hardware conflicts that will cause this not to work?
-
Just to add a note concerning SSDs. It has been very popular on this board and others to use SSDs as the boot drive. I have found this is the least cost effective way to use them, with only the caveat that using them in servers makes things more efficient to some degree (particularly image restores). If you use your system the same way nearly every day, and you have not defeated the Windows processes for SuperFetch, and ReadyBoost, then using an SSD with Intel Smart Response Technology will make your HDD mounted OS seem as though it is on an SSD. The difference between a HDD mounted OS is significant, while it never really meets SSD performance, but the thing is you do not need to spend an arm and a leg for a massive SSD. There are benchmarks available to demonstrate the potential, but the bottom line is that you can make your system snappier just by using a $50 SSD. Of course, not all motherboards support it, so read up on it before proceeding.
Anything newer than a Z87 MB will likely already have ISRT built into the BIOS, and may even have M.2 ports built in and ready to use, though a standard SATA SSD (along with a MB that supports SATA RAID and ISRT) is all that you need.
ISRT Benchmark: http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=2593&page=3
-
as you i built my first computer . planning is the most important part of the build. budget comes next.
may i suggest using this site to plan . https://pcpartpicker.com/ you can make several builds after you register save them and post them on here. this will help with the compatibility as well and give you prices to match. my first impression is the graphics card. when it comes to gaming thats where the $$$ goes. as of now 2 gigs reminds me of the gtx 750 i had with my old system where i had issues. the 2 gigs was fine at times but other times not so good , in fact poor to the point where i was fed up. i spent so much on constant upgrading on that system if i had just put the cash into what i have now i would of broke even and had 10 times a better system. so for now i would plan it out .
if you were to decide to go with a LGA 1150 intel chip i could save you a few $$ as i have this on sale for $100 still untouched in its shipping box
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130770&cm_re=MSI_Z97-GAMING_5_Motherboard_-_ATX-_-13-130-770-_-Product
-
...
I've read that memory MHz speed doesn't actually play a significant role, at least not within the next higher or lower speed. Higher speeds often have higher latencies, which may nullify the benefit of the higher MHz rate
...
This squares with my research, too. According to what I've read, the CAS (Column Access Strobe) timing also known as CL (CAS Latency) timing is likely to be the most significant measure of the real-world performance of RAM chips. I also understand that in terms of RAM clock speed there's not much advantage - on the average desktop machine - to going much beyond the DDR3-1600/PC3-12800 point, or thereabouts.
And, as always applies when you mix & match computer components, YMMV. :salute
(Specs for my own build available via the link in my signature, below.)
-
Just to add a note concerning SSDs. It has been very popular on this board and others to use SSDs as the boot drive. I have found this is the least cost effective way to use them, with only the caveat that using them in servers makes things more efficient to some degree (particularly image restores). If you use your system the same way nearly every day, and you have not defeated the Windows processes for SuperFetch, and ReadyBoost, then using an SSD with Intel Smart Response Technology will make your HDD mounted OS seem as though it is on an SSD. The difference between a HDD mounted OS is significant, while it never really meets SSD performance, but the thing is you do not need to spend an arm and a leg for a massive SSD. There are benchmarks available to demonstrate the potential, but the bottom line is that you can make your system snappier just by using a $50 SSD. Of course, not all motherboards support it, so read up on it before proceeding.
Anything newer than a Z87 MB will likely already have ISRT built into the BIOS, and may even have M.2 ports built in and ready to use, though a standard SATA SSD (along with a MB that supports SATA RAID and ISRT) is all that you need.
ISRT Benchmark: http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=2593&page=3
One not for you may I add: The link given by you was 2012. More recent recommendations in http://www.howtogeek.com/194750/its-time-why-you-need-to-upgrade-to-an-ssd-right-now/
-
With the Nvelo Dataplex caching SSD approach I have been able to double those performance figures. I used the 50GB Crucial Accelerator, which admittedly is $119.95, but very nearly got the same performance as a Mushkin Reactor SSD (Anandtech Editor's choice device).
Don't get me wrong here. I am not saying that a solid state drive is for everyone. In some of my systems I still use HDDs, because the few seconds I might gain in starting the system, or programs, is not saving me anything. What I am saying is in answer to the original question, and that is that the M.2 PCIe SSD is the fastest hands down. You absolutely WILL NOT find a 1TB card at $350 (not PCIe anyway). If you want the fastest setup the PCIe system is faster than the SATA SSD approach. SATA 3 interfaces max out at ~560MB/s, while the PCIe 3.0 interface can hit speeds of 16Gb/s. SATA SSDs are no competition!
However, because these cards are SO expensive, you will want to put your programs, games, and even Windows Libraries on an external HDD (unless you just don't use a computer much). THAT is where SSD caching makes a huge difference.
-
One not for you may I add: The link given by you was 2012. More recent recommendations in http://www.howtogeek.com/194750/its-time-why-you-need-to-upgrade-to-an-ssd-right-now/
That is one of the most idiotic articles I have ever wasted time reading.
-
That is one of the most idiotic articles I have ever wasted time reading.
Which part of the article was wrong in your opinion or was it idiotic just because it's against your opinion?
-
Ouch! Yeah, if you posted some of that stuff on this board. . .
-
Which part of the article was wrong in your opinion or was it idiotic just because it's against your opinion?
You have no idea what my opinion about SSD's are.
-
You have no idea what my opinion about SSD's are.
Why? Most people love them in every way. Even the price is now better for users. Chalenge talks about PCI-E, why? Even sata ssd is many times faster to any spining hdd. The article from 2012 talked about 70-80 second boot times with ssd - too old information. I get 30 second boot time with raid-0 hdd and 14 second bootup with one sata ssd. Article is bad.
-
That has nothing to do with an article written to justify/rationalize a product purchase. No matter what the topic is, those type of articles are idiotic.
Now, personally, right now I can buy two 4TB hard drives for the price of a 1TB SSD. My computer boots in 9 seconds. I cannot afford to use up a slot for such a small device as large scale storage is still my primary concern. The marginal benefits versus the cost, just does not add up in my situation.
A lot of people depend on them to solve problems with their computer. It is the classic, get a bigger hammer approach.
-
That has nothing to do with an article written to justify/rationalize a product purchase. No matter what the topic is, those type of articles are idiotic.
Now, personally, right now I can buy two 4TB hard drives for the price of a 1TB SSD. My computer boots in 9 seconds. I cannot afford to use up a slot for such a small device as large scale storage is still my primary concern. The marginal benefits versus the cost, just does not add up in my situation.
A lot of people depend on them to solve problems with their computer. It is the classic, get a bigger hammer approach.
Your computer 9 seconds, others 90 seconds. Give it up already.
-
Your computer 9 seconds, others 90 seconds. Give it up already.
Give what up?
-
Give what up?
Why talk about 9 second bootup times when they are not accessible to normal users without SSD?
-
Why talk about 9 second bootup times when they are not accessible to normal users without SSD?
Because they are accessible. Anyone with a reasonably good bit of knowledge of Windows and hardware can do it. It's not magic.
-
Because they are accessible. Anyone with a reasonably good bit of knowledge of Windows and hardware can do it. It's not magic.
I'm really excited to hear now. Please tell.
-
As long as I am employee of Hitech Creations, Inc. I will not post how to do it. The risk of a system no longer being able to boot, if a mistake is made, is too high for novices to attempt.
I figured it out. No reason why someone else cannot figure it out. Like I said, it is not magic. It just takes some effort.
-
well skuzzy you beat me by 3 secs, with my old system mine took 12 with a standard HD hehehe.
GSakis why are you arguing this point ? personally i prefer more hd space then speed . i come home hit the start button probably takes me 30 seconds to sit down with a refreshment before i am even ready to use the computer. more then enough time for any system to boot.
if you didnt like and are mad cause he said the article is idiotic just say so . no need to sit here and stew about it.
here is an article and you can call me an idiot, that may tell you some of the things skuzzy did. its not rocket science. http://www.online-tech-tips.com/computer-tips/speed-up-windows-boot/
and ya it tells about bla bla bla a ssd.
-
As long as I am employee of Hitech Creations, Inc. I will not post how to do it. The risk of a system no longer being able to boot, if a mistake is made, is too high for novices to attempt.
I figured it out. No reason why someone else cannot figure it out. Like I said, it is not magic. It just takes some effort.
Ok then, please do not refer to this solution if it's too dangerous or complicated to try. Let's stick to real world ok?
So we're back to square one, SSDs bring the speed improvement.
-
Ok then, please do not refer to this solution if it's too dangerous or complicated to try. Let's stick to real world ok?
So we're back to square one, SSDs bring the speed improvement.
Doing anything like that is a risk to a novice with little knowledge of Windows. Adding an SSD to Windows is a risk for the novice as well. I chose to limit HiTech Creations exposure. It does not mean it is not something the well versed Windows user cannot do. Just like installing an SSD is simple for the well versed hardware guy.
I never said SSD's do not help with performance, but one has to weigh the cost performance ratio and determine if it is an option worth having. Even if I could get away with a smaller drive, the cost/performance ratio is still not worth it to me. I spend most of my time in applications which are not constantly reading or writing from or to the drive.
This weekend, I spent 7 hours in one application where an SSD would be a waste of money. Most Windows applications are not disk dependent and in those cases one has to decide if it is worth the seconds you might save loading the application (I say *might* because once Windows loads an application, it will simply keep it in memory until the memory is needed for something else making the next load of that same application virtually instantaneous).
-
Doing anything like that is a risk to a novice with little knowledge of Windows. Adding an SSD to Windows is a risk for the novice as well. I chose to limit HiTech Creations exposure. It does not mean it is not something the well versed Windows user cannot do. Just like installing an SSD is simple for the well versed hardware guy.
I never said SSD's do not help with performance, but one has to weigh the cost performance ratio and determine if it is an option worth having. Even if I could get away with a smaller drive, the cost/performance ratio is still not worth it to me. I spend most of my time in applications which are not constantly reading or writing from or to the drive.
This weekend, I spent 7 hours in one application where an SSD would be a waste of money. Most Windows applications are not disk dependent and in those cases one has to decide if it is worth the seconds you might save loading the application (I say *might* because once Windows loads an application, it will simply keep it in memory until the memory is needed for something else making the next load of that same application virtually instantaneous).
I really like fast boot times so I tried to look for youtube or howto instructions on how to achieve a super low boot time on windows with regular hd. I didn't find any, so what you have done seems to be something very special and not something anyone could find out.
How about an anonymous tutorial somewhere? Pls??? :D
-
No such thing as an anonymous anything on the Internet. Aside from that, I have no other public access method available to me.
And again, it is not magic. Look at what Microsoft did with Windows 8 to get it to boot quicker and it will give you a clue as to where to start with Windows 7.
-
No such thing as an anonymous anything on the Internet. Aside from that, I have no other public access method available to me.
And again, it is not magic. Look at what Microsoft did with Windows 8 to get it to boot quicker and it will give you a clue as to where to start with Windows 7.
I'm thinking hybrid boot is not possible for Windows 7. And no point, can just hibernate.
-
Got my system built!!! 75FPS with all the candy turned on and all settings maxed. I used TC's suggestion for the quad-core processor and R.A.M. but all other components are the same. Now I can get shot down in hi def!!!
-
Got my system built!!! 75FPS with all the candy turned on and all settings maxed. I used TC's suggestion for the quad-core processor and R.A.M. but all other components are the same. Now I can get shot down in hi def!!!
I'm happy for you Navy84! next thing I can offer you is to go to www.blackviper.com and study/research his suggestions for tweaking Windows 7... this will help your PC be even better
if ya need any help just holler at me or pm me
have fun!
~S~
TC
EDIT: Damn, seems blackviper's website is down or something....... I'm going to try emailing him
-
Doing anything like that is a risk to a novice with little knowledge of Windows. Adding an SSD to Windows is a risk for the novice as well. I chose to limit HiTech Creations exposure. It does not mean it is not something the well versed Windows user cannot do. Just like installing an SSD is simple for the well versed hardware guy.
I never said SSD's do not help with performance, but one has to weigh the cost performance ratio and determine if it is an option worth having. Even if I could get away with a smaller drive, the cost/performance ratio is still not worth it to me. I spend most of my time in applications which are not constantly reading or writing from or to the drive.
This weekend, I spent 7 hours in one application where an SSD would be a waste of money. Most Windows applications are not disk dependent and in those cases one has to decide if it is worth the seconds you might save loading the application (I say *might* because once Windows loads an application, it will simply keep it in memory until the memory is needed for something else making the next load of that same application virtually instantaneous).
What may be a non option for you doesn't mean it's not a good option for others. The people I know have a pretty small need for storage. Steam games, music library etc. can usually be stored easily on 1Tb SSD space and that costs only 330 dollars. For me using a computer without the SSD is out of the question. Once you get used to the responsiveness you start to hate old hdd:s.
Installing the SSD is no more risky than installing any hard drive. You need to be really timid and afraid to do anything on the computer before you have to skip the process (meaning the kind that buys ready computers and calls support when something doesn't work).
I don't know about you but most of the times I want to do something on the computer I do it the first time that day. So the program is not cached and needs to be loaded off the mass storage. I also like to boot my computers at least once a day. Of course one option would be to buy 16Gb more ram and start to hibernate but hibernation starts to blink the power light on my computers and that is very annoying at night. Not to mention the potential for problems if you don't boot regularly.
For me SSD has worked extremely well.
-
I never leave my computers running and I never leave applications open when I am not using them.
$330.00 will buy two 4TB HD's and I could use them right now. My 16TB NAS is about full and am looking at adding another unit to the network.
Yes, my storage requirements are high. Definitely higher than most people. Even so, I see SSD's as optional as the performance/cost ratios are still not good enough for me.
I have seen many people mess up the installation of an SSD, because they thought it would work just like a hard drive. Only to find problems with OS support, BIOS support and so on, particularly on older hardware. Or they bought the wrong SSD and do not understand why it will not work.
Here are a couple of examples.
1) People do not know to enable AHCI.
2) People do not know to enable trim on Windows 7. I am pretty sure most people do not know how to enable it.
It is not as simple as plugging in a hard drive, if you want it to work well.
-
I have a SSD just for my OS and 6 sec startup is the norm... I put all my other programs on my 1TB HD..with a copy of the windows OS on it... I tried to do a start up from my HD by unplugging my ssd and I got a 12 sec start up with it. So if I see things correctly you can do a quick start up with the HD.
I went into my bios and did some tweaking for this .. ACHI isnt really hard to figure out... http://tweaks.com/windows/44119/improve-sata-hard-disk-performance-convert-from-ide-to-ahci/
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-performance-tweak,2911-2.html
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/windows-and-office/quick-tip-improve-your-sata-disk-performance-by-converting-from-ide-to-ahci/
Google search is your friend..
LawnDart
-
whichever one who posted they use hibernate or sleep , you will mess up your OS/PC if you use that function in windows 7 64 bit......
I seriously recommend disabling it.....
TC
-
whichever one who posted they use hibernate or sleep , you will mess up your OS/PC if you use that function in windows 7 64 bit......
I seriously recommend disabling it.....
TC
Absolutely true.
Lawndart, I was referring to novices in my original post about the problems with trying to tell someone how to speed up the boot process. Those same novices have no clue how to search Google, or know they need to search before they start plopping in hardware.
-
installing an ssd is not just plug and play. It takes a little bit of patience, specially figuring out a couple of things.
but gsakis the more you try to disagree with skuzzy, the more you validate what he said about the article you posted.
semp
-
Thanks TC....I would love to see ya in the TA sometime for some tuning up on my skills.........looks like my thread kinda got hijacked with a boot up time argument LOL
-
whichever one who posted they use hibernate or sleep , you will mess up your OS/PC if you use that function in windows 7 64 bit......
I seriously recommend disabling it.....
TC
Absolutely true.
Lawndart, I was referring to novices in my original post about the problems with trying to tell someone how to speed up the boot process. Those same novices have no clue how to search Google, or know they need to search before they start plopping in hardware.
I have Windows7 64 bit and have been using "sleep" every night for years. Never noticed any problems.
How does it mess up your computer?
-
I have Windows7 64 bit and have been using "sleep" every night for years. Never noticed any problems.
How does it mess up your computer?
caldera, it has been a well known issue in Windows 7 and using hibernate mode and a user's PC not waking up, etc...
type the following into Google : problems with hibernate windows 7
you will find tons of information regarding hibernate mode & sleep mode
hope this helps
TC
-
I have Windows7 64 bit and have been using "sleep" every night for years. Never noticed any problems.
How does it mess up your computer?
If you don't want to read much, here's what I've encountered during the last decade with every Windows since 98: No Wlan after hibernation. Black screen after hibernation. No mouse after hibernation, especially USB/wireless. No USB after hibernation. Basically any component having the Power Management tab can continue sleeping.
Most of the cases have been on laptops, mainly because people tend to shut desktops down more often. In your case the reason you've not had problems may be because a gamer often disables Power Management.
-
at work, the company's it guys force all the computers to sleep after 10 minutes of inactivity. if the computer sleeps for more than 10 minutes then we need to reboot or the programs work so slow that it is ridiculous.
I have asked for the sleep time to be increased to 30 minutes but was denied due to "security concerns". mind you that in our department 30 guys use the same "generic id" to log in into that computer. and the log in id and password is just the same. and we have no access to the internet thru that computer.
semp
-
See Rule #4
-
I never leave my computers running and I never leave applications open when I am not using them.
$330.00 will buy two 4TB HD's and I could use them right now. My 16TB NAS is about full and am looking at adding another unit to the network.
Yes, my storage requirements are high. Definitely higher than most people. Even so, I see SSD's as optional as the performance/cost ratios are still not good enough for me.
I have seen many people mess up the installation of an SSD, because they thought it would work just like a hard drive. Only to find problems with OS support, BIOS support and so on, particularly on older hardware. Or they bought the wrong SSD and do not understand why it will not work.
Here are a couple of examples.
1) People do not know to enable AHCI.
2) People do not know to enable trim on Windows 7. I am pretty sure most people do not know how to enable it.
It is not as simple as plugging in a hard drive, if you want it to work well.
All you need to do is make sure you are using AHCI mode while installing. Windows will automatically activate TRIM. Install in legacy mode, no trim. It's no more complicated than that. In addition to that, SSD firmwares have developed by many generations already. They can now effectively handle themselves without the use of TRIM.
Remember Skuzzy that YOUR needs and YOUR storage amounts are not representing more than 0.1% of the user base. Most people who use the computer for gaming and surfing can make do with a fraction of your storage. For example I have perhaps 2 terabytes of overall data including backup copies from multiple computers. I would not completely switch to SSD either if I was you. I would simply run my OS and games from the SSD in order to have good user experience when I decide to boot up and play.
In fact that's what I have right now. I boot and play using the SSD but I also have traditional hdd:s with old stuff on them. I don't install games on the hdds anymore for performance reasons naturally.
-
You're not fooling anyone you know.
You don't know the environment in which Skuzzy is working. There could be any number of reasons he doesn't want to use SSDs, not the least of which is his own usage patterns with his boot drive.
What I find suspect here is the same suggestions have been made by another individual on these boards, and he too could not bring himself to realize that not everyone uses a computer in the same way. AND, he made the same mistake of suggesting that novice computer users purchase and use SSDs. In particular, this is not a good idea in all cases and when a computer based business has a customer recommend to their users that they buy and use a piece of equipment that may, or may not, survive a years time (again, because the typical novice knows nothing about their own hardware, or spends as little as possible on other components) then they are also risking those same novice users as customers.
All of these arguments have been presented to you many times over the years, and yet you still don't get it.
-
I have never said my case was typical. You are the one who keeps arguing everyone needs an SSD, which is not the case. I have said over and over again, the cost/performance ratios are still not worth getting an SSD, for me. Not to mention the loss of a SATA or PCI-e slot to something so small.
I do not disagree there are valid uses for SSD's, today, but they are still not for everyone.
Also note, if you are ADDING an SSD to a Windows 7 system it will NOT automatically enable TRIM, nor will it enable AHCI. The typical end user has no idea what those terms are.
-
Very true, Skuzzy. I did get it to activate by refreshing the Windows Experience assessment, but that has nothing to do with changing the BIOS setting which is dangerous ground for novices.
-
I have never said my case was typical. You are the one who keeps arguing everyone needs an SSD, which is not the case. I have said over and over again, the cost/performance ratios are still not worth getting an SSD, for me. Not to mention the loss of a SATA or PCI-e slot to something so small.
I do not disagree there are valid uses for SSD's, today, but they are still not for everyone.
Also note, if you are ADDING an SSD to a Windows 7 system it will NOT automatically enable TRIM, nor will it enable AHCI. The typical end user has no idea what those terms are.
Everyone who wants fast access speeds needs an SSD. No way around it. If they don't need fast access speeds, fine. I haven't yet met a person who didn't like the experience of owning an SSD. I don't consider a terabyte drive to be small. In fact for a gaming computer that's most likely all you're going to need.
You are correct on trim and ahci - however the SSD will beat any regular drive hands tied down behind its back even when working sans trim and legacy ide mode. The current firmwares have advanced in great amounts from the first models, trim is not the deal breaker it used to be.