Alright cool, thanks.
Printable View
Alright cool, thanks.
Looking at picking up a solid state for christmas. I'll be relying on my hdds for data storage so I guess I'm mainly looking at speed/reliability. Planning on dropping Windows, Autodesk/Adobe suites, other productivity software, starcraft 2, and maybe another game onto it. I have a couple in mind, but I still don't know too much about them.
PCIe vs SATA3? Is it just me or is there not much of a difference until you use multiple lanes?
IOPS? Just take this as a 'it blows away hdds' statement or more of a multitasking kind of thing?
What are the failure and degradation rates nowadays?
Degradation has been significantly slowed by TRIM and other proprietary garbage collection methods put in place by each manufacturer. As for failure rates, the SSD market is still fairly new so I would expect that failure rates are still higher than your top-end 7,200rpm HDD.
For a regular desktop drive the SATA III drives seem to be fine, I've found that the PCI-E drives are usually only worth going for if you need some silly amount of SSD storage (1TB+). From what I've read the PCI-E SSD's can't get TRIM commands from the Intel drivers, so degradation is likely higher since the drive relies completely on its own garbage collection methods.
I'm also hoping to pickup an SSD for Christmas, and I'm looking at getting either one of the newer Intel drives or a Crucial M4. These two companies seem to have the best track record with SSD's so far. I'm leaning towards the Crucial because I'm hoping to get a 256~GB SSD since my boot drive usually sits around that with all my games and such installed.
Just don't buy any ssd from OCZ and you'll be fine. Intel's stuff is really nice, as are the crucial M4. Got two computers with Intel's old x25-m 80GBs and one with a new Crucial M4 and they're doing great. The x-25Ms are nearing two years of use and have no degradation. :)
Well, from what I've read OCZ has really stepped up their game and doesn't suck anymore. Perhaps that was just with their top tier stuff? I know they finally worked out their own controller, but surely the Sandforce controllers they've used aren't utter fail. I'm drawn to the reliability of the Intel ssds, but they're significantly slower.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227759
One of the drives I was considering because of price:performance:storage was OCZ. :\
When I was at Memory Express last and inquiring about SSD's the guy said OCZ SSD's have a return rate of about 1/2. He said he wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole and a couple other employees who happened to be standing near at the time agreed.
Been perusing the reviews for their older SSDs. I think these things just don't like laptops. I've yet to run into a desktop user with a problem.
I'm also looking for some DVI cables, so I can 3 screen game. I need 3 cables, good price but not crap, doesn't need to be that long. I found these, not sure how good they are because there aren't many reviews on them.
They're short.
Well the way my desk is, my desktop is right next to the monitors. So length isn't really an issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InnerGoat
I got myself a new one anyway :P
Yeah, that's why all you do is wash the keys and use a damp cloth on the rest of the "shell".
Nice experiment though?
i literally took a shower with my old keyboard and soaked it while pulling the entire thing apart.
is that your new fetish next toQuote:
Originally Posted by Bodzilla
:P
Good prices on Ivy Bridge: http://www.techpowerup.com/157070/In...-Compiled.html
Wow, I expected a lot more $$$ for Ivy Bridge. I will probably upgrade my chip to one of the Ivy chips instead of upgrading to socket 2011. So long as my socket 1155 will support them, but it should.
stoning a bird twice so to speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrickssj6
Socket 2011 wasn't exactly a new generation. Yeah, it's a stronger chip, but only slightly. Unless you're wanting to bump up to i7, you might as well wait for the Ivy Bridge successor before dumping more money into a machine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cortexian
Yeah but the equivalent chips to the existing Sandy Bridge chips will OC better since they're 22nm and produce less heat.
Talking about the 3570K vs 2500K. Etc.
That said I will probably only upgrade to an i7. Upgrading to another i5 is kinda sidegrading instead of upgrading.
AMD 7970 review at Anandtech. It's a fast card for sure. Cards should be for sale in ~3 weeks
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5261/a...hd-7970-review
Socket 2011 and SNB-E are basically leaving the same taste in my mouth that Bulldozer did compared to Phenom II. Not much performance gain, trade features like QuickSync for a full 16 PCIe lanes while in multi-card configuration and the neat but questionable quad-channel memory. Nice to have, slight boost when clocked all the way up and under full-core duress, but it is ultimately a waste of money next to the more efficient Sandy Bridge (and Ivy).
Speaking of Bulldozer, though, they get increasingly faster when you OC them. That is to say, it doesn't scale linearly when you do so. A 4.7GHz FX-8150 is better than a 4.5GHz i7-2600K. That doesn't sound impressive (200MHz clock lead), but considering how deficient BD is at stock, it is a feat. Downside? Unholy power draw.
Also, I'm buying two 7970s next month. Slightly OC'd, you get the power of a GTX590 in one card. For $550? Not too terrible.
Alright so I will probably end up buying this setup:
Link Depot 6ft. DVI-D Dual Link Cable x2
ASRock 870 Extreme 3 R2.0 AM3+
And maybe:
ADATA XPG Gaming Series RAM (2x2gb sticks)
Roeswill RNX-N150PCe
Total of all 4: $139.55
The two cables are so I can 3 screen game. The mobo is so I can finally Crossfire with my other 6870 I have lying around. I said maybe about the last two things is because I have 4gb already of RAM, and i'm not sure if that PCIe card is any good.
Thoughts?
A-DATA is the new G.Skill. They've really been stepping up their game, and I can see them becoming a top brand for any type of storage (RAM, eHDD, or SSD) in a couple of years.
Good board is good, I've already vouched for it. I see that you've gone with the DVI cable I showed you. Not really much else to say. The wireless adapter is $15; that's throw-away money when you're talking about computer parts and so it's not much of a risk. Rosewill, to me, has been very reliable in the past. Ran with a Rosewill PSU that came with my case for 6 years before it finally gave way, and even then I think fuzz was the culprit.
So about 2-3 days ago my ancient desktop decided to kill itself. Today my father went out and bought an Acer Aspire. It certainly looks shiny, but the keyboard and mouse are cheap as all hell.
Intel Celeron G530 2.40 GHZ Processer
2 gigs of DDR 3 RAM
500 gig Hard Drive
...Intel HD Graphics...
WINDOWS 7 IS SO FUCKING WEIRD. I've been using XP for far too fucking long.
How good is this machine? I'd still like to build my own but I know this one will have to do for now.
Terrible. That's how good it is. The hard drive is the best part. Even better than the Windows 7, because it's Windows 7 Home Premium (read: home bullocks uselessness).
TeeKup I'm so sorry for your loss :(
my computer from 2005 can beat up your computer :-3
Oh jesus. I consider buying that Acer a loss. A loss of money. You should have told us sooner so we could recommend something to look for during boxing day sales. Too late now I guess. Oh well, you can always build a system that's 8x more powerful than that for around $400.
So I got a new processor, ram modules, and motherboard. It's working great right now and I average Crysis and Crysis 2 on MAX settings at 30-35 fps. With the High resolution pack and DX11 tesselation enabled, the frame rate drops to 25-32 fps.
Asus Sabertooth x58 motherboard.
Nvidia GTX 580 1.5 GB.
12GB DDR3 1600mhz
Intel core I7 960 3.20GHz
Corsair H60 Liquid CPU Cooler
Western Digital 640GB 5400RPM x 2
It feels as if I could get more frames with this set up, but I don't know exactly what it could be that is bogging it down from its potential. I don't think it's the 5400RPM HDDs, but what do you guys think? (I also use Vsync, but doubt that it could be locking at 30fps because I believe Vsync tries to lock at 60fps?)
WEELLL. Good thing it wasn't my money. I insisted I was there to help buy it for him but he went ahead and did it anyway.
I do get higher FPS without Vsync, but the only reason I have it on is because of image tearing.
I got my Crucial M4 128GB SSD, getting everything reinstalled now.
@KingFisher: It could be the HDD's, I never use 5,200 drives anymore. There are 5,900 drives on the market for only slightly more that offer the same reliability of 5,200's with better performance.
I was thinking of getting a 7200rpm HDD or even a solid state, but time will tell. Without vsync, I get an average of 43 fps which is nice. I would like no tearing, but tearing only seems noticable during cinematics.
Also, tell me how that SSD is working out for you when everything is in place.
I am pretty sure it has nothing to do with your HDDs. Once loaded into memory, there is barely any IO action.
My guess is that something is bottlenecking.
Intel Core i5-2400 Sandy Bridge 3.1GHz (3.4GHz Turbo Boost) LGA 1155 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor
ASRock Z68 Extreme3 Gen3 LGA 1155 Intel Z68 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666) Desktop Memory - x2
EVGA 01G-P3-1460-KR GeForce GTX 560 (Fermi) 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 Video Card
OCZ ModXStream Pro 700W Modular High Performance Power Supply
Seagate Barracuda ST31000524AS 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive - for storage
Crucial M4 CT064M4SSD2 2.5" 64GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive - for OS and apps
$805 after rebates, that seems expensive :o
its been a long time since i did this... is this any good?/will it work?
still need a cpu cooler, suggestions?
money is an issue so where can i trim the fat? i chose these components mostly because they all have favorable reviews... even tough i could have chosen a cheaper one, but i REALLY don't feel like dealing with any doa/rma bs.
help me plz.
If you can:
Intel Core i5-2500K Sandy Bridge 3.3GHz (3.7GHz Turbo Boost) LGA 1155 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor
("k" version CPU's are a must for Sandy Bridge overclocking)
G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1866 (PC3 14900) Desktop Memory
(Sandy Bridge likes faster memory for overclocking. 1600 is good, 1866 is better, 2133 is best, etc)
CORSAIR Gaming Series GS700 700W ATX12V v2.3 80 PLUS Certified Active PFC High Performance Power Supply
(Stay away from OCZ products, they have extremely poor quality control in my experience. When their products work they work decently but their products outright fail a lot. Corsair or Silverstone for PSU's)
Out of those three I'd get the better PSU first, then the better processor, then if you can afford it, better/faster RAM. The 1600mhz stuff works great as well as the 1866mhz. I listed the 1866mhz cause it's what I'm running my 2500k on.
If you're not planning on overclocking you can stick with the 2400 CPU, but I'd recommend the 2500 or waiting for Ivy Bridge processors to drop Q1 2012.
Ugh, Ripjaws. I liked G.Skill when they made no-frills heat spreaders. Tired of these over-the-top, obnoxious fins that really don't serve much purpose. Corsair Vengeance Low-Profile or bust.
Except the Corsair LP DIMM's aren't as fast.
They are just as fast as the large Vengeance sticks, but yeah, they aren't 1866.
Personally, I think more is better than fast in this case. He's not going to be running an i7-2600K or an X79. Granted, you are suggesting an 8GB kit vs. his 4GB selection, I feel that at this point 8GB is a medium between going low (4GB) and getting something to last (16GB). There's no telling how long RAM prices are going to remain this low, so if he's doubling his price point to get four more gigabytes, why not spend $20 after that to get eight more gigabytes on top of those four?
As important as PSUs are, I feel like the one he has chosen is already more than adequate (hell, a Rosewill would have sufficed, even).
So, I would save money on the PSU and buy this kit over the 1866 kit. Games are now starting to take advantage of 8GB, and then you have games like All Points Bulletin which aren't completely satisfied with even that at 720p. Fast isn't going to help your texture buffer as much as capacity will. I put in a faster 2GB of DDR1 into my rig, didn't make much difference in HL2:E1. I combined it with the slower 2GB and look, now I have buttery smooth frame rates (unstable though because mobo hates having 4 DIMMs, tried with 4DIMM 3GB, still no joy).
1600 is more than adequate (1333 is also good, but go no lower), and 1866 is better if you are already running an enthusiast platform.
I do also recommend saving for the 2500K. That unlocked multiplier is really the only thing that makes it worth spending up on Intel over AMD unless power consumption is that big of a deal to you, because cheaper AMD CPUs can be OC'd to match at the cost of power efficiency.
What I meant about the LP kits being slower is that there are no options for faster speeds. They just don't make anything over 1600mhz in LP to my knowledge, and the reason for that is (IIRC) because they can't dispate enough heat.
The larger heat spreaders ARE more efficient, though I have to agree with you that some of the designs are just silly. I'd take the G-SKILL spreaders over the regular Vengenge style ones any day.
I found that a good medium for speed and capacity is 1866mhz since it's a lot more affordable than most 2133mhz+ stuff and you can still get yourself 16GB fairly easily. More if you want to fork over the cash for 8GB DIMM's.
Part list permalink / Part price breakdown by merchant
CPU: AMD Athlon II X4 640 3.0GHz Quad-Core Processor ($98.99 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: ASRock 870 Extreme3 R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($79.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: A-Data Gaming Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($25.99 @ Amazon)
Hard Drive: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($111.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon HD 6870 1GB Video Card ($152.55 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: XClio 650W ATX Power Supply ($84.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: LG GH22NS90B DVD/CD Writer ($16.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $571.49
(Prices include shipping and discounts when available.)
(Generated 2011-12-29 01:09 EST-0500)
budget was 600 bucks. this is supposed to be able to play skyrim on high and other games maxed out. building it for a friend. suggestions?
I actually think that the companies are buying into their own marketing with regards to LP DIMMs. Anything above 1600MHz is obviously going to be geared mostly towards enthusiasts, and they think that all of us like the flashy, windowed, LED-littered look. Well, we don't. Case manufacturers are starting to find that out. I'd have no problem with the large sinks if they didn't look totally dorky. Hell, just make the slab of aluminum taller, maybe rib it to give more surface area and put straight, vertical slots once you get above the PCB itself. None of this angled, shark-tooth stuff. Please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cortexian
Also, yeah, I'd spring for 1866 16GB, but I also wanted to keep price down. Bacon's original choice was $25, your choice made it $60. Well, it's daft to go with 8GB for more than double the price when you can get 16 GB for just $20 more. Like I said, capacity trumps raw speed in general.
Donut: Lol, that ASRock 870 is quite the steal, isn't it? If there are parts he can scrounge (optical drives, hard drives, etc.), I would definitely recommend using the savings to bump up to a Phenom II X4 965. Performance deficit with the Athlon II is rather notable.
I originally bought this OCZ OCZ Agility 3 60GB SATA III SSD for $99 with a $30 MiR to bring the price down to $69.99. However, I got wind of the talk that the SandForce controller isn't reliable. So, I took it back (unopened), got a refund, and bought this Kingston SSDNow V200 Series 64GB SATA III SSD for $85 instead (no MiR).
The specs of the OCZ drive are up to 525MB/s Sustained Sequential Read and up to 475MB/s Sustained Sequential Write.
The specs of the Kingston are up to 260MB/s Sustained Sequential Read and up to 100MB/s Sustained Sequential Write.
Apparently, the Kingston drive is supposed to last much longer than the OCZ one because there's some issue with the SandForce controller, but I've also read that there is a firmware update for the affected drives to address this issue. On the other hand, that fix supposedly reduces performance significantly (?). I've also heard that some new version of the SandForce controller doesn't have this issue, but I don't know how to tell which version has the problems.
On the Notebook Review forum I found a lot of people who are getting close to the advertised read speeds for the Kingston V200 drive, but are getting abysmal write speeds for it. I believe one of the admins on the forum inquired to Kingston about the issue and they have acknowledged that they are investigating it.
I haven't opened the Kingston drive's packaging yet, but I might tomorrow to test it for myself. It sort of pains me to see the drastic difference between read/write speeds on the OCZ Agility 3 and Kingston V200 drives.
I've had my eye on this Crucial M4 64GB SATA III SSD since I've heard nothing but great things about the M4 series, but I can't find a local vendor that sells them. Online purchases are out of the question here since they are so expansive and I have no doubt that they sell cheaper locally, which was how I got the OCZ and Kingston drives for a lot cheaper.
I don't know what to do. Should I keep this Kingston drive? Or should I take it back and get the OCZ one again? I really have no idea what to do.
Reliability:
#1 Intel
#2 Crucial
Performance (from what I can tell right now):
#1 OCZ
#2 Other SandForce drives
The M4 and Intels offerings are the best performace/reliability combination right now.
Okay, I just realized that the place I bought these drives from sells the 64GB Crucial M4 and there are three left at the closest location so they aren't going anywhere soon. The problem is that it's $120 instead of the $104 on Newegg.ca. Even with newegg I'm not willing to pay over $95 for an SSD. Honestly, I couldn't be too bothered with the write speeds, which would make the Crucial M4 perfect for me, but it's just too far out of my price range. I think the Kingtson V200 might be worth the 37% less performance I'll get out of it for read speeds if I'm spending $35 less, even if the write speeds are hampered due to some unknown issue. I'll just keep the drive and see what fix Kingston comes up with in the future. If shit is really bad after I benchmark it, I'll just take the drive back, bite my tongue and get the M4 and end my troubles.
Meh, I've made worse purchases, like my Logitech G110 for $89.95, which dropped to $75.99 at Best Buy the week after I bought mine. I mean, well, anything is better than what I'm currently using (I had no idea this POS was so slow): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822149059
There's a cheap SanDisk 120 GB SSD on the market right now, selling for USD 125. It's not the fastest drive in the world, but it's getting great reviews, it's spacious (relatively speaking), and it's affordable. It's also not an HDD.
Wow, that's quite affordable for a 120GB drive with decent speeds. I'll definitely look into getting one of those instead. The only downside I see to it is that it's not SATA III. I would go for the 60GB version instead since you would think it'd be cheaper, but nope, it's only $5 cheaper on newegg.com. You'd be retarded not to buy the 120GB version. In any case, it's $134.99 at Newegg.ca, so that's wayyyy to far out of my price range. I might as well just get a large 7200RPM drive at that point.
Even at SATA II, it murders the throughput of magnetic HDDs, which is the whole point. I'm going to grab one for my upcoming build; will use it for Windows 7, Battlefield 3, and Steam.
True. Well, I've decided to put in the drive I do have as soon as I'm done slipstreaming SP1 to a new bootable Windows 7 USB ISO.
Hey with all this SSD talk and space restrictions due to lower capacities, I've got to ask; Is there any program out there that lets me pick and choose what Steam games get installed onto which drive? I have Steam installed on my SSD right now but I only want a few Steam games on the SSD, the rest can go elsewhere.
Possible?
It took me 15 seoncs and I found a file config.vdf that saves the location of every game. So it should be possible...
Code:"apps"
{
"410"
{
"HasAllLocalContent" "1"
"UpToDate" "1"
"installdir" "c:\\program files (x86)\\steam\\steamapps\\patrickssj6\\portal"
}
"440"
{
"UpdateKBtoDL" "0"
"installdir" "c:\\program files (x86)\\steam\\steamapps\\patrickssj6\\team fortress 2"
"HasAllLocalContent" "1"
"UpToDate" "1"
"maintenance_time" "1324739657"
}
Oh snap, nice. I know there's a fan made program out there, but I'd rather not mess with that if I can just edit the file locations. I'm going to apply this tonight.
Jesus christ this is starting to piss me off. 10 failed installations of windows onto my SSD.
The very first time I've ever attempted to install windows on it, it goes through everything and restarts to complete the install. And then it sat at that for 4 hours. So I restarted the PC into safemode and brought up the command prompt using Shift+F10 and launching the device manager to check for driver issues. I thought it was a video driver issue, but it isn't. So I restart my pc normally hoping the installation will complete this time. I get and error saying that windows needs to be reinstalled. I say, fine, let's try again. So I boot PartedMagic from a USB drive and use enhanced secure erase to wipe the damn thing and try installing windows again. Everything partitions fine, files copy to the drive fine. Installer starts to expand the files, but the installer always fails at random percentages.
My 10th attempt, which I just made using a completely different USB stick and completely different Windows 7 ISO, failed at 100% of expanding windows files. The error that I keep getting is: "Windows cannot install required files. Make sure all files required for installation are available and restart in the installation. code: 0x8007045D"
I've googled this issue to hell and back and found zero solutions. HALP ME! What the fuck do I do? My DVD drive is IDE and my motherboard only takes SATA, so I can't use a DVD to install windows. Are my USB installers becoming corrupt mid-installation or something?
Note: I already flashed my BIOS to the latest stable version and set the drive configuration to AHCI.
Are you formatting and creating a new partition before installing each time? The partition could be corrupt that you're trying to install on.
@Amit:
I imagine this would come in use for you.
For 15 bucks he could buy a cheap DVD drive. Maybe even two of them if he shops around.
edit: it's most likely that your USB image is bad.
I erase the thing completely, then boot the installer and let windows create the system reserved partition and the other one for the OS itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePlague
I was going to pick up a similar at the same time that I bought the SSD, but I forgot to. I figured that I wouldn't need one after I got home, though, since I only do USB installations now, really. Installations are super fast on my Patriot Xporter Boost 8GB USB drives. Usually about ten minutes to fully install windows 7.Quote:
Originally Posted by =sw=warlord
I've used 4 different USB drives with three different ISO files. Hell, I even ripped a retail Ultimate x64 disc twice and used those files. The USB couldn't be bad. especially when they all work for installing on other drives. I plugged in a 30GB HDD i had lying around and managed to install windows three times from three of the USB drives (all using different USB images).Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeph
I still want to try a real DVD before I write this drive off.
It took me 7 minutes 20~ seconds to install Windows 7 Professional w/SP1 from disk to my SSD. USB should be 5 minutes or less.
looking to build a desktop PC for my Miss's to use i'm thinking lower mid-range because she wont take full advantage of a gaming rig, but i'd like to be able to have some games be playable on it.
what do yas recommend?
Hmm, well I pulled the WD Caviar Black from my Lenovo T520 and popped the V200 inside. From my Partriot USB drive, it expanded the windows files quite quickly in 4 minutes and no error so far. Restarting now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cortexian
Let's see if this works.
Edit 1: Well, the installation went through flawlessly in less than 10 minutes including typing in all that extra information when using the OS for the first time. So that rules out bad installation media (no messed up USB drive). I'm starting to think my Desktop's motherboard is the issue. 10 failed installations and then it works the first time when installing on my laptop? Does that sound right to you?
My desktop specs are:
AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE
Gigabyte GA-970A-D3
Sapphire HD 5750 Vapor-X
Kingston 2x4GB DDR3 1600Mhz KHX1600C9D3B1K2/8GX (running at 1333Mhz)
EDIT 2:
Okay, well I swapped out my old SATA cable for a new SATA III cable that came with the motherboard and proceeded to reinstall windows on the V200 again. This time it worked flawlessly and much quicker, but I have a feeling it's not because of the cable switch. My mechanical hard drive needs to run in IDE mode to even boot windows for some reason, even though it's a SATA drive. So I forgot to switch my motherboard to AHCI mode before doing the installation on the SSD. So I'm using the SSD right now, but it's probably suffering from decreased performance due to it being installed and running in IDE mode rather than AHCI. I've also noticed that Windows 7 doesn't recognize that I'm using an SSD since the sleep, hibernate, and all those other unnecessary features are still active. I've read online that you can change the mode by changing some entries in the Registry. I think I'll try that before reinstalling and seeing if the speeds are where they should be.
Okay, well I swapped out my old SATA cable for a new SATA III cable that came with the motherboard and proceeded to reinstall windows on the V200 again. This time it worked flawlessly and much quicker, but I have a feeling it's not because of the cable switch. My mechanical hard drive needs to run in IDE mode to even boot windows for some reason, even though it's a SATA drive. So I forgot to switch my motherboard to AHCI mode before doing the installation on the SSD. So I'm using the SSD right now, but it's probably suffering from decreased performance due to it being installed and running in IDE mode rather than AHCI. I've also noticed that Windows 7 doesn't recognize that I'm using an SSD since the sleep, hibernate, and all those other unnecessary features are still active. I've read online that you can change the mode by changing some entries in the Registry. I think I'll try that before reinstalling and seeing if the speeds are where they should be.
This is the guide that I'm going to use: http://www.windows7news.com/2010/05/25/how-to-enable-ahci-in-windows-7/
Do you guys think this will still cause my performance to be less than if I was to just clean install?
Edit: WTF is this shit?
Native IDE:
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/IDE.png
AHCI:
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...t9821/AHCI.png
How the hell did I lose performance by switching the AHCI? I've also noticed that my boot up time is about 3 seconds slower in AHCI mode instead of IDE, too.
Did you install your chipset drivers, and are you using the latest bios?Quote:
Originally Posted by Amit
if so this is weird.
BIOS, yes. Chipset, nope, I forgot. Thanks for reminding me!
Edit: Where do I even get AMD chipset drivers? Amd.com doesn't have chipset drivers for Phenom II CPUs.
Yeah that's weird. Chipset drivers are usually provided on mobo makers site if not on AMD's site directly. AHCI should definately be providing a performance boost.
Thanks, it was on Gigabyte's website. I forgot chipsets go by motherboard and not by CPU.
EDIT: Steaming pile of WTF?
I downloaded the chipset driver from Gigabyte and extracted the files. I run the installer and guess what happens? An installer for Catalyst Control Center pops up. WTF? somebody fucked up on the chipset driver package. I continued with the menus just to see what it wanted to install and it wanted to upgrade my latest driver set to some outdated one from April 2010. Jesus Christ. The description on the site says it includes SATA drivers, which are probably the ones that would fix my problem. Maybe I'll try a European mirror and see if that gives me the same bullshit.
EDIT 2: Nvm, the extra drivers are in the packages folder. Why the hell would they put it within an outdated CCC install though? It seems retarded since not all AMD users have AMD GPUs.
EDIT 3: Wow this installer was cryptic as hell. I finally found the AHCI driver installer, but then it told me it needed to use the CCC installer to do it. So I clicked yes and it went through.
Really AMD? You have to make installing drivers that complicated for the end user?
EDIT 4: Well here's all my tests lined up side by side. The order is this: IDE>>AHCI>>AHCI Updated Driver
Note that I installed BF3 after the first two tests, so the SSD is 31% more full than it was when I did the first two tests.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...9821/IDE-1.pnghttp://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...821/AHCI-1.pnghttp://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...9821/AHCI2.png
I don't really know what to make of the most recent one. It has the best Sequential Read rating so far, but by far the worst Sequential Write. Random Read is the best yet, but writes are still abysmally low.
EDIT 5:
So I did the test one more time using a single pass and got this, so what I have here is really a mixed bag:
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...9821/AHCI3.png
EDIT 6: Turns out I didn't use the correct AHCI driver. I got the real latest one from the Catalyst 11.12 package and got slightly better results:
The one to the left used 5 passes and the one on the right used 9 passes.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...9821/AHCI4.png http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...9821/AHCI5.png
Looks like my Sequential speeds are finally where they need to be, but the Random reads/writes seem to be a lot slower than they were advertised. Oh well, that's a known issue for this drive and Kingston is probably working on a fix now.
Update your CrystalDiskMark version.
What my M4 gets:
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/6756/m4benchmark.jpg
Look at my screen shots. I'm using the same version as you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cortexian
Oh nvm I was confusing it with CrystalDiskInfo which is version 4.1.4.
Alright, check it. Two potential builds I'm considering for purchase at the end of this month. Primary usage:
-Games
-Video Encoding
-Rendering
-pr0n
-lasting six years with marginal (if any) upgrades.
And by marginal, I mean nothing more than adding another 16GB of RAM and/or more hard drives (SSD!).
Mmmk, first up, X79:
Mobo - ASUS PX79
CPU - Core i7-3930K
RAM - 16 GB (4x4 GB)Corsair Vengeance LP DDR3 1600 (1.5v)
GPU - 1x Radeon HD 7970 (brand agnostic, but Sapphire, XFX, and HIS are front-runners)
HDD - 1 TB Samsung Spinpoint F3
Case - Fractal Design XL (Black)
Total: $1820 (sans S&H)
And now, Z68:
Mobo - ASRock Z68 Professional Gen3
CPU - i7-2600K
RAM - 16 GB (4x4 GB) Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 (1.5v)
GPU - 2x Radeon HD 7970
SSD - 120 GB SanDisk Ultra
Case - Fractal Design XL (Black)
Total: $2050
On the one hand, I get better future-proofing and I can always grab that second HD 7970 later. On the other hand, the Z68 platform is more immediately powerful than the X79, but that's as good as it will ever get.
What do you guys think? Slow and steady or bumrush? Swap out that HDD above for the SSD? I do have a 750GB Caviar Green I have lying around that I can scrounge, but it's a Caviar Green. I already have a 1080W PSU and DVD-burner, so those are not issues to consider. I'm also thinking about this fan for both systems, as I intend to OC. Not ready to jump into a full-on water cooled solution, but I am willing to consider closed-loop systems as long as they are price/performance competitive with the best air solutions.
Also, the GTX 580 is looking attractive, as it is competitive with the 7970 for $50 less. However, it will be harder to get a hold of one later down the line should I go with the X79, relative to the 7970 (which just came out).
Are you sure you want to throw down $600 for a single video card? I'd say if there was anything to replace further down the line, it would be the video card. If you go for some lower end cards that are significantly cheaper, you can get newer technology in those cards more often. I'm not doubting that the 7970 can get a lot of mileage, though.
Well the 7970 is a top-end card, so the mileage should be AT LEAST 6 years of new releases on Ultra/Very High GPU settings. Maybe knock it down to High/Medium with less AA (or no AA) in the later portion of that time frame. Two would easily last 6 years on Very High settings with no AA.
For CPU cooling I'd recommend the Noctua NH-D14 or the Corsair H80. The H100 isn't THAT much better than the H80, however the H80 is price/performance competitive with the NH-D14 without taking up as much space. Not to mention it puts less physical stress on your motherboard since it weighs a lot less.
GTX 580's should be available NIB for at least 3 years, conservatively. You may have to look a little harder after two years though. If you'd plan on getting a second card within 3 years I would recommend going for the GTX 580 instead of the HD 7970, especially if you use Adobe Premiere. Premiere uses the Mercury Playback Engine to render video effects in scrubbing and playback live if you have an Nvidia card newer than the GeForce GTX 8800. If you don't use Premiere it's really up to you on that front. AMD Eyefinity is still the best multi-monitor solution out there for gaming since Nvidia Surround is limited to, and requires three monitors.
I would actually go for the Z68 setup with two GTX 580's and a Crucial M4 120GB instead of the SanDisk. All I hear is good about the M4 and my personal experience since getting it has been great. They're all coming with the latest firmware available right now and getting greater than advertised speeds with Intel-level reliability.
Just note that the i7-2600k isn't as good for overclocking as the i5-2500k. I'm sure you already know this, it basically boils down to the fact that there's more components and "stuff" going on in the 2600k. That means more heat and less stability at higher-than-recommended speeds. Lots of people have to disable the hyper-threading or entire cores to get a stable overclock. Some 2600k chips get luck-of-the-draw advantage though and overclock great with everything enabled and low voltage. As with any chip it comes down to the individual chip and inconsistency with the manufacturing process. I would seriously weigh your usage and determine if you really need the 2600k for rendering work, the 2500k will still be fast.
Also, post pics.
Leave it to the Austrians to pick a fan colour scheme that matches absolutely nothing.
The Noctua looks good, though the fact that it requires a separate mounting kit for LGA 2011 is a bit of a bother. I'm leaning more towards X79 because that CPU won't be trumped in any meaningful way for at least 3 years and if it is, it will be by a fellow LGA 2011 CPU. That means I can just pop in another LGA 2011. LGA 1155 dies in June this year when Ivy Bridge comes out. That's it. X79 still has Ivy Bridge-E ahead of it. Not to mention, the X79 build is already $200 cheaper (surprise, surprise). AM3+ also dies this April, with the release of Piledriver. Really, it's lose-lose to have to buy a new platform right now. That's why X58 was also in the running. Its performance is still great and it's far cheaper than any of the new stuff. And it has only just now become obsolete, and only barely.
@Amit: I can't just buy a cheaper GPU to tide me over because if I buy two GTX 680s at the end of this year, it means that I now have a kick-ass GPU (HD 6970/GTX 570) lying around with no computer to put it in. The next best PC in this house is still running an Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Socket 939, and it has an AGP 8x graphics slot. I currently own the only PCI-Express capable rig in the house, and it's also a Socket 939. Bottleneck supreme. It's better to buy at least one top-end now and add to it later when said top-end comes down in price as manufacturing yields improve.
To give you guys a reference, though, I've been running this rig since December 2004. The only additions have been 1 GB of RAM (total 2GB), a sound card (HT Omega Striker), and an upgrade from a GeForce 6600GT to a GeForce 7800GT in early 2005 (resulted in getting a new mobo, but mobos hardly affect performance). I've been running just about everything on maximum settings except for those games which just won't run at all because I have a single core CPU (APB, RO2, BFBC2, Metro 2033, Crysis). I want this new computer to last that long, preferably. Spend more now, spend less later. Buy the best now, and you get maximum mileage out of your parts. I'm running a 17" monitor at 1280x1024 at the moment, so one HD7970 or GTX 580 is excessive overkill, let alone two. The next item on the shopping list is a Dell Ultrasharp 27", though, so it won't be that way for long. Alternatively, I might buy three monitors in 1920x1200, but that's not as likely (FFFFFFFF bezels). I like having one really big desk to work on better than having three smaller ones.
This summer is going to be busy. Jobs, teaching myself how to model for real, catching up to everyone in BF3, learning how to map with CryEngine 3. Fun stuff.
Don't go with a 7970 unless you have specific plans tied to the cards. For 150 bucks, you can get a GTX 550ti that will run everything that's out there today on the highest settings (not as much AA/AF though). A year and a half or two years from now you can buy a GTX 650 ti for a hundred fifty bucks that will replace your "medium to high settings" video card. Even then, you might not see much of a need to upgrade until the generation after that.
I got my 590 to get around certain problems with CryEngine. If I didn't need to do that, I'd have just bought a 550/560ti and upgraded again after two or three years. Yeah the 590 will last me for five or six years, as I'll have probably bought a new mobo/cpu to replace my 2600k by then, but I'm kinda stuck with it unless I want to ignore the price I paid for it.
^ i dont know from experience, but ive heard the 550ti isnt really worth the money. the 560ti, however, is what i have, and i can pull a solid 60 fps anywhere in battlefield 3 with everything on high with that post AA thing off. idfk what that is but it fucking annihilates my frame rate.
the 560ti is also like 70 bucks more expensive though. but seeing as hes going for a 7970, something tells me 220 dollars is within his GPU budget, lol.
I do have plans for the 7970(s), to the tune of 2560x1440. A GTX 570 won't cut it there, let alone a 560. Remember, Zeph, when you told me that if I'm going all the way that I should be getting dual 6990s? Well, I am going all the way, and a 7970 (later two) matches a GTX 590 with a little bit of OC magic. So yeah, I'm already taking your advice. :)
Yeah, that was before I took out the 550 and installed the 590. Both cards ran all games at the highest settings 1920x1200. Go back five years and that wouldn't have happened. We're at a weird point in hardware because developers haven't started utilizing the heavy parts of DX11. At the time they actually do start using it (if they do, mobile is making huge fucking leaps and bounds), the 7k generation will be aging. It's one of those things you have to experience instead of simply looking at benches.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
edit: don't get me wrong, the benches are right. I'm just telling you what I found when I asked myself what I can do with the thing now.
Once consoles move on, all of a sudden we'll be out of this stagnant rut for at least a couple of years. When the next Xbox comes out (not counting the Wii U, because that's using a Radeon 4870), we won't be able to rely upon mid-range cards maxing out the latest games.
I bought the 6600GT with the same mindset you have now, and it was great back then. That said, I don't think it would have given me the 7 year mileage that the 7800GT I upgraded to has. I can buy a $270 card now, and a $270 one later, but what's the point? I could just spend the $550 up front and still get the same result. The less that I have to dive inside my case to throw in new parts, the better.
So yeah. We're going balls-deep for this one, since I'm hoping for eight years, but no less than six. The biggest roadblock is the shortage of LGA 2011 CPUs, which itself is a result of a rare issue in the current C1 stepping that prevents users from moving the multiplier past stock settings. Intel has just let current stocks of C1 dry up. The C2 stepping is supposedly hitting retailers by 20 January.
Go with your first choice, the x79, once the new revision of the 3930k shows up :)
I'd actually get a cheap processor and wait for Ivy Bridge. Don't even bother getting a k version right now if you do that.
Or he can get sandy bridge which supports up to quad channel where as ivy bridge only supports dual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cortexian
Can someone tell me if this Lucid Virtu stuff would allow me to run three monitors with one Nvidia card + the 2500-2700k's GPU? I only actually use two monitors at my desk, but I have my TV connected as well that I frequently run XBMC on to watch movies. I'm considering building a new computer and I really don't want to get another AMD GPU (ever again) just for Eyefinity.
Since when? IB is the yet to be released chips for socket 2011.Quote:
Originally Posted by =sw=warlord
Either way, going with Ivy would probably net you better performance.
w hat
Ivy Bridge, like Sandy Bridge, is for socket 1155
IVB-E and SB-E are for s2011
No and yes. You don't need any of the Lucid stuff installed to do what you want. Just install Intel's GPU driver and your Nvidia driver as usual, that's it. I'm running two displays off of a GTX570 and the third off the onboard Intel GPU. Some motherboards have two outputs so you can drive 4 displays if you wanted to.Quote:
Originally Posted by king_nothing_
:)
Ah I've not seen any info about IB-E yet that's where my comment was coming from.Quote:
Originally Posted by InnerGoat
Yeah, what I meant is that the 2011 socket processors support quad-channel memory.
else wtf
Ivy Bridge is the drop-in upgrade for owners of Z68 or the up-coming IVB-specific chipsets. It does not support quad-channel memory or feature a full compliment of PCIe lanes. Performance is also likely to be a marginal upgrade to Sandy Bridge; the main focus of Ivy is to get the power-performance ratio to an all time low. It might net better performance per clock than SNB-E, but then I can always drop in an IVB-E CPU later if it turns out that the computing difference is all that great. And I doubt it will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cortexian
As for IVB-E, it's essentially just a die-shrink of SNB-E, allowing for better performance per watt. Probably also add native support for USB 3.0 in a chipset revision. Since SNB-E already has PCI-E 3.0, it's hardly that different.
Ah, good deal, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by InnerGoat
I'm going to be getting two 24" ultrasharps some time next week and placing an order for a 24" Cintiq. The Cintiq is going to eat up a huge portion of my desk so I'd like to have some adjustable arms for the ultrasharps to make best use of space at any time. It can't be wall mounted and needs the ability to reach negative elevation. I also want them to be able to rotate into portrait mode from landscape. Here are some screens roughing out my desk.
It's an odd desk considering tech nowadays, but the original idea on the desk was that the tower went in the thing in the middle and the monitor (crt era) went on the stand up top. Left and right were shelves for books, notes, etc. that have been cannibalized for other parts of my room. Now, I have a small subwoofer on the lower rack and use the upper rack as a leg rest.
I got away with using this desk over the past four/five years because the hole in front of the "monitor area" gave my laptop amazing ventilation.
Here's what's on there now that needs to be worked around. Big thing is my tower and the gray is length/width of my keyboard. I'm right handed so the space on the inside right of the keyboard is mouse space.
This, unfortunately, is the footprint and face space of a 24" cintiq on my desk. It's too large to be centered and pushing it to the right is cutting into my mouse space. Until I get it, I can't even be sure if my keyboard will fit underneath it (Logitech G510). I've never really used that side of my desk other than for trash and a lamp. I'll have to find a new source of light for the desk when I get the cintiq.
This is the rough eye level of the ultrasharps I want. It wouldn't be possible without adjustable monitor arms. The blue circled area is where I usually have a center channel speaker for 5.1. I'd like to keep that there if possible.
Any suggestion on what to buy for monitor arms or another arrangement?
If that desk is actually in a corner with walls behind the tower and second monitor you could just get two adjustable wall-mounts for the monitors. The ones that let you push/pull/tilt/rotate would be perfect.
Not in a corner. Left side of the desk is flush against a wall and there's about a me-sized gap between the right side and another wall. I'll have to mount the arms on the desk itself.
You can get a mount that attaches to the desk it self.
I've got one my self.
Meh, gonna push back getting the cintiq till fall. Gonna build a new desk over summer that would work out better with it. Gonna grab three ultrasharps instead. What price should I expect for the mounts? I'm seeing huge discounts on places like amazon over their "official" retail price.
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i8...rkFolio002.jpg
thats how you need to have it.
anything below your feet is an annoyance, but as long as you have 800mm's between the outtermost points of say drawers or a housing for your computer your perfectly fine.
seriously talk this shit with me, because this is what i DO.
So, it's 26 January, and no word from Intel on when i7-3930K stocks would start replenishing. I need a new computer and I need it last Christmas.
The question:
To wait, or Z68?
I thought Intel said they were going to let the 3930k stock dry up in preperation for newer chip releases?
They never said that. I've been doing some digging since that last post, and it appears that Intel is scrambling to address this shortage (which is world wide). By Intel Work Week 5, the online retailers should start getting them back in stock.
We are on Work Week 3. I sure as hell am not going to pay a $90 premium to get one off of Amazon, one that is more than likely of C1 stepping and not C2. Buying pre-built to circumvent the OLR shortage is out of the question entirely.
We'll see.
So my GPU is pooping out and I'm looking for a new one. I'm just not sure yet if I should wait it out for the NVIDIA 600 series to come out sometime this year in hope of the 500's going down in price, or just get a 560 now. Not looking at any radeon, I still have nightmares about their horrible drivers.
The 560 ti's are pretty damn good price-wise. I still don't know when the 600 series GPU's are slated for released so you might be waiting awhile.
Apparently they'll be released around Q2 this year. But this would be the second delay, the first being Q4 2011 -> Q1 2012. So take that with a grain of salt.
