Another PC Spec thread

[spiderz]

Raid 0 should be "as-fast" as SDD at a fraction of the price.

 

[killadoob]

Raid 0 should be "as-fast" as SDD at a fraction of the price.

Again another totally wrong comment about hdd's

You are thinking r/w performance, that does not determine the overall speed of the drive.

work out how much faster the ssd is than a normal raid config.

Raid config with 200mb (for arguments sake) rw and 9.2ms seek time
ssd with 200mb r/w and 0.1ms seek time

Now explain to me how a raid config will be as good as the ssd?

 

[kaaskop]

I am assuming you have bought one and the performance has dropped?

Read tests in PC format with ssd's from intel, samsung, OCZ and some others i couldn't remember. All of them give the same problems. You can use software to clean the ssd in the background. Some ssd's like samsung got software that cleans it automaticly but the system must be in idle mode for quite a while before it starts cleaning.

Something about the degration.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3631&p=1

Dunno if the controllers these days has been sorted. Its out of my price range anyway.

 

[killadoob]

Well i think benchmarks are also a bit much at times, for instance if i overclock my cpu from 2.8ghz to 3.6ghz in benchmarks you can see the difference but you cannot notice anything in real time.

Seems odd cause both my ssd's are running fast, have not noticed this slow that the benchmarks find.

 

[kaaskop]

There was a post in this forum some time ago about taking 2 drives, "format" them so that you only use the fast part of the platter and put them in raid that gives you the same speed as ssd's.

Mebbe i should try it with my 2 320GB's. I just dont want to loose to much space on them.

 

[TheRift]

Well i think benchmarks are also a bit much at times, for instance if i overclock my cpu from 2.8ghz to 3.6ghz in benchmarks you can see the difference but you cannot notice anything in real time.

Seems odd cause both my ssd's are running fast, have not noticed this slow that the benchmarks find.

That's benchmarks for you. I don't think there's a benchmark for responsiveness, it all about how fast they go at max speed. I noticed this on the Q9550 CPUs I had to deal with recently. Felt alot sluggish compared to my AMD 955BE, but once the Q9550 got going it trumped the 955BE.

Thing is there's a lot more to benchmarks than just the CPU. Board and surrounding bits do make a difference.

 

[Synaesthesia]

I
@Synaesthesia, I was originally looking to go that route, but read somewhere that those MB's wont support processors with more cores, whereas the 1366 MB's will??

This is true with with 1366 you get support for 6-core gulftown 32nm CPU's.

 

[PhreeMe]

This is true with with 1366 you get support for 6-core gulftown 32nm CPU's.

There's speculation as to whether the current gen MB's will actually support the new processors (which may mean I'm purchasing a 1366 now for nothing) but I'll live in hope that I'll just need to get a bios update

As for SSD's, once they become the norm I will most definitely purchase one.... With phenomenal seek times and a more robust structure (reliability/longevity pending), the pro's are plain to be seen.

Its just that as it is right now the price pushes it out of consideration when I'm happy with what I've got.

 

[Synaesthesia]

I'm pretty sure they will, with a BIOS update. Even then I don't really think it's worth it, unless you're into Video encoding and 3d Stuff. It's just even more cores/threads!