Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

New computer time

24

Comments

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,366
    For the memory, it's basically taking a factory overclocked part and undoing the factory overclock.  That's actually what I did with the memory in my current rig:  it's rated at 1.65 V and 1600 MHz, but I run it at 1.5 V and 1333 MHz.

    If it can't run at 1.5 V, calling it legitimate DDR3 is somewhat dubious.  Really, though, the question is not whether it can run at 1.5 V, but at what clock speed and timings.  It's not guaranteed that I'll get it at 2133 MHz and 1.5 V; maybe I'll need 1.55 V, or maybe I'll drop the clock speed to 1866 MHz or something.  But there was a promo code on it so it was nearly the same price as 1600 MHz DDR3.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 20,284
    What advantage do you gain by dropping the voltage down to stock, which by the way I didn't know could be done. I only ever look at stock voltage memory. I'm not an overclocker. I like stability, longevity, and efficiency.
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,100
    edited September 2015
    Quizzical said:
    For the memory, it's basically taking a factory overclocked part and undoing the factory overclock.  That's actually what I did with the memory in my current rig:  it's rated at 1.65 V and 1600 MHz, but I run it at 1.5 V and 1333 MHz.

    If it can't run at 1.5 V, calling it legitimate DDR3 is somewhat dubious.  Really, though, the question is not whether it can run at 1.5 V, but at what clock speed and timings.  It's not guaranteed that I'll get it at 2133 MHz and 1.5 V; maybe I'll need 1.55 V, or maybe I'll drop the clock speed to 1866 MHz or something.  But there was a promo code on it so it was nearly the same price as 1600 MHz DDR3.
    I'm sure it can run undervolted, the main question being what speed you can get when it is undervolted, since the manufacturer isn't specifying. It appears as long as you can come ahead of 1600  you saved some cash then, and good odds on that.

    I usually shop with an eye toward latency rather than clock speed, but to each their own, it's not like the RAM is going to make a significant difference in overall performance (at least versus the impact it can have on the budget).
    Post edited by Ridelynn on
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,100

    Torval said:
    What advantage do you gain by dropping the voltage down to stock, which by the way I didn't know could be done. I only ever look at stock voltage memory. I'm not an overclocker. I like stability, longevity, and efficiency.
    DDR3 specification voltage is 1.50V, with JEDEC stating that 1.575V should be the "Absolute maximum" when memory stability is concerned (and for most people, I think that's a pretty high priority). Memory instability could be anything from the rare occasional blue screen to a computer failing to even POST, and everything in between depending on the severity.

    The advantage to more voltage is that you can get more speed out of the same part - that's pretty much how overclocking works - up until a point. JEDEC also says that DDR3 should withstand up to 1.80V without damage, so there is a ceiling past which you aren't going to get anything (besides smoking DIMMs).

    A manufacturer will sell their product listing the minimum garanteed speed, voltage, and timings. In Quiz's case, he's buying CAS 11 DDR3 2400 at 1.65V

    You can see how that plays into the JEDEC recommendations, and why he's considering undervolting it.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,366
    Torval said:
    What advantage do you gain by dropping the voltage down to stock, which by the way I didn't know could be done. I only ever look at stock voltage memory. I'm not an overclocker. I like stability, longevity, and efficiency.
    With memory, as with CPUs, GPUs, and a lot of other chips, lower voltage means lower power consumption and less stress on the system.  It's not just less stress on the memory modules themselves; it's also less stress on the memory controllers.  The general guideline is that power consumption is proportional to frequency times (voltage squared).

    With Sky Lake, Intel says that their memory controllers shouldn't attempt anything over 1.35 V, which is why it only supports DDR3L (low-voltage versions of DDR3) and not all DDR3.  For comparison, the stock voltage of DDR4 is 1.2 V.  Intel is probably being conservative here, but they don't want to deal with people setting their memory to 1.5 V on Sky Lake occasionally frying the CPU and blaming Intel.  If you overvolt something by 25% and it fries, you've got no one to blame but yourself.

    Given that, you might wonder why anyone would ever want higher voltages.  The answer there is that higher voltages allow the chip to be stable at higher clock speeds.  Given a fixed temperature and voltage, there is some maximum clock speed at which the chip can run and be stable.  Higher voltages increase that maximum clock speed.  Lower temperatures also increase the maximum clock speed, which is one reason why good cooling is so important to overclocking.  Of course, higher voltages mean higher temperatures, and eventually adding more voltage doesn't help you any unless your goal is to destroy the chip.

    When there are higher and lower wattage bins of a chip (e.g., desktop and laptop versions), the higher wattage bin has both higher clock speeds and also higher voltages.  When there is turbo involved, the higher clock speeds tend to also use higher voltages.  Decreasing both the voltage and the clock speed saves a lot more power than decreasing the clock speed alone, which is why you might be able to get something like 80% of the performance for 60% of the power consumption.

    Micron, Samsung, and Hynix each fabricate many millions of theoretically identical memory chips, but at an atomic scale, randomness makes them very different.  What they do is to bin them themselves to say, these chips can run at 2133 MHz, these only at 1866 MHz, those at 1600 MHz, etc.  Higher bins cost more, and they sell the chips to companies like Corsair, G.Skill, A-data, Kingston, and so forth.  The latter companies bin the chips further, saying these chips with this cooler can run at this voltage, this clock speed, and these timings, and they match bins so that the memory chips in a given kit are pretty closely matched in what they can handle.

    But there's nothing magic in silicon that makes this memory chip 2133 MHz and that one 1600 MHz.  There aren't even large, discrete jumps in what they can handle.  When you first plug memory modules into a motherboard, it can't tell what the sticker on the box said, so it tends to pick conservative speeds and timings to get you up and running, and then you can adjust it yourself.

    Given memory chips could perhaps have been rated at 1866 MHz and 1.5 V, or at 2133 MHz and 1.65 V, or various other things.  The nominal ratings only give you one point on the voltage/clock speed curve of what the memory vendor promises that the memory can handle.  And that one point tends to be rather conservative, as they can't assume top end power supplies and motherboards or especially cool cases.  If they pick a point right up against the edge of what it can handle in a 20 C room, then it probably isn't stable in a 30 C room (as higher temperature reduces the max stable clock speed), and they don't want people in hot rooms complaining that the memory is defective.
  • AldersAlders Member RarePosts: 2,192
    I've been debating between the 6700k and the 5820k for a new build myself. I'm leaning towards the extra cores of the 5820k simply due to the amount of rendering and streaming i do, but wanted some opinions. Skylake E seems to be ways off so i don't intend to wait. I'm upgrading from a 2500k if curious and i know both options will be decent boosts.
  • PainlezzPainlezz Member UncommonPosts: 646
    Soooo....

    High resolution monitors are a waste for a vast majority of uses.  Modern high end games will not run very well at those resolutions.  Developers don't optimize for them in the first place and in many cases that also means you won't notice any real visual benefit.

    Top that off with the fact that Windows (even 10) doesn't do great with scaling still.  You'll find plenty of programs that look terrible (very tiny) on high res displays.

    Don't get me wrong, high resolution is great for LARGE displays.  I have a 4k 70" and it's great!  Windows running at 4k 70 inches is crisp and clear!    My laptop is high resolution (3200 x 1800) on a 13 inch screen and it looks no better/worse than a 1080 display with the added hassle of scaling issues on my programs.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,366
    Painlezz said:

    Don't get me wrong, high resolution is great for LARGE displays.  I have a 4k 70" and it's great!  Windows running at 4k 70 inches is crisp and clear!    My laptop is high resolution (3200 x 1800) on a 13 inch screen and it looks no better/worse than a 1080 display with the added hassle of scaling issues on my programs.
    Taken to that extreme, I agree with you.  But I didn't get 3200x1800 at 13" monitors, and wouldn't have precisely because few desktop programs are built for that sort of pixel density.  I got 2560x1440 at 27".  In terms of pixel density, that's pretty close to 1366x768 on a 15" laptop monitor.
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    For SSDs, wonder why you didnt go with:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820171999&cm_re=sandisk_extreme_pro_480gb-_-20-171-999-_-Product

    or

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA4P02CG6252&cm_re=samsung_850_pro-_-20-147-361-_-Product

    Those 2 are pretty much top of the line, 10 years warranty. or for somewhat cheaper samsung 850 evo, 5 years warranty but its not MLC.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,366
    Malabooga said:
    For SSDs, wonder why you didnt go with:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820171999&cm_re=sandisk_extreme_pro_480gb-_-20-171-999-_-Product

    or

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA4P02CG6252&cm_re=samsung_850_pro-_-20-147-361-_-Product

    Those 2 are pretty much top of the line, 10 years warranty. or for somewhat cheaper samsung 850 evo, 5 years warranty but its not MLC.
    Sometimes a more expensive part is better.  Sometimes it's just more expensive.  Sometimes a more expensive part is actually worse.  This is not one of the cases where more expensive is worse, but the performance difference is irrelevant to consumer use.  Given a choice between paying $150, $200, or $250 for nearly the same thing with no meaningful differences between the parts, wouldn't you prefer to pay $150?

    A 10 year warranty doesn't do me any good.  I'll replace the parts long before then, anyway.  And if an SSD dies, I don't want to be without a computer for weeks waiting for a replacement.
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    Quizzical said:
    Malabooga said:
    For SSDs, wonder why you didnt go with:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820171999&cm_re=sandisk_extreme_pro_480gb-_-20-171-999-_-Product

    or

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA4P02CG6252&cm_re=samsung_850_pro-_-20-147-361-_-Product

    Those 2 are pretty much top of the line, 10 years warranty. or for somewhat cheaper samsung 850 evo, 5 years warranty but its not MLC.
    Sometimes a more expensive part is better.  Sometimes it's just more expensive.  Sometimes a more expensive part is actually worse.  This is not one of the cases where more expensive is worse, but the performance difference is irrelevant to consumer use.  Given a choice between paying $150, $200, or $250 for nearly the same thing with no meaningful differences between the parts, wouldn't you prefer to pay $150?

    A 10 year warranty doesn't do me any good.  I'll replace the parts long before then, anyway.  And if an SSD dies, I don't want to be without a computer for weeks waiting for a replacement.
    I dont see SSDs going away anywhere in near future. They are still luxurious parts. I went with samsung evo, has a bit more oomph than crucial and 5yrs warranty. And only marginally more expencive, I dont see replacing it in a 5 years either, it can always serve as OS disk.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,366
    Malabooga said:
    Quizzical said:
    Malabooga said:
    For SSDs, wonder why you didnt go with:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820171999&cm_re=sandisk_extreme_pro_480gb-_-20-171-999-_-Product

    or

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA4P02CG6252&cm_re=samsung_850_pro-_-20-147-361-_-Product

    Those 2 are pretty much top of the line, 10 years warranty. or for somewhat cheaper samsung 850 evo, 5 years warranty but its not MLC.
    Sometimes a more expensive part is better.  Sometimes it's just more expensive.  Sometimes a more expensive part is actually worse.  This is not one of the cases where more expensive is worse, but the performance difference is irrelevant to consumer use.  Given a choice between paying $150, $200, or $250 for nearly the same thing with no meaningful differences between the parts, wouldn't you prefer to pay $150?

    A 10 year warranty doesn't do me any good.  I'll replace the parts long before then, anyway.  And if an SSD dies, I don't want to be without a computer for weeks waiting for a replacement.
    I dont see SSDs going away anywhere in near future. They are still luxurious parts. I went with samsung evo, has a bit more oomph than crucial and 5yrs warranty. And only marginally more expencive, I dont see replacing it in a 5 years either, it can always serve as OS disk.
    I'd rather have the SSD I got than a Samsung 850 EVO, even at the same price.  The performance difference doesn't matter, but reliability sure does, and I'm still skeptical about TLC NAND.  The 850 EVO has already had repeated firmware updates to try to fix problems.

    These days, I don't see having an SSD as much more of a luxury than having a discrete video card.  When I built my last computer, I paid $300 for 120 GB.  Now it's half the price for four times the capacity.  Few gamers could justify going with a small 60 GB SSD and no hard drive, and even that would carry quite a price premium.  Today, you can get 240 GB for $80, which is ample capacity for a lot of people, and for only slightly more than a hard drive would cost.
  • ShortyBibleShortyBible Member UncommonPosts: 409
    edited September 2015
    Hi Quizzical. Just wanted to say that I really enjoy reading your advice on builds in the forum.
    I am a huge fan :)
    Gratz on the new build and I hope you enjoy it for a long time.)
    Best of luck.

  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited September 2015
    Quizzical said:
    Malabooga said:
    Quizzical said:
    Malabooga said:
    For SSDs, wonder why you didnt go with:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820171999&cm_re=sandisk_extreme_pro_480gb-_-20-171-999-_-Product

    or

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA4P02CG6252&cm_re=samsung_850_pro-_-20-147-361-_-Product

    Those 2 are pretty much top of the line, 10 years warranty. or for somewhat cheaper samsung 850 evo, 5 years warranty but its not MLC.
    Sometimes a more expensive part is better.  Sometimes it's just more expensive.  Sometimes a more expensive part is actually worse.  This is not one of the cases where more expensive is worse, but the performance difference is irrelevant to consumer use.  Given a choice between paying $150, $200, or $250 for nearly the same thing with no meaningful differences between the parts, wouldn't you prefer to pay $150?

    A 10 year warranty doesn't do me any good.  I'll replace the parts long before then, anyway.  And if an SSD dies, I don't want to be without a computer for weeks waiting for a replacement.
    I dont see SSDs going away anywhere in near future. They are still luxurious parts. I went with samsung evo, has a bit more oomph than crucial and 5yrs warranty. And only marginally more expencive, I dont see replacing it in a 5 years either, it can always serve as OS disk.
    I'd rather have the SSD I got than a Samsung 850 EVO, even at the same price.  The performance difference doesn't matter, but reliability sure does, and I'm still skeptical about TLC NAND.  The 850 EVO has already had repeated firmware updates to try to fix problems.

    These days, I don't see having an SSD as much more of a luxury than having a discrete video card.  When I built my last computer, I paid $300 for 120 GB.  Now it's half the price for four times the capacity.  Few gamers could justify going with a small 60 GB SSD and no hard drive, and even that would carry quite a price premium.  Today, you can get 240 GB for $80, which is ample capacity for a lot of people, and for only slightly more than a hard drive would cost.
    Judging by the practical test they have more than enough juice for a lifetime:

    http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead

    I bought corsair force 3d 120 4ish years ago. It costed 250$. But vast majority of people still dont own SSD. $/GB is still tripping point.

    And what problems did evo had? Supposedly there have been some problems with pro, but with the shere volume samsung sells there will naturally be more people with bad drives. but as the odds go, your chance of getting bad crucial is about the same. evo had smooth sailing so far.

    IMO, for average user 60/120 GB SSD for OS and regular HDD for everything else is optimal combo.

    gamer? Nope, after overprovisioning 240GB is reduced to 180-192 GB. Since i have crapton games on steam, 200GB is a pittance. Thats OS + 2-3 games. I fill my 2TB hdd without any problems.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,366
    It's not write endurance that I'm worried about.  That said, I think that test substantially overestimates write endurance.  Just because an SSD isn't completely dead doesn't mean that it will reliably store data that isn't modified for a year.

    The 240 billion bytes is typically after overprovisioning.  Chips tend to come in powers of 2, so a "240 GB" SSD probably actually has 2^38 bytes of NAND, some of which is used up by the overprovisioning to bring it down to 240 billion bytes usable.

    I'm not sure how you're filling up a 240 GB SSD with just an OS and 2 games.  I've got a 240 GB SSD with 6 games installed right now (Guild Wars 2, Hearthstone, Wakfu, Champions Online, Neverwinter, and Elsword), a seventh downloaded but not installed (Vindictus), and a bunch of scattered other programs.  My SSD isn't even half full, and there's plenty of stuff I could clear out if I needed to.

    Different people have wildly different needs on storage capacity, and for many, 240 GB is plenty.  Though if you're on a tight enough budget to consider forgoing an SSD, being a packrat that fills up multiple TB with random junk is doing it wrong.
  • ClaiesClaies Member UncommonPosts: 76
    It's not really hard to fill up an SSD with Steam.  Mad Max (32gb), GTAV (62gb), Pillars of Eternity (14gb), Dark Souls II (18gb), Far Cry 4 (38gb), the list goes on.  Pretty much Steam != MMOs in terms of needed storage space. 
  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    Painlezz said:
    Soooo....

    High resolution monitors are a waste for a vast majority of uses.  Modern high end games will not run very well at those resolutions.  Developers don't optimize for them in the first place and in many cases that also means you won't notice any real visual benefit.

    Top that off with the fact that Windows (even 10) doesn't do great with scaling still.  You'll find plenty of programs that look terrible (very tiny) on high res displays.

    Don't get me wrong, high resolution is great for LARGE displays.  I have a 4k 70" and it's great!  Windows running at 4k 70 inches is crisp and clear!    My laptop is high resolution (3200 x 1800) on a 13 inch screen and it looks no better/worse than a 1080 display with the added hassle of scaling issues on my programs.
    Depends on what you mean with high resolution. 2K on a 27" is nice. 4K needs minimum 30" to be of any use. 24" and less have have no use of anything over 1080P except possibly in a few RTS games with lousy zoom.
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited September 2015
    Quizzical said:
    It's not write endurance that I'm worried about.  That said, I think that test substantially overestimates write endurance.  Just because an SSD isn't completely dead doesn't mean that it will reliably store data that isn't modified for a year.

    The 240 billion bytes is typically after overprovisioning.  Chips tend to come in powers of 2, so a "240 GB" SSD probably actually has 2^38 bytes of NAND, some of which is used up by the overprovisioning to bring it down to 240 billion bytes usable.

    I'm not sure how you're filling up a 240 GB SSD with just an OS and 2 games.  I've got a 240 GB SSD with 6 games installed right now (Guild Wars 2, Hearthstone, Wakfu, Champions Online, Neverwinter, and Elsword), a seventh downloaded but not installed (Vindictus), and a bunch of scattered other programs.  My SSD isn't even half full, and there's plenty of stuff I could clear out if I needed to.

    Different people have wildly different needs on storage capacity, and for many, 240 GB is plenty.  Though if you're on a tight enough budget to consider forgoing an SSD, being a packrat that fills up multiple TB with random junk is doing it wrong.
    Thats practical testing. Theory is one thing, practice another. If you would like to conduct your own tests, youre welcome. 840 evo 256GB reached 900 TB. and 850 is improved, that even samsung guarantees double officially from 840. And 500GB has double life on 256 one. Even that guaranteed is more than enough. And concerns you have i had 5 years ago. Practice tells theres not too much to be concerned about over usual general SSD concerns.

    Overprovisioning provided by factory is minimal, if they did provide adequate OP they couldnt sell 480/500 GB disks any more but 400 GB ones. Of course, reasoning is that your average user wont need it and power user will know how/what to do himself anyways, but still, its in function of your drive health. So you do it at your own discretion.

    GW2, ESO, SWTOR and thats over 100 GB right there. And ESO, for instance, requires double space (over 65GB) to just be able to install. And thats just MMOs. Now include OS, programs. movies, music, pictures, recorded TV, backups...

    I dont really know anyone who would be comfortable with 240 GB.  Yeah, its doable, but then, there are lots of doable things. TB+ HDDs have been around for a long long time now. Everything but OS and few select programs are random junk. And constantly redownloading/installing stuff gets really annoying really fast (have to consider where i live vast majority of people, including me, have 4Mbit ADSL), been there done that.

    And i do know the reaction to prices of SSDs, people have just been settling with 60-70$ for 120 GB, 100+$ for 240GB is just out of reach. Yeah, we do have to pay taxes so no 80$ 240GB drives.
    Post edited by Malabooga on
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,100
    Why are you trying to include movies, music, pictures, recorded TV, and backups in a list for making your case for  SSD capacity? None of that stuff would go on an SSD if you had another drive, or a backup drive, available on your system. That's strike one.

    And Quiz never mentioned most of the games you listed as games he is playing or concerned with. Sure, I could pick a bunch of random programs too and show how they take up a lot of space. How exactly is that relevant to anything? That's strike two.

    So pretty much you made up your list of stuff you do, and then tried to tell Quiz he should do something not based on what he does, but on what you do.

    As far as write endurance - who really worries about that except for DB admins, so I'm not sure why that even got brought up - which was the basis for your first post, recommending "Pro" SSDs. And then you come around to say it's not an issue, so I'm not sure what your trying to say with all of that?

    And over-provisioning - yeah - that won't help you at all in the corner case Quiz is talking about, although if the case Quiz is talking about occurs, I think that's a dead drive because the firmware has failed you on flagging faulting cells.

    I think I'm past three strikes and your out of credibility, if I had bothered to keep counting.
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,100
    edited September 2015
    Malabooga said:
    And i do know the reaction to prices of SSDs, people have just been settling with 60-70$ for 120 GB, 100+$ for 240GB is just out of reach. Yeah, we do have to pay taxes so no 80$ 240GB drives.
    And not that I really need to, but since I'm on the topic:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=0D9-0021-00006

    Not saying I'd buy that, but yeah, a 240G SSD, for well under $80, including taxes and shipping. And it wasn't the only one under $80, and there are a lot under $100. Just saying ...


  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited September 2015
    Ridelynn said:
    Malabooga said:
    And i do know the reaction to prices of SSDs, people have just been settling with 60-70$ for 120 GB, 100+$ for 240GB is just out of reach. Yeah, we do have to pay taxes so no 80$ 240GB drives.
    And not that I really need to, but since I'm on the topic:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=0D9-0021-00006

    Not saying I'd buy that, but yeah, a 240G SSD, for well under $80, including taxes and shipping. And it wasn't the only one under $80, and there are a lot under $100. Just saying ...


    That doesnt include any taxes or shipping.

    "Above total does not include shipping or taxes. Please input zip code to calculate your grand total."

    It clearly says so on the shopping cart page. NONE of those items include any tax or international shipping.

    I dont even know where you got the idea tax and shipping were included. Just saying....

    Add:

    25% tax
    8% import customs
    shipping fee: international

    So:

    70*1,33+23=116,1 $

    Yup, taxes.

    http://www.amazon.de/Silicon-Power-Slim-interne-240GB/dp/B009FG9EMU/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1441900456&sr=8-8&keywords=silicon+power+ssd

    This one includes tax and shipping. 105$.

    240 GB SSDs have been hovering above 100$ mark.

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,100
    Again, your taking your situation and trying to apply it to others.

    Just because you live in Timbuktoo or where ever, and can't get a decently priced SSD or shipping, your trying to tell everyone that no one can. And Quiz, the OP and the build we are discussing, certainly doesn't live in Timbuktoo (or maybe he does, idk, but all his prices and builds are US-based, so I'm making an assumption there).

    I get 8% tax and free shipping, that makes it a well under $80US drive. Average tax rate in the US is about 8% so that's a pretty good number to use. And I could probably finagle some circumstances where there are no taxes at all and free shipping, but that would be a corner case.

    So yeah. If you want to start throwing in all sorts of what-ifs in there, you could make an SSD cost a Million Bajillion, but that doesn't exactly make it relevent to the post.
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited September 2015
    Ridelynn said:
    Again, your taking your situation and trying to apply it to others.

    Just because you live in Timbuktoo or where ever, and can't get a decently priced SSD or shipping, your trying to tell everyone that no one can. And Quiz, the OP and the build we are discussing, certainly doesn't live in Timbuktoo (or maybe he does, idk, but all his prices and builds are US-based, so I'm making an assumption there).

    I get 8% tax and free shipping, that makes it a well under $80US drive. Average tax rate in the US is about 8% so that's a pretty good number to use. And I could probably finagle some circumstances where there are no taxes at all and free shipping, but that would be a corner case.

    So yeah. If you want to start throwing in all sorts of what-ifs in there, you could make an SSD cost a Million Bajillion, but that doesn't exactly make it relevent to the post.
    I live in EU. You know where EU is, right? And thats why i said WE dont get 80$ SSDs. And Amazon.DE should have been hint enough alone.

    Dont really know why youre getting all worked up about it. You made a mistake and i corrected you, thats all.

  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited September 2015
    Ridelynn said:
    Why are you trying to include movies, music, pictures, recorded TV, and backups in a list for making your case for  SSD capacity? None of that stuff would go on an SSD if you had another drive, or a backup drive, available on your system. That's strike one.

    And Quiz never mentioned most of the games you listed as games he is playing or concerned with. Sure, I could pick a bunch of random programs too and show how they take up a lot of space. How exactly is that relevant to anything? That's strike two.

    So pretty much you made up your list of stuff you do, and then tried to tell Quiz he should do something not based on what he does, but on what you do.

    As far as write endurance - who really worries about that except for DB admins, so I'm not sure why that even got brought up - which was the basis for your first post, recommending "Pro" SSDs. And then you come around to say it's not an issue, so I'm not sure what your trying to say with all of that?

    And over-provisioning - yeah - that won't help you at all in the corner case Quiz is talking about, although if the case Quiz is talking about occurs, I think that's a dead drive because the firmware has failed you on flagging faulting cells.

    I think I'm past three strikes and your out of credibility, if I had bothered to keep counting.
    I include it because Quiz said that 240 GB is plenty. Its not.

    Im not telling him anything, we discussed something and you barged in making completely unrelated remarks.

    Its polite to actually read the discussion first and THEN make replies.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 20,284
    Size of the drive is relevant to needs and usage. For him 240GB is enough. For me it's not. I have a LITEON 256GB for my C: drive. I have a 1TB Samsung EVO for my D: drive. E: is an old Toshiba 250GB drive. I also have a 1TB hdd.

    What I've noticed with the old Toshiba is that as it has aged it's performance has gone down considerably. That's most notably write performance with a very slight decline in read. The 850EVO and the LITEON blow it away. They are also newer with better architecture and controllers.

    I've been very happy with the Samsung and will continue to buy those when I can. I have also been surprised at the LITEON. It's fast (benches well) and I've been happy with the real world results.

    An SSD isn't an option for me in a system, but the size type and configuration is very subjective. What works for Quizz in his system makes sense to me.
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


Sign In or Register to comment.