You don't need an SSD--unless it bothers you if your computer is sluggish and constantly makes you sit and wait. Likewise, a computer doesn't need a discrete video card--unless it bothers you to have to run games at low graphical settings.
I've gotten this far without one. I mean if the latest games are sluggish now, I'll likely get one down the road when it seems like they aren't failing so much on people. Since it's my first self built PC I dunno. I guess I have a few days to think about it.
Question, If I installed windows on the HDD would I be able to just use/run games on the SSD. It sounds like one of the reviewers did that. I'm not familar with using multiple hard drives at once.
You're probably so used to having to wait on your hard drive that you don't realize anything is wrong. It's kind of like how if you had only ever used integrated graphics, and got that in your new computer and kept running games at low settings, you'd think it was a big upgrade over your old system, and not realize anything is wrong.
I've gotten this far without one. I mean if the latest games are sluggish now, I'll likely get one down the road when it seems like they aren't failing so much on people. Since it's my first self built PC I dunno. I guess I have a few days to think about it.
Question, If I installed windows on the HDD would I be able to just use/run games on the SSD. It sounds like one of the reviewers did that. I'm not familar with using multiple hard drives at once.
have you ever purchased anything that after using it awhile you start wondering how the heck have you gotten along w/o it in the past?
SSD is one of those type of items.
SSD won't improve your game play.
it's a paradigm shift from your current computing experience.
Originally posted by drazzah TL;DR Overclocking can really open up a computer. If done properly youll be perfectly fine, if done half-assed youll probably destroy your machine.
This isn't entirely accurate. When Psyclum said "there is a difference between reliable and stable" it's true.
Overclocking can have a hidden toll on a computer, and the post where the computer died after several years of running fine is a good example, even if it seems contrary.
Cooler IC's live longer. Now silicon has a pretty good working life, and a good MTBF. No moving parts and just electrical transistor junctions. But that doesn't mean they don't fail, or that there aren't things you can do to ensure they stay working longer. There are still thermal stresses - the chip physically expands every time it heats up, and contracts when it cools, and all of that expansion and contraction causes thermal fatigue - where traces can physically break, silicon can physically crack (even microscopic fractures are enough on nanometer sized transistors), and so forth. Leakage current also leads to doping breakdown. Transistors are designed to run with a certain amount of leakage current, and their doping levels (what you mix with the silicon to turn them into semiconductors) are adjusted to create that, but as you exceed that current, you can create chemical changes in the doping, and that can lead to transistor breakdown.
Exceeding the leakage current while overclocking usually leads to a recoverable condition: the CPU is unstable or locks up, and only in extreme cases will it physically alter a chip. Thermal fatigue is a long term effect, and takes months/years to affect a normal component.
Heat is a surefire way to lower the life of an IC. The heat produced is a function of clock speed (directly proportional) and voltage (exponentially proportional). Overclocking with no voltage adjustments doesn't mean you instantly have a "safe" overclock. The greater heat, the larger the differential temperature the IC sees from ambient to full load, the greater the thermal stress created per thermal cycle. Also, a greater localize leakage current will be generated.
There is also the matter of heat distribution. Your modern CPU's all have on-die thermocouples. The problem is, the heat is generated in different areas of the chip across a gradient, and at different rates depending on what on the die is being utilized the most. So, just because your thermocouple says your good on temperature, it's still possible that your overheating parts of the die. Once you exceed stock speeds, all bets and warranties are off with regard to thermal distribution.
Heat on an IC may not lower your actual lifespan at all - it really only increases the chance that it will fail (the MTBF goes down). So overclocking maybe your increasing your odds of a CPU failure by 0.01%, or maybe it's as much as 10% on some extreme overclocks - but the point is no overclock is without risk or consequence.
Maybe your computer will live throughout it's useful life with an overclock with no problems - ~5 years are what most desktops run, maybe you get 3 years, and could have had 2 more had you not overclocked it. Maybe the CPU could have run for 20 years, and overclocking cuts it down to 8... the point is, it is a measurable effect, and it's a gamble as to exactly how your overclock affects your particular CPU, as each CPU is going to be different (due to microscopic flaws in the manufacturing process) and react to overclocking differently.
No overclock is perfectly fine, they all have some risk associated with it, and there is no way to measure what that risk will be for each individual machine because of the individual nature of each semiconductor inherent in the manufacturing process.
Reliability is a relative thing. Even stock speeds have some risk associated.
If an overclock were perfectly safe, then why didn't Intel or AMD or Nvidia or whoever set the stock clock speed higher?
Some processors do have a decent amount of headroom for a pretty safe overclock if you do it right. One answer to the above question is, because clock speeds that are safe with a high quality motherboard, power supply, and cooler aren't necessarily safe with a mediocre motherboard and power supply and the stock cooler.
Intel and AMD don't know what motherboard or power supply you're going to use, but they do know that if a bad motherboard or power supply fries your processor, you're probably going to blame Intel or AMD, and not the motherboard or power supply vendor. Or perhaps rather, you might not, but the sort of people who would try to overclock with a mediocre motherboard or power supply would.
Comments
I've gotten this far without one. I mean if the latest games are sluggish now, I'll likely get one down the road when it seems like they aren't failing so much on people. Since it's my first self built PC I dunno. I guess I have a few days to think about it.
Question, If I installed windows on the HDD would I be able to just use/run games on the SSD. It sounds like one of the reviewers did that. I'm not familar with using multiple hard drives at once.
You're probably so used to having to wait on your hard drive that you don't realize anything is wrong. It's kind of like how if you had only ever used integrated graphics, and got that in your new computer and kept running games at low settings, you'd think it was a big upgrade over your old system, and not realize anything is wrong.
have you ever purchased anything that after using it awhile you start wondering how the heck have you gotten along w/o it in the past?
SSD is one of those type of items.
SSD won't improve your game play.
it's a paradigm shift from your current computing experience.
So would I put windows and the random programs i use on it and games, movies, files and stuff on the 1tb hdd?
With my SSD, i put the OS on it and the main games i play. And i put everything else on the HDDs
This isn't entirely accurate. When Psyclum said "there is a difference between reliable and stable" it's true.
Overclocking can have a hidden toll on a computer, and the post where the computer died after several years of running fine is a good example, even if it seems contrary.
Cooler IC's live longer. Now silicon has a pretty good working life, and a good MTBF. No moving parts and just electrical transistor junctions. But that doesn't mean they don't fail, or that there aren't things you can do to ensure they stay working longer. There are still thermal stresses - the chip physically expands every time it heats up, and contracts when it cools, and all of that expansion and contraction causes thermal fatigue - where traces can physically break, silicon can physically crack (even microscopic fractures are enough on nanometer sized transistors), and so forth. Leakage current also leads to doping breakdown. Transistors are designed to run with a certain amount of leakage current, and their doping levels (what you mix with the silicon to turn them into semiconductors) are adjusted to create that, but as you exceed that current, you can create chemical changes in the doping, and that can lead to transistor breakdown.
Exceeding the leakage current while overclocking usually leads to a recoverable condition: the CPU is unstable or locks up, and only in extreme cases will it physically alter a chip. Thermal fatigue is a long term effect, and takes months/years to affect a normal component.
Heat is a surefire way to lower the life of an IC. The heat produced is a function of clock speed (directly proportional) and voltage (exponentially proportional). Overclocking with no voltage adjustments doesn't mean you instantly have a "safe" overclock. The greater heat, the larger the differential temperature the IC sees from ambient to full load, the greater the thermal stress created per thermal cycle. Also, a greater localize leakage current will be generated.
There is also the matter of heat distribution. Your modern CPU's all have on-die thermocouples. The problem is, the heat is generated in different areas of the chip across a gradient, and at different rates depending on what on the die is being utilized the most. So, just because your thermocouple says your good on temperature, it's still possible that your overheating parts of the die. Once you exceed stock speeds, all bets and warranties are off with regard to thermal distribution.
Heat on an IC may not lower your actual lifespan at all - it really only increases the chance that it will fail (the MTBF goes down). So overclocking maybe your increasing your odds of a CPU failure by 0.01%, or maybe it's as much as 10% on some extreme overclocks - but the point is no overclock is without risk or consequence.
Maybe your computer will live throughout it's useful life with an overclock with no problems - ~5 years are what most desktops run, maybe you get 3 years, and could have had 2 more had you not overclocked it. Maybe the CPU could have run for 20 years, and overclocking cuts it down to 8... the point is, it is a measurable effect, and it's a gamble as to exactly how your overclock affects your particular CPU, as each CPU is going to be different (due to microscopic flaws in the manufacturing process) and react to overclocking differently.
No overclock is perfectly fine, they all have some risk associated with it, and there is no way to measure what that risk will be for each individual machine because of the individual nature of each semiconductor inherent in the manufacturing process.
A good source to read:
http://www.overclockers.com/overclockings-impact-on-cpu-life/
Reliability is a relative thing. Even stock speeds have some risk associated.
If an overclock were perfectly safe, then why didn't Intel or AMD or Nvidia or whoever set the stock clock speed higher?
Some processors do have a decent amount of headroom for a pretty safe overclock if you do it right. One answer to the above question is, because clock speeds that are safe with a high quality motherboard, power supply, and cooler aren't necessarily safe with a mediocre motherboard and power supply and the stock cooler.
Intel and AMD don't know what motherboard or power supply you're going to use, but they do know that if a bad motherboard or power supply fries your processor, you're probably going to blame Intel or AMD, and not the motherboard or power supply vendor. Or perhaps rather, you might not, but the sort of people who would try to overclock with a mediocre motherboard or power supply would.