Second Build, what am I missing and where can I improve?

Fluffy88

Well with the way SSD caching works I you play a lot of different games off your HDD all the time, you actually probably wouldn't see a huge improvement in performance. SSD caching takes the most used files on the HDD and caches or stores them on the SSD so they can be accessed faster. If you constantly change games and rarely play the same one twice in a row then you might get very little benefit from using SRT. Using SRT you will see a big jump in performance when you do the same thing twice. So if say photoshop was on the HDD and you opened it, the OS will have to load photoshop from the HDD. SRT will then take photoshop and place it on the SSD because it has been used. When you close photoshop and open it again, the OS will now only have to load it from the SSD meaning it will open in seconds! My point is, if you play so many different games there might be little to be gained from SRT as the SSD won't be able to cache them all, only the most recently or most commonly used one's.

VenomIreland

I've decided to not go with SRT, since, as Fluffy88 pointed out, I wouldn't get much benefit from it anyway and the SLC SSD's I've read about are expensive, and I only planned to spend around 2k max.

Serephucus

Fluffy88 wrote: »

Well with the way SSD caching works I you play a lot of different games off your HDD all the time, you actually probably wouldn't see a huge improvement in performance. SSD caching takes the most used files on the HDD and caches or stores them on the SSD so they can be accessed faster. If you constantly change games and rarely play the same one twice in a row then you might get very little benefit from using SRT. Using SRT you will see a big jump in performance when you do the same thing twice. So if say photoshop was on the HDD and you opened it, the OS will have to load photoshop from the HDD. SRT will then take photoshop and place it on the SSD because it has been used. When you close photoshop and open it again, the OS will now only have to load it from the SSD meaning it will open in seconds! My point is, if you play so many different games there might be little to be gained from SRT as the SSD won't be able to cache them all, only the most recently or most commonly used one's.

Either way, it basically comes down to having your top six or seven games boosted. The way I see it, installing your most-played games on an SSD will obviously have them loaded at SSD speeds, and your other games will be loaded however quickly a regular HDD loads them. What happens when your tastes change? Do you uninstall game X from the SSD to install game Y?

If you use SRT, you still have your top games loaded at (almost) SSD speeds, but if you get really into another game for a week or so, and play it 100 times, 99 of those will be at SSD speeds; you never have to worry about uninstalling/reinstalling on the SSD because of space issues, it's essentially automated.

Just my €0.02.

Fluffy88

That's very true and I wouldn't say using SRT is a bad idea, I was more just trying to explain how SRT works for the OP so he could make a more informed decision. I know my explanation wasn't great and if the technology is any good(which it probably is) it will be able to figure out what's the most important stuff to keep on the SSD after a few runs so most likely it would show an improvement.

It really is down to personal preference as you pointed out, so the more informed Venom is the better he can make a decision

VenomIreland

Serephucus wrote: »

Either way, it basically comes down to having your top six or seven games boosted. The way I see it, installing your most-played games on an SSD will obviously have them loaded at SSD speeds, and your other games will be loaded however quickly a regular HDD loads them. What happens when your tastes change? Do you uninstall game X from the SSD to install game Y?

If you use SRT, you still have your top games loaded at (almost) SSD speeds, but if you get really into another game for a week or so, and play it 100 times, 99 of those will be at SSD speeds; you never have to worry about uninstalling/reinstalling on the SSD because of space issues, it's essentially automated.

Just my €0.02.

Hmm, maybe I'll reconsider.

I hate being indecisive.

VenomIreland

After thinking overnight I have decided I will go for 2 64GB SSD's, one for cache and the other as a permanent drive for programs and the OS.
I realise I will not see a boost to the OS or other programs but I will most definitely see a boost on all the game I play, which will all be stored on the Hard Drive.

Here is the basket now:
Total build cost: €2,057.46 + €30 shipping
Intel Core i5-2500K Box, LGA1155 €175.48
FRACTAL DESIGN Gehäuse DEFINE R3 Black Pearl €89.75
2 x Sapphire HD 6950 Dirt3, 2GB GDDR5 PCI-Express €223.44
Samsung SH-B123L Retail €57.49
ASUS Xonar DX 7.1, PCIe x1 (90-YAA060-1UAN00Z) €52.82
Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit (SB-Version) €74.51
Samsung SpinPoint F3 1000GB, SATA II (HD103SJ) €45.14
8GB-Kit G.Skill RipJaws-X PC3-10667U CL9 €38.75
XFX PRO650W Core Edition Full Wired Power Supply €67.64
Scythe Mugen 3, für alle Sockel geeignet €33.80
Dell U2711 €640.55
MSI Z68A-GD65 (B3), Intel Z68, ATX, DDR3 €151.97
2 x Crucial M4 64GB SSD 6,4cm (2,5") €91.34

EDIT: Actually, are there any good <60GB SSD's? I heard SRT only works up to 60GB, but the M4 is 64GB.
EDIT2: Nevermind, just read more about it and anything over 64GB is split into a separate drive.

Monotype

Doesn't the 128GB have higher write speeds than the 64GB?

I don't think the caching is really worth it. If you're switch very regularly between games, the cache will be changing around so you won't avail of the advantages anyway. I think you should just put aside 50GB for the regular games. If your tastes change, you can move them. Then again, the caching does save you some work of doing this
yourself.

If you do go for caching, I think you should just get the 128GB drive and allocate 28GB or something. You can always try it out and see how it goes. I presume you can delete it at any time.

IMO, if you really have a load of games, get 2 or 3 500GB F3s and put them in RAID 0.

VenomIreland

Monotype wrote: »

Doesn't the 128GB have higher write speeds than the 64GB?

I don't think the caching is really worth it. If you're switch very regularly between games, the cache will be changing around so you won't avail of the advantages anyway. I think you should just put aside 50GB for the regular games. If your tastes change, you can move them. Then again, the caching does save you some work of doing this
yourself.

IMO, if you really have a load of games, get 2 or 3 500GB F3s and put them in RAID 0.

Hmm, I never considered RAID. I tend to play 3 or 4 games regularly with some other games thrown in depending on my mood, I think I'll consider RAID.

So many options!

EDIT: I didn't know you could use a partition for SRT, I might go ahead with the 128GB Drive and just allocate about 20-30GB to accelerate the HDD.

Serephucus

VenomIreland wrote: »

I didn't know you could use a partition for SRT, I might go ahead with the 128GB Drive and just allocate about 20-30GB to accelerate the HDD.

Hmm... I seem to remember that being... the first thing I said! :P

Assuming you have the free space, I'd imagine you can just increase/decrease the size of the cache as you like, so you can try a few different sizes, and see what works best for you.

Personally, I wouldn't go for RAID. It's actually more than twice as risky, because you not only have to factor in each of the drives, and their possibility of failure, you also have to factor in the controller. A friend of mine recently tried RAID, and though the drives worked perfectly on their own, there was something wrong with his controller than resulted in data randomly being lost. 300GB of lost data later and he's back with JBOD.

jack888

Wow. This build is almost exactly the same build as mine, Im even using dual monitors with the u2711. Amazing monitor.

You will need to buy two extra case fans. Im running crossfire dirt3 6950s(same case also) and had some heat issues when running the likes of crysis on 2560 x 1440. Heat on one of the card was reaching 85 degrees. Once I put in side fan the heat now maxes at about 72 degrees.

VenomIreland

Serephucus wrote: »

Hmm... I seem to remember that being... the first thing I said! :P

I must have misread your post, sorry

Tea_Bag

To use srt and boot from an SSD it has to be tricked into RAID which means no TRIM..

VenomIreland

Tea_Bag wrote: »

To use srt and boot from an SSD it has to be tricked into RAID which means no TRIM..

Are you certain about that? If so, no cache for me then.

Tea_Bag

VenomIreland wrote: »

Are you certain about that? If so, no cache for me then.

either no cache, or a cheapo SSD alongside your good m4 will do the trick.

it was the case when i was reading up on it when z68 first came out. you had to trick the SSD into a raid setup, cause partitions didnt work.

VenomIreland

Tea_Bag wrote: »

either no cache, or a cheapo SSD alongside your good m4 will do the trick.

it was the case when i was reading up on it when z68 first came out. you had to trick the SSD into a raid setup, cause partitions didnt work.

Alright then, know of any good cheap and small SSD's?

Tea_Bag

VenomIreland wrote: »

Alright then, know of any good cheap and small SSD's?

hmm a quick search on amazon, HWVS and adverts.ie isnt bringing up any cheapo ~30gb SSD's

cheapest good SSD would be €75 so probably not worth the money to you. is TRIM so important on these newer gen SSDs liek the m4?

VenomIreland

Tea_Bag wrote: »

hmm a quick search on amazon, HWVS and adverts.ie isnt bringing up any cheapo ~30gb SSD's

cheapest good SSD would be €75 so probably not worth the money to you. is TRIM so important on these newer gen SSDs liek the m4?

Well, I'd like TRIM, but I suppose it's not essential, as the SSD will probably reach it's maximum writes long after I'm done with it. I think I'll get the 128GB M4 and 1TB Spinpoint, and then partition the M4 to use it partially as a cache.

EDIT: Well, I might do that, I might just leave the SSD for the OS and have no cache, depending on how tricky the install is.

VenomIreland

Going to order this sometime in the next few days, I've decided to just go with a 128GB SSD for Windows (and possibly Linux) and the HDD for all my games.

To be honest, I don't mind that the games won't see a benefit from the SSD, as everything else will.

Final Basket, assuming no last minute changes.
Total build cost: €2,031.49 + €30 shipping
Intel Core i5-2500K Box, LGA1155 €175.48
MSI P67A-GD65 (B3), Intel P67, ATX, DDR3 €142.79
FRACTAL DESIGN Gehäuse DEFINE R3 Black Pearl €89.75
2 x Sapphire HD 6950 Dirt3, 2GB GDDR5 PCI-Express €223.44
Samsung SH-B123L Retail €57.49
ASUS Xonar DX 7.1, PCIe x1 (90-YAA060-1UAN00Z) €52.82
Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit (SB-Version) €74.51
Crucial M4 128GB SSD 6,4cm (2,5") €165.89
Samsung SpinPoint F3 1000GB, SATA II (HD103SJ) €45.14
8GB-Kit G.Skill RipJaws-X PC3-10667U CL9 €38.75
XFX PRO650W Core Edition Full Wired Power Supply €67.64
Scythe Mugen 3, für alle Sockel geeignet €33.80
Dell U2711 €640.55

VenomIreland

Anything I should probably change? I'm planning on ordering tomorrow morning.

Serephucus

Definitely not an NVIDIA guy? Overclocked, a 580 will get you more performance than two 6950s, without all the Crossfire issues.

VenomIreland

Serephucus wrote: »

Definitely not an NVIDIA guy? Overclocked, a 580 will get you more performance than two 6950s, without all the Crossfire issues.

I am not biased towards AMD ( I have a GTX460 in my current PC, which is going to my brothers ), but these benchmarks tell a different story: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/305?vs=299

EDIT: I missed the part where you mentioned overclocking, is the GTX580 as good with OC'ing as the 460?

Serephucus

VenomIreland wrote: »

I am not biased towards AMD ( I have a GTX460 in my current PC, which is going to my brothers ), but these benchmarks tell a different story: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/305?vs=299

EDIT: I missed the part where you mentioned overclocking, is the GTX580 as good with OC'ing as the 460?

Stock speed is 772 core. I've hade mine at 900 on air with no problems. 980 under water.

VenomIreland

Serephucus wrote: »

Stock speed is 772 core. I've hade mine at 900 on air with no problems. 980 under water.

Given my wonderful experience with this card and overclocking and your reports, I might just swap the cards, it would at the very least mean no microstutter and less power used, I'll think about it for about half an hour and post back with my decision.

deconduo

VenomIreland wrote: »

I am not biased towards AMD ( I have a GTX460 in my current PC, which is going to my brothers ), but these benchmarks tell a different story: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/305?vs=299

EDIT: I missed the part where you mentioned overclocking, is the GTX580 as good with OC'ing as the 460?

Even heavily overclocked a GTX580 wouldn't come close.

VenomIreland

deconduo wrote: »

Even heavily overclocked a GTX580 wouldn't come close.

What would you recommend? I myself am thinking to stick with 2 6950's, but I'm interested in what everyone else would do.

af_thefragile

I read GTX560ti is really good. You can easily overclock it to over 1ghz...
Its good value too.
GTX580 imo is quite overpriced...

Tea_Bag

deconduo wrote: »

Even heavily overclocked a GTX580 wouldn't come close.

agreed.

a GTX580 Super OC 1ghz+ wont beat a 560Ti SLI setup, and they're not even as powerful as the 6950's.

dont know where youre getting that info Serephucus? any source to back you up?

also, with with a little of luck you could get the 6950's to 900mhz on air and higher on water which would eat any OC of the 580. im not a fanboi either, i prefer Nvidia (old card was a 460 which OC'd to 870mhz without raising voltage or fan setup) and new is 6950CF


all that said, you're probably better with Nvidia anyway if you want to use linux? AMD drivers are supposed to be ****.

VenomIreland

Tea_Bag wrote: »

agreed.

a GTX580 Super OC 1ghz+ wont beat a 560Ti SLI setup, and they're not even as powerful as the 6950's.

dont know where youre getting that info Serephucus? any source to back you up?

also, with with a little of luck you could get the 6950's to 900mhz on air and higher on water which would eat any OC of the 580. im not a fanboi either, i prefer Nvidia (old card was a 460 which OC'd to 870mhz without raising voltage or fan setup) and new is 6950CF


all that said, you're probably better with Nvidia anyway if you want to use linux? AMD drivers are supposed to be ****.

I rarely use Linux, and never for anything graphically demanding, so the open source drivers should be ok. EDIT: I didn't know AMD had actually created proper drives for the 6xxx series, so I'll use those instead of the open source ones.

I will stick with the 6950's, ordering the whole lot tomorrow morning.

deconduo

VenomIreland wrote: »

What would you recommend? I myself am thinking to stick with 2 6950's, but I'm interested in what everyone else would do.

A single card is less hassle than SLI/crossfire. However both AMD and NVIDIA have been quite good with their drivers for it recently, and with most games you won't have problems.

Power and temperature wise they are about the same at stock, but if you overclock the 580 it will run much hotter and louder (unless you have watercooling)

Performance wise the 6950 CF will utterly destroy the 580. If you look at the figures from the Anandtech comparison, overclocking the 580 to 900MHz core (which isn't easy or guaranteed) will add about 10% on the 1900x1200 benches.

Tea_Bag

af_thefragile wrote: »

I read GTX560ti is really good. You can easily overclock it to over 1ghz...
Its good value too.

not quite so easy, you've got to get quite lucky. and 1ghz is the limit, not over. with SLI youd want to be careful of heat issues at those clocks anyway.

that said, i think 560ti's are your best bet, just dont expect 1ghz..