Desktop Computers

Grand Inquisitor Kegkilla_sl said:

is it important to turn off search indexing and disk restore imaging with a SSD? I had read that elsewhere, was curious.

Click to expand...

Turn off prefetch and defrag and use it as a normal drive.

Recommended tweaks for SSDs

http://www.computing.net/howtos/show...ows-7/552.html

the only downside to turning off indexing under Windows 7 is that it disables the search feature entirely for files...you can still search the Start menu for programs though

joeboo_sl said:

Recommended tweaks for SSDs

http://www.computing.net/howtos/show...ows-7/552.html

the only downside to turning off indexing under Windows 7 is that it disables the search feature entirely for files...you can still search the Start menu for programs though

Click to expand...

Defrag (due to the nature of how SSDs work) and hibernation I get, but many of those are simply trying to reduce the number of writes to the SSD. It was bought to be used. Is anyone really getting into the end of the usable life of their SSD with typical usage patterns? The write amplification of newer drives is much lower.

Jovec_sl said:

Defrag (due to the nature of how SSDs work) and hibernation I get, but many of those are simply trying to reduce the number of writes to the SSD. It was bought to be used. Is anyone really getting into the end of the usable life of their SSD with typical usage patterns? The write amplification of newer drives is much lower.

Click to expand...

My first SSD, an Intel G2 120GB with 14,ooo power-on hours and only 4tb of writes still reads 100% life with Intel SSD toolbox. Outside of prefetch and disabling defrag, use them as a normal HDD.

I recommend disabling hibernation too (unless you use it), especially on 120GB and smaller drives. With many of us running 16GB and even 32GB of RAM it's hard to lose that much spare area. Keeping 20-30% capacity free will help keep performance up and keep WA down.

brekk_sl said:

It's becoming more an issue with the newer SSD's. Read Write cycles are related to size of the NAND memory, so newer 22nm NAND is worse, and this is gonna continue with smaller processes. Basicaslly every read and write erodes a memory cell a little bit, smaller cells have less to erode.

Click to expand...

P/E is going down with smaller NAND, but WA is also going down with larger capacities and better controllers.

The smaller cells also have more bits (SLC=1, MLC=2, TLC=3), so with a good controller and enough spare area writes can be limited.

brekk_sl said:

You can't really make this generalization, the only controllers heavily focussing on Write Amplification for their speed are Sandforce's.



MLC and even moreso TLC have much lower read/write lifetimes then SLC. They have 1-2 orders of magnitude less durability then SLC.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6459/s...ce-of-tlc-nand


Please don't take this to mean I think SSD's are unreliable. I've been running the same 60gb Sandforce SSD (1000 series chip) for 2 year basically 24/7 without incident.

Click to expand...

TLC does have lower P/E cycles, but my opinion is that it does not matter for typical consumer usage. I am arguing against the notion that you need to reduce writes to the SSD. It is a solution in need of a problem. Just don't fill up the drive and it's usable life will be more than enough.

Your AT links supposes a 3X WA, giving the 120GB drive a 12 estimated life and 24 years for the 240GB model. This is with 1000 P/E TLC NAND. I think you'll find that real-world consumer WA is much closer to 1.1- 1.5x, easily doubling that estimated life. Of course, writing more or less data adjusts that lifespan accordingly, and a drive can also see >3X WA with certain workloads, but most of us simply aren't writing much data for daily (non-server/non-specialized) usage.

Strictly speaking, 3-bit TLC doesn't wear out faster SLC or MLC, but rather it is more sensitive to cell degradation because it has 8 voltage states it must be able to uniquely identify (compared to 2 and 4 for SLC and MLC). Future SSDs will employ DSP tech to automatically adjust for cell degradation to push the P/E of TLC NAND back up. If TLC endurance is that big of a concern for someone, buy a larger capacity and leave more spare area (offset somewhat by cheaper TLC pricing). IOW, the lower P/E endurance of TLC is offset by higher capacities and cheaper pricing.

I've never really seen this addressed anywhere, but I would assume you don't want anything related to your torrents sitting on an SSD? I have all torrent-related files and programs on my traditional hard drives since I leave them running 24/7, I figure thats a lot of file access and read/writes that I don't want running on my SSD 24/7? Or would your torrent software (utorrent, Bitcomet, whatever) being installed on an SSD really not add a lot of SSD wear and tear?

I pretty much have all of my utilities(OS, security/antivirus, photoshop, audio/video software) installed on my SSD, but I've always kept my torrent software off of there, I'm just curious if that's a precaution that isn't really necessary.

Jovec_sl said:

If you add a new SSD you can put that 60gb to work as a SRT cache if your mobo supports it (z68/z78), or just use something like Steam Mover (which just automates junctions) and run your current favorite games off of the 60GB.

Click to expand...

Does anyone here run SRT? Is it good/worth it? My mobo supports it and I have a spare SSD but no idea if its worth the extra hassle.

I'm looking to buy two 27" monitors to perform as a secondary and tertiary displays, mostly to show multiple windows on a desktop. My main display was is a real nice high res display that I use for gaming and other things, so these displays can be 1920x1080 so I don't mind the resolution.

Mainly I'm looking at cost and thinness of the frame. Any suggestions?

I really don't want to have to buy two of these:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824260110
Even though I kind of want to, but I'd be overspending by about $200 or so.

If that extra $50 can be spent ANYWHERE else in your build to improve performance (bigger SSD, better vid card, whatever) then get the i5 and spend the $50 extra on an upgrade elsewhere for an overall better PC. If the $50 is of absolutely no consequence and the extra money really couldn't be put towards any other component, then you might as well snag the i7.

I'd even lean towards the i5 + a nice aftermarket cooler under $50 rather than the i7 if all you do is gaming.

If you do any photoshop or video editing work, or any other hefty productivity type things, the i7 is the obvious choice.

Yep, 670s are great video cards. Which Intel SSD are you getting, the 330 series or the 520 series? If that $155 is the price for a 520 series it's a pretty good deal, if it's the 330, not so much. I bought a 180GB 330 on Black Friday for $90.

Alternately, if you can get a wide variety of Intel drives at discount, look at getting a 330 series SSD. They are a lot cheaper than the 520s but are damn near as fast. Honestly with an SSD, they are such a huge performance jump over traditional hard drives you aren't going to notice a difference between a 520MB/s write speed(520s) and a 450MB/s write speed(330s). You might be able to get a 240GB 330 for around the same price or less as a 180GB 520.

In theory, the lifespans of the 520 is longer than the 330s, but both are going to last for years, you'll likely replace/upgrade either well before they wear out.

Rosewill rebrands a lot of stuff. Some of it good, some of it bad.

That PSU is a Super Flower which could be pretty dangerous if exposed to electrons.

Also, Samsung RAM is good RAM that can be OC'd well via timings.

The fact that that samsung ram is low voltage is why it is badass. Throw those stated timings out, they are meaningless. I'm using that exact ram after about 2 minutes of tweaking values at 1.5v, 1866mhz, cas 9, 1t command rate without a hitch. It's good stuff.