The Official PC building thread - 4th Edition

Russ, send me that link again if you dont mind. i dont see it in my email or in spam if thats where you sent it.
thanks

 

My faster SSD is in my notebook but my notebook is less responsive than the slower SSD desktop computer. My desktop PC boots twice as fast as the notebook SSD even though the numbers (Benchmarks & Specs) would state otherwise.

This is due to other hardware in each build so I would have to agree with Sam as to what is enough and that at some point it just doesn't matter. That is true in video cards too although I may argue that there is more difference than he thinks in some situations.

Russ, I'll bet we could throw my SanDisk SSD SATA-II, which is slower, in your Patriot system and you wouldn't even notice the difference, unless you were running benchmark tests.

 

Rob,

Here you go.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...m4051X642410X049030cd3b8c00f06fca6542620a9cc5

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Mr-Movies,

This SSD thing has gotten all twisted around to where my original point seems to have been completely forgotten. There's a reason why manufacturers will exchange a product within the first 90 days. Statistically anything electronic is more apt to fail within the first 90 days, and the chance of failing after that time period are very low. I have no more faith in Intel's own controller than I have in the SanDisk controller. I think to call the SanDisk controllers "Generic" in a demeaning manner, is a bit of a stretch. The quality of the drive itself isn't determined by what controller it contains. It's determined by the overall quality of all of it's components, and how well they work together. I have no doubt that the Intel drives are very high quality, but by the same token, I don't think that the Intel is any better quality than the Patriot. My whole original point was value for the dollar. At $130, it's the best value in a quality 120GB SSD, available today. The best part to me, is I wind up $110 to the good, my good!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Sandforce, not SanDisk. The two are not related.

You may not think the Intels are any better quality than the Patriot, but statistically speaking they are. In a large sample of SSDs, the failure rate of all the sandforce SSDs is about 5%, since they are all basically the same hardware with a different sticker. By contrast the failure rate of Intel SSDs is around 0.5-1%.

Furthermore, the most common failure period for the OCZ SSDs is between 6 months and 12 months.

This is exactly the case. With graphics cards it's really quite situational. In a large set of circumstances you wouldn't see a difference, but unless you're comparing almost identically-positioned cards, there will always be a fair few cases where the difference is made obvious. I'm not sure I can say the same for SSDs. I can tell you now there's nothing I'd be able to see the benefit of say, that 500MB/s Patriot SSD over my Intel with 180MB/s read and 35MB/s write. Because there's nothing I do that's ever waiting on the disk. When I open a program, it just opens. No fuss. The only thing I stand to gain over my current SSD is capacity.



Brushing the SSD rant aside for a bit though, those boards look fairly solid Rob. I think either should be suitable to get 4.5Ghz out of an i7 2700K. Best of luck with the build

 

I'll have to agree that all SSDs are not created equal. Russ, I don't think Sam is trying to tell you that you bought a bad product, he's only trying to analyze what's available and choose what's best. I'm overly analytical myself so I know how easily semantics can be misunderstood as an argument. Basically, he's on his own tangent, and not really meaning to undermine your contributions to the conversation. It seems a lot of misunderstandings stem from this.

 

well to a point the money isnt gonna be a factor, im thinking i will have around $2000 to spend on this but that doesnt mean im gonna spend that much. id like to stick in the $1300-1500 range and as you all know the biggest thing i do is video encode(which i haven't done alot lately) so if i can save on 1 part of the build to get a better part that will help me im all for that also. so let me ask this other than booting up faster is it worth me getting a ssd,just to say i have one??? on my hdd that i have my OS on now it is a WD black caviar 250gb after windows takes it 18gb i have 232 total available. right now i have 110gb of free space on it. i do have about 30gb of music and about 15gb of pics on it that i should have on one of my 500gb drives. just to lazy right now to move it.lol so that would drop me in the range of about 80-90gb of used space for programs and such. that would be alot for a 120gb to function being so close to max space being used.

2nd question the sata ports on that board i showed. i think it has 4 6gb ports and 4 3gb ports. or the 6gb ports backwards compatible.? id hate not to be able to use my hdd i have now because they aren't 6gb, or even my odd's. then is there odd's taht are the 6gb transfer? same as the hdd are they now wit the higher transfer rate as well?

 

the mem controler on the CPU is Dual Channel DDR3-1066/1333, so dont that mean i want to stick with mem in that range for best perfromance? i dont know why i choose the 1866 type before. am i wrong in this thinking?

 

SSDs make the world of difference to not just boot times, but how your PC runs in general. They're thoroughly recommended. The point was, you don't need to go for one with the fastest read/write speeds, because that doesn't actually matter. It's the low latency that makes SSDs such a worthwhile purcdhase.

Yes, 6Gbps and 3Gbps S-ATA ports are backwards-compatible.

You can use 1600mhz memory in the board by using XMP. Even though 1600mhz isn't officially support it, any decent board can use XMP to run the memory at 1600mhz.

 

Sam,

Yes, Sandforce not Scandisk. LOL!!

What SSD rant? there was no rant from me! When I originally posted to Rob, price was the issue.

In my next post, I reiterated that I was talking about price.

You came back with it's cheaper because it's a 60GB SSD. The link posted was not the 60GB, it was a 120GB SSD, and it is $110 cheaper.

Then I got the Gloom and Doom report from you because it was out of stock, as to how they will have them, but at a higher price. Then you went on about not needing all that speed.

I came back with the information that it wasn't a limited quantity sale, so the price will be the same when they are in stock early next week. I also sent you the features list. I again reiterated that it was all about price.

So why all this blather from you. I said the drive was faster, you said the drive was faster, so where's the issue, and why are you ranting about it at me? I've made it plain over and over again that my point is all about price, and saving $110. I've said that Rob can buy anything he likes, I only suggested that he take a look at the Pyro. At $130 it's the king of Bang for the Buck of high speed 120GB SSDs. OCZ are the only company that get's close to the Patriot in price, but I wouldn't touch an OCZ at this point in time. They've had far too many failures and other problems.

One more small thing, about the populating all the memory slots on an Intel. It cannot have been 10 years. Myself and others had difficulties overclocking with all 4 memory slots populated. I had the problem on the 965P and the P35. My solution was to overclock it with only two slots populated, and populate the other two after I was done. Worked fine for me.

Russ

 

I was actually referring to the rant from me, not from you. Not everything I say is written to antagonise you...

As for overclocking with 4 slots, I did it on an Intel P35 with no incident whatsoever, and I know someone that did it on a 965P as well, without issue. Could it have been a config problem (such as voltages), or just bad memory?

 

Sam,

OK, my apologies then.

I remember back then when I was getting a bunch of memory failures with the 965P, as indicated by Memtest, yet when I ran the same test in a different computer, it passed. In fact it's still working just fine. I had the same problem on the P35 with the Dominators. Overclock it, install the other two sticks, and it worked perfectly. Just one of those mysteries of life I guess. All's well that ends well!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Rob,

What make and model is the motherboard and CPU?

Russ

 

Russ, double posting again.

I had memory problems with loading all 4 slots on non-Intels but unlike Sam's thought it was bad memory in fact it was bad MB (firmware), not a memory module problem at all.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128506
either one of these CPU's
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...15-070^19-115-070-TS,19-115-095^19-115-095-TS

 

You can't go wrong with that combo, any of those CPU's will work great.

 

Rob,

There's a setting in the "Advanced Memory Settings" called 'Performance Enhance' that is set to Turbo by default. Setting this to Basic will allow you to use 1866 memory!

I would skip 1600 memory altogether. The performance gain is worth using 1866 memory! With the unlocked multiplier it should be a cinch. I would get this 1866 memory, even though it is $60 more, as it will give you the best performance with the memory running at 1866MHz.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231528

Best regards,
Russ

 

Mr-Movies

Yes, and for good reason! I was being asked multiple direct questions, and I never mix those with another post, so no one makes a mistake. It's probably triple posted now!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

wow 16gb of mem thats alot..lol never thought of that much before. whats the gain haven that much?

 

Average people won't benefit. Really depends on the software you're running. If you run virtual machines, you'd benefit.