It is currently Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:18 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:48 am
Posts: 400
Location: Orlando, FL
OCZ is coming out with a cheaper version of the vertex, still uses the indillnx (sp?) controller. Not sure if they are using 3-4 bits per cell flash memory or just slower stuff or what, but it should be interesting.

I would really like to have a SSD as a boot/application drive but they are still too expensive. I don't need the fastest drive ever; right now I'm using a 250gb per platter 5400rpm hard drive. I just want something that is very responsive and lets my GP drive keep its heads parked most of the time.

I could probably get by with 30gb, but 60 would probably be ideal.

_________________
Main Rig: Athlon II X4 620 @ 3ghz, w/ Ninja Mini, MSI R4830-T2D512, GA-MA78GM-S2HP, 4x2GB DDR2 800, WD5000AACS, 120mm S-Flex 1,200rpm & 800rpm, TV Wonder 650, Signature 650, NSK2400
Laptop: Asus UL80VT-A1


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:48 am
Posts: 400
Location: Orlando, FL
I lied, its still 2 bits but it is slower memory. Unfortunately, it is also only 5-10% cheaper than the Vertex. Unless Newegg or someone has some crazy MIR deals or price reductions, it seems like they will be a wash.

BTW, it is called the "Agility Series"

_________________
Main Rig: Athlon II X4 620 @ 3ghz, w/ Ninja Mini, MSI R4830-T2D512, GA-MA78GM-S2HP, 4x2GB DDR2 800, WD5000AACS, 120mm S-Flex 1,200rpm & 800rpm, TV Wonder 650, Signature 650, NSK2400
Laptop: Asus UL80VT-A1


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:16 am
Posts: 146
Location: Belgium
I've got one in its box waiting to be added to my future build :lol:

I expect GREAT things from it, your post has only comforted me that I made the right (but expensive) choice.

_________________
Main rig
Antec P183 / 2x Noiseblocker M12-PS / Antec CP-850
Intel i7 3770K / Thermalright HR-02 Macho
Asus GeForce GTX 670 DirectCU II
OCZ Vertex 3 120GB

HTPC
Antec ISK310-150 / 2x Noctua NF-R8 PWM / PicoPSU 150W
Intel i3 2125 / Scythe Big Shuriken 2 (fanless)
Intel X25-M 80GB


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 5:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 11:38 am
Posts: 16
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
For a fanless netbook, sure. But for a proper desktop workstation - really?

Certainly. You really can't be an SSD for great workstation performance.

If you're not sure about SSDs for any reason, you owe yourself this read. It's an excellent article:
http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3631

_________________
Asus P5K|Intel E2160|4GB DDR2|HD 4670|3x 7200.10|Seasonic S12 600w|SLK3000B


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:54 am
Posts: 19
Location: Switzerland
anyone considering an ssd to be slow at all does not have a clue or yet used one. it's the single fastest thing you can get for your pc. it has a random access time of 0.065ms, compared to 8ms on the fastest drive (raptors). that's more than a 100x faster in random accesses, which happen to be most of the stuff your os ever does.


even when it's degraded, it still dances around any hdd in performance. it's the internet, every bad thing gets dramatized and overcried.

and, the difference from a hdd to an ssd is amazing in terms of silencing. i have pc's i don't even know if they're on or not. other pc's suddenly have their screen-fan annoyingly loud as they got silent (yes, screens have fans, too, iehk.. at least my 24" screen does).


it's the single best thing you can buy for your pc, worth the 400+$ easily for the 160gb drive. i know most won't believe me. you should still do so.. :)



in other news, for the data storage needing guys, get a windows home server, put your disks there. make it as quiet as possible, and put it somewhere away so you can't ever hear it. the home server is awesome in tons of situations, from automatic backup of all your systems to networked shares with data duplication and all, user management etc.

mine is built into some ikea furniture (can't post pics yet), silenced except for the hdds (but they're quiet ecodrives).

investement in the server + the ssds for all the pc's: around 1000$ all in all. gain in noise reduction, performance enhancement, storage size growth, + the autobackup taking away any fear of problems, definitely worth it.

worth it over any other investment in computing i've ever done.

and this was my first post, pure marketing :) sorry. i just had to comment here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:54 am
Posts: 19
Location: Switzerland
and now it should work with links:

http://davepermen.net/HomeServer.aspx

Image
Image


it now looks quite a bit different, but the pics are still the same (newer ones will follow soon)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 7:01 am
Posts: 192
Location: USA
I assume that motherboard is resting on some kind of non-conducting material (I can't see any, though). I don't know what the shelf is made of. But, even if it's not metal, the paint might be conductive. Just for safety, I'd find something a bit bigger to go underneath that motherboard.

_________________
David A. Lessnau
Antec Solo w/ Scythe S-Flex SFF21E, Gigabyte GA-EP45T-UD3P, Intel E8400, Kingston KVR1333D3N9K2/4G, MSI N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr, Thermalright HR-01 Plus w/ Scythe Kama PWM 120mm, SeaSonic S12 II SS-430GB, Pioneer DVR-216DBK, Intel SSDSA2MH160G2C1


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 6:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:54 am
Posts: 19
Location: Switzerland
yeah, the motherboard is lifted above the ground, there where you would put screws in normally to fit it to the case, there are screws backwards in with spacers in between, holding it about half a centimeter over the paintings. i wouldn't put it onto the floor directly, no.. :)


edit: i'll update my pics later today, now i have a mission :) (not that i wouldn't have any else.. :))


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:29 pm
Posts: 2
Location: UK
samsung 5400rpm ecogreen drive is a HDD but very quiet, and as its cooler lends itself well to sitting in a HD silent enclosure so you can get virtual silence there.

SSD is of course much faster though so they drop in price I will get a cheap one perhaps 80gb, to put OS and programs on, then use the old HDD as a slave to hold all the big data/ multimedia files.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:43 am
Posts: 247
Location: Sweden
I will wait at least one year for SSD to have a better price:performance ratio, they're simply too expensive and offer too little space.

For now, one 5400rpm and one 5900rpm both 1tb placed in softmounted quietdrives is pretty much non-problematic at least from the silence perspective.

_________________
i5 4670k, Asus Z87-C, Mugen 2 revB (500rpm), 7850 + AC S1+ (700rpm), 8GB Corsair Vengeance 1600, A-Data 256GB SSD, 2TB EZRX+ 3TB EZRX, Soundblaster Z, Philips 200WP7ES (S-IPS), Silverstone 750w (SP-SS750M +Silverstone PSU cover), Antec p180 (2x500rpm slipstream)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:49 am 
Offline
SPCR News Editor

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
Posts: 2175
Location: TN, USA
Kaleid wrote:
I will wait at least one year for SSD to have a better price:performance ratio, they're simply too expensive and offer too little space.

For now, one 5400rpm and one 5900rpm both 1tb placed in softmounted quietdrives is pretty much non-problematic at least from the silence perspective.


If space is what you need a 5400 or 5900 rpm 3.5" drive is the way to go. For anything else:

I don't think you'll need a full year. The Kingston 40GB SSD based on the Intel controller is at the $100 mark and I expect it to be outshone by something way better in the next 4 - 6 months.

_________________
.
Please put a country in your profile if you haven't already.
This site is international but I'll assume you are in the US if you don't tell me otherwise.
RAID levels thread http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=388987


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:43 am
Posts: 247
Location: Sweden
dhanson865 wrote:
I don't think you'll need a full year. The Kingston 40GB SSD based on the Intel controller is at the $100 mark and I expect it to be outshone by something way better in the next 4 - 6 months.


It's still far too much money for so little space. It would fit Windows 7 plus some programs and not so much more.

I'll actually push it back further away..
When a 256GB drive becomes available for something like €100 then it will finally offer a decent price:storage ratio. This size is enough for windows, games and even something else.

Besides, it probably is a good idea to let the technology mature a bit.

_________________
i5 4670k, Asus Z87-C, Mugen 2 revB (500rpm), 7850 + AC S1+ (700rpm), 8GB Corsair Vengeance 1600, A-Data 256GB SSD, 2TB EZRX+ 3TB EZRX, Soundblaster Z, Philips 200WP7ES (S-IPS), Silverstone 750w (SP-SS750M +Silverstone PSU cover), Antec p180 (2x500rpm slipstream)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:52 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:44 pm
Posts: 1496
Location: USA
If anyone is going to run for an SSD, there are a few things they should know about Intel:

1. The TRIM firmware was taken down after many users reported their drives bricked.

2. The Intel SSD Toolbox has issues with Windows 7.

3. Windows 7 does not always recognize the Intel SSD as an SSD.

4. The Intel SSD Toolbox has been taken down.

In other words, there appears to be a major Intel screw-up.

_________________
Antec Solo, Intel E8400, Gigabyte EX38-DS4, G.Skill RAM(8GB), Ninja Plus, ECS 9600 GT, ASUS Xonar DX, Enermax MODU82+ 625W, (2)Intel X25-M G2 160GB, Intel X25-M G2 80GB, Scythe Slipstream "L" rear, Nexus 92mm front, Pioneer 215D SATA DVD, HP LP1965 19" LCD, Windows 7 64-bit, CyberPower CP1500AVRLCD UPS


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 7:01 am
Posts: 192
Location: USA
Specific to the Toolbox:

Quote:
Microsoft* alerted Intel to an issue with the Intel® SSD Optimizer tool and Intel is working on a fix to the issue. After the SSD Optimizer is run, the SSD Optimizer renders all previously set Windows* system restore points unusable. However, user data is not affected. The SSD Optimizer tool is part of the Intel® SSD Toolbox (ver 1.1).

This applies only to users who meet all four criteria below:

• Use Windows*7 or Vista and

• Use the System Protection feature which sets system restore points (enabled by default in Windows*7 and Vista*) and

• Have installed 02HA firmware and

• Have used Intel SSD Optimizer (which was available from intel.com from 10/26 to 11/4).

A workaround for this issue and additional details are available here . Intel will give regular updates on this issue. Please note this issue is not related to the Intel SSD firmware update process covered in a separate announcement (Intel® Solid-State Drive Firmware Update).

*Other names and brands may be claimed as the property of others.


That's from the Announcements at:

http://communities.intel.com/community/ ... iscussions

In the above quote, there's a link to:

http://support.intel.com/support/ssdc/h ... 031073.htm

That's a link to an 8 page PDF explaining how to "work around" this corrupted Restore points problem. What it boils down to is to:

- stop the Toolbox from running its Optimization task either by unscheduling it or by uninstalling the whole tool (this stops later Restore points from being corrupted),
- deleting all prior restore points, and
- taking a new restore point.

_________________
David A. Lessnau
Antec Solo w/ Scythe S-Flex SFF21E, Gigabyte GA-EP45T-UD3P, Intel E8400, Kingston KVR1333D3N9K2/4G, MSI N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr, Thermalright HR-01 Plus w/ Scythe Kama PWM 120mm, SeaSonic S12 II SS-430GB, Pioneer DVR-216DBK, Intel SSDSA2MH160G2C1


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:30 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:44 pm
Posts: 1496
Location: USA
I disabled system restore immediately after installing Windows 7, so that issue never affected me.

_________________
Antec Solo, Intel E8400, Gigabyte EX38-DS4, G.Skill RAM(8GB), Ninja Plus, ECS 9600 GT, ASUS Xonar DX, Enermax MODU82+ 625W, (2)Intel X25-M G2 160GB, Intel X25-M G2 80GB, Scythe Slipstream "L" rear, Nexus 92mm front, Pioneer 215D SATA DVD, HP LP1965 19" LCD, Windows 7 64-bit, CyberPower CP1500AVRLCD UPS


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:49 am
Posts: 454
Location: Where I Am
Kaleid wrote:
I'll actually push it back further away..
When a 256GB drive becomes available for something like €100 then it will finally offer a decent price:storage ratio. This size is enough for windows, games and even something else.

Yep. Enough for a few extra mp3s, oggs, etc. By that time, Windows will require a 500GB partition just on its own, so you'll be pushing it further back and waiting for a 2TB SSD for the same price. Seriously, why do people need so much space for their system partition? I'm sure there are plenty of "everything on C:" proponents out there and "partitioning is bad etc." I could be way off the mark but unless Windows and your apps are bloating out of control or the handful of games you might install at once are 20GB+ each, a 40-80GB SSD should be enough to run Windows and more. As usual, YMMV.

Kaleid wrote:
Besides, it probably is a good idea to let the technology mature a bit.

I think that's a wise idea. If you are happy with HDD, no need to rush out and be blown away just yet. I won't upgrade to SSD for at least a year or so. Prices in this part of the world are still too inflated at the moment as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:43 am
Posts: 247
Location: Sweden
Shamgar wrote:
Kaleid wrote:
...

Yep. Enough for a few extra mp3s, oggs, etc. By that time, Windows will require a 500GB partition just on its own, so you'll be pushing it further back and waiting for a 2TB SSD for the same price. Seriously, why do people need so much space for their system partition? I'm sure there are plenty of "everything on C:" proponents out there and "partitioning is bad etc." I could be way off the mark but unless Windows and your apps are bloating out of control or the handful of games you might install at once are 20GB+ each, a 40-80GB SSD should be enough to run Windows and more. As usual, YMMV.
....


Actually I have partitioned harddrives for atleast 10 years by now. Makes re-installing faster and easier.

C:\ 40GB, windows 7 Ultimate 64bit +programs +swap file (hibernation disabled). This uses about half of the partition. I expect the next windows to fit into this same hdd space, but I will probably have moved on by then, if not to SSD then a HDD with higher platter density.
D:\ 220GB for games. About 110GB of it is used.
E:\ The rest. This contains documents, images, documentaries, music videos, application backups plus other backups.

The other harddrive is for downloads, movies and my large music archive (lots of wave and flac files). Some data is on both harddrives in case of a harddrive failure, which of course "eats up" additional space.

40-80GB SSDs are not sufficient when it comes to space. And I really don't expect SSD's to increase the windows performance so much that its worth the price. Not yet..

_________________
i5 4670k, Asus Z87-C, Mugen 2 revB (500rpm), 7850 + AC S1+ (700rpm), 8GB Corsair Vengeance 1600, A-Data 256GB SSD, 2TB EZRX+ 3TB EZRX, Soundblaster Z, Philips 200WP7ES (S-IPS), Silverstone 750w (SP-SS750M +Silverstone PSU cover), Antec p180 (2x500rpm slipstream)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 11:50 am
Posts: 70
Location: Houston, TX
I picked up one of the Kingston 40gb boot drives. It's only $3 a gigabyte, which is where hard drives were in roughly 2002.

I've got Windows 7 on the SSD and I am installing programs on a hard drive. It's not difficult to tell Windows 7 where to put your files. The SSD is about half full. There may be a couple of programs on it from before I put in the hard disk.

I'm planning on getting some shared network storage, maybe an Acer EasyStore AH340 server.

SSD for operating system, hard drive for applications and documents (a 120GB should be enough), and network storage for music/videos/photos/shared documents/backup.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:47 pm 
Offline
SPCR News Editor

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
Posts: 2175
Location: TN, USA
Kaleid wrote:
C:\ 40GB, windows 7 Ultimate 64bit +programs +swap file (hibernation disabled). This uses about half of the partition. I expect the next windows to fit into this same hdd space, but I will probably have moved on by then, if not to SSD then a HDD with higher platter density.
D:\ 220GB for games. About 110GB of it is used.
E:\ The rest. This contains documents, images, documentaries, music videos, application backups plus other backups.

40-80GB SSDs are not sufficient when it comes to space. And I really don't expect SSD's to increase the windows performance so much that its worth the price. Not yet..


What keeps you from doing

SSD C:
HD D:
HD E:

If you only need 80GB for C: then it doesn't matter what space is on D and E if they aren't mapped to the SSD.

Keep your existing hard drives and add a SSD to the mix.

_________________
.
Please put a country in your profile if you haven't already.
This site is international but I'll assume you are in the US if you don't tell me otherwise.
RAID levels thread http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=388987


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:43 am
Posts: 247
Location: Sweden
Windows plus a couple of games on a SSD just to save a few seconds here and there?

Again, it's not worth the money. I'd rather buy another 1tB harddrive for future needs.

_________________
i5 4670k, Asus Z87-C, Mugen 2 revB (500rpm), 7850 + AC S1+ (700rpm), 8GB Corsair Vengeance 1600, A-Data 256GB SSD, 2TB EZRX+ 3TB EZRX, Soundblaster Z, Philips 200WP7ES (S-IPS), Silverstone 750w (SP-SS750M +Silverstone PSU cover), Antec p180 (2x500rpm slipstream)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:33 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:26 pm
Posts: 419
Location: Arlington, VA USA
Kaleid wrote:
Windows plus a couple of games on a SSD just to save a few seconds here and there?

Again, it's not worth the money. I'd rather buy another 1tB harddrive for future needs.


Obviously, everyone needs to decide for himself/herself what's "worth the money." However, as someone who has moved to SSD's, it's not the saving of a few seconds that is enjoyable about them. It's the overall responsiveness of the system. It's just a different, more positive experience in the same way that having an excellent LCD changes the computing experience for the better.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:49 am
Posts: 454
Location: Where I Am
Kaleid wrote:
Actually I have partitioned harddrives for atleast 10 years by now. Makes re-installing faster and easier.

C:\ 40GB, windows 7 Ultimate 64bit +programs +swap file (hibernation disabled). This uses about half of the partition. I expect the next windows to fit into this same hdd space, but I will probably have moved on by then, if not to SSD then a HDD with higher platter density.
D:\ 220GB for games. About 110GB of it is used.
E:\ The rest. This contains documents, images, documentaries, music videos, application backups plus other backups.

The other harddrive is for downloads, movies and my large music archive (lots of wave and flac files). Some data is on both harddrives in case of a harddrive failure, which of course "eats up" additional space.

40-80GB SSDs are not sufficient when it comes to space. And I really don't expect SSD's to increase the windows performance so much that its worth the price. Not yet..

Sorry, my last comment was a little harsh (and a touch on the sarcastic side). Your disk strategy is similar to mine. I have more partitions as I separate things according to their uses. I've tried to "simplify" it over the years but I can't live without the clear organisation that I'm used to.

I have a large external HDD that contains files from the main one also. I agree that 40-80GB SSDs are not sufficient as a one disk system but for holding just the OS and some apps, I consider it sufficient for that purpose for now. I don't think I was suggesting that you would do away with HDDs once you had the SSD, as you still need a lot of space for large files and media libraries which consume more than the typical and "affordable" SSD can handle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group