Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Can SSD help my WEI score?

Last response: in Storage
Share
November 4, 2010 2:03:04 PM

Hello, I just setup my new system two days ago. It is now running smoothly and quietly. I ran the Windows Experience Index in Window 7 Ultimate, All the components score 7.4 or 7.5 except the hard drive 5.9. My questions: Can my hard drive score improve to 7 something if change the boot drive to SSD? Is a raid 0 for 2 1TB will improve the score to 6?

here is my system setup:

Case: Lian Li PC-7FN
PSU: Consair HX850W
CPU: i7-950
MB: Asus P6X58D-E
CPU cooler: Cooler master 212 plus
RAM: Crucial Ballistix 3x2GB
Video Card: Sapphire Viper Radeon 5770
Hardrive: Seagate 7,200 1TB

More about : ssd wei score

a c 415 G Storage
November 4, 2010 2:12:25 PM

Most RAID configurations generally don't improve the score because RAID only improves transfer rates, not access times.

An SSD will definitely improve the score - my 160GB Intel G2 SSD has a score of 7.7.

But you know that it's not the score that really counts, right? It's how fast your system actually runs.
m
0
l
a c 108 G Storage
November 4, 2010 6:21:43 PM

My old setup of 2 x WD 640GB Black AALS series in RAID 0 scored a 5.9 like all mechanical hard drives. My new SSD scores a 7.8. The SSD is a huge speed improvement with Windows booting in about 12 seconds but as has been said above, it is how fast your system runs.....not a benchmark that matters.
m
0
l
Related resources
November 4, 2010 10:35:01 PM

How would installing SSD drives in a system improve performance compare to say upgrading a graphics card or installing more RAM?

I'll add my hardware to my signature so answers can be more specifically tailored to my situation. I'm interested in gaining performance but looking at what would be the most efficient way of doing so in terms of cost/benefit.

I have an i5 750, 4gb RAM, GTX 275, and two SATA WD HDD's (not in RAID configuration)... Win 7 64bit. Like I said, I'll list more specific hardware specs in my sig in a bit.

I appreciate any answers that people are willing to offer. Thanks.
m
0
l
a c 108 G Storage
November 5, 2010 3:29:04 AM

Sava said:
How would installing SSD drives in a system improve performance compare to say upgrading a graphics card or installing more RAM?

I'll add my hardware to my signature so answers can be more specifically tailored to my situation. I'm interested in gaining performance but looking at what would be the most efficient way of doing so in terms of cost/benefit.

I have an i5 750, 4gb RAM, GTX 275, and two SATA WD HDD's (not in RAID configuration)... Win 7 64bit. Like I said, I'll list more specific hardware specs in my sig in a bit.

I appreciate any answers that people are willing to offer. Thanks.



You would be better off starting a new thread.

An SSD will dramatically decrease seek times thus speeding up most hard drive activity. The hard disk generally the slow point of any computer so some things are sped up quite a bit. It will not make games run faster but may decrease times to load levels. As I said in my previous post Windows 7 x64 Ultimate loads in 12 seconds from the first Windows loading screen.

Prices have dropped quite a bit on the good ones here lately with the GSkill Phoenix Pro and the one I have being close to equal in benchmarks. I got mine for $230 as prices dropped from $350 or more.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Anything smaller and you will be limited to what you are going to be able to actually have on the drive. I may actually add a second one and run them in RAID 0 just to add space sometime soon. I LOVE how fast things load but hate having to manage space. I have 34.4 gigs free and still have quite a few games I may get around to playing again soon still not loaded.
m
0
l
a c 415 G Storage
November 5, 2010 3:40:57 PM

Sava said:
How would installing SSD drives in a system improve performance compare to say upgrading a graphics card or installing more RAM?
An SSD will speed up booting and starting up programs - but in most cases it won't make the program any faster once's it's been loaded into memory. Exceptions are certain types of programs that do a lot of disk I/O as they run, such as video or batch photo editing.

A faster graphics card won't do a thing for you unless you're using a program that's bottlenecked by the graphics card - that would typically be the more demanding games (i.e., games that generate 3D images in real time, as opposed to "solitaire"). For those programs, the graphics card can be the thing that makes the biggest difference in performance.

Generally speaking you need enough RAM to fit all of your programs into memory. If you don't have enough RAM then you get paging, which can be very bad - in that case a RAM upgrade is normally the very first thing you need to do before anything else. But once you have enough RAM, adding more won't really increase performance significantly - generally speaking the best that excess RAM can do is to provide more cache for file I/O.
m
0
l
a c 353 G Storage
November 5, 2010 6:00:50 PM

Concur with what has been said.
Ref to why and raid0. The most important performance factor is in access time and small file random read/writes.
HDD - generally around 12 mSec, lower for 10k/15k RPM drives - But still not even close to an SSD which is approx 0.1 mSec. Raid0 has NO effect on this (exception is short stroke raid0, I was able to cut access time to 9.5 mSec, But for the small performace gain you loose half, or more of the HDD storage space.
Bottom Line a good SSD is 95 to 126 times faster.
On random 4K read/writes, SSDs in the order of 20 -> 80 times faster. Reason boot time and program load times can be cut considerably With an SSD.
Don't sweat Sequential read/writes as these primarily only effect load/working with Large Video files, large jpg/bit map photoes, and larg spead sheets. This is the only time I would recommend a raid0 conf (with short stroke).

As to upgrade with the most bang, I'd probably opt for the SSD upgrade for the reasons sminlal gave. On Memory (you have 4 gigs which is generally suffiencient), If you are not swapping data in/out of Ram to HDD then adding more ram will not improve your performance.
m
0
l
November 5, 2010 10:08:41 PM

Thanks guys. I appreciate the answers. You helped shed some light on the subject for me. I am more concerned with performance gains in games like Company of Heroes in the later stages of a skirmish game when there are lots of units on the screen, lots of action happening, and lots of post-processing physics operations taking place at the same time.

My system runs great at 1920x1200 with everything on ultra. I generally get above 100 fps for most of the game. It tends to slow down near those end stages when there are hundreds of units on the battlefield moving around and when lots of artillery barrages are being executed (the physics and particle effects seem to be the main issue).

Since my original inquiry related to SSD's seems to have been answered and I appear to be going off-topic, could someone point me to an appropriate section of the forums related to upgrades and game performance so that I may ask a question specifically suited to my needs?

I tried to post my system specs in my profile, but it didn't appear to take. I'll try again.

Thanks again for your help. This forum has always proved to be an excellent resource. I've built two systems over the course of the last 4 years with the guidance of users here. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of goodwill and helpfulness I've found when dealing with the friendly and respectful community here.
m
0
l
November 18, 2010 5:58:31 AM

A CoH player? well, I like to share mine too:

7.6 - AMD Phenom II X6 1055T
7.8 - Team Ex-Dark PC 12800 8Gb (4x2Gb)
7.9 - Biostar Radeon HD 5770 CrossfireX (windows aero)
7.5 - Biostar Radeon HD 5770 CrossfireX (gaming)

*partial/hdd transfer rate* (most hate work, spend my weekend) :( 
7.2 - Team S1 SSD 120Gb (no secondary)
7.0 - Team S1 SSD 120Gb (with WD Raptor)
6.4 - Team S1 SSD 120Gb (with WD Caviar)

6.3 - WD Raptor HDD 300Gb (no secondary)
6.3 - WD Raptor HDD 300Gb (with Team S1)
6.1 - WD Raptor HDD 300Gb (with WD Caviar)

5.9 - WD Caviar HDD 1Tb (no secondary)
5.9 - WD Caviar HDD 1Tb (with Team S1)
5.9 - WD Caviar HDD 1Tb (with WD Raptor)

and...
7.0 - All storage plugged in (Team S1 as primary, WD Raptor and WD Caviar)
6.3 - All storage plugged in (WD Raptor as primary, Team S1 and WD Caviar)
5.9 - All storage plugged in (WD Caviar as primary, Team S1 and WD Raptor)

*others*
- Biostar TA890FXE
- Cooler Master SP 600w
- all drivers at the latest version

*Game Benchmark*(as your request)
1. CoH series (Original mixed with OF) in DirectX 10, 1920x1080 ultra quality, skirmish (8 player map and player) with artillery and bishop firing creeping barrage (est 15-20), vehicle (est 75-80) and 60-65 units of infantry (est 250-300 men)
- Team S1 SSD (max fps = 63, min = 35, avg = 54)
- WD Raptor (max fps = 59, min = 31, avg = 49)
- WD Caviar (max fps = 51, min = 29, avg = 42)
You're right that creeping barrage is the main issue why fps is dropped drastically.

2. Crysis Warhead in DirectX 10, 1920x1080, enthusiast setting, ambush level with me rapidly firing my scar and exploding anything
- Team S1 SSD (max fps = 28, min = 14, avg = 21)
- WD Raptor (max fps = 25, min = 13, avg = 20)
- WD Caviar (max fps = 21, min = 10, avg = 18)
This game is truly a nightmare for my system :fou:  , maybe 5870 or 6870 could handle it well.

Hope this helpful...
m
0
l
!