Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ATI or Intel?

Last response: in Systems
Share
October 26, 2009 4:44:51 PM

So I'm looking into building a new gaming computer. I want to upgrade to DDR3, and the way its looking Im either going to have to switch to switch to ATI video cards, or Intel CPU's.
At the moment, im running a phenom 2 940 with dual 285 gtx video cards on a crosshair 2, with 8 gigs of DDR2 1066.

Im overclocked of course.

so ATI or Intel?

More about : ati intel

October 26, 2009 4:51:54 PM

price isnt really a factor, and Im planning this build for after the new year.
October 26, 2009 5:13:29 PM

What benefit do you think you are going to get with a new computer?

There still isnt much faster than twin 285s. Going for a new motherboard/CPU/DDR3 RAM (either intel or AMD, doesnt matter) might get you a little performance gain, but its not like you will get 50% faster for that expense.

If money isnt an issue then the i7 920 and an x58 motherboard is the way to go.
Related resources
October 26, 2009 6:27:21 PM

"upgrade to DDR3", you do know DDR3 has higher latencies and can be slower than DDR2, right?

Also, what difference do you think going from a Phenom II X4 3.0GHz to an Intel Core i7 would give you? Do you think the marginal performance increase is worth the money?

You can only spend the money once, and you have a brand new system as far as i can tell.
Anonymous
October 26, 2009 7:05:10 PM

sub mesa said:
"upgrade to DDR3", you do know DDR3 has higher latencies and can be slower than DDR2, right?

Also, what difference do you think going from a Phenom II X4 3.0GHz to an Intel Core i7 would give you? Do you think the marginal performance increase is worth the money?

You can only spend the money once, and you have a brand new system as far as i can tell.



Where abouts have you heard the latencie thing?

I have done quite a bit of research on the web, because i'm looking at building a new system. and it seems like 50% of people say there is alot of latencies and 50% say its way faster....

So honestly. I would go with DDR3. even if its on par with DDR2 right now, in 2 years when you go to upgrade again you'll have a better footing in the tech.
October 27, 2009 7:46:35 AM

DDR3 has higher latencies than DDR2, DDR2 has higher latencies than DDR1.

This is offset by the higher throughput, as DDR has 2 operations per cycle, DDR2 has 4 operations per cycle and DDR3 has 8 operations per cycle.

So DDR3/800 is actually running 100MHz, DDR2/400 is running 100MHz, DDR/200 is running 100MHz and SDR/100 is running 100MHz. That's why MHz is not used in this context, but MT/s or GT/s; hence DDR3/800 where 800 is the number of transfers per second, not clockcycles.

In short, DDR3 needs to have a clear advantage in GT/s before it can 'overcome' the penalty of higher latencies. It has a 'break-even point' where performance is about the same, and where it starts becoming faster. Generally, you will never notice the difference. But you might notice the difference in quanity of RAM, because it can reduce the need for disk I/O which you do notice.

Just don't get yourself dragged in all the marketing and things the companies want you to believe in. Besides RAM is the least important component to consider for overall systems performance. Even a 100% increase in memory throughput will only yield about 5%-10% of overall systems performance increase. That's nothing compared to the 30000% increase in IOps performance when considering SSD versus HDD, which translates to about 1000% increase in overall systems performance in disk-bound workloads.



graph says all; though ofcourse there is faster DDR3 memory. But IMO not worth the money. One good argument for DDR3 is that its getting cheaper than DDR2 in the (near) future, so if you bought to few RAM today you can upgrade DDR3 for less money in the future than DDR2, which will become very expensive because of low production volumes, like DDR1 is today.
October 27, 2009 1:46:43 PM

sub mesa said:
DDR3 has higher latencies than DDR2, DDR2 has higher latencies than DDR1.

This is offset by the higher throughput, as DDR has 2 operations per cycle, DDR2 has 4 operations per cycle and DDR3 has 8 operations per cycle.

So DDR3/800 is actually running 100MHz, DDR2/400 is running 100MHz, DDR/200 is running 100MHz and SDR/100 is running 100MHz. That's why MHz is not used in this context, but MT/s or GT/s; hence DDR3/800 where 800 is the number of transfers per second, not clockcycles.

In short, DDR3 needs to have a clear advantage in GT/s before it can 'overcome' the penalty of higher latencies. It has a 'break-even point' where performance is about the same, and where it starts becoming faster. Generally, you will never notice the difference. But you might notice the difference in quanity of RAM, because it can reduce the need for disk I/O which you do notice.

Just don't get yourself dragged in all the marketing and things the companies want you to believe in. Besides RAM is the least important component to consider for overall systems performance. Even a 100% increase in memory throughput will only yield about 5%-10% of overall systems performance increase. That's nothing compared to the 30000% increase in IOps performance when considering SSD versus HDD, which translates to about 1000% increase in overall systems performance in disk-bound workloads.

http://images.tweaktown.com/content/1/7/1782_3.gif

graph says all; though ofcourse there is faster DDR3 memory. But IMO not worth the money. One good argument for DDR3 is that its getting cheaper than DDR2 in the (near) future, so if you bought to few RAM today you can upgrade DDR3 for less money in the future than DDR2, which will become very expensive because of low production volumes, like DDR1 is today.


wow thanks for that info, helped me out quite a bit at least
October 27, 2009 2:35:02 PM

Before this thread becomes FlameBait.

We must remember that:

AMD/ATI is best at making CPU/GPU that has best performance per money

Intel has more powerful CPUs than AMD/ATI but is not good at performance per money.
November 1, 2009 8:32:36 PM

I've come to the point, where my motherboard is maxed out. With my next build I know im going to have to get a new one. so once again, stick with AMD CPU's, and switch to ATI video cards. or stick with Nvidia cards, and switch to an Intel cpu?

those are pretty much my two options, unless there is a better then halfway decent gaming mobo that is AMD compatable, SLI compatable. and runs DDR3

i havent been able to find one =/

yes intel has the cost factor. and atm, ATI has the best video cards on the market.
i was planning on 12 or maybe more gigs of ram.
November 1, 2009 8:59:45 PM

How could you possibly need 12 gigs of ram for a gaming computer? Even 8 gigs for gaming is overkill.
November 2, 2009 2:55:20 AM

Sounds like you have too much money to spend. Go with Intel Gulftown (i9) and the new GTX 3XX cards. Throw in a couple SSDs in the mix too.
November 2, 2009 3:02:13 AM

core i7 ownage said:
Before this thread becomes FlameBait.

We must remember that:

AMD/ATI is best at making CPU/GPU that has best performance per money

Intel has more powerful CPUs than AMD/ATI but is not good at performance per money.


the i5 750 is the best bang for the buck and owns any amd cpu. so you are wrong.
November 2, 2009 3:03:26 AM

masterasia said:
Sounds like you have too much money to spend. Go with Intel Gulftown (i9) and the new GTX 3XX cards. Throw in a couple SSDs in the mix too.


why not get a supercomputer since cost isn't a factor. lol.
November 2, 2009 3:04:16 AM

munkman31 said:
I've come to the point, where my motherboard is maxed out. With my next build I know im going to have to get a new one. so once again, stick with AMD CPU's, and switch to ATI video cards. or stick with Nvidia cards, and switch to an Intel cpu?

those are pretty much my two options, unless there is a better then halfway decent gaming mobo that is AMD compatable, SLI compatable. and runs DDR3

i havent been able to find one =/

yes intel has the cost factor. and atm, ATI has the best video cards on the market.
i was planning on 12 or maybe more gigs of ram.


what are you talking about? you can get amd cpu with nvidia card.
ou can get intel cpu with amd card. i don't get why you are limiting your options.
November 2, 2009 3:22:01 AM

sub mesa said:
DDR3 has higher latencies than DDR2, DDR2 has higher latencies than DDR1.

This is offset by the higher throughput, as DDR has 2 operations per cycle, DDR2 has 4 operations per cycle and DDR3 has 8 operations per cycle.

So DDR3/800 is actually running 100MHz, DDR2/400 is running 100MHz, DDR/200 is running 100MHz and SDR/100 is running 100MHz. That's why MHz is not used in this context, but MT/s or GT/s; hence DDR3/800 where 800 is the number of transfers per second, not clockcycles.

In short, DDR3 needs to have a clear advantage in GT/s before it can 'overcome' the penalty of higher latencies. It has a 'break-even point' where performance is about the same, and where it starts becoming faster. Generally, you will never notice the difference. But you might notice the difference in quanity of RAM, because it can reduce the need for disk I/O which you do notice.

Just don't get yourself dragged in all the marketing and things the companies want you to believe in. Besides RAM is the least important component to consider for overall systems performance. Even a 100% increase in memory throughput will only yield about 5%-10% of overall systems performance increase. That's nothing compared to the 30000% increase in IOps performance when considering SSD versus HDD, which translates to about 1000% increase in overall systems performance in disk-bound workloads.

http://images.tweaktown.com/content/1/7/1782_3.gif

graph says all; though ofcourse there is faster DDR3 memory. But IMO not worth the money. One good argument for DDR3 is that its getting cheaper than DDR2 in the (near) future, so if you bought to few RAM today you can upgrade DDR3 for less money in the future than DDR2, which will become very expensive because of low production volumes, like DDR1 is today.


To a novice this looks professional and reliable, to experts they would disagree.

"Besides RAM is the least important component to consider for overall systems performance. "

A floppy drive is more important? How about a side fan? Umm

"Even a 100% increase in memory throughput will only yield about 5%-10% of overall systems performance increase. That's nothing compared to the 30000% increase in IOps performance when considering SSD versus HDD, which translates to about 1000% increase in overall systems performance in disk-bound workloads."

Can you provide evidence?

Can you link me to the article that your chart is found?
November 2, 2009 3:26:46 AM

munkman31 said:
So I'm looking into building a new gaming computer. I want to upgrade to DDR3, and the way its looking Im either going to have to switch to switch to ATI video cards, or Intel CPU's.
At the moment, im running a phenom 2 940 with dual 285 gtx video cards on a crosshair 2, with 8 gigs of DDR2 1066.

Im overclocked of course.

so ATI or Intel?


Sounds like you have plenty of money, so for the best performance available you should go with an Intel i7 CPU and ATI 5870 video cards.

If you wait a bit you could get an Intel i9 CPU and GTX 3XX video cards.
November 2, 2009 11:04:32 AM

overshocks said:
To a novice this looks professional and reliable, to experts they would disagree.

"Besides RAM is the least important component to consider for overall systems performance. "

A floppy drive is more important? How about a side fan? Umm

"Even a 100% increase in memory throughput will only yield about 5%-10% of overall systems performance increase. That's nothing compared to the 30000% increase in IOps performance when considering SSD versus HDD, which translates to about 1000% increase in overall systems performance in disk-bound workloads."

Can you provide evidence?

Can you link me to the article that your chart is found?

You don't have to go far to look for 'evidence':

Tom's Ultimate RAM Speed Tests : Is Fast Memory Really Worth It? - Review Tom's Hardware
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ram-speed-tests,180...

Gaming performance bottlenecks:
1) Videocard
2) CPU
3) RAM capacity (not performance)
4) Disk performance (16GB large games can't be cached in RAM)

Desktop performance bottlenecks:
1) Disk performance
2) RAM capacity (not performance)
3) CPU

Task-based performance (rendering/compressing/number crunching)
1) CPU (ALU/FPU)
November 3, 2009 2:01:47 AM

^The article is not relevant posted on 2008. Also it uses Intel Core 2 Duo E8500, and Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition (90 nm, 3.73 GHz, 2 MB L2 Cache) on P35 mobo.

I asked you earlier to link me to the article that the chart you posted earlier, where is it?

"You don't have to go far to look for 'evidence': "

that means what you said earlier is total bunk:

""Even a 100% increase in memory throughput will only yield about 5%-10% of overall systems performance increase. That's nothing compared to the 30000% increase in IOps performance when considering SSD versus HDD, which translates to about 1000% increase in overall systems performance in disk-bound workloads"
November 3, 2009 2:47:14 AM

@ overshocks, im not trying to limit my options, i know i can go either way with the cpu/gpu configuration.

I just like the amd, with nvidia setup. and I want to make the move to ddr3.

from what im hearing, its wait for the i9 and get two nvida 3xx cards, with ssd. ill just wait until april or so to do this build then.
November 3, 2009 2:50:27 AM

munkman31 said:
@ overshocks, im not trying to limit my options, i know i can go either way with the cpu/gpu configuration.

I just like the amd, with nvidia setup. and I want to make the move to ddr3.

from what im hearing, its wait for the i9 and get two nvida 3xx cards, with ssd. ill just wait until april or so to do this build then.


^well go with whatever is good at the time you make the purchase. not just biased opinions

also, there's no real evidence on how good/bad the nvidia 3xx cards will perform, and how will ati react to that. bringing out the 5970 and destroying the market or what not.

by the way, what's your budget? also why 8GB? no need that much for gaming.

November 3, 2009 3:16:31 AM

overshocks: if you are trying to disprove my claims that memory bandwidth has little effect on overall systems performance, please come with some resources of your own. I provided an analysis and backed this up with benchmark results which are found all over the web. You claim that i'm wrong but don't have any evidence or resources to backup that claim.

If you really want to debate the effect of memory performance on overall system performance, please provide some benchmarks of your own. Otherwise, please stop telling my analysis is "total bunk" or "not relevant".

However, since i'm such a nice guy, i gathered some of the thousands of benchmarks found using Google:

http://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/511-2-memory-s...
"In some cases, performance actually declined with faster memory when using these programs. This is typically a clear sign of high variance in results, which, again, indicates that it’s probably not worth going for faster RAM when running these applications."

http://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/511-5-memory-s...
"PCMark Vantage typically returns result scores that are close to what you’ll see in everyday life because the benchmark is based on several Vista-based system load scenarios. We see here that the performance gains are small on a Core i7 (+2%), but more intriguing on the Phenom II X4 (+3.8%) and downright interesting on the Core 2 Quad (+5.5%)."

http://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/511-6-memory-s...
"The results with 3D shooter Far Cry 2 are similar to what PCMark Vantage reported. On a fast Core i7, you’ll get 2.4% better game performance when using DDR3-1600 RAM. On a Core 2 Quad at high clock speeds, performance is up 5.3%. We found the biggest speed hike on the Phenom II X4 955, which takes advantage of the faster memory for a 6% performance increase."

http://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/511-10-memory-...
"All three systems benefit from fast DDR3-1600 memory when transcoding MPEG-2 video to AVI/DivX format at maximum quality. The Core 2 Extreme system benefits most at 3.7%, followed by the Phenom II X4 at 2.6%. Intel’s Core i7 only drags in a 1.3% performance increase."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-memory-scaling...


And some more:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-scaling-i7,2...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-ddr3,2319...
http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=3589&p=6

The most influence memory bandwidth seems to have is in multithreaded WinRAR applications, where the difference between the slowest and fastest memory can exceed 10%. It's safe to say however, that for general purposes the memory performance is high enough that any investment would be better served spending it on disk performance instead, where differences higher than 1000% can be measured. That's also the reason Intel Atom systems with SSDs feel faster in desktop tasks than Core i7s with HDDs.

Please, i don't mind a technical debate. But just telling someone is wrong without having anything to backup your own claims sounds like trolling to me. If you want to reply to this, be sure to bring something of your own. And it better not be synthetic memory-subsystem benches.
November 3, 2009 3:20:44 AM

^You need to read my post properly, as I said "total bunk" referring to your SSD performance, not the memory you are referring to.

"Even a 100% increase in memory throughput will only yield about 5%-10% of overall systems performance increase. That's nothing compared to the 30000% increase in IOps performance when considering SSD versus HDD, which translates to about 1000% increase in overall systems performance in disk-bound workloads"

i never even touched the debate of ddr3, i was debating you with the ssd performance, you need to work on your comprehensive skills


also you were the one that backed out on the evidence regarding about the 1000% overall performance..blah..blah blah..look here:

"You don't have to go far to look for 'evidence': "

____

"If you want to reply to this, be sure to bring something of your own. And it better not be synthetic memory-subsystem benches. "

Reply to the info you given? Oh please, google is your friend, as you done so much work already, do my part too. Clearly, you started a debate that was wrong when I was referring to SSD not some ddr3 debate crap.

Also, why you keep skipping this line:

I asked you earlier to link me to the article that the chart you posted earlier, where is it?

this chart you posted above
"http://images.tweaktown.com/content/1/7/1782_3.gif"
November 3, 2009 3:37:13 AM



A rather extreme example though, but it does show even a single consumer SSD being able to deal out 10.000% more IOps than a HDD, while PCIe based SSDs can yield over 100.000 random read IOps which is 83300% that of a 7200rpm HDD.


"These are the same results as above but I'm reporting average latency instead of average transfer rate. It gives you a bit of the idea of the scale of performance here. I had to remove the WD VelociRaptor because its read latency threw the chart's scale off, it averaged 17.3 ms here."

That is 86500% the performance of the fastest consumer-class HDD, the Velociraptor.

This synthetic performance would then translate in a measurable real-life performance gain, depending on application:



About a ~1000% increase in overall application performance.



Boot performance and application-launch are strong points of SSDs. In general, it depends on the application and your personal usage how big the gain of an SSD is, but it sure exceeds the miserably 1-6% the fastest memory will bring you.

Hence my conclusion that memory performance doesn't matter much, and the money invested in faster memory would be better served in investing in faster disk performance by investing in a good SSD, or even array of SSDs.
November 3, 2009 3:43:27 AM

sub mesa said:
The link you requested:
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1665/intel_core_i7_me...

You could have done that yourself, knowing which site it was.


Well, I couldn't have done it myself, the link was broken to me and didn't know where to start.

Good info on the SSD, all that info on the DDR3 is wasted now shall I say that?

Umm on the 3rd chart, how did you come into the conclusion of "About a ~1000% increase in overall application performance. " ?
November 3, 2009 3:47:47 AM

Never too late to change your opinions. Just wished you would have rephrased your inquiry in a decent question, rather than calling my analysis "total bunk".
November 3, 2009 3:51:30 AM

sub mesa said:
Never too late to change your opinions. Just wished you would have rephrased your inquiry in a decent question, rather than calling my analysis "total bunk".


I do apologize for that, I edited my post above because I have a question. Thanks for the in depth info.
November 3, 2009 3:53:17 AM

Alright, i apologise as well for my rather 'agitated response'.
November 3, 2009 3:59:22 AM

sub mesa said:
Alright, i apologise as well for my rather 'agitated response'.


I think you missed my question. Here it is again.

Umm on the 3rd chart, how did you come into the conclusion of "About a ~1000% increase in overall application performance. " ?
November 3, 2009 4:08:31 AM

100% = base performance
1000% = 10 times as high

As the Velociraptor is about 20-22MB/s and the Intel in those workloads close to 200MB/s, that would be 10 times as high or 1000% performance level. The difference is ofcourse higher when normal 7200rpm disks are used, as Velociraptors themselves are pretty fast (relative to HDDs).

Ofcourse it applies to disk-bound tasks only, if you go gaming and all data is loaded, it won't change anything to the frames per second performance you'll be getting, as that's GPU/CPU bound.

The general conclusion here is that SSDs can really make a difference you as a user can feel, not just measure in a laboratory. Users of netbooks with Intel Atom processor (a very slow CPU) note that it responds faster and 'feels' faster than a very fast desktop PC containing a mechanical HDD.

Hence, i would argue that money would best be served investing in an SSD, the Intel X25-M as its the only one with the advanced Intel controller. The difference in performance between SSD and HDDs will only get higher since HDDs don't scale all that well while SSDs scale extremely well with each generation of controller logic.

With current fast processors and fast memory, whenever a computer is 'slow' its likely to be caused by slow disk performance as its performance is still in the magnitude human beings can notice: milliseconds make seconds, while working with normal applications like Firefox the CPU is too fast for any human to notice a slowdown; any slowdown you notice will come from slow disk performance.

So my argument is that disk I/O is the 'last bottleneck' in modern computers, and it will disappear with the coming of SSDs to the mainstream market. This will make computers fast enough so that human beings are not slowed down. That's how its supposed to be; why should a human being wait for a computer; it should be extremely good in its task: computing stuff. No human being should ever wait for that. Imagine you'll have to wait 3 seconds before your calculator has finished calculating something; that wouldn't be very productive. Computer technology is still in its infant stages though.
November 3, 2009 4:16:37 AM

^Lol, I feel dumb, maybe I'm just too tired today. You are right it's 1000%.

Nice more info. With SSD, I'm sure the waiting time for the loading screen of Crysis will be significantly shorter, wouldn't you say so?

When do you think SSD will hit the mainstream market? Just like DDR3 took some time to be affordable..you think it'll take less time?

In conclusion, I totally agree with the things you've said, mostly on the "Computer technology is still in its infant stages though"
November 3, 2009 5:05:17 AM

Hmm well NAND prices aren't going down. The market demand for NAND flash is very high while production is quite low. And then there's the lack of competition in the SSD controller market. The only decent controller that is freely available is the Indilinx one, used by OCZ Vertex and others. But the Intel controller is really the best at the moment, and you can guess that Intel doesn't want everyone to use their controller; only their own SSDs.

So it'll take some time for prices to really settle down. I don't expect HDDs to disappear rapidly, though companies aren't investing in new production facilities as its a dying sector. They will continue to squeeze some last performance and capacity out of it by increasing the data density, but overall its game-over already just a matter of time.

In the near future (5 years) most system disks will be SSDs, and HDDs will only be used for mass-storage. Many people don't need that only power users; the multi-terabyte HDDs will continue to have a purpose to them; providing high capacity storage space with good price-per-gigabyte and decent sequential performance (reading/writing large files). But the non-sequential performance relevant to system disks is terrible for any HDD even 15k SAS disks.

That's why high-end servers will benefit alot from SSDs; a single SSD can replace whole 24-disk arrays of extremely expensive disks, and lower power consumption and heat generation alot while at the same time increasing performance and reliability. The lifespan of SSDs is predictable while HDDs can fail at any random interval without reliable prediction being possible.

So in like 5 years, a common setup for people would be:
1) System disk: SSD of ~250GB
2) Storage disk: HDD of ~2TB

Note that exceeding the 2TB barrier is somewhat cumbersome, as it requires the use of EFI BIOS, 64-bit LBA and also GPT partitions; 3 different systems that have a limit at 2 terabytes preventing successful boot of multi-terabyte disks. That's why i don't think you'll see 2.5TB+ disks soon, most consumer systems won't be able to use all that space.

About crysis, yes it'll be faster. Depends on the game though, here's a benchmark of World of Warcraft loading times:



These are real gains, measured in seconds. SSDs really 'unlock' the performance of your computer; allowing the CPU to do some work instead of wasting millions of cycles on waiting for disk I/O.
November 3, 2009 12:27:04 PM

^I agree

But wouldn't in 5 years the capacity of SSD will be higher making a common system for people going over 250GB and become way cheaper?

"So in like 5 years, a common setup for people would be:
1) System disk: SSD of ~250GB
2) Storage disk: HDD of ~2TB "
November 3, 2009 12:30:24 PM

I love my Intel SSD. Best upgrade so far. Don't waste your money on water cooling or flashy lights until you have an Intel X25-M or X25-E, but I wouldn't waste any money on the X25-X.
November 3, 2009 12:33:19 PM

O>O WTH? You have so much money..... Like the others, what would you gain? Your system is pretty high up there.... Might as well upgrade to the 5870s -.-
November 4, 2009 2:55:21 AM

Quote:
But wouldn't in 5 years the capacity of SSD will be higher making a common system for people going over 250GB and become way cheaper?

Well price would still be a alot higher per gigabyte than HDDs; that will not change for a very long time. It doesn't have to be; SSDs focus on performance not on raw capacity. You don't need SSDs to store your music or other large files which will be read or written sequentially. HDDs are good for sequential access but suck at any non-sequential access.

So you only need enough space for your system disk: operating system, installed applications and installed games. For non-gamers, a 32GB SSD might even be enough; though 64GB/80GB is a safer choice. But for gamers, even 250GB might not be enough to store all their games. They can use several SSDs and combine them in a RAID0 for additional speed. As SSDs are pretty safe, the risk of them dying in a RAID0 configuration is extremely low. The risk of the RAID subsystem failing itself is alot higher though, so its the RAID engine/drivers itself that add the most risk in such a setup; though i feel that's acceptable. And you don't really need to backup installed apps or games just perhaps your savegames.

Any personal data, pictures, movies, archives files (RAR) is best put on HDDs, even in the future. I also think network storage and online storage will become much more popular than today.
November 4, 2009 3:20:14 AM

^Interesting, well I pretty much agree with you. Just too bad, SSD is still too expensive or else I would include one in my next build.
!