Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

SSD or 10k RPM?

Last response: in Systems
Share
March 27, 2010 12:53:39 AM

I am building an i7 930 rig and and am having trouble deciding on a storage solution.

I could afford a 64GB SSD, but then I would have to install games and programs on a second drive when I run out of space, which I assume will tend to defeat the purpose of buying an expensive SSD. Would the performance gains from having Win7 on a SSD with applications stored on a seperate drive be even noticeable?

I could get a 10,000 RPM WD VelociRaptor 300GB for $189 from the Egg. Would it make sense to get this to supplement a SSD or use as a boot drive? I don't know.

If I cannot figure out what the benefits would be I will default to a couple of 1TB Seagate 7200.12 or Samsung F3s, but hopefully someone can shed some light on this HD question.

My new mobo will have a SATA III controller, but I haven't noticed any drives that are cost effective for that interface yet. Anyone know of any? Thanks for any feedback.

More about : ssd 10k rpm

March 27, 2010 1:53:47 AM

I would recommend going with a SSD drive and the Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB over the VRaptor. You won't be disappointed and your system will be much faster.

As for your game worries, I recommend creating a separate partition on the 1TB drive for your games. You set this partition as a ghost drive in your Program Files x86. You install your games into that folder and you get the benefit of the SSD's access times but don't use the hard drive space on the SSD. There is a YouTube video that covers this I can look for, which also include other great SSD tweak tips.

Your main applications (Office Programs... etc) on the SSD and your other applications just store them on the Samsung drive and you'll be good to go. The samsung is about as fast as the VRaptor, so you'll have min performance decreases using the drive.

edit: Here is the YouTube video I was talking about... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za_2g4H7RjM&feature=yout...
m
0
l
March 27, 2010 1:54:45 AM

You've proposed some interesting choices.

To break down your choices into less textual rows:

1) 64GB SSD + WD 300GB 10k RPM = $350
2) 2 1 TB Seagate 7200 RPM = $200

The difference in the capacity of these choices is quite different!


IMO don't waste your money on SSD/10k RPM drives. Both are over-rated. I've been running on 5400 RPM "slow" drives and have no issues. My programs open instantly, my OS boots up fast (not that I restart very often), and I'm not even sure that faster storage devices will even give you more FPS in games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive#Advantag...

Correct me if i'm wrong but essentially: you save yourself a few MS off seek time and you double your read/write speeds?

In practical application: unless you're frequently doing absolutely absurd amounts of file transfers (much more than the capacity of the drive, which kind of defeats the purpose), you're going to be spending a lot of extra money to save yourself a little amount of time.
m
0
l
Related resources
March 27, 2010 1:58:34 AM

tecmo34 said:
your system will be much faster.


Will his system really be "much faster" ???

Based on facts, how much time in seconds will he save every time he boots up his computer?

Based on facts, how much time in seconds will he save when he opens up a program?
m
0
l
March 27, 2010 2:31:37 AM

First... I recommended the OP purchase a SSD and a 1TB drive, not a SSD & VRaptor, which would be a total waste of money.

Second... When I say it will be much faster, I speak from experience as I've seen a nice performance increase going to a SSD over my VRaptor.
  • Boot time cut in 1/2... Roughly 45 seconds now down to roughly 20 seconds.
  • Access times for programs... On HD Tuner 4.01 benchmarks, the SSD takes 0.1ms to access, VRaptor takes 7.87ms to access & the Samsung Spinpoint takes 11ms to access.
  • Read speeds on HD Tuner 4.01 benchmarks... Averages = SSD is 207 MB/s, VRaptor is 107 MB/s and Samsung Spinpoint is 117 MB/s

    You can argue these are a few seconds difference or not noticable to the eye, but when you look at actual data/benchmarks, 50% cut in boot time or twice the read speeds are great improvements. When I click on an application, there is no wait time for it to open like on standard hard drives. The more I have used my SSD, the more happy I become with my investment in one.
    m
    0
    l
    March 27, 2010 2:45:00 AM

    Make mine a Kingston 64GB SSD (boot/apps) &/or a Corsair P128 (all other).

    = Al = vRaptors are Dinosaurs ... Literally.

    m
    0
    l
    March 27, 2010 2:48:51 AM

    tecmo34 said:

  • Boot time cut in 1/2... Roughly 45 seconds now down to roughly 20 seconds.


  • Was this accompanied by a new install of whatever it is you are booting? This is very frequently the case. I'm not saying it is here, but it is something to consider as new installs almost always boot faster given a standard medium that they are booting off. This is a personal fact, and as such I can tell you I have seen a ssd vs standard hd where the ssd booted in ~24 seconds and the standard booted in ~25 seconds. These computers were side by side, both with fresh O/S installs.

    tecmo34 said:

  • Access times for programs... On HD Tuner 4.01 benchmarks, the SSD takes 0.1ms to access, VRaptor takes 7.87ms to access & the Samsung Spinpoint takes 11ms to access.


  • MS isn't as easily comprehendable, to put this into something everyone understands: SSD takes 0.1 MS to access, thats .0001 seconds. Whereas a standard hard disk takes .00787 seconds. YES that is a considerable amount when looked upon comparatively. But when looked at realistically the difference is a blink of an eye vs a blink of an eye. Only when you are doing lots and lots and lots of random accesses does this begin to amount to anything.

    tecmo34 said:

  • Read speeds on HD Tuner 4.01 benchmarks... Averages = SSD is 207 MB/s, VRaptor is 107 MB/s and Samsung Spinpoint is 117 MB/s


  • I already stated this. Look at it this way: how often are you doing massive file transfers where the limiting factor is your HD speed? Not that often. Most of the content now-a-days is internet bandwidth limited.

    Some programs may indeed open faster, but your ability to realize this and not just the placebo affect is pretty limited! This could be coupled with the fact that fresh-installs generally do open faster. I'm glad you feel good about it, but unless you spend a lot of time on your computer you're probably paying a lot of extra money for not much time saved.

    Think about it in dollars/hr. How much time are you saving for the life of that drive? How much did you pay extra for the drive? How much extra time are you spending because you need to learn extra things about the drive? Is the drive even going to have as long a life time/share the same reliability as a modern standard drive? Maybe its fun for you, and maybe you get some enjoyment and this makes it worth it to you. However, the people that you recommend items to may not derive the same enjoyment from these particular things, that's why we need to look at it in a realistic standpoint in what it is going to do for them. This allows them to decide based on easily interpretable facts, not just these people say its cool and these people say its not.
    m
    0
    l
    March 27, 2010 2:57:19 AM

    stope said:
    Will his system really be "much faster" ???

    Based on facts, how much time in seconds will he save every time he boots up his computer?

    Based on facts, how much time in seconds will he save when he opens up a program?


    Each year brings new products, and even if its 3secs faster over 25 years that's 1 1/4 mins faster :)  it might not be a mind blowing but it all adds up.

    I remember 25 years ago playing Amazon on my first computer >link to it http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7846575.stm

    And shopping at egghead not newegg :)  My how the time goes by ( its amazing how far PCs have come )

    m
    0
    l
    March 27, 2010 2:57:26 AM

    Where did this guy come from ??
    m
    0
    l
    March 27, 2010 3:03:10 AM

    Maybe the moon :) 
    m
    0
    l
    March 27, 2010 3:10:53 AM

    @Stope... I'm in 100% understanding where you are coming from and that there are "two sides" to the story. A SSD isn't for everyone or even need by most, such as SLI/Crossfire. In speaking from my experience (which is all I have), I found a nice improvement/enjoyment in going with a SSD. The OP may not find it benefical to them and two 1TB drives might be the way to go. We have provided the OP with both sides and that is all we can really do and let them make their call. You have made some really valid points in why not to go the SSD route, which I say good job (you might even have won this debate, if this was a debate :D  [:mousemonkey:5] )

    On a side note, the boot times were after fresh installs of Windows 7 for each hard drive.
    m
    0
    l
    March 27, 2010 3:17:58 AM

    Niklas_13 said:
    Maybe the moon :) 

    Are you saying Alvin brought him back with him from the Moon? :p  :lol: 
    m
    0
    l
    March 27, 2010 3:21:28 AM

    tecmo34 said:
    Are you saying Alvin brought him back with him from the Moon? :p  :lol: 


    :) 

    m
    0
    l
    March 27, 2010 5:59:32 AM

    Someone on this thread must be a mechanical engineer that just got laid-off from Wstern Digital . . .

    Tell ya what ... SSD haters just take a deeeeep breath ... hold it ... I'll be back in 12 months and we can continue this discussion, at that time.

    Mechanical hard disks will be relegated to "Bernuouli Cartridge" type devices that are used for backup and distribution. NO-body is gonna have a mechanical drive as a work space ... give that two years ... Do you really think mechanical drives will be a mainstream primary storage component ... in 26 months ?? No way.

    = Alvin = (There's some good reasons for that, too ... figure it out. You have 12 months.)
    m
    0
    l
    March 27, 2010 8:50:05 AM



    I'm not trying to say SSD's are terrible. They most certainly do have benefits. I'm just very skeptical about them currently (mostly because of their cost) for a typical user.

    When the price comes down on them and the technology on them increases, I too very well may purchase one :p . SSDs have a lot going for them down the road, especially for mobile devices.
    m
    0
    l
    March 27, 2010 5:35:05 PM

    Hmm.... have you considered a RAID 0 set up for Games/Programs + OS?
    m
    0
    l
    March 27, 2010 5:52:43 PM

    As someone that has first hand experience with both mechanical and solid state drives I can say that SSD's are worth their cost.

    It's not just boot-up and shut down times. It's everything. Every single thing you do on your pc is more responsive. Programs load faster, maps and zones are loaded in no time. Websites are pulled from cache in a snap. Every single aspect of your pc is affected by your iops.

    There is no other upgrade path that offers the same snappiness.
    m
    0
    l
    March 27, 2010 6:57:52 PM

    I'd be interesting to see some tests that show just how much time you save across a number of things. Everything I've seen so far has been gimmicky as hell, or the results to the tests have been rather lackluster.

    I'd honestly like to see the comparison between SSD and a pair of high quality, large, mechanical drives in raid (or something of comparable cost to the SSD).

    I have my doubts, but there probably has been some research done on it and I would be pleased for someone to prove me wrong.



    THE POWER OF RAID!!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_0#RAID_0_performance



    Basically, if you told me I can have a 2 GB drive (2 1 TB raided) or a 64 GB SSD drive and they will have the same transfer (read/write) times, it's pretty obvious i'm going to be going with the larger ammount of storage.

    This is further supported by the fact that you are going to have to spend more money for a high capacity drive to accompany that expensive SSD that will be slow (and slower than my raided drives).
    m
    0
    l
    March 27, 2010 7:26:11 PM

    Looks equivalent (as it should be) to market SSDs in terms of read rates (aside from access time ofc).
    m
    0
    l
    March 27, 2010 8:17:44 PM

    An SSD will cut down boot time.

    If you get an SSD you will need a 1tb 7200RPM drive like a 7200.12, or a F3.

    Have you considered that the SSD money may be better spent on Graphics, or if you alredy have a 5970 Quadfire, then liquied cooling for those cards?
    m
    0
    l
    March 27, 2010 9:46:23 PM

    Look at my sig, these are the benchmarks from the system I own and operate on a daily basis, these benchmarks are after a fresh install of Win7 Ultimate.

    OCZ Solid V2 2x 64GB RAID0:



    Seagate 7200.12 (Fastest SATA drives on the market today) 2x 500GB RAID0:



    This is just Sequential read and writes. It's not even a comparison. I have 3 games installed on my SSDs currently. EQ2, WoW, and Mass Effect2. I have 4 or 5 other games on the HDDs. Borderlands, Aion, CoD4, Fallout 3 and a few others.

    Is there a difference? Hell yeah there is. The 3 on the SSD's load all but instantly. There is no more "zoning" times to speak of.


    Here's a pic of benchmarks after games have been installed and a 6-8 weeks of general live time on the same SSDs



    You notice something? No loss whatsoever. I don't have TRIM but I do have automatic garbage collection with the latest firmware. While my pc is in sleep mode the SSD's clean themselves just like with TRIM but doesn't require support from ICH10R.

    It should also be mentioned that the Solid series from OCZ is their value series. These aren't the fastest MLC's out there by any stretch.
    m
    0
    l
    March 27, 2010 10:17:48 PM

    A4

    ... God bless you , Man !!! ... Explaining the benefits has been like pulling teeth ...

    ... I had all but given up saving some of these haters from their own ignorance !!

    ... At $150 ... The Kingston 64GB SSDnow drives rock. What will it take to get through to all these thick skulls ??? Time ... lot's of it.

    = Al =
    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 1:19:09 AM

    a4mula said:
    Look at my sig, these are the benchmarks from the system I own and operate on a daily basis, these benchmarks are after a fresh install of Win7 Ultimate.

    OCZ Solid V2 2x 64GB RAID0:

    http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac93/litlefox/SSDFresh-1.jpg

    Seagate 7200.12 (Fastest SATA drives on the market today) 2x 500GB RAID0:

    http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac93/litlefox/HHDFresh.jpg


    I win! ;)  :lol: 

    @A4:Btw, could you post some 4K random read/write for those 2 drives. Mainly the 2x HDD RAID set up.
    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 1:35:47 AM

    Not so fast, alvin :p . That is two SSD in raid 0! I'm really not impressed, my comparisons always include cost effectiveness. For the price you paid for those SSD's + a large capacity storage drive: a better cost-benefit comparison would have been 3, 4, or even 5 (dono what you paid) mechanical's in raid which again would really boost their performance.

    I still don't see anything new brought to this debate from his screen shots.

    We've already covered that two drives in raid 0 generally doubles read/write times and that SSD's in general have twice the read/write rates (although the SSD write rates here seem lacking compared to the mechanical drives).

    Your comments that your load times are now instant while zoning are nice to know, and maybe this is true. This is the exact thing I want to see some statistical, non-gimmicky, non-he-said-she-said proof of being true, and just how much it helps. Again, this should be compared in a fair fashion: not a $500 SSD setup vs a $200 mechanical setup.

    There is a forum for hard drives, maybe some of the regulars there could chime in, and/or have some helpful links.
    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 2:06:11 AM

    I am considering a single SSD. I would not buy two of them. I have a number of applications that I would want to have installed on the drive, and 60GB is a tight constraint, so I looked at larger disks.

    Kingston SSDNow V Series SNV425-S2/128GB 2.5" 128GB SATA II Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) -- $260. Add to this the cost of a bracket to mount the 2.5 disk inside a CM 690 II Adv.

    Two 1TB 7200rpm drives in RAID0 would be under $200 and have significantly more space. The mobo I'm getting (ASUS P6X58D Premium - $310) supports RAID, but I've never built an array before. Is it difficult? Will it be necessary to buy two identical drives, or could you combine a Seagate 7200.12 with a Samsung F3?

    Either RAID or SSD will be new to me. If the performance difference is negligible I will go with the larger capacity solution, but I would get the SSD if you guys think this 128BG drive would provide a genuine advantage.
    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 2:10:01 AM

    Small SSD for OS, few applications + large HDD D drive for games, files, movies, etc.
    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 2:51:54 AM

    Ahhh. Newegg has all my money!
    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 8:01:48 AM

    stope said:
    Not so fast, alvin :p . That is two SSD in raid 0! I'm really not impressed, my comparisons always include cost effectiveness. For the price you paid for those SSD's + a large capacity storage drive: a better cost-benefit comparison would have been 3, 4, or even 5 (dono what you paid) mechanical's in raid which again would really boost their performance.

    I still don't see anything new brought to this debate from his screen shots.

    We've already covered that two drives in raid 0 generally doubles read/write times and that SSD's in general have twice the read/write rates (although the SSD write rates here seem lacking compared to the mechanical drives).

    Your comments that your load times are now instant while zoning are nice to know, and maybe this is true. This is the exact thing I want to see some statistical, non-gimmicky, non-he-said-she-said proof of being true, and just how much it helps. Again, this should be compared in a fair fashion: not a $500 SSD setup vs a $200 mechanical setup.

    There is a forum for hard drives, maybe some of the regulars there could chime in, and/or have some helpful links.


    I have never claimed that the price/performance ratio is equal between HDDs and SSDs. I paid 350$ for my 2 SSDs, and 110$ for my 2 HDDs. So the SSDs cost roughly 3x as much for 1/8th of the storage. Do I get 24x the performance from them? Of course not.

    What I have claimed is that going to SSDs as an os drive is the single most game changing upgrade one can make. I'd take a i5-750 or an AMD rig with an SSD over an i7 1366 straight HDD rig all day long. Guess which one is going to feel faster? The price between the two will be similiar.

    As far as stacking HDDs indefinitely to secure greater performance, there is a major hangup with that route. Each drive you add increases your risk of failure. The average 2 HDD raid0 will need to be realigned and rebuilt once a year due to bad sectors. Now imagine 3 or 4 or 5 disks. Can you imagine rebuilding your array every 2 months? I can't. SSDs in RAID0 don't suffer this same issue.

    To the person inquiring about RAID0. The disks need to be identical. It can be a simple process, plug them in set them to RAID in your bios and you're done. If you want to do it right however it's a little more complicated as you need to align the disks. You then want to install Matrix Storage Manager and choose your caching options. It's not a huge deal, but something you'd want to research first.

    As for the benchmarks. I'm not going to bench my SSDs anymore as it puts alot of write stress on them, but I'll defrag the HDDs tonight and see if I can get something up tomorrow.

    edit: Here's the non-defragged benches

    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 1:45:06 PM

    a4mula said:

    What I have claimed is that going to SSDs as an os drive is the single most game changing upgrade one can make. I'd take a i5-750 or an AMD rig with an SSD over an i7 1366 straight HDD rig all day long. Guess which one is going to feel faster? The price between the two will be similiar.



    http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac93/litlefox/NewBitmapImage-1.jpg


    Realy?

    How about this: You're a gamer building A new rig, You've spec out the entire build, except for the graphics card (you alredy have a HDD), you have about 650$-700$ left.

    What's gonna feel faster: A X25-M 160gb and a 5770,

    Or

    a 5970.

    Think what will give you more frames in Crysis real quick....
    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 4:55:15 PM

    a4mula said:
    I have never claimed that the price/performance ratio is equal between HDDs and SSDs. I paid 350$ for my 2 SSDs, and 110$ for my 2 HDDs. So the SSDs cost roughly 3x as much for 1/8th of the storage. Do I get 24x the performance from them? Of course not.

    What I have claimed is that going to SSDs as an os drive is the single most game changing upgrade one can make. I'd take a i5-750 or an AMD rig with an SSD over an i7 1366 straight HDD rig all day long. Guess which one is going to feel faster? The price between the two will be similiar.

    As far as stacking HDDs indefinitely to secure greater performance, there is a major hangup with that route. Each drive you add increases your risk of failure. The average 2 HDD raid0 will need to be realigned and rebuilt once a year due to bad sectors. Now imagine 3 or 4 or 5 disks. Can you imagine rebuilding your array every 2 months? I can't. SSDs in RAID0 don't suffer this same issue.



    Ahhhhhhh . . . It is *SUCH* a luxury to let someone else type FOR ME ! ! ! I think it, and the words appear !

    As far as cost/performance goes, Pappy, . . . Consider that there may BE a REASON that those crusty, rusty 'ol mechanical drives are so cheap . . . THEY CAN'T GIVE THEM AWAY ! ! !

    Hey ... I LOVE that I can buy 7200.12s for like $00.10/GB ... Gimme a whole big stack of them ! ... And ONE hot-swap mobile rack (removable drive tray). ... hehehehehehehehehe

    = Alvin = PS: Hey ... I'm 50 years old and even *I* can see the "the regions on the platter".

    once more ... with FEEling !
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26enkCzkJHQ

    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 4:59:16 PM

    builderbobftw said:
    Realy?

    How about this: You're a gamer building A new rig, You've spec out the entire build, except for the graphics card (you alredy have a HDD), you have about 650$-700$ left.

    What's gonna feel faster: A X25-M 160gb and a 5770,

    Or

    a 5970.

    Think what will give you more frames in Crysis real quick....


    If I've got 650 to 700 then this is a real easy choice, 5870 and SSD. I know you're trying to make a point, but you're also missing the important one.

    People drop 700+ dollars on a 5970 when they could get dual 4870s for 200$ and the only differences would be in benchmarks and yet to be seen tesselation.

    People drop 600+ dollars on a 1366 bare bones when the could get by with a 250$ AMD setup and the only difference would be in benchmarks and their epeen.

    People drop 250$ on top notch RAM where for 150$ they can get RAM that if they didn't know was cheap RAM they never would have guessed.


    People spend money on the PC's that often times goes completely unnoticed and unjustified. Look at the SBM this month and look at the benchmarked differences between the cheapest and most expensive builds. Performance is within what, 20-25pct and it cost 3x as much. And that's benchmarked results not real world. In the real world it doesn't matter if a game hits 90 fps vs 120. In the real world it doesn't matter if Winzip shaves 2 seconds off of a 3 minute decompress.

    Now, stick with me, because this is important....

    What does matter is how responsive the PC feels. How fast things open and load. I've been building pc's for 15 years now. In that time every upgrade I've ever made has been in little tiny incremental improvements. Until I installed my first SSD. Going from mechanical to solid state is a upgrade you know you've made. Unlike many that after upgrading you feel like you just wasted your money.
    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 5:10:00 PM

    Formula ...

    I proposed full-disk ram mirrors (full disk caching) way back in '84 ... and even tho those 5MB Winchesters were "Heaven Sent" ... They were just too slow.

    I've been waiting my whole life for SSDs and THIS is just the very beginning ...

    ... I don't know if anyone actually watched that SAMSUNG 24xSSD-RAID promo but, I ask you ?? .. How long before ALL mainstream SSDs are built as Fully Internally Integrated 24X RAID-0 ?? ... a couple of years ... this is good ... this is VERY GOOD !

    = Al =
    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 5:13:23 PM

    ALSO ... When it comes to TRULY GAME CHAnGING UPGRADES . . .

    . . . My 52 Inch LG5250 120Hz 1080P LCD HDTV has been the best upgrade to my compute experience of this lifetime ... I'm kicked WAY back on the couch and love all the real estate !! I have 2X 28" 1920x1200s in my cart right now.

    = Al =
    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 6:36:16 PM

    a4mula said:
    If I've got 650 to 700 then this is a real easy choice, 5870 and SSD. I know you're trying to make a point, but you're also missing the important one.

    People drop 700+ dollars on a 5970 when they could get dual 4870s for 200$ and the only differences would be in benchmarks and yet to be seen tesselation.

    People drop 600+ dollars on a 1366 bare bones when the could get by with a 250$ AMD setup and the only difference would be in benchmarks and their epeen.

    People drop 250$ on top notch RAM where for 150$ they can get RAM that if they didn't know was cheap RAM they never would have guessed.


    People spend money on the PC's that often times goes completely unnoticed and unjustified. Look at the SBM this month and look at the benchmarked differences between the cheapest and most expensive builds. Performance is within what, 20-25pct and it cost 3x as much. And that's benchmarked results not real world. In the real world it doesn't matter if a game hits 90 fps vs 120. In the real world it doesn't matter if Winzip shaves 2 seconds off of a 3 minute decompress.

    Now, stick with me, because this is important....

    What does matter is how responsive the PC feels. How fast things open and load. I've been building pc's for 15 years now. In that time every upgrade I've ever made has been in little tiny incremental improvements. Until I installed my first SSD. Going from mechanical to solid state is a upgrade you know you've made. Unlike many that after upgrading you feel like you just wasted your money.


    I said 5770 +SSD vs 5970.

    Now awnser the question.
    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 9:15:26 PM

    builderbobftw said:
    I said 5770 +SSD vs 5970.

    Now awnser the question.


    The discussion wasn't about frames per second. It was about what upgrade makes the computer feel snappier in day-to-day usage. Perhaps the phrase "game-changing upgrade" was poorly chosen, but a4mula was talking about CPU & disk, graphics wasn't in the discussion. Congratulations, you have built the best straw man argument in the last 2 days (or so).

    Yes, if you're purely looking for fps, the 5970 is clearly better. Everyone knows that.

    If you're looking for an upgrade that will alter your perception of the computer's day-to-day speed (perhaps because you've already settled on the best GPU for your resolution or whatever), the SSD is the way to go.
    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 9:20:58 PM

    My perception of my computers speed is how many FPS it can do in Crysis, and how high it can put the settings and aa.
    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 9:22:15 PM

    builderbobftw said:
    My perception of my computers speed is how many FPS it can do in Crysis, and how high it can put the settings and aa.


    I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't own a SSD.
    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 9:22:48 PM

    builderbobftw said:
    My perception of my computers speed is how many FPS it can do in Crysis, and how high it can put the settings and aa.


    So that's all you use your computer for? Ever? That's somewhat unusual. Many people seem to do other things with their computers, such as write documents, surf the web, edit music or video.
    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 9:27:38 PM

    builderbobftw said:
    I said 5770 +SSD vs 5970.

    Now awnser the question.


    Ok, if you want to go down this road I can.

    If you're buying a video card to play an antiquated unoptimized game then all you're doing is waving your Epeen, that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

    A 5770 will run 99.98pct of games at 30+ fps (the only number that matters) at 1920x1080 just fine.

    So yeah, a 5770 + Intel 160GB is going to feel faster. Not just in games where load times will be affected, but across the board. Windows will boot faster and shut down faster. Photo shop will go from being something that takes 30 seconds to open to something that opens in under 3 seconds. Browsing from cache will feel like you actually have bandwidth. Everything you do will be affected in a positive way. Can a 5970 do that for you?

    Just for the record, anyone that buys a 5970 is someone that didn't do their homework. The only reason for it is Eyefinity, but unfortunately due to it's limit of 1 GB of memory it stutters worse than a single 5870 at higher resolutions. It's a pretty well known issue and the primary reason ATI isn't going out of their way to push manufacturing of these cards. Within a month it'll be replaced by a 2GB version.
    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 9:39:07 PM

    a4mula said:
    Ok, if you want to go down this road I can.

    If you're buying a video card to play an antiquated unoptimized game then all you're doing is waving your Epeen, that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

    A 5770 will run 99.98pct of games at 30+ fps (the only number that matters) at 1920x1080 just fine.

    So yeah, a 5770 + Intel 160GB is going to feel faster. Not just in games where load times will be affected, but across the board. Windows will boot faster and shut down faster. Photo shop will go from being something that takes 30 seconds to open to something that opens in under 3 seconds. Browsing from cache will feel like you actually have bandwidth. Everything you do will be affected in a positive way. Can a 5970 do that for you?

    Just for the record, anyone that buys a 5970 is someone that didn't do their homework. The only reason for it is Eyefinity, but unfortunately due to it's limit of 1 GB of memory it stutters worse than a single 5870 at higher resolutions. It's a pretty well known issue and the primary reason ATI isn't going out of their way to push manufacturing of these cards. Within a month it'll be replaced by a 2GB version.


    I had a 4870, wich is the same/faster than a 4870, and it was unable to play most games well at 1680x1050.

    28 frames in World In conflict with no aa.

    18 frames in Crysis with no AA.

    20 frames in Oblivion, With Quarl's texture pack (textures about 5x larger than orignal textures) and 24AA 16AF
    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 9:40:17 PM

    And LOL!!!!

    The 5970 is 2gb.

    The 5970 can't handle all games even on a single screen with a i7-980X.

    can't do Metro, can't do Crysis, and others.
    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 9:44:25 PM

    You should stop while you're ahead builderbob. It's obvious at this point that you're not educated enough in these matters to continue an adult conversation with you.

    Do some research and perhaps we can continue.
    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 9:45:48 PM

    Dude, Talking about Uneducated, you said the 5970 was a 1gb card.

    Lol.
    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 10:17:14 PM

    builderbobftw said:
    Dude, Talking about Uneducated, you said the 5970 was a 1gb card.

    Lol.


    Please stop. Educate yourself.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-h...

    I've tried hard to keep this civil, but you are so far over your head you don't even realize it. The 5970 only has access to 1GB of memory.

    Quote:
    Thus, the Radeon HD 5970 carries 16 GDDR5 chips with a total capacity of 2 gigabytes. 3D applications can only access 1 gigabyte because from a technical standpoint this graphics card is nothing but a Radeon HD 5870 CrossFireX tandem assembled on a single PCB.


    I cannot continue this conversation with you. It's one thing to be uneducated, it's quite another to fail to realize you are and refuse to correct it.
    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 10:21:13 PM

    Yep, Dude, the 5870 can only acces 1gb of memory also, so saying that the 5870 is faster than the 5970 at high res is beyond retarded.
    m
    0
    l
    March 28, 2010 10:23:19 PM

    ^ Do what you want. The 5970 has 1GB per GPU. And AMD should have a 4GB version of the card with 2GB per GPU some time later.

    Overall experience will be enhanced by an SSD where as gaming will be enhanced by a 5970,etc. Simple as that.
    m
    0
    l
    !