Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Ssd for gaming system?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 18, 2010 11:28:54 PM

hi guys,

I've got what I think is a pretty high end gaming system. A friend of mine suggested to top it off, I should upgrade the hard drive to ssd from what I currently have a 7200rpm sata 1tb drive..

other than loading and booting will this effect gaming at all? is it a worthwhile investment?

so far ive got
i7 950
12 gig ram
dual 5970
asus pt6 deluxe v2 board..

More about : ssd gaming system

March 18, 2010 11:42:36 PM

No, It will not effect you're frames in games. It is NOT WORTH IT.

You will get a small benifit in boot times, and opening large applications, but not worth it for gaming.

EDIT: Awesome build there, Wow, 2 5970s.
:love:  :love:  :love:  :love:  :love:  :love:  :love:  :love:  :love:  :love: 
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
March 18, 2010 11:43:33 PM

from every review I have read, the improvement comes from a "snappier" OS experience but it will not improve gaming at all in terms of FPS. It is a worthwhile investment but its an investment that probably does not need to be made right now as new and better units are coming out quickly.
m
0
l
Related resources
March 18, 2010 11:52:21 PM

thanks guys, and thanks builderbobftw :)  I like it
m
0
l
March 18, 2010 11:53:13 PM

I told my friend, I was like how does r/w hd access effect fps in a game..it doesnt..
I priced them out and for the size they are expensive..
m
0
l
March 18, 2010 11:56:01 PM

Yep. SSD's are new tech, and like all new tech, It is very expensive and still has some flaws.

The SSD's are only good for shaving a few seconds of boot times, and at the price they arn't worth it.
m
0
l
March 19, 2010 8:24:55 PM

I wasn't aware that SSD's are considered new tech.
I guess I'm too young to realize 1978 is considered recent.

maybe we're talking about something else.
I was talking about SSD (solid state drives) that's been out since 1978, actually early-mid 1970's but 1978 is when they had it officially introduced as the modern type of drive we use today :o 
m
0
l
March 19, 2010 9:04:01 PM

Fast SSD's with decent capacity's, that cost less than the annual budget of a small counties are new, bleeding edge tech.
m
0
l
March 19, 2010 9:18:41 PM

It depends on the game. For most its not worth it, but if you play Oblivion (or any game with frequent loading times) its worth it hands down.
m
0
l
March 19, 2010 9:31:57 PM

jryan388 said:
It depends on the game. For most its not worth it, but if you play Oblivion (or any game with frequent loading times) its worth it hands down.


I have Oblivion, the loading isn't bad at all.
m
0
l
March 19, 2010 9:45:33 PM

I decided to wait for the 4th Qtr next gen SSD's which should be bigger faster and cheaper per GB :) 
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 3:03:02 PM

I'd still grab one for gaming from the point of view of reducing lvl load times etc
But I figure you need a 160GB + size drive with new games easy being 5 - 18GB
+ my work stuff on my PC - I love to keep lots of stuff installed I use.
So check how much space you'd need before buying one. Is why I am waiting for the bigger next gen.

FarCry 2 takes Way Too Long to load game saves for example!!!
and I have a half decent Seagate 7200.11 500GB 7,200rpm drive + 4GB RAM

am sure we all have games that make you hang about here and there, kinda reduces the whole imersion factor wating for things to happen like that.
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 3:12:47 PM

I'm in favor of adding a ssd. Even if you only add a 40g(what i did). I have the Kingston 40(same as the intel40~controller) and it rocks. It speeds up loading in your whole system, even when loading apps,games from your secondary disk. Most times apps/games need ,dlls ,dx system files from your windows folder, or config files. And thats where ssd are super fast. Random reading. With a 40 gig ssd and a 2g page file on it , there is 24 gigs available for games/apps. So rotate your favorite 3 games to the ssd. Either that, save up 200 vs 100 for a 80 gig. Not many people tell you after buying a ssd , that it was a mistake.
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 5:25:51 PM

Pailin said:
I'd still grab one for gaming from the point of view of reducing lvl load times etc
But I figure you need a 160GB + size drive with new games easy being 5 - 18GB
+ my work stuff on my PC - I love to keep lots of stuff installed I use.
So check how much space you'd need before buying one. Is why I am waiting for the bigger next gen.

FarCry 2 takes Way Too Long to load game saves for example!!!
and I have a half decent Seagate 7200.11 500GB 7,200rpm drive + 4GB RAM

am sure we all have games that make you hang about here and there, kinda reduces the whole imersion factor wating for things to happen like that.


Ohh, I RMA'd my 7200.8, and they sent me a 7200.11.

Is it any good?
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 6:13:34 PM

hiya,

have heard that the 7200.12 is recomended as being better - not sure what the differences are though...?

Anyway, HD Tune 2.54:
my drive is 70% full.

Transfer Rate
Max 103.2 MB/s
Avg 77.4 MB/s
Min 29.4 MB/s

Access Time:

15.2ms

Am pretty happy with it, but newer drives like the Samsung F3 SpinPoint 7,200rpm is:

F3 1TB £65 or $100 (£55 or $85 on Special):
Warranty 3 Years
PCMark Vantage Overall 5193
IOMeter Streaming Reads benchmark pattern 142.4
IOMeter Streaming Writes benchmark pattern 142.1
Surface Temp 41c
dB(A) idle 44.6
dB(A) DB IOs 49.6
Idle PWR Consumption 4.9watts
WorkStation IO PWR Consumption 6.7watts

I have just bought one of these. Though is not connected yet...
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 6:33:55 PM

just dug up some HD Tune Pro 4 results on the F3 Spinpoint 1TB:
(from a quick look around other HD Tune versions give very similar results)

Transfer Rate
Max 145.9 MB/s
Avg 119.4 MB/s
Min 73.5 MB/s

Access Time:
15ms (other tests showed as low as 13ms)

and another result on a fresher one of the 7200.11 500GB drive on HD Tune 2.54:

Transfer Rate
Max 105.6 MB/s
Avg 83.8 MB/s
Min 48.0 MB/s

Access Time:
12.6ms

Which is closer to how I remember my drive being when it was newer ;) 
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 7:01:26 PM

All. Right, I'm gonna install the 7200.8 in the little mod I constructed in my case today. :) 

(Case only had 2 spots for HDD, had to repurpose a Optical drive bay with the use of a drill)
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 7:15:51 PM

pnico, ssds are only useful for faster loading times. i wouldn't normally erecommned it.

However, you seem to have enough $$$$$, so i say screw it, bro, top it off with an ssd.

80 - 160 GB should b fine, u wont spend that much.

If u arent as deep-pocketed as i assume, then it aint worth it.

Peace.
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 7:19:28 PM

Not really worth it. Yes you would get faster loading times but while gaming it will not boost frame rates. Not worth the money but if you have the extra cash to blow then go for it.
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 7:28:38 PM

If you have massive impatience and can't wait for Q4, and 25nm, go for it, but only if you have a shitload of cash to piss away.
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 8:09:48 PM

If performance is truly what you're after, and if your PC supports it, you could RAID-5 three 1TB HDDs for the roughly same cost an almost endless number of 60-128GB SSDs. Not only would you increase I/O times, but you get redundancy and a MASSIVE amount of storage in comparison. If you can't RAID-5, consider a 2-disk RAID-0 or RAID-1 setup instead. Both increase read times, with RAID-0 the faster of the two.

I am of the opinion that SSD's are still ridiculously overpriced.
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 10:50:36 PM

builderbobftw said:
Yep. SSD's are new tech, and like all new tech, It is very expensive and still has some flaws.

The SSD's are only good for shaving a few seconds of boot times, and at the price they arn't worth it.


Hey I agree SSD's don't help in gaming, but what flaws are you talking about?
And a few seconds off boot time..? LOL X25-M boots windows 7 in 7.5 seconds...thats the OS boot+loading my account if i remove password for it. I think a couple seconds is an exageration.
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 10:52:44 PM

By flaws, after a few years of usage, the SSD is limited to a read only state.

So you have a 400$ paperweight.

Oh, and the price, a decent SSD with a 160GB will run you 400$+.
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 11:16:05 PM

lol
SSD's have no moving parts. They are rated at 2 million MTBF (mean time between failures) most come with 3 year warranties. Platter hard drives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive
Quote:
The mean time between failures (MTBF) of SATA drives is usually about 600,000 hours (some drives such as Western Digital Raptor have rated 1.2 million hours MTBF), while SCSI drives are rated for upwards of 1.5 million hours

The memory doe have finite write cycles, its not imperfect. Only something from a science fiction movie would be 'perfect'. But average use , above average use. You would never brick a ssd. It the same as expecting 20 years use from a platter hard drive. Someday everything stops working.
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 11:17:41 PM

I've seen some platters go for 15+ years.
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 11:23:11 PM

builderbobftw said:
By flaws, after a few years of usage, the SSD is limited to a read only state.

So you have a 400$ paperweight.

Oh, and the price, a decent SSD with a 160GB will run you 400$+.


SSD's last much longer then HDDs...
Assuming you have an MLC SSD that has a 1,000-10,000 cycles of writes per cell. Assume your SSD is a 100GB and assume you have the worst possible situation and it only has 1,000 write cycles per cell.
100x1,000=100,000
Thats means you can write 100GB's to the drive 1,000 times assuming the cells are all perfect and it has wear-leveling. This means you can write 100TB approximatly before drive failure.
Now...lets do some math. Assume you write to the drive 5GB's per day (even though many users don't even get close to that). But lets just assume that you have your temp files/offline cache/you mess around, install/uninstall...etc
so if you write 5GB's per day thats 100,000GB/5GB=20000. Now take 20000/365(days of year)=54.79452055. Lets make a prettier and rounder number (55).
So assuming your computer is on and operational for every single day and is written to 5GB's every single day. Your SSD drive which has a low cycle count and and is only 100GB would last 54 years...that doesn't sound like a few years to me...
Now moreover, SSD's are rated at over 1 million hours of operating time before failer. MTBF...most drives are 1.2million. So lets assume 1.2million hours.
1,200,000/24=50000(days) 50000/365=137. Thats 137 years...longer then your lifetime, longer then a century.

Now lets also challenge your expensive arguement:
-First off, SSD's are much much much much faster then HDD's resulting in speedier, snapier, faster systems
-SSD's take up much less power then HDD's. The SSD has now moving parts, just flash, and therefore will take up a fraction of power that an HDD with its large fast spinning platter/motor will.
-SSD's create much less heat. Unlike HDD's with its big magnetic platter spinning at 7,200rpm which produces friction/heat...etc. An SSD is cooler and therefore will make less warm air inside the computer case allowing for other components to be cooler making them last longer and also reduce your AC monthly bill...maybe not by a lot, but it counts.
-SSD's are much more reliable. If you drop a hard drive from a decent height...bye bye, all those moving parts...etc. Mess an HDD when its on...? A freeze most likley. An SSD on the other hand can handle much more shock, if you drop it, most likley it will be fine, if its moved a little bit during operation, much less chances of bad things happening. Much less chances of a freeze.
-Also SSD's are silent, unlike many HDD's which can easily be heard.
-SSD's can endure much moe extreme temperatures and envirnments.
-SSD's are mostly much smaller and lighter then HDD's
-And there is no need for defragmenting an SSD :)  Whereever data is on the drive, access times are instant resulting in no file system speed degredation like HDD's have.

So now for the conclusion:
-SSD last longer...much longer.
-Much more Eco-Green then the greenest of HDD's
-Much more reliable
-Much more sturdy
-Much faster
-Much quieter

So....flaws lol...give it your best shot buddy.
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 11:30:40 PM

blackhawk1928 said:
. An SSD is cooler and therefore will make less warm air inside the computer case allowing for other components to be cooler making them last longer and also reduce your AC monthly bill...maybe not by a lot, but it counts.



I live in the northeast, so I pay heating bills, not AC bills.

And I have seen platter drives go for about 20 years fine.

And just not worth the price.

Assuming you spend the 500$ that a nice, retail X-25M 160GB costs, you could upgrade from a 5770 to a 5970.
m
0
l
March 20, 2010 11:38:05 PM

builderbobftw said:
I live in the northeast, so I pay heating bills, not AC bills.

And I have seen platter drives go for about 20 years fine.

And just not worth the price.

Assuming you spend the 500$ that a nice, retail X-25M 160GB costs, you could upgrade from a 5770 to a 5970.


And how many of these 20year platters have you seen or speak of. Moreover were those platters laying around untouched or actually used every single day? Because i have never seen a platter go 20yrs...anywhere.

And just not worth the price.? Do you have an SSD? If not, i bet your opinion will change if you have one.
True but what if you dont need a 5970...what if a 5770 is more then enough for you. Why not?

BTW, i agree ssd's could be pretty expensive but i just wanted to disprove your "SSD's are flawed" statement because thats a lie/false.
m
0
l
March 21, 2010 12:19:09 AM

Just got my 80GB X25M in and everything is faster. Maybe not in FPS but loading the game
(CODMW2) and W7 are just faster. No little round thing to wait on. Everything just pops right up.
m
0
l
March 21, 2010 12:38:24 AM

You know that MW2 only loads as fast as the Server/Host right?
m
0
l
March 21, 2010 12:45:26 AM

Yep, but when you open the game and load maps from your storage, its fast. Connecting to the other network peers is another story.
m
0
l
March 21, 2010 12:54:08 AM

This thread is tempting me to get an SSD... Plus, with that system, an SSD should be standard for you.
m
0
l
March 21, 2010 1:17:31 AM

blackhawk1928 said:
Yep, but when you open the game and load maps from your storage, its fast. Connecting to the other network peers is another story.


Clicking Start, and "Domination" takes like a few nano seconds, and the rest of the load time is connecting to the host.

And also, those platter drives I was talking about are the relay heavy, large like 50KG drives, with magnets in them that weight like a KG each. Work like a champ after 20+ years.

I mean, they were thousands of dollars when they were made but still....

Hours of fun disassembling them. Gigantic air filters, look like something from a car.
m
0
l
March 21, 2010 2:05:28 AM

I remember the old 15" magnetic metal platters. Old school *** there.
m
0
l
March 21, 2010 2:50:21 AM

builderbobftw said:
Clicking Start, and "Domination" takes like a few nano seconds, and the rest of the load time is connecting to the host.

And also, those platter drives I was talking about are the relay heavy, large like 50KG drives, with magnets in them that weight like a KG each. Work like a champ after 20+ years.

I mean, they were thousands of dollars when they were made but still....

Hours of fun disassembling them. Gigantic air filters, look like something from a car.


well there is different class of HDD...there are busniss class which are higher quality and then consumer grade which are lower ie SATA :)  Fibre channel are going to be much better. With SSD's its the same thing, SLC drives are much more expensive and higher quality, MLC are cheaper, either way they beat HDD's any day...and have no flaws practically compared to an HDD.
m
0
l
March 21, 2010 3:09:26 AM

I have an OCZ Limited Edition 100GB SSD.
To the OP, you should most definetly get a SSD.

$4 Per GB is expensive. But by looking at your system, that's the bottleneck right now, and obviously you aren't worried about wasting money on hardware.

It will NOT help your Games FPS (but you are already getting great performance there.)
It will however make everything "Snappier" opening applications etc, like a LOT faster. Like Stupid fast. you will love it! here is my OCZ SSD vs my 1TB WD Caviar Black

HD Tune Pro: OCZ VERTEX-LE Benchmark

Test capacity: 20 gB

Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 140.9 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 217.0 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 173.5 MB/s
Access Time : 0.2 ms
Burst Rate : 195.1 MB/s
CPU Usage : -1.0%

HD Tune Pro: WDC WD1001FALS-00K1B0 Benchmark

Test capacity: 20 gB

Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 94.0 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 104.0 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 101.3 MB/s
Access Time : 6.6 ms
Burst Rate : 174.8 MB/s
CPU Usage : -1.0%
m
0
l
March 21, 2010 3:18:01 AM

And my Intel X25-M 80GB G2 MLC:

Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 216 MB/s (Depends, if many tests are run, it can vary)
Transfer Rate Maximum : 269.2 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 242.6 MB/s
Access Time : 0.1 ms
Burst Rate : 152 MB/s
CPU Usage : -1.0%

Rounded and Approximate.

And my storage HDD:

Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 40 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 89-112 MB/s (depends on test)
Transfer Rate Average : like 60-70...depends on tes MB/s
Access Time : 13 ms
Burst Rate : IDK
CPU Usage : -1.0%
m
0
l
March 21, 2010 5:03:56 AM

I thought SSDs were overpriced also... then I read a few articles about the performance advantages of installing just the operating system on it. I ended up getting the 80GB Intel version for about $220 just because I wanted "extra" space (to get an idea, the cost for my entire 920 system ended up being $1300). Things are just plain fast-- Windows 7 boots in less than 10 seconds from the splash screen. Plus, no annoying tck, tck, tck-tck-tck-tck sounds.

So yeah, there will be little framerate improvement so that's not the reason to install one. But hey, what's the real-world improvement added by that second 5970? Anyway, there's now a sub-$90 30GB Kingston version (see Newegg) that supports TRIM (which is important). Having just the operating system on it would be worth it, and would easily be the third coolest thing on your system (after the 2 vidcards).
m
0
l
March 21, 2010 9:59:48 AM

Gupeez said:
But hey, what's the real-world improvement added by that second 5970?


IF you have an Eyefinity setup, that requires insane resoultions that even the 5970 can' handle in games like Crysis.

Oh, and the 5970 ca't even handle some new games like Metro 2033 on a single screen.

IF somebody gave me 500$, and said here, spend it, I would buy 2 new moniters.
m
0
l
March 21, 2010 1:19:15 PM

Big difference in access times and some difference in transfer rates. Could not get my WDC MyBook USB 3.0 drive to test for some reason.

HD Tune Pro: INTEL SSDSA2M080G2GN Benchmark (Intel 80GB X25MG2)

Test capacity: 20 gB

Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 97.7 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 168.0 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 151.5 MB/s
Access Time : 0.1 ms
Burst Rate : 128.7 MB/s
CPU Usage : -1.0%

HD Tune Pro: ST31000528AS Benchmark (SEAGATE 7200 rpm 1TB)

Test capacity: 20 gB

Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 94.2 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 124.9 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 117.9 MB/s
Access Time : 8.0 ms
Burst Rate : 164.1 MB/s
CPU Usage : -1.0%

HD Tune Pro: WDC WD2500JD-22HBB0 Benchmark (WDC 5400 rpm 250GB)

Test capacity: 20 gB

Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 58.9 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 60.6 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 60.3 MB/s
Access Time : 8.7 ms
Burst Rate : 88.8 MB/s
CPU Usage : -1.0%
m
0
l
March 21, 2010 2:42:34 PM

z06psi:
Quote:

HD Tune Pro: INTEL SSDSA2M080G2GN Benchmark (Intel 80GB X25MG2)

Test capacity: 20 gB

Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 97.7 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 168.0 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 151.5 MB/s
Access Time : 0.1 ms
Burst Rate : 128.7 MB/s
CPU Usage : -1.0%


Your SSD has a problem. Either its connected through SATA 1 (1.5GB/s), or its connected through IDE mode in Bios. Its transfers should be much faster than that.
m
0
l
March 21, 2010 3:54:08 PM

I know. Looking into that now. My Mother board is crap but I am going to remedy that soon.
m
0
l
March 21, 2010 3:58:50 PM

Its the random access numbers that equate to the speed feel. Its one thing that doesn't increase with raid.


HD Tune Pro: KINGSTON SSDNow 40GB Random Access
Read test

Transfer size operations / sec avg. access time avg. speed
512 bytes 14483 IOPS 0.07 ms 7.072 MB/s
4 KB 7915 IOPS 0.13 ms 30.919 MB/s
64 KB 2206 IOPS 0.45 ms 137.894 MB/s
1 MB 174 IOPS 5.7 ms 174.395 MB/s
Random 311 IOPS 3.2 ms 157.854 MB/s


HD Tune Pro: WDC WD1001FALS-00J7B1 Random Access
1 gig caviar black 7200 rpm
Read test

Transfer size operations / sec avg. access time avg. speed
512 bytes 82 IOPS 12 ms 0.040 MB/s
4 KB 84 IOPS 11 ms 0.329 MB/s
64 KB 77 IOPS 12 ms 4.817 MB/s
1 MB 40 IOPS 24 ms 40.702 MB/s
Random 53 IOPS 18 ms 27.177 MB/s

HD Tune Pro: WDC WD360GD-00FNA0 Random Access
37.9 gig 10,000 rpm raptor
Read test

Transfer size operations / sec avg. access time avg. speed
512 bytes 112 IOPS 8.9 ms 0.055 MB/s
4 KB 114 IOPS 8.7 ms 0.449 MB/s
64 KB 96 IOPS 10 ms 6.018 MB/s
1 MB 22 IOPS 44 ms 22.497 MB/s
Random 33 IOPS 30 ms 16.764 MB/s


I bought the 10,000 rpm raptor to get a speedier system in 2004, it was 300 dollars then.
The ssd was 100.000 dollars and the increase in performance 'feel' was 10 fold.
Its the fast access times that make things faster.
m
0
l
March 21, 2010 4:08:08 PM

Is there a color standard for Sata connections on a Motherboard?
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
March 21, 2010 4:12:13 PM

builderbobftw said:
IF you have an Eyefinity setup, that requires insane resoultions that even the 5970 can' handle in games like Crysis.

Oh, and the 5970 ca't even handle some new games like Metro 2033 on a single screen.

IF somebody gave me 500$, and said here, spend it, I would buy 2 new moniters.


A 5970 oc will give you above 32FPS+ Cryisis Enthusiast 2560x1600, so higher resolution ex: 2x1080p will give unplayable fps.
5970 4GB @ 5870 speeds is around the corner, that should make at min make 2x1680 playabe (2x~22inch screens), im talking about Crysis other games will run great on a single 5970 but I would rather get a 30inch than 2x22inch lcds for FPS games BUT for Hawx,Sport, other games Except FPS games 3 monitor is the route to go. Its just the fact that your reaction time will be slower, your eyes will have a bigger surface to survey, bigger rotation.
1GB/GPU in the 5970 is really low for resolutions above 1080p like 2560x1600, yes of course it depend on the game title.
When an SSD reaches speeds above 400mbps and the price lower than 200$, I will get one, a 5 years warranty is a MIN and 256GB should be the norm. Manif. keep posting new firmwares and that, for now, requires a complete format of the ssd.

Yes, you will see a diff. in online gaming for high action fps but not thaaaat big. When playing online, the hard drive or ssd work more than offline, since the ssd is 0.1ms you will nearly not notice the short loading. Some will say ya but it is as fast as 3-4 HD in Raid0 -->NO. The access time of any ssd is 90x faster and the speed of an ssd is Constant , Raid0 HD could jump from 80 to 250 and that may cause some lagg in games. My Raid0 failed after a Year and 2 month, Why does Raid0 has more chance of failing than single hd?

Thers already SSDs with 355/220 mbps C300. 355mbps is already passing the Sata2 Barrier 3Gbps
The thing with ssds is their Very Fast upgrades, they are becoming faster and faster every 2 months.
m
0
l
March 21, 2010 4:23:32 PM

@Blackhawk. Those are some crazy read speeds. MyOCZ is definetly faster than my regular drives, but at the same time, not nearly as fast as yours, but it's rated just as fast. Is there a way to check if there's a bottleneck between it? I'm running an ASUS m3a79-t delux with a phenom II 965, 8GB DDR2.
m
0
l
March 21, 2010 4:25:36 PM

/sarcasm on :) 
Yeah and I'll get a 5970 when it has 4gb of memory ~runs at 2000mhz and cost 200 dollars.
Oh, and they will have to give me a free 30' monitor as well. They keep coming out with new models every year, whats up with that ?
/sarcasm off :) 
m
0
l
!