Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Looking to build ultimate SSD gaming machine.

Last response: in Systems
Share
November 1, 2012 4:25:07 PM

Approximate Purchase Date: e.g.: This week

Budget Range: The sky's the limit.

System Usage from Most to Least Important: gaming, virtual servers, streaming movies, surfing internet, web development, storage.

Are you buying a monitor: No

Parts to Upgrade: CPU, mobo, RAM, SSDs, RAID Controller

I have a 750w Modular PSU from OCZ, not sure of the exact model. I also have a GTX 590 Card that I will be using.

Do you need to buy OS: No

Preferred Website(s) for Parts: Amazon

Location: Schaumburg, IL (Chicago Area)

Parts Preferences: Intel Core i7 LGA 2011

Overclocking: Maybe

SLI or Crossfire: No

Your Monitor Resolution: I have two 1920x1080 monitors, each is 23" display.

Additional Comments: Will be playing BF3, FarCry, and using VirtualBox.

And Most Importantly, Why Are You Upgrading: I want a system that maximizes the potential of SSD's, perhaps 8 of them in RAID 0? Coupled with a lot of storage on 2 or 3 TB drives. This should be the ultimate machine built for speed.
November 1, 2012 5:02:58 PM

do you want water cooling?(custom of course)
m
0
l
November 1, 2012 5:18:40 PM

current system's benifit only about 5% from RAID, as the bottleneck is actually the system buses today.

Basically, you could 1 fast SSD or 8 in RAID 0 and you will probably see about the same read/write speeds...

Research...
m
0
l
Related resources
November 1, 2012 5:19:58 PM

I'm talking strictly SSD's btw
m
0
l
November 1, 2012 5:41:18 PM

Water cooling is OK with me, if you think it's necessary to obtain sufficient cooling for this system.
m
0
l
November 1, 2012 5:56:35 PM

Using 8 SSD's in a single RAID 0 will be HIGHLY prone to failing. You have a large number of drives with zero redundancy. At a bare minimum, use RAID 5. RAID 10 is even safer but probably overkill for a gaming machine.

Tim,

What makes you think the SATA bus controller is the bottleneck? SSD does not really ever reach the 6.0 Gbps rate that SATA 3 provides.
m
0
l
November 1, 2012 6:04:19 PM

Is there a drastic difference in performance when using RAID 5 vs 0? I am not really worried about failure or losing data, but having to rebuild the system all the time would get annoying, if it happened regularly. There will pretty much only be a copy of Windows, BF3, and Adobe Master Collection saved to the RAID 0 Array. All else, I would consider a RAID 5 of like 2TB drives or something to that effect for redundancy.
m
0
l
November 1, 2012 6:47:15 PM

I checked into this, I think I will go with either RAID 5 or 6, to at least ensure that I don't have to rebuild the entire software system so often and I think with 8 drives, I won't suffer too much from a performance standpoint. Please let me know if there are any other questions you have.
m
0
l
!