Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Storage, MB strategy....could use help.

Last response: in Systems
Share
November 11, 2012 9:05:29 PM

Approximate Purchase Date: Now

Budget Range: <$1k

System Usage from Most to Least Important: I plan on building a desktop system mainly for Lightroom 4, PS CS5 (when needed), general use, and maybe gaming (lowest priority). I have been monitoring various sites to try and understand the tradeoffs and I think I have at least some of it straight (focusing on the areas where potential performance bottlenecks may occur). Sure could use confirmation or guidance. I am really concerned about component compatibility.

Are you buying a monitor: No

Parts to Upgrade: CPU: leaning towards an i7-3770 (non-OC version) simply for performance.
MB: one that supports 16GB only (save cost), but has the disc control functionality for SSD and RAID0. Full ATX….?
16GB RAM; can’t really see the advantage of more (I own a retail copy of W7-64 Ultimate, which I understand supports up to 16GB)
Either a 180 or 256GB SSD for OS (I am assuming that virtual memory will be on this drive) and apps; also, I want to have enough ‘headroom’ for scratchpad use.
A pair of 1TB WD 6GB/Sec HDDs in RAID0 configuration to maximize throughput.
PSU, optical drive, etc……I was thinking in terms of a mid tower case??? For future growth.
I plan on adding a graphics card later if needed.

Do you need to buy OS: No


Preferred Website(s) for Parts: none

Location: USA

Parts Preferences: Upgrading from a 5 year old home-built AMD-based gaming machine.

Overclocking: No

SLI or Crossfire: No

Your Monitor Resolution: 1920x1080

More about : storage strategy

November 11, 2012 10:19:07 PM

Boards that only support 16GB RAM, tend to be fairly minimalist. You should get standard 32GB board, and just use 16GB. If you are using Adobe software, and want some gaming capability, you are probably going to want to add something like GTX660 for graphics. I've allowed for a 550w power supply, to at least allow you to use something more powerful, should you wish to.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i7-3770 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($289.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Asus P8H77-V ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($115.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ares Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($69.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($94.49 @ SuperBiiz)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($94.49 @ SuperBiiz)
Storage: OCZ Vertex 4 256GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($189.99 @ Amazon)
Case: Corsair 300R ATX Mid Tower Case ($64.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: XFX 550W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($53.99 @ NCIX US)
Optical Drive: Lite-On iHAS124-04 DVD/CD Writer ($17.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $991.91
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2012-11-11 19:13 EST-0500)

If you are doing video work, it might be worth having optical drive as BluRay writer.
m
0
l
November 11, 2012 10:26:48 PM

Thanks for the reply and advice....I am a bit taken aback that some of what I picked up may have actually been correct regarding configuring drives! wow! This configuration will address the performance concern I stated?

So you feel that the i7 is appropriate for this application? I have heard some conflicting opinions....it is not overkill?

It seem that you are suggesting adding the graphics card now....the GTX660....its a $240 card?

Regarding the case you specified....any rationale? Just curious....What is your opinion of this case:
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/cooler-master-case-rc922mk...


Again, thanks....its tough to not know what you don't know.
m
0
l
Related resources
November 12, 2012 12:32:39 AM

The rational on processor, goes like this.

The only thing i7 has, that i5 hasn't, is hyperthreading.
No games use hyperthreading, and probably won't, for some time, so there's very little point to i7, for gaming.
Adobe photo/video software does use hyperthreading, to speed processing, so, for the professional photographer/video editor, i7 is virtually essential, even hex-core i7.
For the amateur photographer, it depends how much you are doing, as to whether it's worth the extra expense. I tend to say- enthuastic amateur i7; occasional "dabbler", i5.

For graphics card, a similar sort of logic applies. For photographers, with no gaming interest, go with a Quadro GPU, doesn't have to be really expensive one. If you want some gaming, as well, then use nVidia consumer graphics, which will help with both. The level of GPU really depends on your gaming needs, but a decent one will also provide graphic acceleration, in some photo/video processes. I suggested GTX660 as a decent mid-range card, for both. What you really NEED depends on what games you want to play.
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 12:49:14 AM

Malbluff,

Thanks for the comprehensive reply....I now understand - i7 it is.

It sounds like I should have a graphics card even though I don't have a game in mind at the moment...it sounds like you are suggesting an nVidia, which can service both well enough? If so, can you suggest any?

Also, any comment on the case?
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 1:17:45 AM

Quadro or, hmm.. what's the Radeon equivalent? Firepro?

Basically we're recommending an industrial style gpu, with a large amount of compute power but less rendering power. If gaming is higher priority than that, a consumer card is the option, as it's more of a balance between the two.

Grab and SSD and use it to boot from. Dunno if that was your original plan, but SSDs in RAID is just silly.

Case is fine, though there is one BIG thing that stands out to me.

If you want to RAID, do two things. First, don't do raid 0, do raid 1-0. That way you get the performance of RAID0, without the double-chances of losing ALL your data, since it sounds like your data is extremely important. (That would require 4 drives, and the total space you'll get will be the sum of two of them.)

Second... buy a RAID card. Onboard RAID controllers are slow, and not up to much of anything. A RAID card will handle traffic WAY more efficiently, meaning you get a faster setup that's more reliable.
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 1:21:25 AM

The Windows version of CS6 (I believe it's the same with CS5), uses Mercury Playback Engine. That, in turn, uses CUDA, exclusive to Quadro/nVidia, to accelerate some processes. Doesn't mean other cards won't work, just that nVidia will be slightly faster. Also, as Adobe only approve nVidia, there could be an issue of support, should there be a problem, with an alternative make. All I can really suggest is checking on Adobe's site, for system requirements, for the modules you are using.
On cases, you are not putting in anything that's going to produce vast amounts of heat, or take up a lot of space. Most mid-tower ATX, excluding cheap, poor quality ones, would be suitable. Cases are so much about personal preference. Personally, I like Corsair Carbide cases, as they are excellent quality, and easy to work in. Having said that the HAF 922 is also a good case, I wouldn't necessarily say the Carbide is better, you should go with which one YOU prefer, either is fine.
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 2:04:12 AM

DarkSable said:
Quadro or, hmm.. what's the Radeon equivalent? Firepro?

Basically we're recommending an industrial style gpu, with a large amount of compute power but less rendering power. If gaming is higher priority than that, a consumer card is the option, as it's more of a balance between the two.

Grab and SSD and use it to boot from. Dunno if that was your original plan, but SSDs in RAID is just silly.

Case is fine, though there is one BIG thing that stands out to me.

If you want to RAID, do two things. First, don't do raid 0, do raid 1-0. That way you get the performance of RAID0, without the double-chances of losing ALL your data, since it sounds like your data is extremely important. (That would require 4 drives, and the total space you'll get will be the sum of two of them.)

Second... buy a RAID card. Onboard RAID controllers are slow, and not up to much of anything. A RAID card will handle traffic WAY more efficiently, meaning you get a faster setup that's more reliable.


@DarksSable,
The plan was/is to boot from SSD as well as house all the apps there, plus have enough headroom on that drive to accommodate virtual memory....to maximize speed....yes?

Regarding Raid and storage integrity: the plan for Raid0 is only for I/O thruput - I have a totally external drive for realtime, daily, weekly back up.

Make sense?
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 2:05:32 AM

malbluff said:
The Windows version of CS6 (I believe it's the same with CS5), uses Mercury Playback Engine. That, in turn, uses CUDA, exclusive to Quadro/nVidia, to accelerate some processes. Doesn't mean other cards won't work, just that nVidia will be slightly faster. Also, as Adobe only approve nVidia, there could be an issue of support, should there be a problem, with an alternative make. All I can really suggest is checking on Adobe's site, for system requirements, for the modules you are using.
On cases, you are not putting in anything that's going to produce vast amounts of heat, or take up a lot of space. Most mid-tower ATX, excluding cheap, poor quality ones, would be suitable. Cases are so much about personal preference. Personally, I like Corsair Carbide cases, as they are excellent quality, and easy to work in. Having said that the HAF 922 is also a good case, I wouldn't necessarily say the Carbide is better, you should go with which one YOU prefer, either is fine.



@malbluff,
I understand regarding adobe support.....can you perhaps suggest a nvidia card that will suffice?

Thanks regarding cases.....I was just concerned about fans....air movement for acceptable cooling. I saw that the Corsair had more fans....
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 2:08:54 AM

That should work, but unless you REALLY need it, I wouldn't worry about having virtual ram on the SSD - it causes a LOT more read/write cycles.

As for your setup, that does make sense - though I would still recommend a RAID card, as they're fairly cheap and give quite a bit more performance.
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 8:30:53 AM

DarkSable said:
Quadro or, hmm.. what's the Radeon equivalent? Firepro?

Basically we're recommending an industrial style gpu, with a large amount of compute power but less rendering power. If gaming is higher priority than that, a consumer card is the option, as it's more of a balance between the two.

Grab and SSD and use it to boot from. Dunno if that was your original plan, but SSDs in RAID is just silly.

Case is fine, though there is one BIG thing that stands out to me.

If you want to RAID, do two things. First, don't do raid 0, do raid 1-0. That way you get the performance of RAID0, without the double-chances of losing ALL your data, since it sounds like your data is extremely important. (That would require 4 drives, and the total space you'll get will be the sum of two of them.)

Second... buy a RAID card. Onboard RAID controllers are slow, and not up to much of anything. A RAID card will handle traffic WAY more efficiently, meaning you get a faster setup that's more reliable.

Raid comes back to this question, of quantity and importance of work. With two disks you can either have increased speed, or increased security, not really both. The higher RAID versions, 5 & 10 use more discs, and do give you both. Two be honest, I've never used 5 or 10, to know how well mobos, themselves, perform. Tend to suspect it rather depends which mobo. Probably an Asus V Pro handles it better than a budget mobo, but I don't know that for a fact, so would have "to bow" to someone with greater knowledge. You need to bear budget in mind, extra speed costs, and it's a question of whether YOU need it, not what's ideal.
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 9:07:56 AM

vwcrusher said:
@malbluff,
I understand regarding adobe support.....can you perhaps suggest a nvidia card that will suffice?

Thanks regarding cases.....I was just concerned about fans....air movement for acceptable cooling. I saw that the Corsair had more fans....

I wouldn't worry too much about case ventilation. Some cases are better than others, but you're not putting enough heat into it, for vent to be critical for any of the mentioned cases.
As to graphics card, the expression "how long is a piece of sting" springs to mind. I've asked the question (several times) of various Adobe sources, and never really got a conclusive answer. You don't actually need much. The minimum requirements, I believe, for CS5 were minimum of 512MB "graphics card". Recommended was any Quadro, or one of a very short list nVidia consumer cards, that hasn't been updated for about 2 years. Bear in mind the choice of GPU only effects the SPEED of SOME processes. Personally I would have said, slightly favour nVidia, but pick a GPU on the basis of what gaming capability you want, and if that speeds up your photo work, a bit, it's a bonus.
I would think, if you are not looking for too high a gaming performance, a GTX560 may be a reasonable compromise choice. I had a link, to a site with lots of benchmarks, provided by Adobe users, for their various different systems. I will try to find it again, and post it for you, but like I said, unless you are doing a lot of demanding work, with like HD video, your choice won't make a huge difference.
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 12:24:10 PM

DarkSable said:
That should work, but unless you REALLY need it, I wouldn't worry about having virtual ram on the SSD - it causes a LOT more read/write cycles.

As for your setup, that does make sense - though I would still recommend a RAID card, as they're fairly cheap and give quite a bit more performance.


RAID card.....what would be a good choice?
I am not familiar with any....
tnx
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 12:28:43 PM

malbluff said:
I wouldn't worry too much about case ventilation. Some cases are better than others, but you're not putting enough heat into it, for vent to be critical for any of the mentioned cases.
As to graphics card, the expression "how long is a piece of sting" springs to mind. I've asked the question (several times) of various Adobe sources, and never really got a conclusive answer. You don't actually need much. The minimum requirements, I believe, for CS5 were minimum of 512MB "graphics card". Recommended was any Quadro, or one of a very short list nVidia consumer cards, that hasn't been updated for about 2 years. Bear in mind the choice of GPU only effects the SPEED of SOME processes. Personally I would have said, slightly favour nVidia, but pick a GPU on the basis of what gaming capability you want, and if that speeds up your photo work, a bit, it's a bonus.
I would think, if you are not looking for too high a gaming performance, a GTX560 may be a reasonable compromise choice. I had a link, to a site with lots of benchmarks, provided by Adobe users, for their various different systems. I will try to find it again, and post it for you, but like I said, unless you are doing a lot of demanding work, with like HD video, your choice won't make a huge difference.


Regarding graphics, you mention, "you don't need much," well it turns out I have an old Geforce card in my current set up; its an EVGA Nvidia Geforce GTX 260. Do you think this will be enough?

thanks again for the guidance.
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 1:33:11 PM

Working it out, logically, is impossible, because the benefits of particular graphics vary with what a person is actually doing. I was thinking of suggesting you get a very basic, cheap card, on the basis of "try it and see". Your having an old card is possibly ideal. I would suggest putting that in, and try it, for a month, or so. It's pretty old tech, and inefficient, but it would probably, at least, give you a good guide as to what modern card to replace it with, in a short while. If you find some processes are much faster, than previously, and others are just as slow, as they were, you probably need something more powerful. If everything is speeded up, more or less equaly, you could get away with just updating to something more efficient, but similar power.
I honestly can't give you any more "definitive" advice.
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 2:05:25 PM

it is my understanding that the cuda core thing is for premier and video software by adobe. i don't know anything about lightroom. I do think photoshop would benefit from a quadro card (but not the cuda cores part as much). if you don't want to buy one of those, the gtx 260 should work well enough. as is often the case, buying more expensive stuff will probably boost performance at least a little bit :) 
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 2:22:29 PM

malbluff said:
Working it out, logically, is impossible, because the benefits of particular graphics vary with what a person is actually doing. I was thinking of suggesting you get a very basic, cheap card, on the basis of "try it and see". Your having an old card is possibly ideal. I would suggest putting that in, and try it, for a month, or so. It's pretty old tech, and inefficient, but it would probably, at least, give you a good guide as to what modern card to replace it with, in a short while. If you find some processes are much faster, than previously, and others are just as slow, as they were, you probably need something more powerful. If everything is speeded up, more or less equaly, you could get away with just updating to something more efficient, but similar power.
I honestly can't give you any more "definitive" advice.


Reasonable advice......thanks.
That being said, do you think the 550 W PSU will be enough if I need to upgrade to a more potent graphics card? I am thinking for a few $$ more, I could provide some potential 'future proofing.'
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 2:44:25 PM

Even if you use a fairly high powered graphics card, 550w would be adequate. Frankly that fairly inefficient 260 will come closer to using its full power, than most modern cards. Provided its an efficient PSU, there is no great reason why you shouldn't use a slightly higher powered PSU. Something like 600w PC Power&Cooling, or Seasonic S or M 12ll 620w, wouldn't be ridiculous, even a Corsair TX650M or HX650, although that's starting to be a waste of money. You are unlikely ever to use TWO graphics cards, in SLi. For a start, that's not compatable with Photoshop.
I don't think you NEED more than 550w, but if it gives you peace of mind ....
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 4:38:09 PM

malbluff said:
Even if you use a fairly high powered graphics card, 550w would be adequate. Frankly that fairly inefficient 260 will come closer to using its full power, than most modern cards. Provided its an efficient PSU, there is no great reason why you shouldn't use a slightly higher powered PSU. Something like 600w PC Power&Cooling, or Seasonic S or M 12ll 620w, wouldn't be ridiculous, even a Corsair TX650M or HX650, although that's starting to be a waste of money. You are unlikely ever to use TWO graphics cards, in SLi. For a start, that's not compatable with Photoshop.
I don't think you NEED more than 550w, but if it gives you peace of mind ....


@malbluff,
So I have a kind of off the wall question: I am currently using this case and PSU purchased in 2007; could they work? If so am I taking any unnecessary risk?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I know that the case doesn't have any USB 3.0 at all.....
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 5:10:48 PM

I see no reason not to re-use case, assuming it's in good condition. Ventilation sounds reasonable. I'd be less keen on re-using PSU. It may be fine, but any, even reasonably good one, and wouldn't necessarily say that one is brilliant, is, at least, getting a bit long in the tooth, at 5 years+. A failing PSU can cause an awful lot of damage to other components, so it may be adviseable to "retire" it, rather than risk it with new components.
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 5:29:53 PM

Ah...Yeah, I get it.....I just have to decide if it's worth getting a new case.

In looking into motherboards a bit (I like to try and understand the rationale for decisions)....I found another mb by Asus that is in the same price range as the one you specified, and the only difference I could find is the northbridge chip.....Z vs. H. Is there any advantage to one over the other?

Here is the comparison FYI.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submi...|13-131-824^13-131-824-TS%2C13-131-834^13-131-834-TS

I am not sure if I even used the correct search criteria....lol
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 5:38:12 PM

The H77 mobo I suggested is the top of that performance line, in that chipset. The Z77 mobo, there, is the most budget version, of the more expensive Z chipset. Going from H to Z gains you nothing, for your build. Going from the top featured H77, to the bottom featured Z77, as the Z itself doesn't gain YOU anything, is a backward step.
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 5:46:03 PM

malbluff said:
The H77 mobo I suggested is the top of that performance line, in that chipset. The Z77 mobo, there, is the most budget version, of the more expensive Z chipset. Going from H to Z gains you nothing, for your build. Going from the top featured H77, to the bottom featured Z77, as the Z itself doesn't gain YOU anything, is a backward step.


Sound logic..thanks. Please understand I am not attempting to second guess you at all...just trying to understand the decision process......a follow on question if it is not too much trouble: I have seen a lot of folks seem to favor other manufacture's mb's (asrock, msi, gigabyte, etc).....for my application the best balance between $$ and performance is this one?

Also, a suggestion was made to get a separate RAID card....is this a good idea?

...and I really appreciate your patience. : )
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 9:50:46 PM

The Asus P8H77-V is probably the best H77, in terms of build quality and performance. What you get with Asus is top quality, good software, and, at least with the "upper" boards, in each range, good design. What you also get is a fairly high price tag, mostly justified, but not always, totally.
To be honest, though, the only other board, that immediately springs to mind, as perhaps better VALUE, is Gigabyte GA-H77-DS3H. That has SLIGHTLY lower connectivity, but only one less USB3.0, and one less SATA 3Gb/s port. The Asus probably has slightly better build quality, but again, it's only going to be marginal, and the Gigabyte is $20 cheaper. So ....
I wouldn't really recommend going any "lower" for your needs.
As to RAID card, I've never used one, to be able to judge if they are much better, or which is a good one. I tend to think they help more with the more sophisticated RAIDs like 5 & 10, but I don't know that for a fact. The other contributor presumably knows what he's talking about (certainly more than I do on that subject)
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 10:29:13 PM

malbluff said:
The Asus P8H77-V is probably the best H77, in terms of build quality and performance. What you get with Asus is top quality, good software, and, at least with the "upper" boards, in each range, good design. What you also get is a fairly high price tag, mostly justified, but not always, totally.
To be honest, though, the only other board, that immediately springs to mind, as perhaps better VALUE, is Gigabyte GA-H77-DS3H. That has SLIGHTLY lower connectivity, but only one less USB3.0, and one less SATA 3Gb/s port. The Asus probably has slightly better build quality, but again, it's only going to be marginal, and the Gigabyte is $20 cheaper. So ....
I wouldn't really recommend going any "lower" for your needs.
As to RAID card, I've never used one, to be able to judge if they are much better, or which is a good one. I tend to think they help more with the more sophisticated RAIDs like 5 & 10, but I don't know that for a fact. The other contributor presumably knows what he's talking about (certainly more than I do on that subject)


Again, a cohesive and comprehensive response....Asus it is. Thank you!
I think I will use the mb raid0 functionality....probably plenty of speed for me. I wonder when I back up to an external drive using W7 utility will the data spread across both drives cause a problem.....hmmm.
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 11:08:27 PM

Just been reading up on raid0, and it seems the consensus is that it just not worth it....for my specific application, I think I will wait and see how it works with just one HDD...I am expecting most everything to run faster due to SSD (not to mention cpu, mb, etc).....FWIW
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 11:10:59 PM

As far as I'm aware, and again, not an expert, you can't back up RAID0, except by combining it with additional discs in RAID 10, or 5, so the "back-up" is done at the same time as the files are created.
m
0
l
November 12, 2012 11:21:41 PM

malbluff said:
As far as I'm aware, and again, not an expert, you can't back up RAID0, except by combining it with additional discs in RAID 10, or 5, so the "back-up" is done at the same time as the files are created.



In my reading, back up is not as simple as with one disc, as the data is now spread across 2 independent drives. That being said, backing up is not the real problem; its recovering data if one drive fails....and, again, for the size of the files I will be working with..marginal if any performance improvement with a significant increase in system complexity...not worth it.

On a slightly different note, some comments I also read regarding 3GB/sec vs 6GB/sec seem to indicate that your really not going to see anywhere near 6; in fact as I understand the comments...3 is tough.....the real advantage in HDD is cache size...and given the price difference between a disc with 3 vs 6 is minimal..go with the 6....make sense?
m
0
l
November 13, 2012 9:15:19 AM

Yes, assuming you're not using more drives, than mobo has 6Gb/s output. I tend to always recommend Caviar Black, for a quality build, don't see any great point to anything else, if not desperate to save a couple of $. Above that SSD.
m
0
l
November 14, 2012 7:03:42 PM

malbluff said:
Yes, assuming you're not using more drives, than mobo has 6Gb/s output. I tend to always recommend Caviar Black, for a quality build, don't see any great point to anything else, if not desperate to save a couple of $. Above that SSD.


@malbluff,
I've been reading some news about OCZ, and it doesn't sound good. Are you comfortable with the reliability of their SSD's given some past history and current corporate issues?
m
0
l
November 14, 2012 7:37:23 PM

Always used to regard OCZ SSDs as "second string", and usually recommended Samsung 830 as the best for performance/reliability/value. The Vertex 4 is a bit of a change. Excellent performance and decent quality, much better than previous offerings. Of course, long term reliability is yet to be fully proven, but no reason to suppose they won't be as reliable as similar SSDs.
Confess have been hearing, in recent days, of possible "business issues", which is a concern, though don't really know what's rumour and what's fact. It would be a pity, as they have a winner, performance wise.
At the end of the day, it's a judgement call. Do you go for performance, with a possible cloud in the horizon, or play safe with the solid performance, of the Samsung 830. To be honest, if I were buying an SSD today, I'd probably get the Samsung. It comes down to price, as well. Even without any "doubts", I wouldn't recommend anyone paying 10% more, for the Vertex 4, over Samsung.
m
0
l
November 14, 2012 8:08:36 PM

malbluff said:
Always used to regard OCZ SSDs as "second string", and usually recommended Samsung 830 as the best for performance/reliability/value. The Vertex 4 is a bit of a change. Excellent performance and decent quality, much better than previous offerings. Of course, long term reliability is yet to be fully proven, but no reason to suppose they won't be as reliable as similar SSDs.
Confess have been hearing, in recent days, of possible "business issues", which is a concern, though don't really know what's rumour and what's fact. It would be a pity, as they have a winner, performance wise.
At the end of the day, it's a judgement call. Do you go for performance, with a possible cloud in the horizon, or play safe with the solid performance, of the Samsung 830. To be honest, if I were buying an SSD today, I'd probably get the Samsung. It comes down to price, as well. Even without any "doubts", I wouldn't recommend anyone paying 10% more, for the Vertex 4, over Samsung.


Thanks for the cogent response....Given the OS will be on this drive, don't really want to deal with any reliability issues. Can I assume this is the Samsung drive you are suggesting: MZ-7PC256D/AM

Also, regarding OCZ's business situation, check this out: http://www.techspot.com/news/50687-ocz-is-axing-28-of-i...

@malbluff, again can't thank you enough for the thoughtful, non-emotional, professional advice...
m
0
l
November 14, 2012 8:32:38 PM

If OCZ have a "clear-out" of some of their lines, that's probably a good thing. Trouble is, some of their stuff is quite good (like the V4), but some is total c**p. Frankly it's often easier to ignore their products, than to try to remember which is the good stuff, so, if they get rid of some of the c**p, and make the good stuff more cost effective, it'll make everyone's choices easier.
Yes, that's the Samsung.
m
0
l
November 14, 2012 8:53:07 PM

malbluff said:
If OCZ have a "clear-out" of some of their lines, that's probably a good thing. Trouble is, some of their stuff is quite good (like the V4), but some is total c**p. Frankly it's often easier to ignore their products, than to try to remember which is the good stuff, so, if they get rid of some of the c**p, and make the good stuff more cost effective, it'll make everyone's choices easier.
Yes, that's the Samsung.


In the hyper competitive performance component world with not so good margins may be tough to slough off a bad reliability rep...guess we will see.

Also, I did notice that there are two Samsung PNs...the one above and this one:MZ-7PC256B/WW
Where this one is like $20 less expensive; I cannot find anywhere what the difference is....do you know?
m
0
l
November 14, 2012 9:46:44 PM

One's just bare drive, the other's a kit. You also get Norton Ghost with the kit. "Big deal" did I hear you say. Cheaper one is fine for when you are relacing an existing SSD.
m
0
l
November 14, 2012 10:05:11 PM

malbluff said:
One's just bare drive, the other's a kit. You also get Norton Ghost with the kit. "Big deal" did I hear you say. Cheaper one is fine for when you are relacing an existing SSD.


Oh....um....yeah, big deal...certainly not worth the difference....thanks.
m
0
l
November 14, 2012 10:56:22 PM

@malbluff,

So I just ordered the mb...on sale. After I ordered it I checked the Asus website to start to learn what I need to do. I saw a qualified memory vendors list...and, the sticks you suggested were not on it. I then went to the G. Skills website to see if this mb is listed for these sticks...it isn't.

I then went to the mb on the Newegg site and they had this memory listed..I really don't know if there is any difference (one is faster, better....??).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Am I missing something or perhaps there is a possible issue?

Sorry about this, but I am concerned that they may not be compatible.......
m
0
l
November 15, 2012 9:43:44 AM

@malbluff,

So I just ordered the mb...on sale. After I ordered it I checked the Asus website to start to learn what I need to do. I saw a qualified memory vendors list...and, the sticks you suggested were not on it. I then went to the G. Skills website to see if this mb is listed for these sticks...it isn't.

I then went to the mb on the Newegg site and they had this memory listed..I really don't know if there is any difference (one is faster, better....??).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6820233246

Am I missing something or perhaps there is a possible issue?

Sorry about this, but I am concerned that they may not be compatible.......
m
0
l
November 15, 2012 9:49:54 AM

The QVL is a list of RAM that have actually been tested, on a board. It's nothing like a comprehensive list of SUITABLE RAM. Had similar issue, myself, with RAM, not on the list, so spoke to someone I know at Asus, to ask if it was suitable, and got response "of course it is, we probably just didn't have any available, to test, on the day", so it's nothing to worry, particularly about. I certainly wouldn't use high heat sink Corsairs, in case you should ever want to change CPU cooler, some will clash. As we've talked about several different options, if you want "peace of mind", if you confirm which board you're actually using, and what quantity of RAM, I will sort something, that is on QVL, and completely suitable.
m
0
l
November 15, 2012 9:59:29 AM

malbluff said:
The QVL is a list of RAM that have actually been tested, on a board. It's nothing like a comprehensive list of SUITABLE RAM. Had similar issue, myself, with RAM, not on the list, so spoke to someone I know at Asus, to ask if it was suitable, and got response "of course it is, we probably just didn't have any available, to test, on the day", so it's nothing to worry, particularly about. I certainly wouldn't use high heat sink Corsairs, in case you should ever want to change CPU cooler, some will clash. As we've talked about several different options, if you want "peace of mind", if you confirm which board you're actually using, and what quantity of RAM, I will sort something, that is on QVL, and completely suitable.


Ok, the part that concerned me was that the QVL had about a dozen different G Skills sticks, but not the one specified....at any case, I would rather go with safe than sorry at this point. Appreciate your offer: below is the mb you suggested, purchased yesterday:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

BTW, I did see this advertised this AM if it is of interest: http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=66354&vpn=CMZ16GX3M2A1...

Again, thanks. So you think I may ever need a cpu cooler?
m
0
l
November 15, 2012 11:56:36 AM

Having checked the QVL, I see it's still as silly as it was, when I had the concern myself. There are NO 8GB RAMs on it, other than an 1866MHz set for 64GB, namely 8x8GB. As board only has 4 slots, for a maximum of 32GB, it would be "interesting" fitting 64GB!! I would love to know how they tested it!
Any of the good quality 16GB(2x8GB), 1600MHz DDR3 with voltage 1.5v, or below, are fine, basically as I was told by Asus. I wish they would bring their QVLs more up to date, or at least test more up to date RAM (probably more to the point).
With a unlocked processor would generally prefer GSKill Ares, Crucial Ballistix Sport, or Corsair CML. As you are using a locked processor, the height of the heatsinks is not critical, and you don't NEED an aftermarket cooler. However, the stupidly high heatsinks on some Vengeance serve no real purpose, and there is always the possibility that you MAY wish to fit and AM cooler, in the future. It's never going to be needed for cooling, but they do tend to be quieter.
If you are worried about RAM suitability, the only thing I can suggest, to satisfy yourself, is to do what I did, and contact Asus direct, to ask them to confirm suitability. It would be interesting to know, if they are supplying a 32GB board, with 4 slots, why they don't test 8GB RAM sticks!
m
0
l
November 15, 2012 12:27:39 PM

malbluff said:
Having checked the QVL, I see it's still as silly as it was, when I had the concern myself. There are NO 8GB RAMs on it, other than an 1866MHz set for 64GB, namely 8x8GB. As board only has 4 slots, for a maximum of 32GB, it would be "interesting" fitting 64GB!! I would love to know how they tested it!
Any of the good quality 16GB(2x8GB), 1600MHz DDR3 with voltage 1.5v, or below, are fine, basically as I was told by Asus. I wish they would bring their QVLs more up to date, or at least test more up to date RAM (probably more to the point).
With a unlocked processor would generally prefer GSKill Ares, Crucial Ballistix Sport, or Corsair CML. As you are using a locked processor, the height of the heatsinks is not critical, and you don't NEED an aftermarket cooler. However, the stupidly high heatsinks on some Vengeance serve no real purpose, and there is always the possibility that you MAY wish to fit and AM cooler, in the future. It's never going to be needed for cooling, but they do tend to be quieter.
If you are worried about RAM suitability, the only thing I can suggest, to satisfy yourself, is to do what I did, and contact Asus direct, to ask them to confirm suitability. It would be interesting to know, if they are supplying a 32GB board, with 4 slots, why they don't test 8GB RAM sticks!


All I can say is, wow....just got off the phone with them and they will NOT recommend any memory supplier. Their advice was to contact all potential memory manufacturer and ask THEM if they have a stick that will work.......not the answer I was hoping for. Any suggestions?
m
0
l
November 15, 2012 4:36:15 PM

Apart from forget QVLs? They're honestly fairly pointless, these days. They harp back to when there was a lot of quality variation between RAMs. If you stick with mainstream maufacturers, like Corsair, GSKill, Crucial, Mushkin, Patriot, these days, they will all be suitable, provided they're 240 pin DIMM, with voltage 1.5v or below, you'll be fine. Any of these, and they're by no means the only ones, are suitable.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

Memory: Crucial Ballistix 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($69.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: Mushkin Blackline 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($69.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance LP 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($70.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ares Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($79.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Patriot Viper 3 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($84.75 @ Amazon)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance LP 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($81.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $457.70
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2012-11-15 13:17 EST-0500)

Perhaps we should start a campaign, to get manufacturers, if they're going to publish them, at all, to at least update them, and Asus are one of the better ones, some are a total joke. How does a 64GB RAM get on the QVL, for a 32GB board? If you did a thread on "which of these 6 options should I use", someone would probably suggest each of them, along with half a dozen others. If you want to ask a RAM manufacture, I would suggest Corsair, as they have several suitable, but honestly I wouldn't worry about it.
m
0
l
November 15, 2012 4:45:51 PM

malbluff said:
Apart from forget QVLs? They're honestly fairly pointless, these days. They harp back to when there was a lot of quality variation between RAMs. If you stick with mainstream maufacturers, like Corsair, GSKill, Crucial, Mushkin, Patriot, these days, they will all be suitable, provided they're 240 pin DIMM, with voltage 1.5v or below, you'll be fine. Any of these, and they're by no means the only ones, are suitable.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

Memory: Crucial Ballistix 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($69.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: Mushkin Blackline 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($69.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance LP 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($70.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ares Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($79.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Patriot Viper 3 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($84.75 @ Amazon)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance LP 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($81.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $457.70
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2012-11-15 13:17 EST-0500)

Perhaps we should start a campaign, to get manufacturers, if they're going to publish them, at all, to at least update them, and Asus are one of the better ones, some are a total joke. How does a 64GB RAM get on the QVL, for a 32GB board? If you did a thread on "which of these 6 options should I use", someone would probably suggest each of them, along with half a dozen others. If you want to ask a RAM manufacture, I would suggest Corsair, as they have several suitable, but honestly I wouldn't worry about it.


Wow, thanks for the list.....I must agree that it seems like this aspect is pretty much out of control...everyone is afraid of liability....pretty much the summary of the calls I made.

Getting back to memory stick, if you had to choose one of these for my mb, which would it be, and I would also appreciate the rationale. Also, do I need low profile..as I am not going to OC?

Again, thanks.
m
0
l
November 15, 2012 6:21:21 PM

Firstly, there is no great reason why you SHOULDN'T use the Vengeance you suggested, when you're not overclocking. The high heat sinks, though, CAN be a nuisance, if you want to upgrade system, to reduce noise.
Of those I selected, personally I quite like the Corsairs. Having said that, I would prefer the higher performance one, which is a bit pricey. The highest performance one, strangely enough, is the cheapest, the Crucial. That is an exceptionaly good price for it, normal would expect close to $100. If it were from Newegg, say, I would say grab it quick, but seems to be from a seller, on Amazon, so I'm not too sure. A lot of people like the Patriot Viper, and Mushkin, but I have no experience, of them, myself. The GSKill would, perhaps, be the most popular choice, if you took a vote.
Myself, I might be tempted to "take a chance" on the Crucial, if I could ensure the seller was OK. Other than that, I think I'd almost "toss a coin", between the Ares, and the better Corsair, unless I was keen to save money, in which case, I might go with the cheaper Corsair.
m
0
l
November 15, 2012 6:31:43 PM

malbluff said:
Firstly, there is no great reason why you SHOULDN'T use the Vengeance you suggested, when you're not overclocking. The high heat sinks, though, CAN be a nuisance, if you want to upgrade system, to reduce noise.
Of those I selected, personally I quite like the Corsairs. Having said that, I would prefer the higher performance one, which is a bit pricey. The highest performance one, strangely enough, is the cheapest, the Crucial. That is an exceptionaly good price for it, normal would expect close to $100. If it were from Newegg, say, I would say grab it quick, but seems to be from a seller, on Amazon, so I'm not too sure. A lot of people like the Patriot Viper, and Mushkin, but I have no experience, of them, myself. The GSKill would, perhaps, be the most popular choice, if you took a vote.
Myself, I might be tempted to "take a chance" on the Crucial, if I could ensure the seller was OK. Other than that, I think I'd almost "toss a coin", between the Ares, and the better Corsair, unless I was keen to save money, in which case, I might go with the cheaper Corsair.


Interesting....I have had pretty good luck with Amazon, and noticing that the price of these sticks seem to fluctuate between 70 and 100 USD, I may take a chance as it it coming directly from Amazon and not a partner....That being said, you see reluctant to recommend it. Also, I must ask: will I even notice a difference in performance between any of these?
m
0
l
November 15, 2012 6:58:40 PM

If it were my money, I would possibly either take a slight chance on the Crucial, or go with the tried and tested GSKill Ares. My only reluctance is in recommending someone else spend their money, on something I haven't used myself, or had a first hand recommendation myself. Daft thing is, if the Crucial had been $80, I'd have probably just said "sounds a good deal".
m
0
l
November 15, 2012 7:01:18 PM

As you rightly suggest, in gamng, you probably wouldn't notice the difference, even if you had two systems running, side by side.
m
0
l
November 15, 2012 7:12:27 PM

malbluff said:
If it were my money, I would possibly either take a slight chance on the Crucial, or go with the tried and tested GSKill Ares. My only reluctance is in recommending someone else spend their money, on something I haven't used myself, or had a first hand recommendation myself. Daft thing is, if the Crucial had been $80, I'd have probably just said "sounds a good deal".


I appreciate your candor...I am a little confused; when you note the Crucial, I assume your referencing the one at Amazon for $70? or am I misinterpreting something? I did look at the comments on the Crucial at Newegg and they were all gushing....a couple mentioned running cooler than they thought.

m
0
l
November 15, 2012 7:25:03 PM

malbluff said:
As you rightly suggest, in gamng, you probably wouldn't notice the difference, even if you had two systems running, side by side.


Given this statement, it sounds like I should go with the Gskill...and be done with it....lol.

Also, I may not have shared this: on the Newegg site, they have recommended memory for mb's....this is what was listed for my mb.....what do you think? I know its not low profile though....should I just stick with one of your suggestions?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
!