System Builder Marathon, December 2010: Value, Compared

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

caamsa

Distinguished
Apr 25, 2006
1,830
0
19,810
13
[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]Tom's Hardware lost around 5% going from x16 to x8, and there has to be more than 0% difference going from x8 to x4.[/citation]

I got the info from this article....maybe I missread? I have two 4850's set up like that in crossfire and they work great. They tested with the PCI-E 2.0 I think the board you tested back in 2007 was an older version.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_5870_PCI-Express_Scaling/
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
[citation][nom]caamsa[/nom]I got the info from this article....maybe I missread? I have two 4850's set up like that in crossfire and they work great. They tested with the PCI-E 2.0 I think the board you tested back in 2007 was an older version. http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews [...] s_Scaling/[/citation]But OH MAN check out this one from earlier this year:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/p55-pci-express-scaling,2517-6.html

12% loss for PCIe x4? The later multi-card analysis was gimped by CPU capping.
 

xAlex79

Distinguished
Dec 20, 2010
13
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]wasupmike[/nom]If you're a casual user who's biggest app is MS Word... then ya... who cares about 1/2 a secondBut, if let's say you're a hardcore Photoshop CS5 user (and yes, it opens with an SSD as fast as 'My Doc's', literally a blink of an eye), than it's quite the pleasure to have... video editing apps? game loading? forget about it... it's amazingand you can compare the "slickness" and speed of an SSD over a HHD.. much like you would compare how it's worth it to spend a little extra on the better video card... just for that little more frame-rates... and higher efx settingsand for a clean install (especially for all you people who install their OS often... (hopefully not too often ) -> Windows 7 64 will install in about ~10 minutes... like the days of Windows NT4 Workstation... ahh...[/citation]

I think we all agree SSDs are great now and defenatly make a difference on overall experiance and especially when productivity is taken into account.

But I think buying a SSD is an addon descision and we all know what the results are, so there is little point into adding them to SBM for that exact reason.

I think we benifit more from the builders going for different types of CPU, GPU, MB, Ram, PSU, Cases, Cooling combinations and try to maximise those within a budget.

Adding an SSD in there does not teach us anything, it does what we know it does to ANY system. Therefore is sort of moot imo. Like mentioned previously if you are SSD keen just add 100$ to the build and get one.
 

terr281

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2008
261
0
18,790
3
[citation][nom]wasupmike[/nom]If you're a casual user who's biggest app is MS Word... then ya... who cares about 1/2 a secondBut, if let's say you're a hardcore Photoshop CS5 user (and yes, it opens with an SSD as fast as 'My Doc's', literally a blink of an eye), than it's quite the pleasure to have... video editing apps? game loading? forget about it... it's amazingand you can compare the "slickness" and speed of an SSD over a HHD.. much like you would compare how it's worth it to spend a little extra on the better video card... just for that little more frame-rates... and higher efx settingsand for a clean install (especially for all you people who install their OS often... (hopefully not too often ) -> Windows 7 64 will install in about ~10 minutes... like the days of Windows NT4 Workstation... ahh...[/citation]

This was the reason why my most recent $1k build/rebuilds for my and my & my wife's computers included a 30 GB mainstream SSD drive. The drive has Windows 7 64 bit, Google Chrome, Office 03 (mine) & OpenOffice (hers), and a few picture editing programs (hers only).

Games and larger "applications" are installed on 7.2k mechanical drives. (In my case, a Raid 1 array of 320 GB "reused from old build" Seagate 7200.10 drives.)

Both systems also have a single 1.5 TB Samsung "slow as Christmas" data drive that are manually mirrored between the systems. (Thus, in the event of a PSU failure that leads to an overall system failure on one system, the data is still protected. Further, this is helped by the fact that my pc is usually powered off and unplugged when I am not activately using it. (Meanwhile, her system is always powered on.)

If someone is going to spend $2k USD on a computer, they should (in my opinion):

1. Make sure to spend ~$100-$150 on a good UPS for that system. (Or, at least ~$30-$40 for a good surge protector.)

2. Make sure the system is built to not /require/ any upgrades, in regard to the CPU and MB, for at least 2-3 years. (The length of many new MB warranties.) Note: If you, however, have money to spare, upgrade the CPU in a year or two. But, the base platform should last.

3. If you play games, look at the specific benchmarks for the games you play. Does Nvidia or AMD usually win graphical value comparisons? If one usually wins, go with GFX card(s) from that company.

4. (Linked to 3) Does a SLI or CF configuration work for your chosen game(s)? If yes, and you have the money to go with an Intel MB that supports both configurations, consider SLI or CF. Why? Cost effectiveness:

---Buy single video card for $200. A year later, your single video card probably sells for $100 new. This means you can sell your used card for about $75 and buy the new $200 card... or pay $75-$100 (used - new) to SLI/CF yourself.---

a. Single card, sell, new single card: $200 - $75 + $200 = $325.
b. Single card, buy used, SLI/CF: $200 + $75 = $275.
c. Single card, buy new, SLI/CF: $200 + $100 = $300.
Or... d. CF/SLI configuration from start. = $400.

How many "new" single cards made +1 year after another card, beat out a CF/SLI configuration of 2 of the "original" cards? Very few. How long has it taken DX 10 to be popular? Never. DX 11? Just hitting new releases (and patches to popular games) over a year after release.

The problem, of course, is that this requires an Intel MB instead of AMD. (Since Nvidia and AMD aren't getting along well enough, for obvious reasons, to allow SLI on AMD MBs.) Therefore, in the "budget" realm, one should stick with AMD CPUs and GFXs. However, in the "mainstream"... there is a fight. And, at the high end, Intel + "the best for your cost" usually will win.
--------------
With the annoucement by Intel mid 2010 that socket 1156 was going to be replaced by socket 1155, this killed Intel's position in the mainstream market using the above factors IF one wants to upgrade their CPU in 1-2 years. If you were ok with leaving your CPU as is for 3 years, then they were still in consideration. I will go with the former for the below. (Note, for this assumption, my gaming computer is still a socket 775 Core 2 Duo e6750 based system that I unfortunately had to replace the MB in due to a failing Nvidia 680i MB. So, don't read this as me being an AMD fanboy.)

Budget: AMD CPU/MB (2 or 3 cores), AMD GFX, up to ~$150 for a quality case (I use Antec 300 Illusions when on sale) & PSU (needs to last for the next build in the case), single mechanical HDD, 2 x 2GB of "budget" DDR3 ram, & 2 DVD burners. (Note: Warn user that, if their HDD dies, they lose all data unless they back it up to other media. They have been warned.)

Mainstream: AMD CPU/MB (3 or 4 cores) that has 8x/8x CF capability, AMD GFX, up to ~$200 for a quality case & PSU, tailor HDD for the end user (Do they need 320 GB or 2 TB? Data security, data speed, etc.?...), 2 x 2 GB of "mainstream" DDR3 ram (or, with recent prices, go ahead and pickup the 2 x 4 GB), single DVD burner, & either a 2nd DVD burner, BR reader, or a BR/DVDR combo drive.

High End: Intel socket 1366 MB/CPU (minimum of 4 physical cores), "best bang for the buck" GFX, up to $400 for a quality case & PSU, tailor HDD for the end user (as above), minimum of 3 x 2 GB of "mainstream/quality" DDR3 (with a consideration to upgrading to 12 GB now), BR/DVDR combo drive, & DVDR drive.
-------------
The upcoming Intel and AMD releases in the CPU market will change the above. Hopefully, Intel will reenter the budget and mainstream markets while AMD will enter the high end market. Further, hopefully, GFX pricing changes will make AMD and Nvidia competitive with one another in the bottom to top hierarchy of price to performance.
 

gwg666

Distinguished
Jun 6, 2008
11
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]ethaniel[/nom]82% performance at half the cost? 500 USD build for me, thanks. I can add a 100 bucks SSD anytime (and they'll just keep dropping). Newegg has some nice, cheap SSDs out there...[/citation]
learn what, that a high tech person with all the stats and reviews in front of him (toms)can put trash systems like this together...yet alone he uses products that aren't selling well...those parts are wattage hungry ...heat killers n soon to be instinct...Intel=$$$$$$$$ AMD =VALUE N performance.....read the reviews n save your money
 

gwg666

Distinguished
Jun 6, 2008
11
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]gwg666[/nom]learn what, that a high tech person with all the stats and reviews in front of him (toms)can put trash systems like this together...yet alone he uses products that aren't selling well...those parts are wattage hungry ...heat killers n soon to be instinct...Intel=$$$$$$$$ AMD =VALUE N performance.....read the reviews n save your money[/citation]
my apoloige ethaniel posted in wrong area
 

caamsa

Distinguished
Apr 25, 2006
1,830
0
19,810
13
[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]But OH MAN check out this one from earlier this year:http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 517-6.html12% loss for PCIe x4? The later multi-card analysis was gimped by CPU capping.[/citation]


"Less surprising was the horrific performance of the x4 slot available on many P55 motherboards through the chipset’s PCIe hub. These lanes offer only PCIe 1.1-class bandwidth regardless of their PCIe 2.0 labeling, dropping 26% behind even the x4 slot available on similarly-priced X58 motherboards."

How about doing an article on an AMD/ATI crossfire chipset on an AMD MB. With X16 X4 set up.

;-)
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
[citation][nom]caamsa[/nom]"Less surprising was the horrific performance of the x4 slot available on many P55 motherboards through the chipset’s PCIe hub. These lanes offer only PCIe 1.1-class bandwidth regardless of their PCIe 2.0 labeling, dropping 26% behind even the x4 slot available on similarly-priced X58 motherboards."How about doing an article on an AMD/ATI crossfire chipset on an AMD MB. With X16 X4 set up. ;-)[/citation]Yeh, 26% behind the 12% that I was referring to. The performance on the X58 platform dropped 12% going from x16 to x4, both slots at full PCIe 2.0 spec.
I guess the real problem here is trying to do what you said, testing on an AMD platform, without bumping up against very hard CPU limits.
 

cadder

Distinguished
Nov 17, 2008
1,707
0
19,860
43
If you're a casual user who's biggest app is MS Word... then ya... who cares about 1/2 a second
I run AutoCAD all day, as well as various other programs. I can go to a different window from AutoCAD and work for awhile, then when I go back to AutoCAD I have to wait 5-10 sec. for that process to read back from the hard drive and be available again. Sometimes when I try to open a new dialog box that hasn't been opened in awhile I have to wait 5-10 sec. to find and read the appropriate DLL's from the hard drive. I'm running 4GB of RAM and a 300GB velociraptor for my program drive. I would like to know how much an SSD might help me here.

Secondly, many of us have laptops that we use occasionally. Laptops by nature typically have lower powered processors and slower hard drives. I'm wondering how much I could improve the performance of the 3 laptops in my family by substituting SSD's for the standard hard drives.
 

terr281

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2008
261
0
18,790
3
[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]You should check this out before setting that price range:http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,2785.html[/citation]

Indeed, current pricing for ~5 min of power (enough to properly logout and shutdown the pc) for a $2k machine with your Nvidia 470s at full CPU and GFX load would cost $165 per today's pricing. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16842102048&cm_re=ups-_-42-102-048-_-Product

However, if a machine made today were to use the newest GFX chipsets instead of the power hungry Nvidia 470, the power profile would change. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6970-radeon-hd-6950-cayman,2818-21.html

As a result, you could step down a few watts on the UPS and meet the $150 benchmark even under full CPU and GFX load. (Which is rare under common usage, even high intensity gaming.) Therefore, you could also step down to the $150 UPS mark with this $2k enthusiast system IF the purpose is to only provide power for logout and shutdown.

Is the above pricing what you will find if you A. Go to your local Best Buy/etc. shelf or B. Via a local distributor? No. But, for those of us who build systems for family, friends, & friends of friends... part cost is part cost with no markup (except for the prequisite "feed me & provide soda while working on your computer.") :)

My home's "aged mainstream" and "budget" computers operate on $100 Cyberpower "pseudo Sine" (as I like to call them) UPSs that only output a maximum of 600w. Even with their 750w maximum output PSU (which usually runs at around 50% with normal "active use") & 2 22" LCD monitors... it is plenty.

This $2k system pulled a maximum GPU load of 722 watts. (This is the important one. How many users actually fully load their CPU and GPU at the same time during "normal" use on high end gaming builds?) Lets add 55w x 2 for 2 22" monitors (which includes the webcam), & an extra 20w for USB powered peripherials. (Those speakers of yours are connected to the "no battery" plugs on the UPS as they are supposed to be, right?)

722 + 55 + 55 + 20 = 852 watts (These numbers would also apply if you use a headset instead of speakers.)

The Tom's Recommended UPS at $165 would handle the overall system. (Especially if built today... where the video cards would be pulling ~100w less.)
 

gidgiddonihah

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2009
1,104
0
19,310
17
I haven't read all the comments :lol: so sorry if i repeat. But i have to say that the 500$ rig has enormous value, and would be increased if you added the 1GB version of the GTX 460...

Just my two cents :).
 

terr281

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2008
261
0
18,790
3
[citation][nom]cadder[/nom]I run AutoCAD all day, as well as various other programs. I can go to a different window from AutoCAD and work for awhile, then when I go back to AutoCAD I have to wait 5-10 sec. for that process to read back from the hard drive and be available again. Sometimes when I try to open a new dialog box that hasn't been opened in awhile I have to wait 5-10 sec. to find and read the appropriate DLL's from the hard drive. I'm running 4GB of RAM and a 300GB velociraptor for my program drive. I would like to know how much an SSD might help me here.Secondly, many of us have laptops that we use occasionally. Laptops by nature typically have lower powered processors and slower hard drives. I'm wondering how much I could improve the performance of the 3 laptops in my family by substituting SSD's for the standard hard drives.[/citation]

Read performance from SSD drives varies on how much you wish to spend on the drive to get the type of controller that runs it. (Not all SSD drives are same, a very brief explanation could be found with the reasoning why they chose the drives they did for the $2k build. For a more thorough explanation, visit Anandtech ... as they review SSD drives frequently and are big fans of them.) In short, the issue you will run into is space (128 GB SSD drives are expensive right now. More or less the VERY expensive 256 GB ones.)

As for your laptop question, SSD drives very frequently increase the "feel" of the performance of laptops... even older model ones. Again, your issue is capacity vs. cost. However, one of the first things many enthusiasts do with their personal laptops is (by using another computer, copy the data on the slow laptop drive... then) replace the slow mechanical drive with an appropriately sized SSD drive (loaded with the copied software, of course.) These days, this usually means (for cost effectiveness) a 64 GB drive.
 

feeddagoat

Distinguished
Apr 11, 2010
329
0
18,790
2
I was one who favoured an SSD measured into the results but wonder if 1/4 of the performance is a little much. How about using the ssd as a scratch disk when video editing, and include it in the productivity chart? That's where you see your performance gain without an inflated score on the chart. Only thing is the processor will play a big part in that too tho but at least the disk would be a practical item over a luxury that saves only a few seconds. That would also justify a smaller hard disk in the $1000 build without it having to be a boot disk where you only see seconds shaved off (and as pointed out a lot of users only boot once a day).

Its good both sides are vocal, it means that something in the middle can be reached that fairly evaluates how well rounded each build is. Atm there's a divide between gaming, balance or productivity. Maybe each SBM could look at each build focus (kinda do atm in the conclusion) but rather than having a gamer pc go up against the "worker" PC at different price points, I'd like to see each area targeted. Ie. Gaming machine @ each price point, where the focus is on GPU, where as productivity @ each price point the focus is on HDD, memory and processor. Obviously look at overall balance but just address certain focus's. Like this quarter we learnt that an i3 dual still makes a hell of a gaming machine and that the faster quad isn't necessary unless you want balanced in which case both power user and gamer is torn. While this is what I would like to see, editorial staff and the community get the say but please pick apart my suggestions as you see fit. The discussion will show what the community wants and how best to draw out the lessons learnt in these articles. Unfortunately one size doesn't fit all as you can see with the debate about SSD's

Great article, a few valuable lessons learnt. Especially about memory as I've almost been tempted to skimp in that area for my next upcoming upgrade. One last question, would it be possible to show min fps in the results, even if not in the final evaluation. After all I'd rather have a 60fps average and min above 30fps than an average of 200fps and a min of 5fps.
 

Onus

Titan
Moderator
Having just said I don't think I'll ever build another PC for myself that doesn't have a SSD, it is hard to argue with xalex79's points. It is indeed a binary decision, and the costs are high. When a SSD comes down in price to be within 20% of regular hard drives, you might get back into "trade-off" territory, but for now I would not argue if Tom's decided not to include them in SBMs.
====
On an unrelated note, in the future it would be interesting and useful if, should particular {RAM | HDD | whatever} be UNPREDICTABLY and unexpectedly slow, the "bad" part could be exchanged on the fly and BOTH sets of data provided. That would account for whatever "game" Mushkin appears to have played with their RAM; maybe hold their feet to the fire a little by showing people what they're really getting vs. what they reasonably expected they were getting.
 

Box293

Distinguished
Dec 16, 2007
9
0
18,510
0
SSD is where it's at, its not all about load times. I just replaced my work laptop 250GB 7200RPM HDD with a 240GB SSD HDD and it's fantastic. Things like searching an Outlook 1.6GB mailbox is instant. I am never waiting for anything anymore. Even when the weekly virus scan runs it doesn't interfere with me, in fact I hear the CPU fan kick in ... the scan can run quicker so in turn it uses more CPU.
 

wasupmike

Distinguished
Oct 13, 2010
399
0
18,860
26


to answer your first question: the fact that you have to wait for 5-10 seconds means 2 things - yes the HDD is slow and an SSD will highly improve the response time... but it also means that you're running out of RAM(!) too

Here's what you need to do: double your RAM to 8GB (maybe have a look at cleaning up your startup items too :)) and try something like this on for size -> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227550 -> OCZ Vertex 2 60GB only $110 (after mir). you won't believe the difference... and you'll be able to load not only your OS + AutoCAD in it... but also most, if not all of your main everyday apps (like MS Office, Firefox, etc...)

If you want to go even further... you can get another 300GB Velociraptor (in addition to the SSD) and 'RAID 0' it for an amazing fast 'scratch' drive for your large AutoCAD files and data (just make sure you have a backup option that you use - as RAID 0 isn't exactly "safe" when it comes to storing important data... but it makes an excellent scratch drive... again, just make sure you backup your data

You could use that one Vertex too for your laptops you mentioned as well... (if you've got an extra $330 to spare)... however if the laptops aren't going to store much user data... you could get away with smaller SSD's just for the OS and apps to save money

So in order of priority:
- Double RAM to 8GB
- Buy an SSD for OS + main apps
- Buy an additional 300GB Veliciraptor + 'RAID 0' them for a 'scratch drive'
 

neiroatopelcc

Distinguished
Oct 3, 2006
3,079
0
20,810
9
[citation][nom]Article[/nom]If gaming is what you really want, load times don’t mean much to you, and you like the performance seen in the $1000 build’s debut, this is probably the machine for you.[/citation]
That's so not true crashie!
For real gamers, load times are important. There's nothing worse than waiting for a raid member because his system's loading slowly, or waiting forever for steam to finish up something before you can launch your new discounted game.....
In a perfect world, all gamers would have angelbird's wings card.
 

neiroatopelcc

Distinguished
Oct 3, 2006
3,079
0
20,810
9
[citation][nom]jtbm[/nom]The SSD has almost no impact on performance in most computer tasks, except system or program load.[/citation]
That's not entirely true. Here at work we could save a lot of time if we'd have ssd's instead of cheap 160 and 320gb sata drives in the systems. Every time a user logs in, a new userprofile around 300mb is created, and every time they start a new program, the msi installer has to finish up before they can use it. This could be reduced considerably with ssd's. Instead of investing in 1600 ssd's though, it's cheaper for us to just wait for the systems to finish. Oh, and buying an installer studio to fix the msi issues that come with factory made msi's.

[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]No, because too many readers complain about drives larger than 2TB being useless for anything but warez and it's not worth arguing with them about.[/citation]
I know you run away from arguments you can't win once you've run out of bullying tactics. But more storage is useful for a lot more than just pirated stuff. Personally I've got a steam cache of serveral hundred gigabytes and a folder with more than 100gb of legal music. On top of that come a lot of other stuff, som backup wim's and a copy of all my dvd's etc. That won't ever fit on one 1tb drive. Besides, I'd really expect two drives mirrored in a highend system - or some other means of backup.
[citation][nom]caamsa[/nom]If you were to upgrade the cpu and add another card in crossfire I see noting wrong with the x16/x4 crossfire. Most tests show you only loose about 5% with the pci-e 2.0 x4 slot. But that is a good price for the GTX 460 and the AMD SLI boards are overpriced IMO.[/citation]

AMD sli doesn't exist. But CF scales fairly weak in comparison to sli anyway, so it wouldn't make much difference between one 460 and two 5770 I'm sure.
[citation][nom]cadder[/nom]I run AutoCAD all day, as well as various other programs. I can go to a different window from AutoCAD and work for awhile, then when I go back to AutoCAD I have to wait 5-10 sec. for that process to read back from the hard drive and be available again. Sometimes when I try to open a new dialog box that hasn't been opened in awhile I have to wait 5-10 sec. to find and read the appropriate DLL's from the hard drive. I'm running 4GB of RAM and a 300GB velociraptor for my program drive. I would like to know how much an SSD might help me here.Secondly, many of us have laptops that we use occasionally. Laptops by nature typically have lower powered processors and slower hard drives. I'm wondering how much I could improve the performance of the 3 laptops in my family by substituting SSD's for the standard hard drives.[/citation]
Your problem isn't the harddrive, it's your system running out of available filecache. Get 8GB memory and the redraw of autocad when you return will most likely be reduced to under a second. An ssd would save you about a minute every time you launch autodesk inventor and similar programs though. But while it's open you won't notice all that much.
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]I know you run away from arguments you can't win once you've run out of bullying tactics. But more storage is useful for a lot more than just pirated stuff. Personally I've got a steam cache of serveral hundred gigabytes and a folder with more than 100gb of legal music. On top of that come a lot of other stuff, som backup wim's and a copy of all my dvd's etc. That won't ever fit on one 1tb drive. Besides, I'd really expect two drives mirrored in a highend system - or some other means of backup. [/citation]I was making that same argument for the first two years of SBM builds, back when the budgets were much higher, adding two 750GB or two 1TB drives in RAID 1 as storage drives. Readers were piling up against those systems claiming '2TB is only needed by pirates' (paraphrased) even though the article clearly stated that it was 1TB, redundant. You would say I must have "ran out of bullying tactics" against them, even though you actually agree with the rationale used in those earlier articles.

The problem obviously wasn't my bullying, but the power of the masses that prevailed against both me (in those RAID 1 builds) and you (when you agree with those RAID 1 builds). In that case, who's the bully?

You see, the only problem you have with me is that I'm being painfully honest, and that's something you simply can't tolerate.
 

eddieroolz

Splendid
Moderator
I have a few opinions myself.

Firstly I think it was an unwise decision to introduce SSDs into the benchmark. Sure it boosts loading times for Windows and applications, but that metric is wildly open to interpretation - for some, 1minute boot is long while for others that is the fastest thing they've ever seen.

Secondly with the prices of SSD still relatively high, it basically precludes using it in the $500 build and possibly the $1000 build as well. So why should 1/4 of the score come from a device that only the rich can afford?

Thirdly. AMD has been impressing me repeatedly to the point that the huge bang-for-the-buck has become normal for me. Kudos to AMD!
 

hixbot

Distinguished
Oct 29, 2007
818
0
18,990
1
SSDs are important to many people and they do make a big performance difference depending on the task. I'm glad they are including SSDs in the builds. The article lays out clearly how the SSD effects the value comparisons, making it easy for readers to decide if thats important. I don't know why you guys complain so much, these aren't exclusive gaming machines, they are performance PCs and file system is important to performance in many tasks.
Old builds used to shell out mega cash for raptor drives etc, and it was the same concept, some don't need that drive performance but some do. and in those days you'd spend much more for raptor drives for very little return even in file system benches. Atleast the SSDs are orders of magnitude faster.

If you are spending extra to improve the file system, I think it's fair to show the return on the investment by including those benchmarks in the comparison.
One could say they would build a $2000 machine the same as the $500 machine but with 20 terabytes of storage. That's acceptable if those are your needs. People have different needs, and since these articles spend the $2000 on performance, not storage space, I think SSDs are a must.

Spending a ton for high end RAM seems silly when you can still overclock with cheap RAM by lowering the memory multiplier and lose less than 1% performance for pretty much ALL tasks. but ofcourse which tom's readers don't like high end ram?
 

neiroatopelcc

Distinguished
Oct 3, 2006
3,079
0
20,810
9
[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]You see, the only problem you have with me is that I'm being painfully honest, and that's something you simply can't tolerate.[/citation]
That's not entirely true. In fact not at all true. I respect blunt honesty as I am quite familiar with that. I don't agree with your general way of dealing with criticism however. This time around you actually came up with a reasonable reply though. Not so when you fucked up the watercooling article a while ago and sort of tried to stab all the readers that disagreed with your questionable choices.

Anyway, the storage amounts used in those builds clearly don't match those of reallife usage. They're adequate for the discount pc sold in general stores, but nothing more.
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]Anyway, the storage amounts used in those builds clearly don't match those of reallife usage. They're adequate for the discount pc sold in general stores, but nothing more.[/citation]I think 1GB is entry-level for a high-end user and would love to have more. In fact, I think a RAID 5 with at least 3 1TB drives providing 2TB capacity would be a smart move, using a professional controller and maybe even a hot spare. But you know how well that would go over with the majority of readers, who continuously argued against capacities over 1TB last year.

What I'm saying is that you and I might agree about a few things, but that's not going to sway the majority. I've even found it easier to justify a BD-RE drive with the majority and hey, at least you can use that for backups :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS