[dirtylarryuk]

Eddingtonsons, on 25 July 2010 - 11:17 AM, said:

Its coming on tuesday larry, so will install and benchmark then. Suffice to say, anything less that 100MB read time, i shall be very annoyed

http://www.thinkcomp...drive-review/7/

100gb model, but explain why we said sandforce controller and pay extra!

I 100% recommend you install it as your mian win7 drive and let win7 auto format it, seems there are 100 ways to cock up if you dont do this.

This post has been edited by dirtylarryuk: 25 July 2010 - 01:34 PM

[Doomtomb]

Some interesting results there Dirtylarry. Why is your E6300 @ 1.86GHz? I had one of those CPUs a couple years ago and stock clock was 2.4GHz, easily OCs to 3.0+.

[dirtylarryuk]

Doomtomb, on 25 July 2010 - 01:49 PM, said:

Some interesting results there Dirtylarry. Why is your E6300 @ 1.86GHz? I had one of those CPUs a couple years ago and stock clock was 2.4GHz, easily OCs to 3.0+.

This is the one of the first e6300's

266.66x7 so 1866.64Mhz

The later ones where 2.4 stock I think, this core 2 has trouble past 2.4 unless you go nuts with the volts. so i'll leave as is for now (besides its a 680i mobo so not worth the risk as it will just nuke the ram at a whim). At the time it smoked a Athlonx2 by a margin its a POS now though... had to lend my E8400 to a niegbour on friday as their Q6600 has failed knew it would as 2 cores where 20c higher than the other 2 cores for weeks My own QX6850 had done the same before it failed. They get a new CPU on wednesday so I get my E8400 back.

I'm going to put the other v2 in the mian rig this week anyway so i can generate results from a 4GHZ QX9650 with fast ddr3 to compare and I'm 90% sure I'm going to put a cheapo amd x56 in the FT02 so be intresting to see how that compares as well.

The lower end E6300 (1.86 GHz) and E6400 (2.13 GHz), both with a 1066 MT/s FSB, were released on July 27, 2006. Traditionally, CPUs of the same family with less cache simply have the unavailable cache disabled, since this allows parts that fail quality control to be sold at a lower rating. When yields improve, they may be replaced with versions that only have the cache amount needed on the die, to bring down manufacturing cost.

mines a 2006 conroe e6300 so the above test is a 4 year old CPu running a vertex 2 with a 20-30% perfomance lost at 4k + Im not even sure the mobo is sata 3gb it might be 1.5GB!

EDIT: after checking the striker extreme 680i is # 6 x Serial ATA 3.0Gb/s! So the cpu is the only loss of power then.

This post has been edited by dirtylarryuk: 25 July 2010 - 03:18 PM

[shalomyo]

shalomyo, on 25 July 2010 - 09:16 AM, said:

what if you clock the dual at 4ghz?

could you just overclock ur e6300 to the max that u can and benchmark the ssd again

[dirtylarryuk]

shalomyo, on 25 July 2010 - 04:28 PM, said:

could you just overclock ur e6300 to the max that u can and benchmark the ssd again

Not really this is a old old mobo and has only 2 saves. So have profile 1 in bios for 4GHZ and 1142 ddr2 abd profile 2 at for the 1066 sticks and stock. Don't want to wipe them as the e8400 is going back in. And i dont have a floppy installed to back them up. My new mobos can save to usb now anyway.

This test also proved even the worst cpu you could find now runs like a dream with a ssd. Even most of the cheap athlon x2's right now for $50+ are way faster than a e6300.

I will have the e8400 back this week so I can test at 3 and 4 GHZ to see if it makes any difference and then compare that to 4GHZ core 2 quad and I7.

As I said this is a 4 year G1 core 2 you can't oc the bloody things in a 680i without risk. If it was a intel chipset i would though lol. I'm not worried about the cpu i am about the ram its 1142 corsair dominator DDR2 3-3-3 bloody rare stuff. and would be impossible to replace.

This post has been edited by dirtylarryuk: 25 July 2010 - 07:05 PM

[shalomyo]

dirtylarryuk, on 25 July 2010 - 07:00 PM, said:

1142 corsair dominator DDR2 3-3-3 bloody rare stuff. and would be impossible to replace.

does that even exist

so im better sticking with e5400@3.5ghz and getting ssd than upgrading to i7?

This post has been edited by dirtylarryuk: 25 July 2010 - 08:38 PM

[dirtylarryuk]

shalomyo, on 25 July 2010 - 07:26 PM, said:

does that even exist

so im better sticking with e5400@3.5ghz and getting ssd than upgrading to i7?

Officially its 4-4-4 but works at 3-3-3 thats how i did the crysis benchmark and the ram was silly money and i blew 2 sets lol.

Right now its only at 800-1066 though lol. My DDR3 on my Qx9650 is 7-7-7 1800

On the upgrade ssd is cheap! Well £100-150 to af 60gb super fast storage for OS browser and a few games. Some games are cpu limited so i7 helps, some games like mmo's are storage limited and load textures and levels on demand SSD really helps there crysis 64bit with tex streaming shows that well.

This post has been edited by dirtylarryuk: 25 July 2010 - 08:38 PM

[Samfolds]

Hello,

Sorry to bother, but I have a quick question regarding installation of games on an SSD (or Hard drives in general)...

I'm playing Stacraft 2 at the moment and my DVD drive seems to be running the disc while I'm playing. So if I were to install Starcraft 2 on an SSD, would my DVD drive slow down or even nullify the SSD ?

Thanks in advance.

Samfolds

[dirtylarryuk]

Samfolds, on 30 July 2010 - 06:26 PM, said:

Hello,

Sorry to bother, but I have a quick question regarding installation of games on an SSD (or Hard drives in general)...

I'm playing Stacraft 2 at the moment and my DVD drive seems to be running the disc while I'm playing. So if I were to install Starcraft 2 on an SSD, would my DVD drive slow down or even nullify the SSD ?

Thanks in advance.

Samfolds

Take the disk out (dvd) see what happens!

[Samfolds]

dirtylarryuk, on 30 July 2010 - 06:35 PM, said:

Take the disk out (dvd) see what happens!

Says to insert DVD in order to play...

On a quick note, I've found out that once I've bought the game, I can download it and install it with no need for the DVD.

That should do the trick, but what if I couldn't download the game?


Thank you!

Samfolds

[dirtylarryuk]

Samfolds, on 30 July 2010 - 07:17 PM, said:

Says to insert DVD in order to play...

On a quick note, I've found out that once I've bought the game, I can download it and install it with no need for the DVD.

That should do the trick, but what if I couldn't download the game?


Thank you!

Samfolds

Once it's installed you dont need the DVD as it has server side logon. Sc2 has some intresting features in this area. I have it installed on both rigs and bar being horrified at how a crappy 1.86GHZ with a vertex 2 can load levels faster than a 4GHZ c2 quad with raid raptors (yes really!).

I have the game on both machine and once you have logged in it remebers where you are in the SP campaign on either machine. The only fubar I had so far with it, is the razer megladon must be set to 2.0 sound not 5.1 7.1 in the game audio or you get no sound at all! Rather odd and I have sent a email to razer to let them know.

[Samfolds]

dirtylarryuk, on 30 July 2010 - 07:39 PM, said:

Once it's installed you dont need the DVD as it has server side logon. Sc2 has some intresting features in this area. I have it installed on both rigs and bar being horrified at how a crappy 1.86GHZ with a vertex 2 can load levels faster than a 4GHZ c2 quad with raid raptors (yes really!).

I have the game on both machine and once you have logged in it remebers where you are in the SP campaign on either machine. The only fubar I had so far with it, is the razer megladon must be set to 2.0 sound not 5.1 7.1 in the game audio or you get no sound at all! Rather odd and I have sent a email to razer to let them know.

Wow that's amazing (!!!).

But my concern is : is it worth spending money on an SSD if other games (other than Sc2) can't be downloaded and therefore need a DVD to run? Then my question from the beginning still holds : Does a DVD drive nullifies the effect of an SSD or will it still be noticeable ?

Thank you for your time, very appreciated!

Samfolds

This post has been edited by Samfolds: 30 July 2010 - 08:34 PM

[dirtylarryuk]

Samfolds, on 30 July 2010 - 08:32 PM, said:

Wow that's amazing (!!!).

But my concern is : is it worth spending money on an SSD if other games (other than Sc2) can't be downloaded and therefore need a DVD to run? Then my question from the beginning still holds : Does a DVD drive nullifies the effect of an SSD or will it still be noticeable ?

Thank you for your time, very appreciated!

Samfolds

A few older PC games need a dvd in the drive for DRM this just checks the dvd is real and slows the loading of the game a fraction that one time. This won't affect level load or the streaming of data durign a game from SSD.

Many PC games now have a server logon Battlefield BC2 and SC2 are 2 of the latest examples. The days of having to have the DVD in the drive are almost gone. Almost no PC game in year has loaded data from the DVD while gaming. Even the console have stopped doing that now they have 200GB HDD.

Is a SSD something that makes gaming better. Simple answer yes (it just makes your PC better in general, nothing like win7 booting in 10 secs!). I have one of the first SSD's and it's quite fast about same as 10k raptor raid just no HDD noise. My new vertex 2's with sandforce is mind blowing. made a rather old PC fun to use for CCTV and gaming and you can literally see the difference.

As long as you have a decent mobo and CPU and 2GB+ ram a new sandforce ssd make quite a difference in many games.

This post has been edited by dirtylarryuk: 30 July 2010 - 09:09 PM

[Samfolds]

Alright!

Thank you for your answer(S)...Really sold me the idea of having an SSD

Samfolds

[Eddingtonsons]

Ok, so this drive gets quite a bad rep for no longer being displayed but the solution is really easy tbh. You just have to disable TRIM and then no more BSOD and no more undetectability, ya dig?

[dirtylarryuk]

Samfolds, on 31 July 2010 - 05:27 AM, said:

Alright!

Thank you for your answer(S)...Really sold me the idea of having an SSD

Samfolds

The other thing is to have a 64bit OS with 4GB+ ram AND a SSD. This is then super sweet as the SSD will fill ram fast but ram will cache data 9and ram is like 10x faster than any SSD). With the SSD feeding ram and a 64 bit os holding data you can litterally see the difference on 64 bit os + SSD vs Win 32 + SSD as you open and close stuff and even game.

I've been testing this all week I have win7 32 on purpose on spare rig.

So with a Vertex 2 SSD even the crappy 1.86 GHZ core 2 65nm conroa can load a level faster (almost 50% faster) than a QX9650 at 4 GHZ and raptor raid on vista 64. So Sc2 loads the game and levels faster on the spare rig!

Basically the SSD, the storage is the key here. But when moving around inside the SP campaign parts of SC2 the Win vista 64 caches the parts and loads that faster on the 64 bit machine as those parts store in RAM thus the main rig does this faster than the spare as the win32 install has to load from SSD not RAM.

Thus win7 64 +4GB RAM + SSD +_ 3GHZ quad or better is the best combo by far. You need 64 bit for ram to cache data for games and apps. You need SSD to feed RAM and you want a 3GHZ x4 threads or better for modern games.

So to get best from a SSD you need win7 64 + 4GB RAM and a 3 GHZ CPU (prefably quad).

This post has been edited by dirtylarryuk: 31 July 2010 - 03:17 PM

[dirtylarryuk]

dirtylarryuk, on 25 July 2010 - 07:00 PM, said:

Not really this is a old old mobo and has only 2 saves. So have profile 1 in bios for 4GHZ and 1142 ddr2 abd profile 2 at for the 1066 sticks and stock. Don't want to wipe them as the e8400 is going back in. And i dont have a floppy installed to back them up. My new mobos can save to usb now anyway.

This test also proved even the worst cpu you could find now runs like a dream with a ssd. Even most of the cheap athlon x2's right now for $50+ are way faster than a e6300.

I will have the e8400 back this week so I can test at 3 and 4 GHZ to see if it makes any difference and then compare that to 4GHZ core 2 quad and I7.

As I said this is a 4 year G1 core 2 you can't oc the bloody things in a 680i without risk. If it was a intel chipset i would though lol. I'm not worried about the cpu i am about the ram its 1142 corsair dominator DDR2 3-3-3 bloody rare stuff. and would be impossible to replace.

I found out why someone though the E6300 is 2.6 GHz, later E6300 were called pentuims and came at 2.6 GHZ stock my e6300 is a conroe Core 2 1.86 GHZ (65nm).

I'm about to put a Q9400 to replace it in as my neighbour bought my E8400 off me.