|
Kingston V+100 series (not... anything else in the badly named line, it has to be V+100) uses an updated Toshiba controller that has aggressive garbage collection and you can't tell the difference in performance with or without TRIM. It will probably have less write amplification with TRIM, it does support it, but it's way more aggressive than Intel's GC, and you can fill one completely up and still get great performance (with less usable write cycles/nominal lifetime, but thems the breaks).
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2011 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 02:28 |
|
|
SteamMover is also great because while, yeah, it's just doing xcopy operations, it's waaay better than SteamTool. It allows as many junction locations as you want, which is super handy if you have three SSDs that get games you're currently playing on them, and like a total idiot you made the heroic error of making one of the SSDs your Steam folder. Ugh, I really wish I would have just had it on the HDD in the first place and use SteamMover to put them on the SSDs, feels like I'm shuffling around stuff all the time. I didn't understand just how deep Steam gets its claws into you. It was a more innocent time, when 240(ish)GB of games seemed like it'd never be filled. Now I've got like 100 Steam games, and the prospect of redownloading them seems dumb and unnecessary since I've got two 2TB HDDs (hey, guys, remember back when HDD prices were sane?). At this point, I have no idea how I'd even move the folder with its multiple junctions to an HDD in the first place to start over and just put the large/many random reads games I play onto the SSDs. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2011 04:39
|
|
|
fletcher posted:Yeah but how many of those 100 games are you never going to play again? Just delete them, you digital hoarder 4TB of space, I flit around and don't stick with just one game, so... nope!  From 12 games to 100 games (Steam sales and Humble Bundles/Royale Bundles, score) for less than the price of a 2TB HDD before the flooding and all in the last few months, they're all good candidates for playing at any given time. And, hell, it's my space, I don't care what you put on yours but if you should happen to need a tool to move games around from Steam installation default location to elsewhere without having to manually create NTFS junctions, SteamMover is it! Agreed fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Dec 14, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2011 07:28
|
|
|
Darke GBF posted:Upgrading to an SSD is such a joyous occasion, and expressing one's love for the magic of the solid state drive should never be mocked. That being said, he probably should've waited a week for the "guys this owns" post. Faster non-sequential writes is one of the benefits of an SSD, maybe some scrub with two Velociraptors in RAID-0 could wait a week but when you get an SSD, you're high on speed, man.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
the littlest prince posted:Don't keep steam games on your SSD either, most won't see any real benefit from it and it's probably not even worth checking to see if any do. Get enough for your editing and move everything that doesn't fit onto your old hard drive. The OP has info on moving steam games. I've done quite a lot of checking, I've got two SSDs just for STEAM games. If they do a lot of dynamic content loading, can reduce momentary stutter where the game would normally hit the platter to nothing (a good example would be Fallout: New Vegas). Apart from that, all loading times benefit, but any game that's well optimized for PC will run ~roughly as well from HDD as SSD. Some examples of games that really like SSDs:
Nonetheless, SSD space for games is definitely a luxury, not a necessity. Some games see practically no benefit at all, e.g. Starcraft 2, because it's so well optimized that it never really hits the disk in a way that would cause thrashing, and the load time difference is not especially substantial. And of course smaller games see no real benefit because there just aren't many files to access in the first place and if the drive's not fragmented (which Windows 7 does a fine job of ensuring without you having to do anything manually) it won't have to do a lot of out of order reads.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:What pdf? I definitely wanted several drives, and at a bit over $2/GB it was worth it. "Worth it" is a really subjective phrase.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2011 08:56
|
|
|
Yeah, I have Steam installed on a 128GB SSD and any time I get a new game, I have to pick where it goes. It shouldn't too meaningfully decrease the useful life of the SSD, barring unforeseen issues with firmware or other crashes, because, honestly, even moving around large games is hardly the kind of stress that's going to burn out your writes with modern flash. On my 96GB Kingston V+100 with the Toshiba controller that has an unusually high write amplification factor, I'm more careful to only put stuff on it that's going to stay there. You can have Steam installed anywhere and you can have multiple roll-over folders with SteamMover (NTFS junctions work just as well for Origin, too, if you happen to be an EA games user who wants to play Crysis 2, for example  ). My advice would be to make sure Steam is installed to the HDD. That way you decide what games move to the SSD... instead of which games move off of it. While I don't think it's a huge risk for drive life or anything, it would be nice if I didn't have to do this quite so often.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2011 20:43
|
|
|
fletcher posted:Wouldn't you have to do this every day for years before it became an issue? Yeah, it's not a real issue, just a pain in the rear end. Alereon posted:One additional complication with SteamMover is that it only works with games that are contained entirely in their folders. Valve games, which use cache files, have to remain on the installed drive. That's why your best solution is generally to install Steam to your larger drive and use SteamMover to move over a small number of the games you want to load quickly. As of right now it won't even let you try to move Valve's spread out games. Anything with an FPS UI on the Source engine, basically. So despite the fact that, honestly, I don't want Half Life 2 and all the episodes crowding my HDD when I could be substantially reducing load times in Mass Effect (in theory, as I never play the game anymore and won't again until, ah, yeah, until ME3 comes out) or something, but too bad! It also complicates drag n' drop move/reinstallations of large game libraries, but... you can sort of get around it, if you can drag and drop the actual game folders into the new /steamapps/common directory.. Still not "dragging one folder" easy, but not as difficult as redownloading if you're capped or something.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2011 02:13
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Hrm, the internet seems to say that what I thought was correct, but NAND manufacturers stick in some extra anyways to use for wear leveling. Weird. One part racket, one part behind the scenes drive life expansion while still preserving, effectively, the appearance of standardized sizes. GB vs. GiB is loving us again (but this time rather more gently than usual!) 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2012 08:25
|
|
|
Mildly technical question - given that SSDs keep the difference between industry standard base-10 GB and actual GiB as non-user-accessible room for wear leveling, exactly how much free space should you keep on an SSD to ensure TRIM and background GC do their jobs efficiently without adversely affecting write amplification? I've been keeping 15% free, but it seems like I could get away with 10% without hurting anything...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
Alereon posted:It really depends on the workload, mostly how often you'll be writing to the drive and generating dirty pages that need to be cleared. For normal desktop workloads that's probably not very often, so you can get away without much free space. This is especially true on Sandforce drives, since their internal compression and deduplication frees up a lot of space to use as spare area. Any time there's a Steam sale, I invariably end up moving basically the whole drive's worth of data on and off it, sometimes more than once. As such I've been keeping it at ~15% free space or greater as reported by Windows 7. This is with a Plextor SATA3 SSD using a Marvell controller, not exactly renowned for super background collection. On my OS SSD (and secondary Steam SSD), both Kingston V+100s, I try to keep 20% free because the write amplification is crazy high and the secondary Steam one is only a 96GB drive to begin with. It stores only games that I know I'm not going to uninstall - S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games, FO:NV, Skyrim; games that can actually make use of the faster speed, games with very high replay value, etc. I would just like to repeat that I strongly regret not making my Steam folder on an HDD, because that means I've downloaded and moved >120 games onto and off of the Plextor 128GB SSD, which is a much higher than normal workload 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
pixaal posted:Physically move your steam folder then reinstall steam, everything is still there it will work fine. I reinstalled windows and moved my steam folder to a different HDD (it was sitting on a 500GB that was giving some SMART errors that I wanted to retire). Worked perfectly fine. You could even reinstall first or whatever you just move your entire game folder where you want it. Just keep in mind copying 300gigs of stuff can take a long time. This works much, much better before you have NTFS junctions for the vast majority of games. I am -pretty sure- that I can just kill the junctions, move the games into /common and it shouldn't kick too much of a fuss, and I do intend to do that soon but I have no idea why I thought it would be a good idea to install steam on an SSD in the first place. Vastly underestimated how good Valve is at getting you to trade money for games you don't have time to play.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2012 23:07
|
|
|
Why would anyone back up important data to any kind of memory or anything at all tied to one interface standard? Just operate under the assumption that you need multiple redundant backups of anything important, and that none of them will be permanent or archival, replicate to new media as necessary. What else can you do?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
DNova posted:no. Without power, full data loss will eventually occur. Time span is more in terms of a few years than a few months, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
Given that you're on, what, your third "fix," no offense in the least intended but I'd really consider an RMA at this point, or at the very least a wait-and-see with the full expectation that it can happen again and good attention to data redundancy for anything important on it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:All the stuff I want saved is already on another hard drive so I'm not worried about that. I'm just going to let it sit for a while and see if it locks up or bluescreens again. Well, reliability seems to go like this: 1. Everyone knows Intel is reliable as heck, but pricey and larger sizes are expensive. Smaller sizes write slowly. 2. Crucial seems to be taking good care of their brand image, and isn't nearly as difficult to work with as OCZ, but I dunno, they don't have Intel's "rock solid, only one major bug in their modern products and it only experienced by an extreme minority of customers" thing. 3. Older technologies from reputable brands are generally as reliable as one could expect. I'm just repeating poo poo I've already said, but I've got two Kingston V+100 drives which have high write amplification if you fill 'em up too much but run like smooth bastards with or without TRIM (good candidate for RAID if that's your bag and you're not willing to go with Intel RST RAID pass-through). I also have a Plextor 128GB which uses a solid but unremarkable Marvell controller, is a fast SATA3 drive but not Sandforce fast, and just combines that good Marvell controller with some quality but not exceptional flash. Unremarkable but it works very well, they're just an OEM rebrander like any other these days like any other really. Gone are the glory days of their optical drives being benchmark quality. I have to be perfectly honest, I can't remember the brand of the drive you tried. If it's OCZ, gently caress OCZ, get out while you have the option. If it's a more established and "safe" brand then you might just have a bad drive, everything has failure rates. A company with the lowest failure rates in the business is still going to have premature failures. Warranty is usually an indicator of quality and trust in the product, but some companies just don't give a gently caress about their image and will give customers a runaround despite claiming good warranty support. Like OCZ, for example, where great problem-free customer service is the exception by far.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2012 06:48
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Is it just me or are Corsair's SSD's experiencing just as much problems as their RAM and power supplies? Corsair's higher wattage supplies are great (well, I mean, they're rebadged products from really good OEM manufacturers), what do you mean by that? And what's wrong with their memory? Never heard anything about Corsair having unusually high memory problems. OCZ, sure, but not Corsair.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Nah ASUS' "Thermal Armor" is completely terrible. They put it on their high-end board, but don't supply you with the fan that actually moves air through it. It's an additional accessory. It is a complete loving pain in the rear end to remove it but I tested it and I got ~2-3ºC cooler temps on measurement with the armor on and no fan, and adding a 50mm fan I got an additional ~3-4ºC cooler temps. It also makes the poo poo a lot easier to work with when installing gigantic coolers, and as a bonus comes with their ROG power delivery for about a hundred bucks less, as well as the necessary underlying circuitry to run quad-SLI if that's your retarded bag. (Edit: I think the "thermal jacket" causing heat issues goes out the window when you make the choice to run two 690s in quad-SLI, since it doesn't have the slots for more than two cards, just the capability )I have no regrets at all about buying the Sabertooth P67. I strongly disagree that it's a "loving stupid design decision," but I also have a Corsair 650D case with really good airflow and I don't know what kind of setup your systems were in. Maybe it affected the temps negatively in them. Agreed fucked around with this message at 20:20 on May 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
You get an SSD to make your computer incredibly fast. A brief, fast and loose explanation for SSDs as such follows: Intel launched most of the early SSDs. Why? Because their processors are really fast but disk access becomes a significantly limiting factor. How to fix that? Improve IOPS and random data access by orders of magnitude higher than anything in the platter world. Did it work? Holy gently caress yes. Right now I've just put the finishing touch on my system build - my current system uses an old Kingston V+100 which is about half as fast, give or take, at 4K randoms as the Sandisk Extreme 480GB that will be replacing it, and way slower at sequential (it's old technology, so it goes). I even added another couple of SSDs to this setup along the way because once I experienced it, I was absolutely down to get more of THAT going on in my system. The SD Extreme 480GB doesn't even have superb IOPS, at "only" 46K compared to most higher capacity drives' 90K+ and its own lower capacity brethren at above 80K. It's a bit of an outlier there. Ask me if I give a poo poo, it'll last as long as the computer does and I have already been using SSDs and WILL NEVER GO BACK. The 480GB Sandisk Extreme will be my OS, apps, and primary recording space drive. In addition to it, I'll be running a RAID-0 setup of three Sandisk Extreme 240GB drives. Now THAT will be a fast, fast, fast setup, they each top 80K IOPS a piece (by quite a bit as memory serves) and have great sequential and random speeds - and so it's going to be the scratch/project directory for audio work. I might also put some games off in a folder. I'd love to see how hilariously fast anything in the world will load when all I/O constraints that would normally face a SATA drive are removed. But without a doubt and without qualification, using an SSD for your OS drive, swap file, and primary apps directory is the greatest user experience improvement since the introduction of dual-core processors. You will have no idea what you're missing, but to spend as much as you're spending on the system as a whole and discount the incredible snappiness and speed that running an SSD offers is making a huge mistake. Consider something inexpensive if you're not sold on the idea - a Sandisk Extreme 120GB isn't pricey for an SSD, though it's not as good of a deal as the 256GB+ models, and if all you ever put on it is your OS you'll have room to swap a large game or two off with junctions or SteamMover or whatever. Learn for yourself, at next to no expense, how amazingly fast things are with solid state as opposed to platter drives. Once you do, you'll not go back. I'd bet on that. Agreed fucked around with this message at 08:49 on Jul 23, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2013 08:46
|
|
|
I still need to expand my RAM  It's going to suuuck if I get these all in and then it turns out I can stuff enough memory in there to avoid hitting the disk for anything but stems anyway, but what can ya do. Statistically the failure rate for these SSDs is around 0.62%, and in this array if my math is anywhere near correct that puts the combined failure rate at around 2.6%, which is better than HDDs - and much, much, much better over the long term. So it's sort of like a "decent sized" but holy loving poo poo fast HDD that, if it doesn't die within a year, will probably last for years and years and years.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Alereon posted:To a varying degree this is common with 480GB Sandforce drives, some manufacturers are just more conservative with the performance numbers they offer. I think this is primarily due to the limited SRAM available to hold the page tables, this requires denser data structures with 512GB of NAND that reduces performance. Similarly, nobody makes 960GB Sandforce drives except via internal RAID. This seems to be a downside to building such an integrated controller and then not releasing any revisions. Completely regardless of the "big Sandforce controller drives don't perform as well as small ones, welp" issue, I am deeply unconcerned because it's replacing a Kingston V+100 128GB drive which was pretty hot stuff back in 2010 because it traded MASSIVE write amplification for incredible background garbage collection even without TRIM! Wow! But it (and the other two SSDs in my system, a 96GB V+100, and a 128GB Plextor SATA3 model that is apparently recommended against but was an unknown quantity when I bought it originally) are pokey by today's standards. Even a "slow" 480GB drive is going to smoke them, hardcore. CrystalDiskMark scores for the Sandisk Extreme 480GB might not be as impressive as for the 240GB units, but it sure as poo poo blows this old thing out of the water. I am so excited for this upgrade, you guys have no idea. SSD space no longer at a premium in my system, no I/O limitations on anything I do, woohoo! Big thanks goes to SA member synthetik for selling me three of the 240GBs at an excellent price. The reason those three are going in RAID-0 is way less because I need anything approaching that level of speed and more because why the hell not, it's either that or simple span them and if I'm going to let 'em all live or die together anyway, might as well get some performance out of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
I get a predictable 24-36 hour freeze on current WHQL or beta drivers, has been the case since the 320s and swapping my 680 for a 780. nVidia's drivers work great in games, but they sure loving suck as a driver package at the moment. Glad your issue is resolved, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
With this controller, = passthrough, all good.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
If the Sandisk Extreme weren't such a proven platform w/r/t reliability, I'd return this $330 sucker to Amazon right now and pick up a 500GB Samsung 840 EVO instead, like, tomorrow. But I don't like gambling on reliability (even if it's a pretty safe bet) with other peoples' money, as it were. God drat, though. So long as you don't fill it up, it runs like a bat outta hell. That RAPID testing... 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Looks like it went from a middlin' SATA2 interface to a solid SATA3 interface. Yes that is the expected performance level of the drive for that benchmark.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
big mean giraffe posted:That's this drive? Judging from the OP that's a pretty solid drive, yes? Looking to pick one up here soon. Yeah. in terms of "proven tech" one of the best. And fast as hell, as you can see. It's probably the best of the bunch of Sandforce controller-based drives and they use great flash. I'm sticking three of the 240GB models in a RAID-0 for my upcoming build, and have a 480GB model for the OS/apps directory. All hail the new state. It's pretty solid. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
Yeah, for airflow reasons I just tape them to whatever's handy. They're hardy suckers, they'll be fine. Save the HDD cages for HDDs, if they're not horizontally or vertically aligned their moving parts face more resistance than necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
Arguably Samsung 840 Evo for best price:performance, it has some neat as poo poo features and a good dollar per GB ratio. I went with a Sandisk Extreme 480GB even though it suffers some performance loss compared to the 240GB Sandforce models, just don't want to take any chances even though by all accounts Samsung's firmware ought to be very trustworthy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
z06ck posted:I'm not sure if this is the right thread? What in the holy gently caress is wrong with the Samsung Magician software? It makes every app from MPC, VLC to "any" game not be fullscreen. Not like it has to be running all the time but I'm just wondering why it's not mentioned more. Happens on 2 of my computers with samsung SSD's and their software. I obviously quit it and prevent it from running on boot. Isn't that a required app for using their new RAPID technology that saw PCI-E level results out of the SATA3 840 Evo SSDs? Hrm, wonder if that's a broad problem. If so kind of a downer though probably less of an issue for professional usage where that kind of speed would benefit (then again, the professional usage scenario runs up against where they perform the worst, too - when they're being constantly hammered and even queued TRIMs don't happen).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
Belasarius posted:So I bought the HDTS212XZSTA how's that one? I dunno, it's a Toshiba drive and I haven't exactly seen them making waves lately. They had an old controller that was pretty fancy for pre-TRIM, but ever since then... You tell us, how do you like it?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
If you installed it to the SSD it won't defrag the SSD, that's probably code for "make sure TRIM/garbage collection is actually going on." If you moved an installation from an HDD and it doesn't know it's on an SSD, run the Windows Experience Index test and it will learn and modify its behavior appropriately. SSDs can't get fragmented like HDDs, and yeah, it's a pointless waste of write cycles to move data around on them to try to make it contiguous or whatever when that's not how flash works. They CAN get cluttered if TRIM commands aren't being acted upon or if background GC is otherwise compromised, and performance can really eat poo poo when that happens, though. I would guess without looking it up or actually knowing (in other words, don't quote me) that by optimize for SSDs it's doing something to the effect of some active garbage collection just to make sure the drive doesn't have a bunch of non-TRIM'd flash sitting around waiting to crap up your performance.
Agreed fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
deimos posted:On Windows 7+: dism /online /cleanup-image /spsuperseded /hidesp Oh, bother, that command does nothing as apparently I have no SP backup folder already. It errors out at the stage where it goes looking for that. I'd like to shrink my Windows 7 Professional installation a bit, too  My Windows installation folder is up to 31.2 GB and I'm not sure but I seem to recall it being substantially smaller, around 24-26GB, when I first installed it to my 128GB SATAII HDD without queued writes (LOOK IT WAS A LONG TIME AGO gosh). Needless to say I would like to make sure that every precious, precious GB of space is unused as this particular model is a Kingston V+100, which featured the quite aggressive Toshiba controller that literally does not need TRIM to run at all even when completely full, in exchange for really outstandingly high write amplification. Anand was recommending 20% free space on these babies back when "oh just 10% or so is totally fine" was the state of common knowledge for SSDs.  I've kept it from suffering by making sure to have 25%+ free at all times but if I could grab back some room on it that would sure be swell, by golly. Also I've ditched previous plans to have a 720GB SSD RAID-0 array and will instead just manage their 240GB contents myself. It'll slow down workflow ever so slightly but not much, they're already fast as all hell and while individual failure rates are so low that the combined failure rate is well under a quality HDD, why? Why risk it? And I am admittedly kind of concerned with my choice of system drive, it seems like people are encountering issues with the Sandisk Extreme 480GB which is what I picked specifically due to reliability being not-an-issue with Sandisk Extreme SSDs (originals, though I'm sure the Extreme IIs are great too, why wouldn't they be). After dealing with a 128GB system drive (at the time, considered the desirable size since price/GB was a lot higher), I opted for a higher capacity one so that I can have free reign to do whatever until the time period in which it becomes feasible to replace it with a 720GB or 1TB unit and probably move to strictly SSD storage and set up a NAS for platter storage. Which is gonna be cool, when that happens. Already in the new system, once I add another 4TB HDD, I'll have over a TB of SSD and 8TB of HDD storage, it's crazy cool how really astoundingly nice storage is getting cheaper waaaaaay faster than workloads are getting bigger. Thanks technology!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Follow-up. One injury, nobody was killed. Smoke looked so bad because it happened right by the air filtration stacks, which belched out all the smoke immediately. No clean-room damage, no fab damage, resuming production soon. This was such a major near-miss. Holy poo poo. Lucky everyone, hope the injured dude wasn't injured too badly.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
deimos posted:Check the output of this: dism.exe /online /cleanup-image /CheckHealth The output of that, ironically, is "The CheckHealth option is not recognized in this context." Error 87, which seems to be a blanket error code that covers syntax errors, improper commands, and apparently this too.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
It was a valiant effort. Moving the installation over to a 480GB system drive instead of a 128GB one is in the very near future, all parts purchased, so... you know, thanks for trying, but honestly 31.2GB isn't *that* big for a Windows 7 installation two years in, even with My Documents and stuff un-junctioned (hey, space is at a premium on these smaller drives, y'know) the backup with everything on the system + recording software drive comes to under 45GB. Restoring that it'll inflate a bit, but not as much as you'd think, really, I've got a few extras on there and it's still holding steady at nearly 50GB of free space, from partitioned 119GB total. That's enough room to stick one rather large game or a couple normalish sized ones. When I'm actually playing The Witcher 2 I stick it on there temporarily and it makes load times a breeze, even though it's about four times slower in all regards compared to Sandisk Extreme SSDs. Looking forward to getting all four of those suckers in the new system, so much solid state space 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 02:28 |
|
|
Absorbs Smaller Goons posted:Dude, your builds are overkill, but not retarded overkill, more like delightfully ridiculous overkill. What psu are you running? Not that SSDs use lots of power. Just curious. Haha, if I weren't respected by the good folks of SH/SC I reckon I'd get lumped in with the [H] crowd, though I do honestly feel I can justify all the things I stick into my builds and try to hit a price:performance point that errs on the side of performance without going beyond the pale. But it's kind of you to say.  I like CWT's switching supplies (though my next build after this one will likely be using a Seasonic Gold or Platinum unit) and I especially like the fact that when given a budget, they overbuild (the flipside of when deprived of a budget, they rather underbuild) - I am a fan of the Corsair TX/HX 750W units, mainly because they could be marketed as 80+ Silver under all but the most demanding and unrealistic conditions up to 850W or so, and have an actual power output of ~913W, meaning a lot of wiggle room and genuine trust in that 7 year warranty. They're a lot for the money. Seasonic supplies tend to not err at all, going for exact performance (inasmuch as possible) and extraordinary efficiency - if I can ever justify sticking one of their Cadillac-of-PSUs 1000W 80+ Platinum units in a build, better believe I will, but as power requirements go lower and lower I doubt that shall ever be the case  I will likely build with their 650-750W range supplies in the future, Golds or better. They just make really nice stuff that does exactly what it says on the tin. And with the V2 revisions I do believe the days of CWT's dramatically overbuilt Corsair PSUs may be behind us - they're more "get what you pay for" a la Seasonic, except they aren't aiming quite so high. Seasonic's continual excellence in rise time and general load behavior never ceases to impress, while I feel Corsair has somewhat gone downhill, as they've expanded laterally into varied markets.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2013 03:06
|
|