|
If any of you own a Crucial SSD be sure to update the firmware to v 0007. My god, my C300 is so much faster.
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:56 |
|
|
Bob Morales posted:No. In some theoretical situations yes, but in reality no probably not. The larger SSDs tend to have better performance anyway everything else being equal, so getting two smaller slower ones and creating another point where poo poo can break in your computer seems like a terrible idea.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2012 02:13
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:I guess you could, but non-MMO games are already among the programs that get the least benefit from SSDs. That on top of the lower-than-actual-SSD performance of caching means you'll probably never see a difference. what do you mean by this? I see a tremendous improvement in many aspects of all sorts of games with ssds. Hell there are a lot of shooters wher not having an ssd puts you at a huge disadvantage, such as BF3.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2012 12:24
|
|
|
Jabor posted:SSDs are a ton slower than RAM. If you have enough RAM, the only benefit you'll see from using an SSD over a mechanical drive is in loading times. Theoretically this is true, but in reality not so much. Aside from the load times (with which some games pushing 2+ minute load times from spinner HDs these days making that worth it alone in my opinion) many games just aren't that smart about loading/preloading assets intelligently. I have 8GB of RAM and an i5 running at 4.5Ghz, but I still noticed tons of pauses/stuttering/lack of responsiveness to the controls all the time when a game had to hit the HD for some sound file or effect it hadn't preloaded properly. I've noticed this is especially true in shooters and "indie hipster studio games" which seem to be all the rage these days. Games also vary widely in how and when they use OS resources and libraries, and again you can see a huge benefit when the game makes some system call that isn't already in RAM. And aside from that there are a lot of lovely C developers out there that make games that don't even know how much RAM your system has, much less utilize it properly, resulting in lots of games that keep freeing memory all over the place at the application level even when you've 6GB still free, and then it needs to go back to disk 30 seconds later. If this is the sort of that annoys you it's very worth the money, it helps in many more situations than just load times. PUNCHITCHEWIE fucked around with this message at 13:53 on May 5, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2012 13:47
|
|
|
I've never heard about all this hate for OCZ before (which I find kind of odd), but the only brand of RAM I've ever had that poo poo the bed was OCZ back in 2006 I think. Whenever something fails I never go back to that brand, ever. Don't even get me started on Razer. Apparently I've been extraordinarily lucky with hard drives, over 20 years of building my own machines (still remember installing my first 80MB HD) and something like 75 spinner HDs and another five SSDs across maybe 30 desktops, home servers, laptops, NAS devices, HTPCs and I've never experienced any sort of drive failure. Now it's 2012 and everything is in the cloud anyway so it doesn't matter anymore.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2012 22:13
|
|