Discussion Forums > Technology
Upgrading system... Should I?
vuzedome:
The price will become sensible after a while, or at least we will see affordable mainstream versions popping up.
severance:
First see if you can even put your current system under consistent 100% load.
rarely_upset:
Listen to Datora, but don't get a SATA SSD; those are too slow. Get a PCI SSD, those have much more appropriate speeds.
costi:
--- Quote from: vuzedome on April 06, 2012, 06:40:24 AM ---The price will become sensible after a while, or at least we will see affordable mainstream versions popping up.
--- End quote ---
s2011 will never be "affordable mainstream" - it's a platform for workstations and enthusiasts. s1155 is where "affordable mainstream" is.
As for Ivy Bridge - unless you use the integrated GPU, it's not worh upgrading. The performance difference is minimal and while it theoretically overclocks higher, it also is less tolerant to high temperatures, so in the end you end up with more-or-less the same clock speeds as Sandy Bridge.
Your current rig will last you quite a long time, at the very least until new consoles are released (and even then, IMHO it will be more than adequate). Hell, my Core2Duo setup (E8400@3.7GHz, 4GB RAM, overclocked GTX260) is enough to play everything with satisfying details (FullHD, High without AA).
--- Quote ---Listen to Datora, but don't get a SATA SSD; those are too slow. Get a PCI SSD, those have much more appropriate speeds.
--- End quote ---
Negative. What you're looking at is burst speed, which is used rarely (unless you keep moving huge volumes of data back and forth). What counts most is IOPS and small file operations - and here even top-of-the-line SSDs achieve speeds that are far too low to saturate even SATA2.
datora:
--- Quote from: costi on April 08, 2012, 09:41:21 AM ---
--- Quote ---Listen to Datora, but don't get a SATA SSD; those are too slow. Get a PCI SSD, those have much more appropriate speeds.
--- End quote ---
Negative. What you're looking at is burst speed, which is used rarely (unless you keep moving huge volumes of data back and forth). What counts most is IOPS and small file operations - and here even top-of-the-line SSDs achieve speeds that are far too low to saturate even SATA2.
--- End quote ---
You might want to re-read the topic and see what the primary goals of the OP are. Hint: they do involve moving (and editing) large amounts of data.
And, running SATA III SSDs on a SATA II connection will slow the drive down. The advice to go with SATA III wasn't really all about performance, anyway. It was mostly about using the newest and most stable versions of the specifications and speaking toward future-proofing any purchases. The zero-bottleneck part of the equation is just an added bonus that will have legs for years instead of months.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version