Need advice for my very first build!

[Tjj226_Angel]

Since I already sliced the sound card out of the equation, I think I'll go with Angel's suggestion of a MSI Twin Frozr II Radeon 6950 HD 2GB. If I can unlock it to 6970, cool, but I'm not banking on it. I don't really need super shiny graphics on max XXXXxXXXX resolution. Although I'll finally be able to play at 60 fps without worrying about too much dropping for most (if not all) games.

 

Also, what's the difference between a 64gb and 120gb SSD? I only started working on this list a month ago, and only now am I seriously working on it. I'm taking advice from friends, critics, magazines, reviews, and forums just to stay unbiased about my opinion. Like they say, knowing is half the battle.

 

Second, what are good brands to look out for when I grab a SSD or HDD?

 

Ah ok. We need to have a little bit of an educational thing about SRT technology. See the reason we throw the 64gb and the 120gb around is because of what you can do with them. On the z68 chipset board, which your is, you have the option to use the onboard software to use a SSD to cache your hard drive. Cache is flash memory that stores frequently used information such as files and applications and stores them in a cache (very basic). Since the flash memory is faster than the HDD it is ready to go. Pretend you are walking down a street. You have a back pack and cargo pants. Your pocket is like your cache on a hard drive. If you go into a store to buy milk and the cashier says that will be 5 dollars, you get to it quickly because it is in your pocket. Simple right? However, lets say your wallet was in your bag with all the other crap you might carry. Going through that bag takes time and this slows down the grocery line. As you go through you bag, you wonder "wouldn't be nice to carry all my things in pockets?" Well you can! By using a small ssd (up to 64 gb) with the Smart response technology from intel you can increase the size for your standard HDD cache from 64mb to 64 gb. That is 1000 times the size of the cache! With this technology you can raise the read and write time of your HDD up to ten times. Here is where you say TEN TIMES???? WHAT CAN BE BETTER THAN THAT???? Well I will tell you.

 

A single stand alone SSD is much faster than a caching system. It improves load times on games and your boot time by about 30% over the SRT setup. However, 64gb just isn't enough. Windows OS alone takes up about 14gb, so now you are down to 50gb. Not to mention drivers and updates and an antivirus scanner of some nature. It adds up quickly, and suddenly all you have done is spent 100 bucks on something that pulls up windows fast. Well that isn't worth that much money, that is when we turn to 120gb. Now you have a fast SSD boot and game storage device with more room to get better use out of it.

 

BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE!!!! You can get both a 120gb SSD and a 64 gb SSD and utilize them both. If you use the 64gb ssd on the HDD then you get a 1 tb sata 2 ssd, and you have a super fast sata 3 SSD for your OS and games to see even better performance out of your system as a whole.

 

Remeber, your computer is only as fast as your slowest part. With processors, ram, and video cards going off the chart in terms of performance, the thing that is slowing down your PC is your HDD. Most people choose to go with just a boot drive, but you still haven't completely eliminated your HDD bottle neck. That is why it is smart to go both routes at once because you get the best of both worlds.

 

The figures such as 64 and 120 for the ssd topic is merely stating the difference between this whole concept.

 

I hope that answers your question.

[Black Mage]

Haha, like they say, what goes around comes around. Or something like that. I always feel as if I'm acting older than I really am. But anyhow, I just thought 64gb and 120gb SSD were totally different due to the way Angel described it, like there was something more behind the storage capacity. My fault, I misunderstood. I'll do some research in the morning, then edit my build here to what I've learned.

[Black Mage]

Edit to my last post: The way angel described it INITIALLY. Somehow Angel snuck in a response seconds before mine. ;P

[Tjj226_Angel]

Haha, like they say, what goes around comes around. Or something like that. I always feel as if I'm acting older than I really am. But anyhow, I just thought 64gb and 120gb SSD were totally different due to the way Angel described it, like there was something more behind the storage capacity. My fault, I misunderstood. I'll do some research in the morning, then edit my build here to what I've learned.

 

It is storage capacity. The short version of it is the SRT tech for caching your hard drive is limited to 64 gigabytes. While caching your hard drive is great, it isn't as fast as a stand alone SSD, because your only boosting a slow drive. However 64 gigabytes is nothing if you want a stand alone drive. I have a 64 gigabyte flash drive that I easily fill up. That is why if you want a fast "stand alone performance drive" you go with a 120 gigabyte SSD for more storage capacity.

 

SSDs are SSDs. They come in all different shapes, sizes, and speeds. However, they are still only a place to store data. Plain and simple. It is the special little tricks you can use SSDs for that start confusing people. So to stop the confusion here it is plain and simple. SSD = superfast, super expensive, and limited space storage devices. HDD = Stupid piece of slow crap that is way to expensive right now, and has a very high storage capacity. SSD+HDD= Really fast, very expensive but still somewhat affordable, big storage space.

 

Now performance wise you would want the plain SSD with 120 gigabyte storage (because remember 64 gigabytes is practically nothing), but practically the SSD+HDD combo is a better choice. All I am saying is, you can do both. You can get the shear break neck speed of an SSD and you can get the practicallity of the SSD and HDD combo.

 

The capacities I am pointing out relate to their practical use. There is no difference YOU need to worry about between the two capacties other than what I have laid out.

 

Lastly, I am very tired so I apologize if non of this makes any sense. I am too lazy to proof read right now, but I hope that helps clear some things up.

[Sooth Slayer]

A few more thoughts.

 

If $1500 is your max budget, then make sure you are including things like OS, keyboard, mice, speakers, and printer, if you will be needing those things. If you get a monitor with integrated speakers, don't use them. They're for YouTube, Pandora, and getting the Windows logon sound stuck in your head. When you're gaming, watching vids, or engaging in the music to which you're listening, rather than using it as background noise, stick with your headphones or get some desktop speakers. You don't have to splurge on them, because pretty much anything will be better than what you've got.

 

Also, are there any games in particular that you're looking to play? Obviously your requirements are going to be different if you're looking to play something like DiRT 3 vs something like WoW.

[Tjj226_Angel]

A few more thoughts.

 

If $1500 is your max budget, then make sure you are including things like OS, keyboard, mice, speakers, and printer, if you will be needing those things. If you get a monitor with integrated speakers, don't use them. They're for YouTube, Pandora, and getting the Windows logon sound stuck in your head. When you're gaming, watching vids, or engaging in the music to which you're listening, rather than using it as background noise, stick with your headphones or get some desktop speakers. You don't have to splurge on them, because pretty much anything will be better than what you've got.

 

Also, are there any games in particular that you're looking to play? Obviously your requirements are going to be different if you're looking to play something like DiRT 3 vs something like WoW.

 

 

There are ways of getting a free OS. Linux is one option..................................free windows 7 is another.

[Sooth Slayer]

Well, yes, but it's generally better to make that decision before picking everything up, rather than getting everything assembled only to realize that you forgot to order an eye-patch.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Sooth Slayer

[Tjj226_Angel]

Well, yes, but it's generally better to make that decision before picking everything up, rather than getting everything assembled only to realize that you forgot to order an eye-patch.

 

True, but the point still remains; boot leg a copy of win 7. It is way to much to spend 100 bucks on an OS when the company gives you no support for anything.

[Sooth Slayer]

With the SSD's I would also do what stoner suggested, but I would get this one http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=62873&vpn=MKNSSDCR120GB&manufacture=Mushkin%20Enhanced&promoid=1368 instead of the vertex 3. It is on sale and it is a little bit better than the vertex. It performs about the same as a vertex 3 max iops, and it is 10 bucks cheaper (sale ends soon) so how can you go wrong?

I'm...not sure that's true. I was just looking into this, and it's the Mushkin Chronos Deluxe has the 32nm Toggle NAND, which is the same as the Vertex 3 Max IOPS. The non-deluxe Mushkin Chronos, which is the product that was linked, uses 25nm Asynchronous NAND, which is the same as the OCZ Agility 3. Newegg has the Vertex 3 (which has 25nm Synchronous NAND) for only $10 more than the Chronos (AR, presuming free ship from NCIX). Given the performance advantage of synchronous NAND, I'd say the Vertex 3 is the better value. (source

[Tjj226_Angel]

I'm...not sure that's true. I was just looking into this, and it's the Mushkin Chronos Deluxe has the 32nm Toggle NAND, which is the same as the Vertex 3 Max IOPS. The non-deluxe Mushkin Chronos, which is the product that was linked, uses 25nm Asynchronous NAND, which is the same as the OCZ Agility 3. Newegg has the Vertex 3 (which has 25nm Synchronous NAND) for only $10 more than the Chronos (AR, presuming free ship from NCIX). Given the performance advantage of synchronous NAND, I'd say the Vertex 3 is the better value. (source

 

That is funny, I was talking to a guy at microcenter about the exact same thing. This guy is an SSD freak. I mean he has 4 SSDs in raid 0 using a special raid card to get the max read and write speed allowed. Has has tested pretty much every SSD out there on the market. He says that the exact same drive I mention has a tiny bit of an advantage due to the firmware Mushkin has released. While the OCZ drive should out perform the Mushkin drive, it doesn't have the appropriate firmware to take full advantage of the Vertex 3. So from what I understand, the mushkin drive is better in terms of firmware, and the ocz drive is better in technology, but is being bogged down. To reiterate that is what I understood and that I am unsure if it is fact, so please don't point fingers at me if I misunderstood.

 

I asked him flat out, which one should I go with? He was very stern in choosing the mushkin drive. He owns both the mushkin and the vertex three, and he said the mushkin was faster.

 

Now personally, I am not sure if this holds true to every one, and as always, the decision is between two great drives. Neither of them would be a bad choice. However, with my SSD guru supporting it, that is the drive I would go with.

[Sooth Slayer]

I'd need some more info before I buy into that. What firmware was he using? What tests was he running? What numbers was he seeing? (presuming, of course, he wasn't just speaking anecdotally :shudder: ) In the head-to-head that I linked earlier in the tread, SSD's with similar tech produced very similar results (with some variance). Based on this, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Chronos offer faster read times, but I'd be more critical of claims that it had faster write times.

 

There's a follow-up article to the head-to-head that they published after OCZ released a firmware update. It compares the pre- and post-updated drives, which does a good job of illustrating how firmware can affect performance. (Hint: it's not always for the better!) If the only difference between the Vertex 3 and the Mushkin Chronos is firmware, then I'd still say go with the Vertex. They may have yet to reach their full potential, but I think there's a clear benefit to going with synchronous over asynchronous NAND, and with the prices so close, it's difficult to justify not going with the better technology.

[Tjj226_Angel]

I'd need some more info before I buy into that. What firmware was he using? What tests was he running? What numbers was he seeing? (presuming, of course, he wasn't just speaking anecdotally :shudder: ) In the head-to-head that I linked earlier in the tread, SSD's with similar tech produced very similar results (with some variance). Based on this, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Chronos offer faster read times, but I'd be more critical of claims that it had faster write times.

 

There's a follow-up article to the head-to-head that they published after OCZ released a firmware update. It compares the pre- and post-updated drives, which does a good job of illustrating how firmware can affect performance. (Hint: it's not always for the better!) If the only difference between the Vertex 3 and the Mushkin Chronos is firmware, then I'd still say go with the Vertex. They may have yet to reach their full potential, but I think there's a clear benefit to going with synchronous over asynchronous NAND, and with the prices so close, it's difficult to justify not going with the better technology.

 

True. In the end it basically comes down to personal preference. Instant gratification for read and actually write speeds according to Tyler's (microcenter guy) testing with Crystal disk mark and HD tune would be with the mushkin drive. However, you are totally right with the synchronous NAND, but it will take a while for OCZ to come out with a firmware that will allow it to achieve its full potential. To me if OCZ is coming out with firmware that makes the drive slower and Mushkin is making firmware that makes the drive go faster, I am more inclined to lean to Mushkin. Not to mention that write speeds don't matter as much because the read speed is what counts since most people do more reading from a hard drive vs writing to a hard drive.

 

Basically it really is a toss up. Mushkin offers better performance ("for now" is the key element) and OCZ offerers better technology ( which could eventually mean much greater performance) . Not to mention that no one would probably notice the difference between the two any ways because they are both still ridiculously fast SSDs. Because of the sort of indifference between the two, after doing my research (which was long over due in the field of SSDs) I would still go with the Mushkin drive. You get faster reads and better IOPS now rather than later, and realistically by the time OCZ releases a firmware to reach the full potential of the drive, we will be looking at a whole new generations of SSDs for you to upgrade to rather than updating your old SSD. Just my opinion.