Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, JustAnEngineer
derFunkenstein wrote:Or, what DancinJack wrote. I'd just avoid the OCZ drive and drop the CPU back down to the i5 2500K myself.
Sputnik7 wrote:Thank you all for your input, it has raised some very good questions.
On the storage front, I have looked at Z86 chipset as well, and my question is this: Am I better off doing an SSD for my OS (so it boots quickly) and a couple of often played games? Or should I use the SSD as a cache for the mechanical hard-drive? Anyone have an idea which way is faster for load times on the boot and games? Maybe someone should PM me a quick explanation on intel's smart response technology. While I'm on speed, I went with the WD black and the crucial SSD because they are SATA 6 gb/s capable. Is 6 gb/s SATA for hard drives worth getting?
Furthermore, I do have a lot of stuff I to store media-wise. My original plan was the small SSD for OS and a game or two, and then the rest on the mechanical 2TB, which is why I went for the WD. Is there a better option for 2 TB worth of storage?
DancinJack wrote:Sputnik7 wrote:Thank you all for your input, it has raised some very good questions.
On the storage front, I have looked at Z86 chipset as well, and my question is this: Am I better off doing an SSD for my OS (so it boots quickly) and a couple of often played games? Or should I use the SSD as a cache for the mechanical hard-drive? Anyone have an idea which way is faster for load times on the boot and games? Maybe someone should PM me a quick explanation on intel's smart response technology. While I'm on speed, I went with the WD black and the crucial SSD because they are SATA 6 gb/s capable. Is 6 gb/s SATA for hard drives worth getting?
Furthermore, I do have a lot of stuff I to store media-wise. My original plan was the small SSD for OS and a game or two, and then the rest on the mechanical 2TB, which is why I went for the WD. Is there a better option for 2 TB worth of storage?
I would get a 80GB-120GB SSD for your OS,most used apps, and a few games. That should be plenty of room. I'd then grab a large mechanical drive for your storage. The 2TB drive I suggested above is a great choice. It's not really worth it to get 6GB/s on a HDD, but it's not like it's going to hurt. Having your OS, apps, and games on the SSD will ensure quick boot and load times.
derFunkenstein wrote:It's still just $29 at Directron.For aftermarket coolers, it's hard to beat a Xigmatek HDT-1283. People around here like Coolermaster's Hyper 212+, which is really honkin' expensive by comparison. I can buy the same cooler for $32 locally, not sure what Newegg is smoking.
DancinJack wrote:Use code "EMCKDHJ22" to save another $10 on the 2 TB Samsung HD204UI, bringing it down to just $70, delivered.2TB HD - If you're not putting games on this drive, there isn't really a need to splurge for a WD Black.
derFunkenstein wrote:To my knowledge, Steam installs can't be spread across multiple drives. So in that case, you're either going to put the whole thing on the mechanical drive or only install what you want to play at a time.
And for that reason, Z68 looks like a clear winner. The games you're playing right now will get cached, and the games you want to play later will initially come from the mechanical drive to be cached as they're used.
Airmantharp wrote:derFunkenstein wrote:To my knowledge, Steam installs can't be spread across multiple drives. So in that case, you're either going to put the whole thing on the mechanical drive or only install what you want to play at a time.
And for that reason, Z68 looks like a clear winner. The games you're playing right now will get cached, and the games you want to play later will initially come from the mechanical drive to be cached as they're used.
You cannot install Steam games across multiple drives, but NTFS supports 'folder junctions,' which are a form of file system level shortcuts. Works great; once I have all of my Steam (or EA Download Manager/Origin) games installed, I can use a folder junction to move the games that need a speed up or are most used over to the SSD.
Also, the clear winner for speed (as reviewed by Anandtech) is booting off of an SSD with a mechanical drive as backup. Having a smaller cached drive has it's benefits, but it's not faster for anything that would otherwise be installed directly to an SSD. Further, if Sputnik7 has no need for the extra functionality that Z68 provides, then the money spent there is best spent on a larger SSD.
Sputnik7 wrote:Not trying to spam, but I think this would help me IMMENSELY
http://www.traynier.com/software/steammover
This means that whatever steam game i move over to the SSD will run off the SSD if I open it in steam? and then when i'm done i can delete the junction and free up the space, all without having to modify my original steam files on the mechanical
By the way, anyone have a good case recommendation? The corsair case on techreport is too pricey for me, I'd prefer something closer to 100. But I understand that an expensive case can last through multiple builds
moriz wrote:if you are getting an asrock P67 board, go right up to the extreme4, since it comes with a front panel USB3 caddy. trust me, it is VERY nice, especially since the board have the actual headers on the motherboard.
WalkCMD wrote:moriz wrote:if you are getting an asrock P67 board, go right up to the extreme4, since it comes with a front panel USB3 caddy. trust me, it is VERY nice, especially since the board have the actual headers on the motherboard.
Not to thread hijack but can someone explain to me what kind of street cred/market perception ASRock has? I saw that recent comic strip that was posted on TR that showed Gigabyte as some sort of disco freak, Intel as suicidal because of the perceived hassels associated with them and ASRock is apparently some geek in an ALF t-shirt? It seems to me that their boards are fairly high quality and hassel free.