Hardware Discussion Thread

ShadowHearth · 14-01-2012 4:40pm

so when will these go down in price?

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/32tb-ocz-technology-z-drive-r4-cm88-full-height-pcie-ssd-pcie-20-(x8)-sandforce-2281-mlc-flash-read-

i found out only recently about SSDs for pcie slots. would that be the future of storage devices? pcie slots have a ton of speed!

whatever it will be, i would love one of these

ShadowHearth · 14-01-2012 4:43pm

moolers2000 wrote: »

Thanks. I'll be doing a clean install onto the SSD anyway so will just drop in the new GPU then. Why is it neccessary to disable hibernation? I thought that used RAM to store your session.

it will take part of your SSD to have copy of stuff you got on ram. so it will be constantly writting crap on your ssd and will cut some space.

bouth of those things are really important for SSD. there is not much space on these in the first place so the cut is not welcome, plus SSDs are better left to be read from then constantly written in to. it will give more lifespam to ssd.

game4it70 · 14-01-2012 5:12pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

so when will these go down in price?

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/32tb-ocz-technology-z-drive-r4-cm88-full-height-pcie-ssd-pcie-20-(x8)-sandforce-2281-mlc-flash-read-

I'm waiting till they drop below 10k :P

AlmightyCushion · 14-01-2012 6:12pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

so when will these go down in price?

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/32tb-ocz-technology-z-drive-r4-cm88-full-height-pcie-ssd-pcie-20-(x8)-sandforce-2281-mlc-flash-read-

i found out only recently about SSDs for pcie slots. would that be the future of storage devices? pcie slots have a ton of speed!

whatever it will be, i would love one of these

The only thing is that you won't be able to boot from it.

Fluffy88 · 14-01-2012 6:15pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

The only thing is that you won't be able to boot from it.

haha classic!!

I'd love for some rich kid to buy one of those thinking he's gonna have the worlds fastest PC boot to find out it doesn't work :P Mean I know, but whatever

Donny5 · 14-01-2012 6:55pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

The only thing is that you won't be able to boot from it.

There's no reason you can't boot from PCI-E if your motherboard supports it.

marco_polo · 14-01-2012 7:13pm

Donny5 wrote: »

There's no reason you can't boot from PCI-E if your motherboard supports it.

There is if the drive is over 2TB (or 3Tb for a UEFI board)

ShadowHearth · 14-01-2012 7:19pm

i dont care, it will mean it will load up bf3 map in seconds and i will have good few minutes to stand and wait for others to load in

.

Trevor451 · 14-01-2012 11:47pm

Did a benchmark test with my VTX card and would you believe, even though the cooler kind of looks a bit tacky and cheap, the temps are lower than the twin forzr cooler :mad: It states on the box that it will operate 10C lower than a standard 6950?

Monotype · 15-01-2012 5:31pm

moolers2000 wrote: »

I'm going to be changing my GPU (AMD to Nvidia) at the same time so a fresh install of Windows 7 would be best.
My question is regarding the SSD, as far as I know I have to change SATA controller to AHCI in bios, but I've also read of people doing other tweaks after Windows is installed i.e turning off prefetch, superfetch, don't defrag and moving your page file to another drive. Is any of this still necessary or is it just left over tweaks from a bygone age of older SSDs?

moolers2000 wrote: »

Thanks, system restore is one of the first things I disable after a fresh install, defragging a SSD is obviously unnecessary, so is there any merit in moving the pagefile?

There's little that needs changing really.
Windows 7 disables automatic defragmentation on SSDs with a new install (unless there's an error). I think it's a good idea in most circumstances to keep it on for the other drives.
Disabling prefetch and superfetch... I'm not sure why people would even bother with this. To free up RAM for what exactly? Maybe because SSDs are fast enough as it is or that it occasionally reads from the SSD which may slow down other uses? Caching frequently used programs in unused memory seems like a good idea to me and it's especially useful with hard drives.
Page file - the biggest gain is really only space. It's better not to disable a page file just in case but most people have plenty RAM so it's not going to be used much. It's no harm to keep it on the SSD - if it is needed, the SSD will be much better for that type of use. I wouldn't worry too much about degradation of the SSD with limited writes as it's likely to be long obsolete by the time it becomes a problem.

Serephucus · 15-01-2012 5:35pm

I'd agree with all of the above, barr one. I usually disable the pagefile, because I don't like the idea of Windows reading 98% of the data from the very fast SSD, and everything having to wait for the HDD for that last 2%*.

I keep Prefetch and Superfetch on. I don't know why you'd disable them really. If you have 8GB of RAM, why wouldn't you want it all being used for everything it could be used for all the time?

* I should point out that Win7 and Vista handle memory allocation differently than XP. Previously, a pagefile was almost always only used when you ran out of RAM (as you'd expect) but in Vista/Win7, some of it is used almost all the time for things. I can't be more specific than that, because I don't know any more than that - and don't really have a way to test for it - but it came from an MS rep on the MS forums, so I assume it's accurate.

Monotype · 15-01-2012 5:47pm

What about putting the whole page file on the SSD? I'd usually leave at least a little bit because some older programs demanded virtual memory although this is largely irrelevant now.

Serephucus · 15-01-2012 5:58pm

Monotype wrote: »

What about putting the whole page file on the SSD? I'd usually leave at least a little bit because some older programs demanded virtual memory although this is largely irrelevant now.

I had considered doing this, and was going to if any errors or anything popped up - was concerned about SSD life-span - but after ~1.5 years use, I haven't had any problems, so I just kept it off.

Oh, a useful tip for anyone thinking of disabling their pagefile: By default, Windows just turns it off; you don't get the space back. What you have to do is set the pagefile to min/max of 16MB (smallest allowable), reboot, then disable it. This way you only loose 16MB vs. the 2GB or whatever it otherwise would have been.

marco_polo · 15-01-2012 9:16pm

Monotype wrote: »

What about putting the whole page file on the SSD? I'd usually leave at least a little bit because some older programs demanded virtual memory although this is largely irrelevant now.

This is another reason why it is not a good idea to have no page file at all. I disabled my page file and it took all of 5 minutes to engineer a situation whereby I had run out of virtual memory address space despite having only 76% physical ram usage.

Because I have already reached the commit limit (RAM + PAGEFILE size) I can no longer open any new processes, because windows will only allocate as much virtual address space as it can back with either page or physical RAM.

So because my running processes have reserved more virtual memory (4GB) than they are currently physically using (3.04GB), I have actually reduced my usable ram by almost 1GB. With a pagefile it can be used to back that reserved but unused 1GB enabling the physical RAM to be fully utilized.

ShadowHearth · 15-01-2012 9:47pm

Serephucus wrote: »

I'd agree with all of the above, barr one. I usually disable the pagefile, because I don't like the idea of Windows reading 98% of the data from the very fast SSD, and everything having to wait for the HDD for that last 2%*.

I keep Prefetch and Superfetch on. I don't know why you'd disable them really. If you have 8GB of RAM, why wouldn't you want it all being used for everything it could be used for all the time?

* I should point out that Win7 and Vista handle memory allocation differently than XP. Previously, a pagefile was almost always only used when you ran out of RAM (as you'd expect) but in Vista/Win7, some of it is used almost all the time for things. I can't be more specific than that, because I don't know any more than that - and don't really have a way to test for it - but it came from an MS rep on the MS forums, so I assume it's accurate.

it was all cool with your little guide, cheers. it actually gave back 5gb of space too on ssd.. though i ran in to problem: when i launch DOW2 i get message that i need atleast 1.5gb of page file!!! and i run that game maxed out with 100fps! there is no way it is dipping in to page file with 8gb ram!

so i made page file on me secondary drive instead of ssd! works fine now.

greenheart · 17-01-2012 11:28am

marco_polo wrote: »

This is another reason why it is not a good idea to have no page file at all. I disabled my page file and it took all of 5 minutes to engineer a situation whereby I had run out of virtual memory address space despite having only 76% physical ram usage.

Because I have already reached the commit limit (RAM + PAGEFILE size) I can no longer open any new processes, because windows will only allocate as much virtual address space as it can back with either page or physical RAM.

So because my running processes have reserved more virtual memory (4GB) than they are currently physically using (3.04GB), I have actually reduced my usable ram by almost 1GB. With a pagefile it can be used to back that reserved but unused 1GB enabling the physical RAM to be fully utilized.

Don't really understand most of above but basically are you saying its better not to disable pagefile?

ShadowHearth · 17-01-2012 11:33am

greenheart wrote: »

Don't really understand most of above but basically are you saying its better not to disable pagefile?

If you are normal user or gamer with 8gb++ ram then I don't see any point in page file.

Unfortunately there can cam be issues with some applications amd games as they got a reserve requiems to have minimal page file. Those program don't see or dont care that you have more ram then they ever would use out.

greenheart · 17-01-2012 11:41am

ShadowHearth wrote: »

If you are normal user or gamer with 8gb++ ram then I don't see any point in page file.

Unfortunately there can cam be issues with some applications amd games as they got a reserve requiems to have minimal page file. Those program don't see or dont care that you have more ram then they ever would use out.[/

There is only 4GB ram on this PC and its running windows 7 ultimate 32 bit.
The pagefile was already turned off but there hasn't been any games played on it yet because of a faulty graphics card.
Should I leave it off?

Serephucus · 17-01-2012 11:46am

I'd leave it off for now. If/when you get errors you can always turn it back on. It's really only some of the much older games that require a pagefile. I haven't got an error with any of the 50+ games I've played yet.

Unregistered. · 17-01-2012 2:54pm

I don't approve of disabling the page file no matter what.

Serephucus · 17-01-2012 3:36pm

Any reason(s) why?

Unregistered. · 18-01-2012 6:42pm

Because the only benefit is to claw back some space on the SSD. It does no harm to have it enabled and is critical for when the system is low on main memory. This SSD write wear malarkey is nonsense. It's been shown that you need to be writing a ****-tonne of data daily for years for it to come in to consideration. And at that, disabling the page file is not going to be any use (given it's small size relative to the capacity on the drive)

ShadowHearth · 18-01-2012 8:07pm

move page file on secondary drive - done.

with normal usage i would love to see max out 8gb...

Tea_Bag · 19-01-2012 3:05pm

lads i need some PSU advice/assurance.

im selling off my 6950's, and the lad interested has a 630W PSU. this one specifically

i reckon 630W should do it unless you OC like a maniac.

guru3D 6950CF review but their wattages are measured from the wall.

going by this guys post which sums it up nicely, i reckon it should be OK. cutting it a little close imo, but dooable unless you like torture testing prime95 + furmark etc, which uses far more than gaming does.

any comments?

marco_polo · 19-01-2012 4:26pm

greenheart wrote: »

Don't really understand most of above but basically are you saying its better not to disable pagefile?

Pretty much, the reason being that programs often reserve more memory than they actually using at the moment, however the operating system must guarantee that it will be able to instantly provide that memory if the program decides to use its full allocation of reserved memory.

As a result the OS will never allow running programs to reserve more that the total available memory (Physical RAM + Page File size). This figure is usually called the commit limit, and in my example above is 4091 MB which corrosponds to the total amount of physical ram I have installed (Because I diabled my page file for this example). The total amount of memory reserved by all running processes is commonly called the commit charge.

The Commit(MB) figure you see in task manager under the Performance tab corresponds to (Commit charge (MB) / Commit Limit). Using my example above the figure is 4014/4091. This means that all my running process have reserved almost my entire 4GB of RAM, however you can see that my running application are actually only using a little over 3GB of physical memory (3.04GB) which means that on average they have reserved almost 25% more memory than they currently need.

Unless they decide to release it, then that unused 1GB of physical ram is only available to running programs which have already reserved that memory (which they may or may not ever actually need to use). So if I was to launch another program, if it requests more that (4091-4014) 77MB of memory at launch, the OS will refuse the request because the commit limit will be exceeded, the application will crash and I will get that low virtual memory message, despite having almost 1GB of free memory. Pretty well that same would will happen if one of the already running process make a request to reserve more than 77MB of extra memory.

However if I had even a token 1GB page file then the operating system can use the page file space to "guarantee" that it can provide the reserved (but currently unused) 1GB at any time, leaving the physical RAM free for other programs to use if needed. With a 1Gb page file my Commit (MB) figure would look something like 4014/5091, meaning that I can now launch any application that needs to reserve up to 1GB startup, without getting a low virtual memory warning.

In the above example I have reduced my usable memory by almost 1GB without the page file, but in general the difference between physical memory usage and the commit charge is highly dependent on the memory usage profile of the programs running. Some programs reserve alot of more memory than they need and with others the difference is very small. Just on the machine I am on now the commit charge is 3.1Gb and the memory usage is 2.9GB which is a much smaller difference.

I am not saying that a page file is absolutely essential, but if the applications you are running tend to reserve alot more memory than they typically use, then it is probably best to have at least a small one.
And if you have say 8Gb+ then what does it really matter anyway?

Serephucus · 19-01-2012 4:26pm

Yeah, it's close, but it should be fine. He'll know pretty quick if it's not, and the worst that'll happen is either the cards will throttle/crash, or the PSU will shut down, but it shouldn't fry components or anything like that.

deconduo · 19-01-2012 4:33pm

Tea_Bag wrote: »

lads i need some PSU advice/assurance.

im selling off my 6950's, and the lad interested has a 630W PSU. this one specifically

i reckon 630W should do it unless you OC like a maniac.

guru3D 6950CF review but their wattages are measured from the wall.

going by this guys post which sums it up nicely, i reckon it should be OK. cutting it a little close imo, but dooable unless you like torture testing prime95 + furmark etc, which uses far more than gaming does.

any comments?

It has 50A on the +12V rails, and is probably about 3 years old. Accounting for capacitor aging that leaves ~46-47A. This should be enough for gaming, so long as he doesn't OC the cards. As you said, no torture tests though.

Tea_Bag · 19-01-2012 5:18pm

deconduo wrote: »

It has 50A on the +12V rails, and is probably about 3 years old. Accounting for capacitor aging that leaves ~46-47A. This should be enough for gaming, so long as he doesn't OC the cards. As you said, no torture tests though.

do you reckon no torture tests at all? I ask cause he wants to run furmark for 15min on his own rig to see if the cards (and his psu) is stable.

deconduo · 19-01-2012 5:42pm

Tea_Bag wrote: »

do you reckon no torture tests at all? I ask cause he wants to run furmark for 15min on his own rig to see if the cards (and his psu) is stable.

I did a quick run through with the numbers and it should be ok. The PSU is a decent one so even if it failed it would just shut down rather than doing damage.

Tea_Bag · 23-01-2012 9:59pm

can anyone find compressed air cans on HWVS?

Hardware Discussion Thread

Comments