prolly driver. I'm still running August's ati drivers cause it's the only stable one on my machine.

2/7/2011 10:14:45 PM

http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/17/ocz-vertex-3-pro-hits-the-test-bench-sets-the-new-single-drive/

DAMN!!! Right when I get another Vertex 2 for my laptop. Although I guess it doesn't matter it's only Sata II. For my desktop though. Hmmmmm.

[Edited on February 17, 2011 at 2:16 PM. Reason : s]

2/17/2011 2:15:51 PM

I hope you don't have a X58 motherboard, it won't be worth it at all.

Quote :

"OCZ had proactively warned us that the Marvell controllers on the X58 boards yielded lower results due to the PCI-E Gen 2 x1 lane interface which creates a bottleneck. They weren't kidding - we saw up to a 53% difference in scores on the same test on the different platforms. Yikes! A 1x link on PCI-E v2.0 will give you up to 500MB/s and the SATA III 6Gbps spec actually goes up to 600MB/s with a maximum theoretical bandwidth of 750MB/s (6Gbs = 6000Mbs/8 bits in a byte = 750MB/s) Those of you who went with SATA III 6Gbps capable Intel X58 motherboards that were done by Marvell solutions that are only connected by a single PCIe link are going to be unhappy about this and we can't say we blame you but it's not a drive issue so OCZ shouldn't bear the brunt of your wrath."

2/17/2011 7:14:35 PM

Yeah I know. Decided against it. My vertex 2 on the Intel controller is fast enough. I'm not even using the Marvell controller cause it sucks.

2/17/2011 8:02:57 PM

god ppl think the vertex 2 60gb for 95 is a killer deal... Ugg, need bigger capacity and closer to $1 per gig to be a deal.

2/18/2011 4:47:10 PM

It is a good deal. The 120 is better though. 60 is pushing it but it's still plenty for the OS and essential programs.

-I have the 120 for my laptop. The difference between the original 5400 and the Vertex 2 is amazing. Photoshop starts in like 2 seconds flat.

[Edited on February 18, 2011 at 5:10 PM. Reason : k]

2/18/2011 5:00:26 PM

Oh wow... a program that doesn't need a fast hdd to actually be effective...

2/18/2011 9:28:35 PM

^What do you mean? Photoshop? I'm not talking about in app performance I was simply pointing out start time. Read any review on SSDs. Half the stuff they benchmark is boot time, app load time, and overall snappiness of the OS.

You don't think starting Photoshop in 3 seconds compared to 10-11 is an advantage? I sure like things opening faster. Opening word or excel almost instantly compared to waiting a couple seconds makes the experience better.

Don't think so?

2/19/2011 4:08:21 PM

Nah man, I get around that issue by having photoshop already loaded, minimized running in the background 24/7 just because I can't stand that 8 second difference during load.

And I donno about you, but my computer experience never has been hindered because word or excel was too slow to load. In fact, most of my computers in the past years have opened almost them instantly.

2/20/2011 5:49:53 AM

You're just sad you don't have an SSD. Don't try to act all sly and play it off. For me going from a 10k Raptor to a Vertex 2 was a huge difference in performance despite having an i7 at 3.2ghz. It's a world of difference coming from a 7200rpm HDD.

But hey I don't have to defend them. If you're happy with your HDD then quick acting like everyone who upgraded to an SSD did it for no reason and it hasn't made their experience better.

2/20/2011 11:55:36 AM

Trust me, I want to get an SSD for the performance, but just the fact that you singled out the feature of loading photoshop in like 2 seconds as though it was the end all, be all, best feature to have out of the SSD seemed kinda funny to me.

2/20/2011 6:35:34 PM

Quote :

"but just the fact that you singled out the feature of loading photoshop in like 2 seconds as though it was the end all, be all, best feature to have out of the SSD seemed kinda funny to me."

When did I once say it was the end all or best feature of upgrading to an SSD? Or single it out? I was simply playing off all the hype that every reviewer seems to mention by saying an application that typically takes a while to load, loads quickly. I wouldn't call that "funny". Sure I could list off applicable performance benchmarks or tell how much faster a game loads but in the end what is most impressive about upgrading to an SSD (for most users) is how fast things occur. Boot up time, application load time, and overall OS performance.

Actually no I won't compromise. Application load time IS one of the best improvements of upgrading to an SSD for the majority of users. Hence why so many reviewers mention these benchmarks first.

Sure there's other performance improvements but when it comes down to it the most impressive thing about upgrading to an SSD is everything loads faster. Most users could give two shits about game load times, or opening a gigantic tiff file in Photoshop.

Quote :

"Oh wow... a program that doesn't need a fast hdd to actually be effective... "

And I forgot to bring this up. So if large raw/tiff files open twice as fast in Photoshop, this isn't being "effective" to you? If I'm opening 50 raw files at once and they open significantly faster using a SSD than a HDD this wouldn't be an advantage to you?

[Edited on February 20, 2011 at 6:58 PM. Reason : d]

2/20/2011 6:56:00 PM

good god... someone is anal.

Think of it this way. Someone buys a 911 turbo and the first thing they tout is the how nice their leather seats are. Sure its a nice feature, but probably not the first thing I say about the positive parts of the car.

I was just playing on that pun. Sure and SSD opens up programs faster, but you didn't mention anything about how you can load files faster to improve productivity. I know it's inclusive with what you were originally trying to say, But read your line again.

Quote :

"-I have the 120 for my laptop. The difference between the original 5400 and the Vertex 2 is amazing. Photoshop starts in like 2 seconds flat. "

Now think of it like a mac ad in some sort of hippie/hipster voice and you'll get it.

2/20/2011 7:58:09 PM

protip: loading programs is loading files

2/20/2011 9:01:46 PM

protip: Porn doesn't need ssd

2/20/2011 9:36:19 PM

I just got an SSD on Saturday.

Application/OS load time is killer. Easily the best thing about it.

e: Actually, the best thing about it is that it's silent. It replaced my Raptor which was part hard drive, part rock tumbler

[Edited on February 21, 2011 at 12:03 AM. Reason : .]

2/20/2011 11:59:51 PM

^^^^I don't think that's a good analogy. You get a fast car because it's fast. You get an SSD because it does everything fast. Loading files faster to improve productivity is a plus for most people not the biggest improvement or feature. Things happening faster is the biggest feature.

Quote :

"Application/OS load time is killer. Easily the best thing about it."

That is really all I was trying to point out.

Quote :

"protip: loading programs is loading file"

Yes yes if you look at the big picture.

Quote :

"Now think of it like a mac ad in some sort of hippie/hipster voice and you'll get it."

That things load fast? Well yes that's the biggest selling point. I think you're just missing the point. Come back when you've purchased one.

2/21/2011 10:58:17 AM

It's funny, I had a Raptor which for the longest time was the king of HD speed for desktop computers and I thought that was pretty quick.

It's pretty night and day though, honestly. The SSD is so much faster.

2/21/2011 12:07:16 PM

^same here. Went from a 150GB Raptor to this. Much faster. Now I have two Raptors in RAID0 for most games and it's fine.

2/21/2011 12:11:30 PM

Which SSD did you get?

2/21/2011 1:10:29 PM

OCZ Vertex 2. Have the 60GB for my desktop and 120 GB for my laptop.

2/21/2011 1:13:15 PM

no no no... they way that you said it... oh forget it. Apparently I was the only one who like got the joke...




ok, replace hipster, with a dumb blonde who has big tits... and chewing bubble gum...

[Edited on February 21, 2011 at 1:46 PM. Reason : ]

2/21/2011 1:45:07 PM

I actually did the exact same thing as neodata686. 150 GB Raptor to 60 GB OCZ Vertex 2.

2/21/2011 2:03:36 PM

Quote :

"no no no... they way that you said it... oh forget it. Apparently I was the only one who like got the joke..."

Yeah I get it. After looking back at it seeing as I only pointed out that Photoshop loaded rather fast I can see where that would come off as funny hipster fanboy sounding.

^don't have a second raptor do you? They work really well in RAID0. Some of the read/write times are on par with shittier SSD's. Plus you get 300GB.

[Edited on February 21, 2011 at 2:32 PM. Reason : s]

2/21/2011 2:30:39 PM

Well, there goes another 1600 bucks, committed to buy yet another motorcycle. Looks like SSD will be out of reach for me.

2/21/2011 4:08:10 PM

Quote :

"^don't have a second raptor do you? They work really well in RAID0. Some of the read/write times are on par with shittier SSD's. Plus you get 300GB. "

I only got rid of the Raptor because my Dell case has no sound dampening whatsoever (compared to my old computer which had a lot).

Putting two Raptors in there would be the exact opposite of what I'm going for.

2/21/2011 5:15:39 PM

Yeah, I have to stay out of this thread too until I buy a new car. I can't spare the money for a new computer build, or even upgrades for that matter.

2/21/2011 5:15:42 PM

Eh who needs cars or motorcycles.

2/22/2011 12:49:15 PM

You need a vehicle more than you need an SSD, Kevin, lol.

2/22/2011 6:57:00 PM

^eh. I walk most everywhere I hang out and I usually take public transit to work every day.

2/22/2011 7:39:21 PM

I have two cars and an SSD.

ASK ME ABOUT LIVING THE HIGH LIFE!

2/22/2011 9:16:06 PM

After this coming weekend, I'll have 2 and a half motorcycles... lol

2/22/2011 11:57:54 PM

So right now ive got:
c2d 3.16 (e8500)
4gb ram
gtx 260

I tried running the dragon age II demo at max settings and it starts stuttering, which i havent had happen in a game forever. So i guess its time to either upgrade or knock down the setttings a bit.

Im not really in the mood to upgrade everything, so Im wondering if upgrading the gtx 260 to a gtx 460 1gb or a gtx 560 ti would be worth it. I guess i could also go amd, but i really hate dealing with their shitty driver bugs.

Any recommendations?

2/23/2011 9:56:33 AM

^Yeah if you don't want to upgrade the entire motherboard/CPU/ram then go ahead and get a 460/560. Right now you can get 2 460's for cheap and they'll still beat out any single card on the market for under $300.

2/23/2011 10:00:45 AM

i was thinking about that but my PSU doesnt have the extra 6 pins and my mobo only has the 1 16x slot.

The card i have now is: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130433

It seems like kind of a bummer to replace it because it works great, i just want MORE SPEED!! I haven't decided yet wether to try to sell it or just keep it as a backup.

I think i may get a 560 ti and then maybe do a complete refresh around the end of the year.

basically Im just trying to get a feel for if upgrading the GPU is gonna be my best bet and if im an idiot for going with a 560 ti instead of some other card (amd or nvidia)

[Edited on February 23, 2011 at 10:21 AM. Reason : a]

2/23/2011 10:12:06 AM

^sounds good:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-560-ti-roundup-asus-engtx560-graphics-card-overclocking,2858.html

2/23/2011 10:23:45 AM

Didn't see any recent relevant threads, through I'd throw this in here.

1 HP P6674Y Pavilion Quad Core Phenom II 2.8Ghz, 6GB DDR3, 1TB SATA3, 802.11n, Windows 7 Home Prem for $439.99 (refurbed) on woot today.

I was looking for something not too spectacular in the $300-$400, does this seem like a decent deal?

2/23/2011 11:26:30 AM

Quote :

"^sounds good: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-560-ti-roundup-asus-engtx560-graphics-card-overclocking,2858.html"

hah. Posted yesterday. How nice of them to read my mind ahead of time.

whats wierd though is Toms says the Asus in question is a 900mhz OC but on newegg it lists as 830.

"Asus’ overclock is supported by the manufacturer and guaranteed stable throughout the card’s entire three-year warranty period."

That line makes it sound like Asus is default OCing it to 900mhz. Is it actually 830 out of the box but Asus supports user OC to 900?

2/23/2011 11:45:38 AM

@Shaggy, I personally would hold off on upgrading the gpu with the current system you have. I had a similar issue last summer when I upgraded from an 8800 gts 640 to a 5870 on a c2d system and it was really limited by the cpu. I only saw a marginal upgrade in performance and still had stuttering problems in modern games till I built a new pc.

If you do decide to upgrade or build a new pc, I'd say stick with nvidia and turn that 260x into a physics card

2/23/2011 12:15:06 PM

Grr... dbl post

[Edited on February 23, 2011 at 12:15 PM. Reason : ]

2/23/2011 12:15:06 PM

I want to build a new PC for use as a home media system. Video capture, online streaming to HDTV, and to network video to my bed room PC.

I have built a computer before but am rusty on the new technology. What would you all recommend for an essential set-up. I am trying to spend between $300-$400 but would be open to spending up to $500.

Already I have a TV Tuner/Capture card, necessary external cables, wireless LAN, and sound card.

What are thoughts on AMD v. Intel?
Are the i3 & i5 chip internal GPU adequate for my application? (or will I need a graphics card?)
Minimum Ram (probably going to buy Windows 7 Home Advanced)?
Motherboards recommendations?

3/4/2011 4:52:29 PM

i3 is definitely adequate for your application. I have an i3 in my HTPC and it's does great. Havent had a problem with it at all.

3/4/2011 6:57:15 PM

yeah, for what you need, anything in the last 3 years will work. Personally for that low budget, I'd go by a pre-built computer for like $300 for the parts and add another hard drive.

Otherwise, I'd go with a cheap amd cpu and a cheap 5000 series ati card; 2TB drives are like 70 bucks now and ram is cheaper than hell. Prices are lowest right now and they'll soon rise back up now that 3 major RAM companies are out of the generic RAM markets, 1 of them are just OUT (OCZ).

I'd look at a small form factor case using a microatx board. Asrock makes some pretty good, cheap mobo's that would work. Onboard sound now days are pretty much good for most folks and some even have built-in wifi. Is your wireless lan usb or an actual add-in card?

3/5/2011 5:32:42 AM

I'm trying to backup my external hard drive before I leave for Miami. It's giving me the clicking sounds of doom. Oh god...

3/5/2011 8:17:41 AM

Thanks for advice. My wireless is a card, kinda blows though even though is new.

3/6/2011 4:36:07 PM

Any thoughts on AMD processors?

3/7/2011 9:19:58 AM

Athlon X3 or X4 for budget, Phenom II X4 for higher end

3/7/2011 10:56:25 AM

AMD: cheap, runs cool, decent power, pretty good value overall. Would recommend for budget to mid-range systems.

3/9/2011 8:27:57 PM

I've been planning to build a new all around PC for almost anything I throw at it (HD video editing (Sony Vegas), web design, graphics, CAD, and a little gaming from time to time) for a while now, but just recently decided I need to get the ball rolling. Over the past few weeks a friend asked for my help building his first gaming rig and just got it put together last night. It seems to run pretty good but he hasn't had the time to really put it to the test yet.

Here are the core specs on his system (running Win7 Home Premium):

Motherboard: ASUS M4A79XTD EVO AM3 AMD 790X ATX
Processor: AMD Phenom II X4 970 Black Edition Deneb 3.5GHz
Memory: CORSAIR XMS 4GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600
Graphics: XFX HD-583X-ZAFV Radeon HD 5830 1GB 256-bit DDR5
PSU: CORSAIR CMPSU-650TX 650W ATX12V/EPS12V SLI/CrossFire Ready

All for ~$600 (including rebates, etc.)

I really like the setup and think it would be a fairly good setup for me as well, but I just wanted a few other opinions before I make the same purchase. I'm considering increasing the RAM and a little beefier PSU for mine though.

Second question -- Recommendations for a similar Intel i-series based system? I know a comparable Intel system would increase the cost significantly, but I'd like to keep it under $900 (MB, CPU, RAM, Graphics, PSU). I've heard that some video editors perform better with NVIDIA based graphics instead -- is there any truth to that, if so recommend a mid to high end card.

It's been a good 4-5 years since I've done much research on or built a system so any other info/recommendations are greatly appreciated!

3/10/2011 12:32:16 AM

that's a pretty damn good deal. If you really don't need a lot of power, then AMD is really the way to go for a cheap budget gaming box. Pretty much that box that you made for your friend will do everything that you need as well. Can't go wrong with a cheap quad core for HD video editing.

However, if you are serious about video/photo editing and want some increased performance, I'd highly recommend going nvidia CUDA platform. Adobe CS5 software across the board runs silky smooth now that it's all gpu accelerated. This is really helpful for video as it pre-renders all your video in real-time, which cuts down on editing/cutting time; specially if you have some serious layering in your videos or pulling video from multiple sources at once.

The 470GTX is a good contender as it's one of the few "official" fermi based cards that are supported for adobe's mercury playback engine, but you can use almost any modern fermi-based cards with some simple hacks. A number of people I've talked to have almost switched to Adobe Primer Pro over night from Final Cut Pro because of this feature; but the down side is the fact that Apple dropped support for nVidia! WTF! Apple users can't even use Fermi cards unless it's the uber expensive QuadroFX series, $1800+ cards.

I actually bought a 470GTX for my old boss down in Miami so once he gets it, I'm gonna see if I can get it to work after some tricks and simple hacks that I've found from some engineers out on the west coast who work in the video industry. Would be awesome if it did work cause I'd save him like 1600 bucks.

3/16/2011 11:47:35 PM