Monster gaming pc.

Given SSDs, buying a velociraptor is foolish. Simple as that. Smaller SSD for OS and main games + a larger 'ordinary' drive for storage.


- Ordokai
 
I wouldn't bother setting up ssd's in a raid, they are so fast that you wouldn't notice the difference.

The technology is fast evolving (improving!) so I would suggest

buy 1 ssd - either 80gb or 160gb intel depending on your budget- use this for your os and a few games
& buy something like a 1tb spinpoint f3

& plan yo maybe buy another ssd in a year or so to squeeze more games on
 
Another vote here to ditch the raptors and go SSD. That RAM you're considering is ridiculously overpriced also (£371 for 6GB). You can get 2000MHz OCZ Gold for £169 at the moment - yes it runs at slightly higher latencies, but is CL2 worth £200? Absolutely not.
 
I personally think the 980x is an overkill. A 930 would be worth more the money and overclocks very well. Maybe use the left over money to add a 5870 too for trifire ;)

+1 for the SSD + F3 choices, more worth the money.
 
A 930 is the best value chip and a 980x is overkill, but thats the reason to buy it lol. SSD is the way to go now rather than raptors.
 
ssd definately, but i would stay away from two ssd's in raid at the mo.

problem is, ssd's tend to degrade in performance over time (once the flash cells are written over the first time after fresh or something...). recently, TRIM has been introduced into the firmware of SSDs (dunno how it works, so i wont go into details) to counter this, so you shouldnt notice the performance degration any more. only problem is, you cant use TRIM in raid ... yet. you set up SSDs in raid, they'll be blazing fast, but then they'll get worse over time.
 
It's stupid to dish out £800+ for just a processor when the 930 can kill any game. Why not instead get the 930 so you have some money saved so later on when you want to upgrade again, rather than depleting your pocket money and later on having to work hard to put some cash on the side again. I understand the excellent graphics card but a 980x for gaming? Seems a bit over the top. You'll end up wishing you went with a cheaper choice. Geez imagine that you could have £600 just think what you could add, my god you could add a 256GB SSD, or a total bling bling case (lol) or just as mentioned above save it for a rainy day and forget raptors.
 
Last edited:
Considering that socket 1366 is EOL in Q3 2011 there is a good possibility that faster and cheaper six core processors will be released in the future.

A Core i7 quad core will be good enough for gaming for quite a while IMHO.
 
An alternative to RAID'ing 2 SSD could be an Intel 80GB SSD, VelociRaptor 300GB and then get a 1TB F3 for £410, looking around you could get it under that.
 
im just going to raid 2 x 80gb intel's. I know it might make them crapper over time but i upgrade most hardware every 2 years so there will be better ssd'd then. Are the 80gb intels trim, also i thought you cant raid trim?
 
ok so help me out here... im a bit of a newb on pc compared to most of the people on this forum. Is trim a software problem or hardware? i have got the asus rampage iii extreme motherboard and am planing to get 2 80gb intel x25 m ssd drives. Will this cover trim or will i need to buy something else for trim support?
 
I wouldn't bother right now - trim still doesn't look like its fully implemented for ssds in a raid array. One will be fast enough as a boot drive, and 2 samsung F3s in raid for your data will be nice and fast too.
 
im only intrested in ssd now. my new build is super quite, the only noise possible is from my haf932 cooler master case as any noisey hardware is now being watercooled. So i want to keep it quite, just trying to figure out how to raid0 two intel 80gb x25-m without lack of performance without trim.
 
160gb wont be enough for Win7 and a large collection of games :/

80gb SSD and a WD 1tb HDD will do fine. Noise from a WD? not much tbh maybe when your transferring large files or installing a game but when in game it will be quiet.
 
no 160gb wouldnt be enough for most people but i only install 2 or 3 games maxmium at a time. When im done and have completed the game i normally uninstall it and add another. Im not one of these online gamers with a arsenal of games on there pc and i normally only play hd single players. Games take me a long time to complete aswel.
 
mattjd said:
160gb wont be enough for Win7 and a large collection of games :/

80gb SSD and a WD 1tb HDD will do fine. Noise from a WD? not much tbh maybe when your transferring large files or installing a game but when in game it will be quiet.
Click to expand...

What? 160GB will be more than sufficient for W7 and loads of games.

W7 = 15gb max

Games on average now are about 8-11GB (some bigger ones sure but also smaller ones) that gives you just over 10 of the newer (larger) games installed. Who has more than that installed, seriously? I could barely name 10 games let alone own them and have them installed and if you do have others that are just for singleplayer, that's what the Samsung F3 1TB is for!

Malkavian - if you end up wanting TRIM then just go the the 160GB Intel but I would still include a Samsung F3 or WD Caviar Black 1TB for pure storage. That is what's takes up most space, films + music. Gamers even for the most hardcore are probably more similar to you only have a few games installed that they session a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom