Opinions/Suggestions on a gaming pc build

[FMod]

I strongly doubt that this is in any way or form related to the comparative performance of SSDs.

 

This does not happen, the SSD is never a limiting factor, it is physically unable to affect microstutter (which is caused by SLI/CFX sync), and the performance of different SSD in home conditions is within percentage points of one another.

 

What you're suggesting is in the same league as audiophile claims that changing their amp's power cable to one made out of speaker cable suddenly opened up the sound, revealed new details, provided deeper bass and made everything awesome. Except far more quantifiable and far better tested and verified to not happen.

Edited January 11, 2014 by FMod

[Thor.]

No i was talking about the engine itself, time to time you get texture pop ins and lag do to the shuffling of the hard drive. SSD's reduce that because there transfer rate is so high. that in itself eliminates that lag all together. Especially if you use Other texture mods like 2k.

 

Some ssd's even though they advertise quick data transfer sometimes can't sustain that speed for long, especially when shuffling huge amounts of data while loading in the background. Hence you sometimes get hick ups in games while the ssd tries to catch up.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Thor.

[FMod]

Some ssd's even though they advertise quick data transfer sometimes can't sustain that speed for long

Write speed.

When loading games, you care about read speed.

 

And let's be clear about the quantity. This happens when you're writing tens of GB of data and exhaust the supply of free NAND cells. Another case when it happens is when a dual-mode MLC/SLC SSD exhausts its SLC capacity and is forced to switch to MLC mode.

 

Applies to writes only and to doing it at a rate that no practical home application sustains. The only case when it will happen, aside from benchmarks, is during drive cloning. Game/software/etc installation or video recording doesn't come close to the rate.

 

 

Hence you sometimes get hick ups in games while the ssd tries to catch up.

This just does not happen with any SSD made in the last 3-5 years by any major company.

 

Whatever the reason was, it's not that your SSD is "too slow".

 

The access time never gets that high, the speed - and it only needs to be tens of MB/s (as opposed to 1-2 MB/s on a HDD) - doesn't get low enough to limit anything, and it's very similar anyway.

[Thor.]

It does with amd machines, they don't have trim support so you have to manually optimize once every few days. The thing with Intel they have some monopoly when it comes to certain ssd performance tweaks like trim.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Thor.

[Werne]

It does with amd machines, they don't have trim support so you have to manually optimize once every few days. The thing with Intel they have some monopoly when it comes to certain ssd performance tweaks like trim.

As far as my knowledge on SSDs goes, as long as the mobo can run the drive in AHCI mode, you're good. As for applying TRIM, it should be applied the same on both Intel and AMD platforms - through OS tools if the SSD supports it. So to be honest, I can't really see how Intel has dibs on SSD performance.

[Thor.]

Any how i looked it up, you have to forcefully enable trim through windows, sometimes ssd's block trim if its not on a Intel machine from being enabled through there proprietary Software, so you need to forcefully enable it through a third party. Remarkable, i had a 12fps increase sense then.

 

Which was 4hours ago.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Thor.

[FMod]

It does with amd machines, they don't have trim support so you have to manually optimize once every few days.

How exactly do you "manually optimize" them?

 

 

Any how i looked it up, you have to forcefully enable trim through windows, sometimes ssd's block trim if its not on a Intel machine from being enabled through there proprietary Software, so you need to forcefully enable it through a third party.

SSD don't need to "block trim", since there's nothing to block, it's a command sent to them. They can just ignore it, but if they did ignore the command, there is absolutely nothing anyone else can do about it. You can't force it, since it's not an operation, it's just information.

 

If you don't have AHCI or RAID enabled, on the other hand, or don't have your motherboard driver installed (whether it's an AMD or Intel one), then Trim would not work. Installing the drivers and setting correct mode matters.

 

 

Trim support in OS affects, primarily, drive lifespan, by marking space as available before it happens through sector map or own analysis, thus providing onboard GC with more spare capacity and allowing for a lower WA ratio.

 

It also provides an improvement in write speed when the drive is close to filled up. The effect is most noticeable when the drive has just filled up, since GC does the same on its own later otherwise.

 

 

Remarkable, i had a 12fps increase sense then.

Which was 4hours ago.

Look, I'm sorry to say this, but you're making extraordinary claims related to SSD that stand to redefine a lot of concepts about how computers work.

 

Benchmarks show that even SSD vs HDD has only minor effect on average fps (significant on minimal fps) and SSD write speed outright doesn't come into equation when it comes to game performance.

 

The very nature of using Trim command is also such that it will slow down the reduction in write speed - possibly even to zero - but not, by itself, improve it. While you would see a gain after most of the drive is overwritten, it has no passive effects.

 

My own tests specifically in modded Skyrim have shown no statistically significant performance difference between a really old and slow X25-M drive and a DDR3 ramdrive. There is a significant difference in startup times, which is why I run games off a ramdrive for mod debugging, but not in performance once it's loaded. If you're getting significant fps difference from completely minor changes, the only explanation is that something else is horribly wrong.

Edited January 12, 2014 by FMod

[Rennn]

Usually people are too brief, but there is such a thing as being too verbose... At least when asking questions.

 

Why is everyone trying to skimp on the display like it's something they'll just use to check if the PC is working and otherwise not bother with?

 

"Hands on" is rarely helpful, and if you want a monitor under $150, all you're getting is something that works, so you can as well just take that one.

 

That said, if you do want a hands on... I guess go check that it lights up when you plug it in - would be unpleasant if it doesn't.

 

 

I was actually going to recommend that he spend a lot more on the monitor. I consider that to be the most important part of a PC, upgrading my monitor in the past has *always* been a bigger upgrade than replacing my video card. However, since he's already borderline over his budget I just decided to recommend a ~$150 monitor that'll at least give him tolerable IQ.

 

I would choose a $500 monitor with no SSD over a $200 monitor + $300 SSD any day, but I figured that would just start an argument in his question.

 

As for SSDs themselves... They're all so fast your CPU will be the bottleneck in loading, so he should just get the SSD that's least likely to break or be DOA.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Rennn

[Thor.]

 

It does with amd machines, they don't have trim support so you have to manually optimize once every few days.

How exactly do you "manually optimize" them?

 

 

Any how i looked it up, you have to forcefully enable trim through windows, sometimes ssd's block trim if its not on a Intel machine from being enabled through there proprietary Software, so you need to forcefully enable it through a third party.

SSD don't need to "block trim", since there's nothing to block, it's a command sent to them. They can just ignore it, but if they did ignore the command, there is absolutely nothing anyone else can do about it. You can't force it, since it's not an operation, it's just information.

 

If you don't have AHCI or RAID enabled, on the other hand, or don't have your motherboard driver installed (whether it's an AMD or Intel one), then Trim would not work. Installing the drivers and setting correct mode matters.

 

 

Trim support in OS affects, primarily, drive lifespan, by marking space as available before it happens through sector map or own analysis, thus providing onboard GC with more spare capacity and allowing for a lower WA ratio.

 

It also provides an improvement in write speed when the drive is close to filled up. The effect is most noticeable when the drive has just filled up, since GC does the same on its own later otherwise.

 

 

Remarkable, i had a 12fps increase sense then.

Which was 4hours ago.

Look, I'm sorry to say this, but you're making extraordinary claims related to SSD that stand to redefine a lot of concepts about how computers work.

 

Benchmarks show that even SSD vs HDD has only minor effect on average fps (significant on minimal fps) and SSD write speed outright doesn't come into equation when it comes to game performance.

 

The very nature of using Trim command is also such that it will slow down the reduction in write speed - possibly even to zero - but not, by itself, improve it. While you would see a gain after most of the drive is overwritten, it has no passive effects.

 

My own tests specifically in modded Skyrim have shown no statistically significant performance difference between a really old and slow X25-M drive and a DDR3 ramdrive. There is a significant difference in startup times, which is why I run games off a ramdrive for mod debugging, but not in performance once it's loaded. If you're getting significant fps difference from completely minor changes, the only explanation is that something else is horribly wrong.

 

Samsung has manual optimization with samsung magician, And ssd tweak helped a lot with trim. just to add things i do have AHCI enabled.

 

http://www.techspot.com/downloads/4926-ssd-tweaker.html

Edited January 12, 2014 by Thor.

[Rennn]

I'd recommend an i5-4570 instead of the i5-4440. The 4570 performs better in everything, and for cost it's a midway point between the 4440 and 4670k.

 

I don't think you should go with the AMD FX-6300. It's much slower all around than either of the Intel CPUs, and the CPU is one of the things you don't want to be out of date, because a weak CPU will drag your more expensive video card down. The i5-4570 performs from 30-60% faster than the FX-6300, but the FX-6300 actually consumes more power and generates more heat. :blink: If you get the FX-6300 it'll slow down your performance enough in some games that you won't even be able to fully use your GTX 760.

 

I would comment on Fmod's graphics card in case it's better or worse than the one I recommended, but his link doesn't work for me. :/

 

The new motherboard you're looking at is fine for gaming.

 

I personally would keep the cheaper Logitech keyboard, but that's just my preference. I've actually never had a Logitech product break or disappoint me... I don't see anything wrong with the other keyboard you've chosen if you want to spend the extra money though.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Rennn