Quake3World

So I just upgraded to a small SSD for my windows drive to see what all the fuss was about. A fresh 64bit install on the drive and the boot time on my PC is now 10.9 seconds...!!!

I have had a drive that I thought was excellent for quite some time but this thing blows anything I have ever used out of the water. Now I have 64bit I guess I need to upgrade from 4gig of RAM to 16gig? How much difference will this make and what should I be going for? I am running a Asus M4A88T-M AMD 880G so not sure if I am limited by what memory I can use effectively?

ssd's r fine, i still load win7 in under 15secs from restart on mechanical drive

The best part about going up to 16gb of ram is turning off your page file.

Are you running SATA III? If not, you can get an even bigger boost going up to a SATA III drive and mobo.

bitWISE wrote:The best part about going up to 16gb of ram is turning off your page file.

Or just leave it on. The OS will always prefer to use memory instead of page file anyway.

Memphis wrote:and pc isn't off often anyhoo. utter waste of coin when it could go towards something that actually improves performance.

Windows loads slow anyway, it's somewhat bottlenecked outside of just read speeds. What you get the best performance is on loading applications, most programs open instantaneously, large programs like Photoshop load noticeably faster. SSD's aren't even that expensive anymore, so why not?

Memphis wrote:

SoM wrote:ssd's r fine, i still load win7 in under 15secs from restart on mechanical drive

same. and pc isn't off often anyhoo. utter waste of coin when it could go towards something that actually improves performance.

LOL

lol

Memphis wrote:

SoM wrote:ssd's r fine, i still load win7 in under 15secs from restart on mechanical drive

same. and pc isn't off often anyhoo. utter waste of coin when it could go towards something that actually improves performance.

An SSD significantly cut down compile times on PCs at my work.

Memphis wrote:

SoM wrote:ssd's r fine, i still load win7 in under 15secs from restart on mechanical drive

same. and pc isn't off often anyhoo. utter waste of coin when it could go towards something that actually improves performance.

That was not the case for me and according to every single benchmark I performed, the hard drive in my machine was a huge limiting factor.

Anyway, this thing is lightening quick. I did the old Windows performance test and the SSD is still the limiting factor at 7.2. Next is RAM and processor at 7.4 and then Graphics at 7.8. I am running at GTX 470 which I managed to pick up for £50 and the SSD was a Christmas gift, so I can't complain about the upgrades I have gotten recently.

The most amazing thing is loading times, or lack of. Genuinely impressed with things instantly loading as soon as the icon is clicked. Also the lack of hard drive "crunching" is novel as well.

Next time I put any upgrades into my machine it'll end up being big bucks (new mobo, processor & RAM as mine is nearly 3 years old...). Anyway - I am now an SSD convert and when the larger drives come down in price, I will get one big enough to house my Steam folder as well

Mechanical: 1:02.6 (add another 1:30 once logged in)
SSD: 0:10.9 (add another 3 seconds when logged in)

Huh?!

Those were the difference between my load times - why is my "science" insufficient?

That would be like you upgraded from a GTX 470 to a GTX780 and then me going "LOL 470 old card I have a 770 what a waste of an upgrade a 780 is"

You do understand the concept of upgrading, don't you?

and u still suck at quake

Memphis wrote:

Don Carlos wrote:Huh?!

Those were the difference between my load times - why is my "science" insufficient?
That would be like you upgraded from a GTX 470 to a GTX780 and then me going "LOL 470 old card I have a 770 what a waste of an upgrade a 780 is"

No.

Don Carlos wrote: You do understand the concept of upgrading, don't you?

Yes.

Evidently not.

SoM wrote:and u still suck at quake

1v1 bro?!

It doesn't matter - my 4 year old mechanical drive will not be as quick as this SSD.

Don Carlos wrote:

SoM wrote:and u still suck at quake

1v1 bro?!

sure, time n date

QL tho, i uninstalled q3a from disk

I'll have a look for QL and get it installed

Don Carlos wrote:I'll have a look for QL and get it installed

WYDSoM1 add me

Memphis wrote:

Don Carlos wrote:It doesn't matter - my 4 year old mechanical drive will not be as quick as this SSD.

And noone said it wouldn't be. But you inflated the perception of gain by way of a test biased to the initial broad hypotheses; that the SSD would be faster. Thence presented the results as 'how much faster' to validate it. This is Peter Tong, Ada Wong, Jimmy Chong, drop the bomb and let me see that thong, wrong. Tsk tsk.

No it isn't. My machine took that long to boot up and it takes much, much less. I don't need to quantify it scientifically and nor did, at any point, did I says I was going to try. I merely stated that the boot up time is significantly better, which it is. You then said it was a waste of money and I should have spent my money on something that will improve performance. So in a round about way you told me that my SSD wouldn't improve the performance of my machine....

I think what Memphis is trying to say is that reinstalling Windows would have speeded up your macihne considerably, you could have done that and spent the money you saved on other speed upgrades.

Me, I am all for SSDs, I just want them to come down in price so much that I could have a PC without a HDD and not keep running out of space. That and a decent monitor; LCDs

Memphis wrote:

Don Carlos wrote: No it isn't. My machine took that long to boot up and it takes much, much less. I don't need to quantify it scientifically and nor did, at any point, did I says I was going to try. I merely stated that the boot up time is significantly better, which it is. You then said it was a waste of money and I should have spent my money on something that will improve performance. So in a round about way you told me that my SSD wouldn't improve the performance of my machine....

I said SSDs were generally a waste in comparison to other possible upgrades, in backing of SoM's post. Personally, i'd go up a notch in graphics detail, prior to loading faster, as more playing is done than loading. Shouldn't much take a meditative space elf to grasp the logic. I also didn't say it wasn't better. Only that it measurably isn't as better as you considered it to be with bias test results. The drives may differ, but you discounted software and raced factory new against banged-up with GKY in the boot. And GKY made it unfair, 'cos of having extra seconds. Boom. Boom.

You have no idea about the state of my machine prior to this upgrade therefore your science is insufficient.

DTS wrote:I think what Memphis is trying to say is that reinstalling Windows would have speeded up your macihne considerably, you could have done that and spent the money you saved on other speed upgrades.

Me, I am all for SSDs, I just want them to come down in price so much that I could have a PC without a HDD and not keep running out of space. That and a decent monitor; LCDs

The SSD was a Christmas gift, as I mentioned previously. I also mentioned my next upgrade would be an expensive one as it will mean new MB/RAM/CPU or a GFX card that is considerably better than a GTX 470.

A fresh mechanical drive will never be even close to as fast as a filled up SSD.

Having an SSD as your boot disk is one of the most beneficial upgrades you can have. There's a reason everyone with half a clue is doing it now.

Anyone who thinks an SSD isn't an upgrade, hasn't used an SSD.

Vegas loads in a 5 count ffs.

EtUL wrote:Anyone who thinks an SSD isn't an upgrade, hasn't used an SSD.

Vegas loads in a 5 count ffs.

and that's it

fps wise not

if u do gfx work sure

you're talking shit. large-scale sandbox games run more smoothly with an SSD, i.e. better fps. it's not all about your gfx card