| H|H ~ The Hampshire Heavies Community : Forum http://www.thehh.eu/forum/ |
|
| 4 core vs. 6 core http://www.thehh.eu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=7119 |
Page 2 of 2 |
| Author: | Mr_Twister [ Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:21 pm ] | ||||||||||||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: 4 core vs. 6 core | ||||||||||||||||||
Definitely true. Also iRPAx, you shouldn't compare SSD and HD by their size, because they're really 2 different components. HD is used for storage, including all those HD videos, mp3's and pictures that eat away the gigabytes. SSD is mainly for putting programs you run frequently, to speed things up, so there's no need for a 2Tb SSD. So HD is big and slow, SSD is small and fast. If price weren't an issue, a good pc would always have at least one of both. On the other hand, 40Gb or 80Gb is pretty small, even for putting just your most used programs. And most of all, they're still very expensive for the added value they have to offer, so I can understand iRPAx's point of view. However, if price is an argument, then why buy a 6-core CPU with 8GB RAM |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Author: | slushysnowman [ Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 4 core vs. 6 core |
Plus for SSD from me, I love mine - only got a 60Gb one but it suits me fine, steam and windows on there, everything else on an hdd. I was looking at that X6 when I was looking to build mine, however I ended up going for an i7 920 (I think). Main reason was future overclocking potential (not that I've done it yet), however that X6 is really tempting for the price. |
|
| Author: | iRPAx [ Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:32 pm ] | |||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: 4 core vs. 6 core | |||||||||
They are standard on the setup, both the 6 core and 8gb RAM. There's no point downgrading to 4gb RAM when I only save like 7 quid. I know I will never be able to use 8gb RAM efficiently when it's only going to be used for gaming. With that said, I could downgrade to 4gb RAM which runs at 2000MHz instead of 8gb that runs at 1600MHz. I can always buy more RAM when the time comes. On the matter of topic of this thread, well, that's because I'm a nub at computers and wanted to know which was best. As I mentioned before than only 34 quid separate them price-wise, but I wanted to know if choosing 6 core would be worth it when it's only going to be used for gaming. Money isn't really the problem, per se, but more value for money. 40gb SSD for 700 DKK (70 quid roughly) is too expensive considering the size, and the size of PC games now a days - I would fill that up within days. I forgot to add this to the setup, but I'm going to buy another HDD to store all my games on, instead of having all my programs and games on the same HDD to clunk it up. Poor man's efficiency. |
||||||||||
| Author: | Kbramman [ Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 4 core vs. 6 core |
TBH, if you are going to buy an extra hdd for the games I don't get the argument about the SSD size... Honestly, SSD for windows and things you need to run super fast, everything else on hdd - works perfectly for everyone who has that setup. If it was me, I'd be doing that on a new build now - but I'm too lazy to sort out my c: to fit it on one |
|
| Author: | Tofu [ Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:39 am ] | |||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: 4 core vs. 6 core | |||||||||
this is unfortunately why im going to have to fork out on some big SSD's files 3D Rendering onto SSD's give about a 40% performance increase which at 60 hours for a minutes worth of video would be a godsend |
||||||||||
| Author: | iRPAx [ Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:49 am ] | |||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: 4 core vs. 6 core | |||||||||
Had a look again and found a 120gb for only 90 quid more than the 40gb. You lot have convinced me. Is there a way to combine two SSD? Like if I run out of space and buy an extra 120gb later, would it be possible to combine the two? Or do I have to sacrifice a couple of games to save space? |
||||||||||
| Author: | Kbramman [ Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 4 core vs. 6 core |
I’d really consider looking into (and asking people) if certain games can go onto a hdd rather than a ssd. How I would run is my fav games to the ssd and other ones to a hdd, that way you get the benefit of quick loads for those you constantly play and on the other ones you have to wait those extra 50 milliseconds every now and then. As for combining, you’d run them as you would normally I’d guess – run out of space and throw a new one in and have it showing up as a different drive letter. Yes you could raid them, but not really worth it unless you are mad. |
|
| Author: | iRPAx [ Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:40 pm ] | |||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: 4 core vs. 6 core | |||||||||
Would it be possible to junction TF2 to the SSD while having steam on C:? |
||||||||||
| Author: | frog [ Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:53 pm ] | |||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: 4 core vs. 6 core | |||||||||
However, you would get the best overall speed performance increase and benefit by putting your OS on the SSD, and then, in whatever space is left, moving over your fav game(s) of the moment as and when. As for adding another SSD in the future, then RAID 0 SSD will be faster than the speed of a single SSD, although there will be a higher CPU load to cope with that, but if you are getting an 6 core then that's not going to be a problem. |
||||||||||
| Author: | iRPAx [ Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 4 core vs. 6 core |
I very much appreciate the help, and for sticking through with my stubbornness. As for space on the SSD I will most probably only install WoW and TF2 on that, as well as Windows 7. Then keep my HDD for other steam games. |
|
| Page 2 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|