New pc build with i7 3770K

Started Apr 21, 2013 | Discussions
Tareq Abdulla
Regular MemberPosts: 259Gear list
Like?
Re: New pc build with i7 3770K
In reply to philmar, Apr 22, 2013

philmar wrote:

CRAP - sorry. I meant getting 2 smaller SSDs (not HDDs) instead of the one big SSD  - too many friggen acronyms!!  

I know delegating a separate  disk for PS/LR scratch file is good when using slow HDDs but I wasn't sure of the same logic applied to SSDs. Apparently not... Thanks.

-- hide signature --

Phil M. - Toronto, Canada
Time to kill? Then have a look at a few of my photos, including one published by National Geographic : http://www.flickriver.com/photos/phil_marion/sets/

Wait little bit, because i bought Seagate 750GB Momentus XT, this drive is so fast closer to SSD, it is a combination of SSD speed closer and storage of HDD closer, and it is cheap, i have one but i left it for my old laptop, i think this 750GB drive is plenty for you and it is fast, it is either discontinued or maybe out of stock or will be replaced with a better alternative, so keep your eyes open on that drive, sometimes you don't need 1-3TB, i have many external drives from 500GB up to 3GB will carry most of files loads.

 Tareq Abdulla's gear list:Tareq Abdulla's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark II N Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Canon EOS 5D +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roland Wooster
Senior MemberPosts: 1,966
Like?
Re: New pc build with i7 3770K
In reply to philmar, Apr 23, 2013

If you're considering 2*128GB SSD's versus a 240GB here's the trade offs:

If you are connecting the SSD's to the main 6 SATA ports on the Intel chipset, you can run them simultaneously and achieve greater total bandwidth, so two drives could nominally be faster. If you either set them up as a RAID-0 or if you have applications that can pull data from both drives simutlaneously you could get a performance benefit from two drives - but this is unlikely.

Most of my PC's have a RAID-0 arrangement of two SSD's for the boot/programs. This is probably the best configuration for most scenarios.

However, the single 240GB may actually be faster than a single 128GB drive, as it will be designed to run more memory channels in parallel within the drive than the 128GB version (probably). If you run RAID-0 you double the channels yourself, but if you're running as two drives separately you will probably have worse performance than a single 240GB.

If you connect the drives to "extra" SATA ports, beyond the standard 6 on the motherboard then you'll likely suffer other controller bottlenecks, such as single channel PCIe bandwidth, so unless you really know what you're doing, it's best to avoid the Marvell and other controllers.

Finally, be sure to use the SATA GenIII (6Gbps) ports on the motherboard when you connect a SSD to it. If you have an Intel 6-Series, or 7-Series (Cougar Point, or Panther Point) motherboard you'll have two SATA Gen III ports connected to the chipset - use these.

Roland.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roland Wooster
Senior MemberPosts: 1,966
Like?
Re: New pc build with i7 3770K
In reply to Tareq Abdulla, Apr 23, 2013

Tareq, the Momentus XT has only a few GB of SSD like performance, it's basically a NAND cache on a magnetic drive, but only has typically 8GB of space (I think, perhaps 16GB in some models, i'm not sure), so once you've written 8GB of files to the drive the performance will drop to standard magnetic speeds, which for a 2.5" drive is pretty slow, perhaps about 100MB/s. Additionally, being only 8GB or 16GB means it only has 1 or 2, 4 at most, memory die on it, so there's not honestly all that much performance that can be achieved even in the NAND part of the device. Conversely, a 120GB drive will have at least 15 memory die which can be run in parallel for dramatically faster performance.

A high quality SSD on the other hand will maintain 400-500MB/s continuously, whether reading or writing, and for the full capacity of the drive.

With respect to magnetic media drives: an advantage of a 3TB 3.5" drive, even if you only need 500MB of actual space is the performance will be far higher for the first 500MB of a 3TB drive, and the latency better, than if you fill a 500MB drive. In fact, due to magnetic density, and using the outer tracks, it might even be as much as 3x faster, along with far lower track to track latency making small file access faster too.

Roland.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Glenn Haley
Senior MemberPosts: 1,127
Like?
i7 2.6G, 4 Years running @ 3.6G And Rock Steady
In reply to philmar, Apr 23, 2013

but I'm changing to a Sabertooth 990FX and 8350 CPU. I don't think I'll see much improvement but my AsRock MB is failing again (crappy Caps) and I think Intel's are overpriced and over rated.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,779
Like?
Asus
In reply to philmar, Apr 23, 2013

philmar wrote:

I never liked going in to the BIOS and trying to figure out what to do. And then fine tuning voltages, multipliers and monitoring temperatures aaargh!! But I think I'd like to OC this new build because if one can get better performance for free, why not? And more importantly I read now that some ASUS mobos like Sabertooth Z77 and ASUS P8Z77-V DELUXE have automatic OC features on them. If you don’t want to perform those complicated OC you can easily select the performance mode on the BIOS setting for painless overclock. It will result in 4.2GHz frequency with full system stability using the Core i7-3770K. This appeals to me. A LOT. I would pay more for a mobo that allows EASY overclocks.

Asus motherboard overclocking works very well at least for me. They run through a process testing each setting and if the computer freeze it reboots and tries different setting until if finds something stable.

The biggest thing is to buy a good CPU fan, they have benchmarks and comparisons for them online for which is best for your budget. When you have a good fan, then the process works well if you use the cpu fan that comes with the CPU, the processor often gets hot and even though you have run through the stability process on the Asus board, it doesn't have a way to figure out your fan cannot keep your cpu cool over time, this is where you see problems.

Good luck and I can say from experience the Asus motherboards work well for this automated overclocking. Can't speak for the other brands of motherboards

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kelpdiver
Senior MemberPosts: 1,899
Like?
Re: New pc build with i7 3770K
In reply to ilysaml, Apr 24, 2013

ilysaml wrote:

The Green drives are optimized for low power usage and as a result they're noticeably poorer performers because they spindle down after few seconds. Get a green drive if you want bulk storage and performance isn't a concern, but personally I hate that 35 MB/s rate when I transfer files between partitions, so speed wise, get a faster HDD.

This is nonsense.  You continue to complain about green drives with false data like this 35mb/rate. They give up very little in transfer rates to the higher rpm drives.  For examples, the Red 3tb drives come close to 150MB/sec on the outer platter, down to 62 on the innermost (average = 112)  The Green 3 is a bit slower - average is 98, slowest cylinders in 50s.  They just don't have the same random access performance as a 7200rpm drive, which is also dog slow compared to the worst SSD out there.

The OP wants storage drives.  Greens are ideal for exactly that use.  They run cooler and quieter than the 7200s.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ilysaml
Forum MemberPosts: 91
Like?
Re: New pc build with i7 3770K
In reply to kelpdiver, Apr 24, 2013

kelpdiver wrote:

ilysaml wrote:

The Green drives are optimized for low power usage and as a result they're noticeably poorer performers because they spindle down after few seconds. Get a green drive if you want bulk storage and performance isn't a concern, but personally I hate that 35 MB/s rate when I transfer files between partitions, so speed wise, get a faster HDD.

This is nonsense.  You continue to complain about green drives with false data like this 35mb/rate. They give up very little in transfer rates to the higher rpm drives.  For examples, the Red 3tb drives come close to 150MB/sec on the outer platter, down to 62 on the innermost (average = 112)  The Green 3 is a bit slower - average is 98, slowest cylinders in 50s.  They just don't have the same random access performance as a 7200rpm drive, which is also dog slow compared to the worst SSD out there.

The OP wants storage drives.  Greens are ideal for exactly that use.  They run cooler and quieter than the 7200s.

Nah I don't give false data I give what I see, and I said Between Partitions (the same drive).You comparing Green drives with Red NAS drives? Green drives don't average at a rate of 90-100MB/s, they average around 70-80MB/s to that level you fill up half of your HDD with data then it gets down. Synthetic benchmarks are much different than real world situation.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kelpdiver
Senior MemberPosts: 1,899
Like?
Re: New pc build with i7 3770K
In reply to ilysaml, Apr 24, 2013

ilysaml wrote:

Nah I don't give false data I give what I see, and I said Between Partitions (the same drive).You comparing Green drives with Red NAS drives? Green drives don't average at a rate of 90-100MB/s, they average around 70-80MB/s to that level you fill up half of your HDD with data then it gets down. Synthetic benchmarks are much different than real world situation.

You showed results for 2TB drives.  I cited the exact same benchmark for 3TB drives, since that was what the OP intended to buy.  They got faster.

As for copying between partitions on the same drive - there's your problem right there.  Don't partition a drive in the first place!  Any drive will show poor performance reading and writing to itself - it cannot stream.   It's probably faster to copy it to another drive and then back again.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ilysaml
Forum MemberPosts: 91
Like?
Re: New pc build with i7 3770K
In reply to kelpdiver, Apr 24, 2013

kelpdiver wrote:

You showed results for 2TB drives.  I cited the exact same benchmark for 3TB drives, since that was what the OP intended to buy.  They got faster.

As for copying between partitions on the same drive - there's your problem right there.  Don't partition a drive in the first place!  Any drive will show poor performance reading and writing to itself - it cannot stream.   It's probably faster to copy it to another drive and then back again.

Ok fortunately I found the 3tb review too here are some shots;

Avereges 98MB/s

Using different driver version of the controller

from the Seagate Barracuda 3tb review;

you're right about the bad performance from Reading/Writing to the same drive, but in fact, not too many users use 3TB drives as a single partition, here are my transfer rates moving very large HD movies to the same partition, still much faster than a green drive;

So?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kelpdiver
Senior MemberPosts: 1,899
Like?
Re: New pc build with i7 3770K
In reply to ilysaml, Apr 24, 2013

ilysaml wrote:

you're right about the bad performance from Reading/Writing to the same drive, but in fact, not too many users use 3TB drives as a single partition, here are my transfer rates moving very large HD movies to the same partition, still much faster than a green drive;

So?

It would take me 2 or 3 seconds to move those 200 gig from one "partition" to another.  The trick is that I'm not forcing myself into a situation where I need to actually read and re-write the blocks.  I just need the directory records updated.

But if you're using these to store movies, why the heck do you need multiple partitions anyway?  Again, you've creating the problem, and then advocating 7200 rpm drives to try to address it, even though it doesn't really solve the problem well, just less bad than the 5400 rpm drives would.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ilysaml
Forum MemberPosts: 91
Like?
Re: New pc build with i7 3770K
In reply to kelpdiver, Apr 24, 2013

kelpdiver wrote:

It would take me 2 or 3 seconds to move those 200 gig from one "partition" to another.  The trick is that I'm not forcing myself into a situation where I need to actually read and re-write the blocks.  I just need the directory records updated.

But if you're using these to store movies, why the heck do you need multiple partitions anyway?  Again, you've creating the problem, and then advocating 7200 rpm drives to try to address it, even though it doesn't really solve the problem well, just less bad than the 5400 rpm drives would.

I know what you mean, but actually it won't take up 2 or 3 seconds to move those very large files, If you "Cut" them it may take less than a minute as the drive will just change where you "Point Out" but I copied them from one folder to another, it would take up to 20 minutes, I took the 2 snapshots with interval about 5 minutes. I have SSD for OS, 1TB RAID0 HDDs for work and storage and 2TB HDD as a general backup.

To end this Up, I wouldn't get green drives since 7200 RPM drives are much better performers and in the same cost. I don't give a damn for the slight difference in power consumption, temperature are within 30s in most cases.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kelpdiver
Senior MemberPosts: 1,899
Like?
Re: New pc build with i7 3770K
In reply to ilysaml, Apr 24, 2013

ilysaml wrote:

To end this Up, I wouldn't get green drives since 7200 RPM drives are much better performers and in the same cost. I don't give a damn for the slight difference in power consumption, temperature are within 30s in most cases.

power costs difference is negligible if you're only powered up when active.  It can be significant however in a 24x7 arrangement - 40 watts equal $5/month.

The heat difference shows up in the form of noise as fans have to work harder, and that's the one I care about.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ilysaml
Forum MemberPosts: 91
Like?
Re: New pc build with i7 3770K
In reply to kelpdiver, Apr 24, 2013

kelpdiver wrote:

power costs difference is negligible if you're only powered up when active.  It can be significant however in a 24x7 arrangement - 40 watts equal $5/month.

The heat difference shows up in the form of noise as fans have to work harder, and that's the one I care about.

An enthusiast who build a monster rig @ $2000 wouldn't care about $5 increase in a bill, assuming that the HDDs are fully workable 24/7 as you say, power saving modes can be applied too in Win7 when the drives are IDLE.

Sys fans adjust their speed accordingly to a more aggressive temps, above 60C or whatever it's set up in the BIOS. As i tell you, the drives never reach the 40C degree..and now you're talking non sense.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
philmar
Senior MemberPosts: 1,922Gear list
Like?
Re: New pc build with i7 3770K
In reply to Roland Wooster, Apr 26, 2013

Roland Wooster wrote:

If you're considering 2*128GB SSD's versus a 240GB here's the trade offs:....

Roland.

-- hide signature --

Sincerest thanks for your reply.

I like to keep things that I don't know much about simple so i'll probably stick to the single SSD.

My thought on having the second SSD was to improve photo editing performance by having the LR/W8/PS cache on this second dedicated scratch disk. This strategy works for spindle disks and wasn't sure if any such gain is realized with SSDs. I certainly didn't plan on setting them up in any RAID.

I've read that some SSDs slow down after a year.

My plan would be to put recently downloaded RAW files on the the OS & apps SSD and then moving them over to the data HDDs after a week or so after I had finished working on them. I assume having them on the SSD would be faster for generating previews, seeing any adjustments i do moving sliders in LR, rendering RAWs, Is this the type of activity that leads to degradation of SSD performance?--

-- hide signature --

Phil M. - Toronto, Canada
Time to kill? Then have a look at a few of my photos, including one published by National Geographic : http://www.flickriver.com/photos/phil_marion/sets/

 philmar's gear list:philmar's gear list
Canon EOS 30D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roland Wooster
Senior MemberPosts: 1,966
Like?
Re: New pc build with i7 3770K
In reply to philmar, Apr 27, 2013

philmar wrote:

I like to keep things that I don't know much about simple so i'll probably stick to the single SSD.

Indeed. RAID is not the easy path.

My thought on having the second SSD was to improve photo editing performance by having the LR/W8/PS cache on this second dedicated scratch disk. This strategy works for spindle disks and wasn't sure if any such gain is realized with SSDs. I certainly didn't plan on setting them up in any RAID.

The reason it was so important on magnetic disks is that once you have two applications accessing the disk at the same time you've effectively setup a scenario that resembles random access - because the drive head attempts to service both requests, jumping from one to the other. HDD's can manage 150MB/s, but at random they often drop to around 1MB/s.

SSD's on the hand drop from say 400MB/s down to 30MB/s, still a significant drop, but not nearly as severe, and a single SSD is still much faster than two magnetic disks for random/semi-random access.

I've read that some SSDs slow down after a year.

This only used to be a problem before TRIM was introduced with Window 7 and second generation (i.e. ~2010) SSD's. If you're using Windows 7 and a single SSD made 2011 or later you'll not see this problem. If you're using a RAID then you need even more recent hardware/software. Intel's RST drivers, version 12 introduced TRIM support on RAID-0, so you need to be sure you're using version 12.x if you've got a RAID array of SSD's. Otherwise, you're right, performance can get reduced in half after a certain amount of usage. Depending on the usage of the drives, and how full they are the time period will vary, but prior to TRIM I had to rebuild my arrays, after a secure erase every 4 months. (As I said, not the easy path!). Now TRIM is available on RAID this is no longer an issue.

My plan would be to put recently downloaded RAW files on the the OS & apps SSD and then moving them over to the data HDDs after a week or so after I had finished working on them. I assume having them on the SSD would be faster for generating previews, seeing any adjustments i do moving sliders in LR, rendering RAWs, Is this the type of activity that leads to degradation of SSD performance?--

Don't worry about it, if you have Win7, a single SSD, and it's a new one, it won't slow down significantly at all, that is until you fill it up beyond ~90%, then it might start slowing.

Roland.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim Cockfield
Forum ProPosts: 14,671
Like?
WD green drives stink
In reply to philmar, Apr 27, 2013

philmar wrote:

ilysaml wrote:

Case is your own preference, but you're getting an expensive one.

Stay away from WD greens, you can get Seagate Barracuda, they are in 3TB as well, but 7200 RPM instead of 5900 with almost the same price.

I thought WD were more reliable than Seagate but i didn't realise the Seagates were 7200 RPM.  Thanks

It's not just the spindle speed... WD Green drives stink for a variety of reasons.

After around 8 seconds, they park the heads (in the interest of power savings), resulting a a very high load cycle count, depending on how the OS is accessing the drives.  IOW, the drive may park the heads after 8 seconds, and the OS may poll the drives after 30 seconds (requiring the drive to unpark the heads again), then the cycle keeps repeating (where you end up with continuous parking/unparking of the drive heads).

It's usually not as much of an issue in most Windows configs.  But, it's a huge issue with most Linux distributions, and I've also seen some Windows users report the same issues.  Since they're only rated for 300,000 load cycle counts over the life of the drive, you can easily exceed that number in less than a year in some cases (as I've personally seen with WD Green Drives that I've used).

If used in a RAID array, the WD Green drives also don't work well, because it takes them too long to perform error recovery (trying to map out potentially bad sectors in EEPROM), causing them to drop out of arrays and causing serious issues if more than one drive drops out due to errors during a rebuild.

If you want to use WD drives in a RAID Setup, go with WD Red drives instead (or just use "run of the mill" Seagate Barracuda drives instead, as they seem to work fine in those types of setups.

But, even if you're not using them in a RAID array or in a setup that causes excessive load cycle counts,  reliability appears to be questionable with WD Green Drives.

Every WD Green drive I've purchased so far as ended up with bad sectors (usually inside of only one year of use), where I ended up replacing them while I still could -- just because I was monitoring sector errors carefully.

I keep "kicking myself" for buying them to begin with (since I should have known better after the first time around, but was too tempted by the low prices of the Green models).

So, no more Green drives for me, period.

If you want to take your chances on them, more power to you. But, my data is too important to use those types of drives anymore.

Frankly, looking at available drive choices at newegg.com right this minute for budget high capacity models, I'd probably opt for these Seagate 4TB models:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178326

They're probably not speed demons (as they appear to be 5900rpm drives).  But, *all* of the customer reviews at newegg.com so far have been positive (something you can't say for the WD Green drive models), and you'd get very a nice cost/TB  (especially considering that newegg has a promo code right now for $30 off the normal price, bringing the cost of a 4TB drive down to approx. $169.99 (which works out to approx. $43/TB).

-- hide signature --

JimC
------

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ilysaml
Forum MemberPosts: 91
Like?
Re: WD green drives stink
In reply to Jim Cockfield, Apr 27, 2013

Thanks for the Support

-- hide signature --

Ilysaml

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ho72
Senior MemberPosts: 1,546
Like?
Re: WD green drives stink
In reply to Jim Cockfield, Apr 27, 2013

"So, no more Green drives for me, period."

Amen

+1

Ditto

etc...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kelpdiver
Senior MemberPosts: 1,899
Like?
Re: WD green drives stink
In reply to Jim Cockfield, Apr 29, 2013

Jim, you really need to be open to new data when you tell these stories.   Making a strawman statement like - 'do what you like, but I like my data' gives short shrift to discussion.

The 8 sec parking issue is resolvable - w3idle.   And then it does in fact work fine in unix land.  My zfs array continues to spin along, and periodic scrubbing (2 weeks) confirms no bad sectors developing.   Now as I wrote earlier, it did have a rather poor DOA rate when I built the array in fall 2011, though I extend that to drives in general these days.

The fact that you went on to recommend a Seagate 4tb green drive, despite their pretty bad history of late with 1.5s, 2s, 3s, makes me wonder 'WTF?'   You can't rationally write off an entire WD product line based on minimal experience, and then accept a new product from its rival despite their history.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
philmar
Senior MemberPosts: 1,922Gear list
Like?
Re: WD green drives stink
In reply to kelpdiver, May 1, 2013

My HDDs will be used for storage only. I wonder if most of the trouble from the Greens is by people that use them also for OS and apps or for transferring large amounts of data i.e.  downloading and transferring videos and movies.

I plan only to store my RAW files....and I'm just a hobbyist without time constraints of a wedding professional.

It seems to me that for storgae disks that wont be accessed often the greens make sense. They are cool and quiet most of the time.

I probably will get one fast Seagate that I will upload my RAWs to and use a green for backup (with external backup as well).

-- hide signature --

Phil M. - Toronto, Canada
Time to kill? Then have a look at a few of my photos, including one published by National Geographic : http://www.flickriver.com/photos/phil_marion/sets/

 philmar's gear list:philmar's gear list
Canon EOS 30D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads