Was:Replace my Geforce 8800 GT / Now: upgrade my whole PC

Scratched wrote:
ibdoomed wrote:

I thought reducing load times was the entire point of an ssd... Otherwise, why bother at all?

I think the issue is that some things are more bothered by loading than others. A lot of games have pretty intelligent loading that is very quick initially and streams in the background, some multiplayer games an SSD will get you in the server faster but never load after that, others like an MMO where you can hop around the world and could need to see any random armour model from anywhere at any time could benefit from fast loading.

Exactly. There's very few instances where faster loading is helpful in gaming and there's absolutely no frame rate benefit from them.

The shuffling of games on an SSD just isn't worth the hassle (and cost) to me. Every extra penny would be better served on the video card.

I think if/when I get a SSD, I'll do a complex bunch of linking so that I've got the steam app itself on SSD, then link the steamapps folder to a hard drive for the hundred gig or so of games I've got in there, and then selectively link/install games on the SSD that could use the boost.

Scratched wrote:

I think if/when I get a SSD, I'll do a complex bunch of linking so that I've got the steam app itself on SSD, then link the steamapps folder to a hard drive for the hundred gig or so of games I've got in there, and then selectively link/install games on the SSD that could use the boost.

That's what I do. It gets pretty complicated. Link Shell Extension makes things pretty easy. I've got things split up between a couple SSDs, and 3 or 4 HDDs.

Yeah, SSDs aren't really essential for games. They're mainly nice for boot times on laptops. Games like Rage can benefit. Shogun 2 benefits a little bit.

I just run two separate copies of Steam. I have two shortcuts. One labeled Steam that goes to a WD Black 600-something GB regular drive, and another just labeled Steam SSD that I only keep stuff I'm currently really focusing on, or in particular multiplayer games where I want the faster load times.

It's so easy to just move a game from one steam folder to the other I can't be bothered to mess with things like Link Shell Extension.

garion333 wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:
Tscott wrote:

Would Steam work nicely with a SSD? I'm not sure it's possible to choose which drives to install to certain games.

My current Steam folder is around 160GB, and that's after recently uninstalling some backlogged games to make more room.

There are ways to move the Steam folder quite easily. I haven't done it, but you can keep your games on the 1.5T drive. Otherwise, if you have the budget you can add a 480 or 512GB SSD (400 bucks and up) and keep everything on it.

Having games on an SSD doesn't really do much other than reduce load times. At this point, unless you're rich, spending the money on a large SSD so you can put games on it is a waste of money imho.

I'm with Garion on this one. Additionally, as Malor has pointed out time and again, if you're running a big chunk o' RAM, then Win7 is going to get you a good slice of the performance boost an SSD would through smart caching of programs into RAM. This is not to say that nobody should buy an SSD, but in my mind, an SSD wouldn't become something I'd buy for a new build unless my budget was pretty steep, which it rarely ever is.

Thin_J wrote:

I just run two separate copies of Steam. I have two shortcuts. One labeled Steam that goes to a WD Black 600-something GB regular drive, and another just labeled Steam SSD that I only keep stuff I'm currently really focusing on, or in particular multiplayer games where I want the faster load times.

It's so easy to just move a game from one steam folder to the other I can't be bothered to mess with things like Link Shell Extension.

Interesting idea.

An SSD was never even on my radar, until I saw one listed on a current build of a gaming PC at Tom's Hardware. I'm seeing 128 GB ones at new egg for under $100. The idea of having faster boot times is almost enough to get me to want one at that price point.

I wasn't thinking about it from the point of a speed increase--only a matter of simplicity, if he'd rather keep all his games on one drive (yes I know it's not hard to keep them on a different drive, but it is one more step). He's already got his video card, so if his budget permits, I see no reason not to get a larger SSD. A Crucial M4 512 can be had for $350-400, so prices aren't as high as they used to be.

If it's a choice between more RAM and a larger SSD, however, I'd get the more RAM.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

I wasn't thinking about it from the point of a speed increase--only a matter of simplicity, if he'd rather keep all his games on one drive (yes I know it's not hard to keep them on a different drive, but it is one more step). He's already got his video card, so if his budget permits, I see no reason not to get a larger SSD. A Crucial M4 512 can be had for $350-400, so prices aren't as high as they used to be.

If it's a choice between more RAM and a larger SSD, however, I'd get the more RAM.

I'd get a better/bigger/2nd/3rd monitor before I spent $400 on an SSD.

And getting more ram or a bigger SSD is kind of an absurd comparison considering how incredibly cheap ram is. That's why I said I'd put it to a better video card.

Each to his own though.

garion333 wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

I wasn't thinking about it from the point of a speed increase--only a matter of simplicity, if he'd rather keep all his games on one drive (yes I know it's not hard to keep them on a different drive, but it is one more step). He's already got his video card, so if his budget permits, I see no reason not to get a larger SSD. A Crucial M4 512 can be had for $350-400, so prices aren't as high as they used to be.

If it's a choice between more RAM and a larger SSD, however, I'd get the more RAM.

I'd get a better/bigger/2nd/3rd monitor before I spent $400 on an SSD.

And getting more ram or a bigger SSD is kind of an absurd comparison considering how incredibly cheap ram is. That's why I said I'd put it to a better video card.

Each to his own though.

You're not alone. SSDs aren't some magical massive speed increase. For $100 you can get a better video card, upgrade your monitor or have most of a second monitor. For $400? Hell, that's a third of what I spent for the entire PC sitting on my desk right now.

AnimeJ wrote:

You're not alone. SSDs aren't some magical massive speed increase. For $100 you can get a better video card, upgrade your monitor or have most of a second monitor. For $400? Hell, that's a third of what I spent for the entire PC sitting on my desk right now.

And for some of us, this is our only hobby, so $400 doesn't even buy half the video card setup or half a monitor.

Side rant: I get tired of people (no one specific here) looking down at me because I spent $5000 over the course of a year on my only hobby but they don't bat an eye when a gearhead buys superXcam3 for his chevy mustang and spends $15k. Computer gaming is no less worthy than car restoration.

Well, it's harder to cruise for chicks in Mass Effect.

AnimeJ wrote:

SSDs aren't some magical massive speed increase.

I won't build a computer without an SSD for my OS drive ever again. The impact is dramatic.

I have both Linux and SteamOS installed on my SSD, then I have two separate 1TB apps/storage drives, one for each OS.

On Linux, I just have /home mounted to the 1TB drive, and root on the SSD.

On Windows, I have the 1TB drive set as the D: drive, and I install Steam and my Steam games there.

I don't do any symlinking of Steam games to get them on the SSD. Having the OS and core OS apps boot and run from the SSD is more than enough.

Malor wrote:

Well, it's harder to cruise for chicks in Mass Effect.

Easier to pick up the ones you do find though - sometimes even unintentionally!

I won't build a computer without an SSD for my OS drive ever again. The impact is dramatic.

I actually disagree with this, to some extent. It does make a difference, but if you've got a lot of RAM, Windows 7 64-bit really does do a very good job of hiding how fast or slow your drives are. This isn't true on the Mac; Macs live and die on drive seek time, so an SSD makes more difference for an OS X machine than ANY other upgrade you can do, period. But as long as you've got lots of RAM on Windows, I think of SSDs as being pleasant, nice to have, but optional.

Linux isn't as smart about its caching, so it benefits more than Windows, particularly when loading programs you haven't used in awhile, but much less than a Mac.

For the record, I'm with Legion. I keep seeing people talk about Win7 being so amazing at caching or whatever but I've never seen it work as well as people keep claiming. Ever.

SSD all the way.

My 16GB 2600K install of Win 7 still takes awhile to be usable on boot. Once it's up, it's great.

I think boot's probably one of the bigger impacts of an SSD. I just don't boot that often. Maybe a time or two a month. I'll move to an SSD soon, as they're getting very cheap. But up until now I've been happy.

You'll pry my SSD's from my cold dead hands.. I use them now on all my PC's and Laptops.. soon as I'm on a system that doesnt have it I can notice the difference

I'm definitely siding towards a SSD now. I'd be looking for a 128gb, mainly for the OS, which can be found for around $100. Since even the naysayers seem to be saying it would still "be nice to have", and those pro-SSD wouldn't be caught without one ever again, it seems like it'd be a nice investment for that cost.

Tscott wrote:

I'm definitely siding towards a SSD now. I'd be looking for a 128gb, mainly for the OS, which can be found for around $100. Since even the naysayers seem to be saying it would still "be nice to have", and those pro-SSD wouldn't be caught without one ever again, it seems like it'd be a nice investment for that cost.

This is the smart thing. I was talking against spending $400 on one to house everything on. That's a waste.

The reason I hadn't gotten one yet was that I figured 128GB would be too fiddly with storage management. The ~256GB drives are pretty commonly in the $180 range these days.

The OCZ Agility 4 (not their fastest for sure) is on sale at Buy.com for $299 (512GB model).. You get $25 off $250 if you are a first time buyer as well.

TheGameguru wrote:

The OCZ Agility 4 (not their fastest for sure) is on sale at Buy.com for $299 (512GB model).. You get $25 off $250 if you are a first time buyer as well.

The 256 GB is $129 @ Newegg today after rebate.

I was tempted. Just not sure about the quality. The firmware may have fixed some of those reviewer's issues, but I'm not sure I trust a PC to it.

OCZ has just been to all over the place. I have lots of them around including some revodrives (pcie) and they are nice but when I want a dead-on-balls reliable system for a user, I go intel or samsung now. I used to do crucials and have a lot of M4's floating around but they lost my support with the 5200 hour bug.

Do keep in mind that if you get a crap ssd, it's not going to be faster than a fast platter drive and you won't understand the rave.

I was chatting with a friend today and realized one of the huge drawbacks to putting your games on an ssd... the loss of tips on loading screens. They frequently fly by so fast that for some games, you don't even realize they are there let alone have the time to read them. If that's important to you, beware.

People read those?

Thin_J wrote:

People read those?

I try to but even on my slow ass 7200rpm HDD they tend to disappear before I can read them. I'm either a slow reader or most games load just fine in those circumstances.... except for Crysis 2 that game loads like a donkey the first time it pulls a level into memory... but it has no tips (at least none I remember).

ibdoomed wrote:
AnimeJ wrote:

You're not alone. SSDs aren't some magical massive speed increase. For $100 you can get a better video card, upgrade your monitor or have most of a second monitor. For $400? Hell, that's a third of what I spent for the entire PC sitting on my desk right now.

And for some of us, this is our only hobby, so $400 doesn't even buy half the video card setup or half a monitor.

Side rant: I get tired of people (no one specific here) looking down at me because I spent $5000 over the course of a year on my only hobby but they don't bat an eye when a gearhead buys superXcam3 for his chevy mustang and spends $15k. Computer gaming is no less worthy than car restoration.

Even if this was my only hobby(for all intents it might as well be), I can't fathom spending $800 on video cards or monitors. Shoot, my entire current setup was ~$1500, and that's including parts that have gone through 2-3 builds.

It's all really dependent on your income versus expense levels, AnimeJ. IIRC, you've got a big family, so probably the great majority of your income is already spoken for. Geeks tend to be single, and tech jobs tend to pay well, so they have lots of money for toys.

I have a pair of GTX670's in my system. This is my main hobby, I'm fairly sensitive to frame rate, and like turning up the details. Insert shrugging smiley here.

Digging the rig talks. I just built a new computer back in April in time for D3 (disapointed)

The 560Ti runs just about everything at max settings, GW2 is a little much for my CPU i3-2120 3.4 ghz. But playing everything on high with just a couple settings on medium is cool with me. I spent around $750 on everything new minus a 500GB HDD and the monitors. So I got the PSU, MOBO, GPU, RAM, Case, SSD, and disk drive for $750. Pretty sweet for a semi-budget build. My old dell with a GT 9800 couldn't handle D3 Beta in 1080p.

But if anyone is building on a budget I would 100% recommend the i3-2120 + 560Ti on newegg you can get them both for around $300 total. You could swing a computer that runs most games on high for $500-$550, minus a monitor.