[QUOTE=GunivX;28986131][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O-av-sO-Ow[/media]
just get a small one for booting and steam, my dad got one in his recent upgrade and they're fast as shit[/QUOTE]
Woop woop. 28 seconds saved.
28 seconds. That's so fucking little it's ridicilous. I also tend to turn on my PC and do something else anyways, the difference between half a minute and a minute is not noticeable.
SSD's are so insanly priced and doesn't really improve your PC overall very much. My dad has a PC with a decent SSD in it.
Guess what. I don't really notice a difference.
If you're running a company or something or work a lot with commercial tasks. Then sure, those seconds and minutes you save in total will save you a lot more money and make you more efficient. So you save money by investing in a SSD. But when it comes to Average Joe. hah, the difference is so insignificant it doesn't matter.
When I can get a terabyte for the same price as I can get for a normal HDD, then sure I'll get myself an SSD. But now it's just a waste, especially because of their shortened lifespans.
[QUOTE=GreenDolphin;28986225]You know I always considered installing a 250GB SSD into an Xbox 360 or PS3, but then I realized that the Xbox 360 OS doesn't have TRIM support (to my knowledge), and the difference of having a few less seconds in loading times with the high costs hardly makes it worth it. Although SDD's are expensive, I believe it would only be worthwhile to invest them inside a laptop at most. A more affordable solution would be to get a Solid State Hybrid SATA Drive considering the performance is quite close to an SSD with a significantly less cost.
Here's an nifty video showing OS and program startup times with an SSD alongside other hard drives, Hybrid SATA is at the top right.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kss98VdhSj0[/media]
You can get a 500GB Hybrid SATA for [url=http://www.scan.co.uk/products/500gb-seagate-st95005620as-momentus-xt-hybrid25-hdd-sata-3gb-s-7200rpm-32mb-cache-11-ms-ncq]£83.98[/url], while an SSD of that size would cost around [url=http://www.scan.co.uk/products/480gb-ocz-technology-vertex-2e-25-sandforce-ssd-mlc-flash-read-250mb-s-write-240mb-s]£1,359.24[/url] depending where you look.[/QUOTE]
Hybrid surely looks delicious. Only notably slower at bootup and loading Crysis. That's pretty good.
Or just wait out for 2 or 3 years before the price falls for SSD's or the capacity increases, or both.
I'm waiting for them to become cheaper, of higher capacity and a tad more reliable. I am aware of all this TRIM stuff that'll prolong an SSDs life, but I'd rather wait another year or so for the tech to just get better to the point where I don't need to worry about it ever burning out regardless of TRIM.
It's not worth upgrading anything now because all games are mostly designed for consoles, and thus graphics aren't getting better than 2007 level. :waycool:
[QUOTE=GreenDolphin;28986404]SSD's do not improve the actual performance of a program, it only significantly improves the read/write times of data. This means faster OS bootups and programs, or in video games much faster loading times.[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about? One of the main reasons SSD's are faster, is because of the almost not existing seek time.
With the demanding games that will be coming out this Fall, I'm pretty sure having a new graphics card would be the best upgrade for a gamer. Now, this all depends on current hardware specs and money available, but I would hardly go after a SSD over a new 400 series Nvidia card that can run some of the games on DX11 as they claim. I'm still ticked that my 2GB 275 is only 1 year old right now and by this fall will not make the cut for high graphics. Then again, this is the cycle of a PC gamer.
[QUOTE=Norfair12;28988964]With the demanding games that will be coming out this Fall, I'm pretty sure having a new graphics card would be the best upgrade for a gamer. Now, this all depends on current hardware specs and money available, but I would hardly go after a SSD over a new 400 series Nvidia card that can run some of the games on DX11 as they claim. I'm still ticked that my 2GB 275 is only 1 year old right now and by this fall will not make the cut for high graphics. Then again, this is the cycle of a PC gamer.[/QUOTE]
My GTX 260 will do just fine with high-end games for 2011, and your 275 definitely will.
It all just depends on just how much of a nitpicker you are.
If you don't think 27-30 FPS is playable (because you're stupid and blind) then sure, you need to change every year. Otherwise your card can hold out just fine for 2-3 years and OK for 3-6 years.
[QUOTE=AGMadsAG;28988836]What are you talking about? One of the main reasons SSD's are faster, is because of the almost not existing seek time.[/QUOTE]
[del]Which is what I was meaning by significantly improved read/write times.[/del]
[editline]5th April 2011[/editline]
Wait I fucked up my thoughts somewhere along the line and I just realised this. Yes you're right, SSD's are faster because they have virtually to none (~0.1ms) seektime.
[editline]5th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Norfair12;28988964]With the demanding games that will be coming out this Fall, I'm pretty sure having a new graphics card would be the best upgrade for a gamer. Now, this all depends on current hardware specs and money available, but I would hardly go after a SSD over a new 400 series Nvidia card that can run some of the games on DX11 as they claim. I'm still ticked that my 2GB 275 is only 1 year old right now and by this fall will not make the cut for high graphics. Then again, this is the cycle of a PC gamer.[/QUOTE]
Hey I'm still alive and kicking with a 9800GTX+ for around nearly 3 years :v:
I still have Windows installed on an old IDE drive. My music/games/etc is all on a 1.5TB sata.
Well, the card will be 2 years old by then. Either way with the current trend of EA and Battlefield 3, they say that DX11 will be the "high graphics" mode that only the 4 series cards can produce. Not fully sure if this will be final, but I nitpick not being able to have maxed out graphics at 30+ FPS.
Working as a PC tech and building high end rigs every few months makes me want new components all the time.
[QUOTE=dgg;28989042]My GTX 260 will do just fine with high-end games for 2011, and your 275 definitely will.
It all just depends on just how much of a nitpicker you are.
If you don't think 27-30 FPS is playable (because you're stupid and blind) then sure, you need to change every year. Otherwise your card can hold out just fine for 2-3 years and OK for 3-6 years.[/QUOTE]
60fps is a LOT smoother than 27-30fps. 30fps vs 60fps can make a huge difference especially in multiplayer. This is indisputable so maybe you're the one who's stupid and blind.
I had an SSD and swapped back to good hard drives. SSD's have fast access times, but last I checked, still can't match data transfer volumes.
[editline]4th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=garrynohome;28989405]60fps is a LOT smoother than 27-30fps. 30fps vs 60fps can make a huge difference especially in multiplayer. This is indisputable so maybe you're the one who's stupid and blind.[/QUOTE]
hmm..
*checks steam profile*
Yep, 100 hours on counter strike, 152 hours on CoD 4, and 213 hours on MoW 2 multi.
Figured.
[QUOTE=GunFox;28989849]
hmm..
*checks steam profile*
Yep, 100 hours on counter strike, 152 hours on CoD 4, and 213 hours on MoW 2 multi.
Figured.[/QUOTE]
I don't see what point you're trying to make here.
[QUOTE=koeniginator;28990324]I don't see what point you're trying to make here.[/QUOTE]
Then you aren't the intended audience.
What?
I still use a SATA 1 7200rpm Western Digital 250gb from 2004, works perfectly fine for me.
[QUOTE=garrynohome;28989405]60fps is a LOT smoother than 27-30fps. 30fps vs 60fps can make a huge difference especially in multiplayer. This is indisputable so maybe you're the one who's stupid and blind.[/QUOTE]
Whilst it is impossible to put a number on the framerate our eyes work at it's most commonly labeled as 24~30FPS. More than that and it's not really necessary.
It will however look smoother because there will be more images to capture and thus there will not be one single frame captured by your eye that isn't a new image, as well as the frames being much more identical to the previous frames meaning the movement between one frame and the other is smaller and thus you will never see a frame that has a large gap between the next frame.
This will give the illusion of a smoother experience because there are more frames to pick from. Not because you see more frames.
There is a difference, but none that actually matters. The biggest winning point about having large FPS on average is that it will never drop down belows 24FPS if a lot of shit goes on at some moment.
[QUOTE=Kab2tract;28991285]I still use a SATA 1 7200rpm Western Digital 250gb from 2004, works perfectly fine for me.[/QUOTE]
I'm surprised it hasn't started to malfunction yet. It can crash anytime now really. So unless you have nothing important on it I would recommend a backup of it, unless you already haven't taken one.
[QUOTE=dgg;28995803]Whilst it is impossible to put a number on the framerate our eyes work at it's most commonly labeled as 24~30FPS. More than that and it's not really necessary.
It will however look smoother because there will be more images to capture and thus there will not be one single frame captured by your eye that isn't a new image, as well as the frames being much more identical to the previous frames meaning the movement between one frame and the other is smaller and thus you will never see a frame that has a large gap between the next frame.
This will give the illusion of a smoother experience because there are more frames to pick from. Not because you see more frames.
There is a difference, but none that actually matters. The biggest winning point about having large FPS on average is that it will never drop down belows 24FPS if a lot of shit goes on at some moment.
I'm surprised it hasn't started to malfunction yet. It can crash anytime now really. So unless you have nothing important on it I would recommend a backup of it, unless you already haven't taken one.[/QUOTE]
Our eyes don't function at that low framerate all the time. During intense situations we can see "faster" than normal, and 30fps will not cut it.
[QUOTE=luck_or_loss;29000347]Our eyes don't function at that low framerate all the time. During intense situations we can see "faster" than normal, and 30fps will not cut it.[/QUOTE]
And that's ignoring how he used the number 24. Just so you know dgg movies play 24 DIFFERENT frames in a second. Each frame is repeated 3 times. Cameras also create motion blurring which can't be properly reproduced in a video game. 24 is not smooth in a video game. Even Crysis (maximum fake motion blur) is sluggish at 24 regardless of if you think it looks smooth or not
[QUOTE=luck_or_loss;29000347]Our eyes don't function at that low framerate all the time. During intense situations we can see "faster" than normal, and 30fps will not cut it.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and you have adrenaline rushes constantly like any normal human being, obviously.
[QUOTE=garrynohome;29000436]And that's ignoring how he used the number 24. Just so you know dgg movies play 24 DIFFERENT frames in a second. Each frame is repeated 3 times. Cameras also create motion blurring which can't be properly reproduced in a video game. 24 is not smooth in a video game. Even Crysis (maximum fake motion blur) is sluggish at 24 regardless of if you think it looks smooth or not[/QUOTE]
24~30 I said, 30 being the most correct.
And why do you state "Different"? Why would I talk about duplicated frames?
Movies play 24 (23.976) unique frames every second. No frame is repeated unless you've intentionally made it to do so or render out with a different, higher or unevenly lower FPS than the source file.
24 is durable, 30 is smooth. However if 30 is your max it will not be smooth because that means you will often dip down under 30 all the time because what to render and what not to render changes all the time, sometimes more, sometimes less.
[QUOTE=dgg;28995803]Whilst it is impossible to put a number on the framerate our eyes work at it's most commonly labeled as 24~30FPS. More than that and it's not really necessary.
It will however look smoother because there will be more images to capture and thus there will not be one single frame captured by your eye that isn't a new image, as well as the frames being much more identical to the previous frames meaning the movement between one frame and the other is smaller and thus you will never see a frame that has a large gap between the next frame.
This will give the illusion of a smoother experience because there are more frames to pick from. Not because you see more frames.
There is a difference, but none that actually matters. The biggest winning point about having large FPS on average is that it will never drop down belows 24FPS if a lot of shit goes on at some moment[/QUOTE]
please don't ever try posting like you actually understand anything about any subject ever again because you quite clearly have no idea whatsoever of what you're talking about
[QUOTE=Odellus;29001049]please don't ever try posting like you actually understand anything about any subject ever again because you quite clearly have no idea whatsoever of what you're talking about[/QUOTE]
I do.
Another thing is that if your screen's refresh rate is 60hz it won't actually display more than 60FPS even if you got 120FPS.
People jerk wank over bloated FPS' for no reason.
Much like how people can save JPG with low quality, then be told to use PNG instead, and then saving the JPG compressed image as PNG and say "Hey, it looks better". (I've seen it)
I've been wanting to upgrade to a SSD, but the price per GB, and the weird performance degradation stuff made me postpone buying one several times now. I'll wait till the technology has matured further before doing anything.
At least my Core i5 750 and HD5850 are awesome enough for all the great games that are coming out this year.
[QUOTE=dgg;29001084]I do.
Another thing is that if your screen's refresh rate is 60hz it won't actually display more than 60FPS even if you got 120FPS.[/QUOTE]
no you really, really don't
please go do some research, so far the only thing you've said that is correct is the part about the refresh rate
another person added to the user blacklist to keep myself from suffering an aneurysm
I get 60 fps all the time in real life. Damn, what visual cortexes are you guys using?
[QUOTE=Odellus;29001124]no you really, really don't
please go do some research, so far the only thing you've said that is correct is the part about the refresh rate
another person added to the user blacklist to keep myself from suffering an aneurysm[/QUOTE]
"Herp a derp! You're wrong and I'm not going to tell you why cuz im so smart!"
You can see a difference between 30fps and 60fps, I've already said that, but you don't see every damn 60 unique frame. You just have a wider selection of images to capture, the differences in the frames become smaller because the amount of unique different frames are bigger.
Sit in a train, look outside. Look down. Shit's blurry as fuck because you are moving at such a fast speed your eyes can't handle it. By the time you capture a frame what you look at has moved such a distant that it becomes a blur. This is because your eye doesn't capture it fast enough. Same way a camera works, just better since we aren't constrained by pixels, only light, which only has a restriction of how far it can reach.
[QUOTE=dgg;28995803]Whilst it is impossible to put a number on the framerate our eyes work at it's most commonly labeled as 24~30FPS. More than that and it's not really necessary.
It will however look smoother because there will be more images to capture and thus there will not be one single frame captured by your eye that isn't a new image, as well as the frames being much more identical to the previous frames meaning the movement between one frame and the other is smaller and thus you will never see a frame that has a large gap between the next frame.
This will give the illusion of a smoother experience because there are more frames to pick from. Not because you see more frames.
There is a difference, but none that actually matters. The biggest winning point about having large FPS on average is that it will never drop down belows 24FPS if a lot of shit goes on at some moment.
I'm surprised it hasn't started to malfunction yet. It can crash anytime now really. So unless you have nothing important on it I would recommend a backup of it, unless you already haven't taken one.[/QUOTE]
I give it about 3 more years, I trust it.
[QUOTE=dgg;29001185]"Herp a derp! You're wrong and I'm not going to tell you why cuz im so smart!"
You can see a difference between 30fps and 60fps, I've already said that, but you don't see every damn 60 unique frame. You just have a wider selection of images to capture, the differences in the frames become smaller because the amount of unique different frames are bigger.
Sit in a train, look outside. Look down. Shit's blurry as fuck because you are moving at such a fast speed your eyes can't handle it. By the time you capture a frame what you look at has moved such a distant that it becomes a blur. This is because your eye doesn't capture it fast enough. Same way a camera works, just better since we aren't constrained by pixels, only light, which only has a restriction of how far it can reach.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://whisper.ausgamers.com/wiki/index.php/How_many_FPS_human_eye_can_see[/url]
[url]http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm[/url]
read before you embarrass yourself further
[QUOTE=Odellus;29001299][url]http://whisper.ausgamers.com/wiki/index.php/How_many_FPS_human_eye_can_see[/url]
[url]http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm[/url]
read before you embarrass yourself further[/QUOTE]
I have and am reading it, and all I can say is that I stand by what I said.
And why are you mixing analogue film together with digital film? That's quite retarded.
And yes I know how monitors split the image in two parts. Half the horizontal lines showing half of the image and the other half showing the other half and then being shown as if it was one.
[QUOTE=dgg;29001355]I have and am reading it, and all I can say is that I stand by what I said.[/QUOTE]
You can't do both. The articles are fact and they deny what you've been saying. Are you trying to tell us you refuse to accept fact because of your own ridiculous beliefs?
and no that isn't a joke about religious people
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.