"Rate my Rig" thread

GEC: Discuss gaming, computers and electronics and venture into the bizarre world of STGODs.

Moderator: Thanas

User avatar
EnterpriseSovereign
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2311
Joined: 2006-05-12 12:19pm
Location: High orbit

Re: "Rate my Rig" thread

Post by EnterpriseSovereign » 2018-09-07 11:48am

I read that Optane only really provides a performance boost to old-school HDDs, and only if they're the boot drive. Is that not the case? My boot drive is a SATA-SSD, which with the core upgrade already starts far faster than it used to- no need to stick an M.2 drive in there just yet.

I have a Raid-0 array comprised of a couple of velociraptors for my Steam library, if Optane would speed those up I could take the plunge as my board has two M.2 slots.
It's no use debating a moron; they drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

Just because you have the attention span of a fruit fly doesn't mean the rest of us are so encumbered.

"As you know science is not fact"- HuskerJay
"The Delta Fyler [sic] isn't even a shuttle craft" -HuskerJay69
"The Dominion War wasn't really all that bad"- Admiral Mercury

User avatar
The Infidel
Jedi Knight
Posts: 690
Joined: 2009-05-07 01:32pm
Location: Norway

Re: "Rate my Rig" thread

Post by The Infidel » 2018-09-07 03:41pm

As I understand, Optane has lower sequential speed than m2 ssd, but higher iops and durability. This makes it perfect for a pure boot/scratch device or as cache for a slower medium. I don't think the difference is big enough to be felt for a normal PC.

You can get a 32gb optane cache quite cheap, but I think you need a z3xx chipset to make good use of it. Starglider knows more about this, I guess.
Image
Image
It is very difficult to believe in a god when some people are never struck by lightning. -Calvin

"The world language is English as spoken by foreigners." -Kristen Nygaard

User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8634
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Re: "Rate my Rig" thread

Post by Starglider » 2018-09-07 05:22pm

EnterpriseSovereign wrote:
2018-09-07 11:48am
I read that Optane only really provides a performance boost to old-school HDDs, and only if they're the boot drive. Is that not the case?
No, it has much better random read and write performance than Flash SSDs, and sequential speed only a bit slower than high-end SSDs (still better than low-end stuff). You may be thinking of 'Optane Cache' which was Intel's early attempt to get the tech into production by putting tiny amounts on the motherboard as a data cache for HDDs and slow SSDs. Compiles are definitely substantially faster than my previous workstation which had 4 x 2013 vintage SSDs in RAID 0 and 2 x 8 core Xeons. However I'm not sure if that's the Optane or the 32-core Threadripper.
I have a Raid-0 array comprised of a couple of velociraptors for my Steam library, if Optane would speed those up I could take the plunge as my board has two M.2 slots.
I didn't think anyone was still using Velociraptors, they topped out at 1TB each in the last ones made which were released in 2012. SSDs have closed the price gap enough that there isn't much point using (expensive, small) 10K RPM HDDs any more, and 15K RPM are nearly extinct. The only use case left for HDDs is for cheap mass (many TB per device) storage.

User avatar
EnterpriseSovereign
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2311
Joined: 2006-05-12 12:19pm
Location: High orbit

Re: "Rate my Rig" thread

Post by EnterpriseSovereign » 2018-09-08 05:45pm

Starglider wrote:
2018-09-07 05:22pm
EnterpriseSovereign wrote:
2018-09-07 11:48am
I read that Optane only really provides a performance boost to old-school HDDs, and only if they're the boot drive. Is that not the case?
No, it has much better random read and write performance than Flash SSDs, and sequential speed only a bit slower than high-end SSDs (still better than low-end stuff). You may be thinking of 'Optane Cache' which was Intel's early attempt to get the tech into production by putting tiny amounts on the motherboard as a data cache for HDDs and slow SSDs. Compiles are definitely substantially faster than my previous workstation which had 4 x 2013 vintage SSDs in RAID 0 and 2 x 8 core Xeons. However I'm not sure if that's the Optane or the 32-core Threadripper.
It was articles like this that gave the impression that HDDs would benefit far more than SSDs: Link.

The SSD that I have was high-end when I bought it nearly 2 years ago, a SanDisk Extreme Pro 960GB; it was a great deal at £50 less than retail. It was only when I upgraded my motherboard that I saw the expected jump in performance.
I have a Raid-0 array comprised of a couple of velociraptors for my Steam library, if Optane would speed those up I could take the plunge as my board has two M.2 slots.
I didn't think anyone was still using Velociraptors, they topped out at 1TB each in the last ones made which were released in 2012. SSDs have closed the price gap enough that there isn't much point using (expensive, small) 10K RPM HDDs any more, and 15K RPM are nearly extinct. The only use case left for HDDs is for cheap mass (many TB per device) storage.
Yeah, they did- at one point I had two raptor arrays running. As WD were doubling capacity with each iteration, my first array comprised a pair of 300GBs, the second a pair of 600s. They never quite got to the 1,200 GB mark, which would have been the next logical step and my next array, but they never got that far. If there's a high capacity HDD that offers superior performance to those, I'd be very interested.
It's no use debating a moron; they drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

Just because you have the attention span of a fruit fly doesn't mean the rest of us are so encumbered.

"As you know science is not fact"- HuskerJay
"The Delta Fyler [sic] isn't even a shuttle craft" -HuskerJay69
"The Dominion War wasn't really all that bad"- Admiral Mercury

User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8634
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Re: "Rate my Rig" thread

Post by Starglider » 2018-09-09 05:11pm

I bought a second Radeon Vega Frontier Liquid from Ebay to keep my current one company. It was vaguely unsettling seeing only one GPU device in OpenCL. That BeQuiet case is now crammed full, barely fitted the second GPU cooler in there by suspending it between some hard drive cages with cable ties.
EnterpriseSovereign wrote:
2018-09-08 05:45pm
It was articles like this that gave the impression that HDDs would benefit far more than SSDs: Link.
The current 'Optane Memory' thing is an Intel revenue generator gimmick that is not worth bothering with; certainly no one in the enterprise space does. The sensible use for Optane is as a replacement for flash inside proper, stand-alone SSDs, which is the sort that I have.
If there's a high capacity HDD that offers superior performance to those, I'd be very interested.
Most contemporary 7.2K hard drives (4TB+) will outperform a Velociraptor, because transfer bandwidth scales with areal density. Which is to say that all other things being equal, a 2TB drive will have twice the sequential read/write rate of a 1TB drive, whereas a 10K RPM drive has only 40% better transfer than a 7.2K drive of the same capacity. Random R/W performance will probably still be better on the 10K drive due to rotational latency, but all the use cases that case about random access latency already moved to SSDs.

User avatar
EnterpriseSovereign
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2311
Joined: 2006-05-12 12:19pm
Location: High orbit

Re: "Rate my Rig" thread

Post by EnterpriseSovereign » 2018-09-10 05:12pm

Most contemporary 7.2K hard drives (4TB+) will outperform a Velociraptor, because transfer bandwidth scales with areal density. Which is to say that all other things being equal, a 2TB drive will have twice the sequential read/write rate of a 1TB drive, whereas a 10K RPM drive has only 40% better transfer than a 7.2K drive of the same capacity. Random R/W performance will probably still be better on the 10K drive due to rotational latency, but all the use cases that case about random access latency already moved to SSDs.
Makes sense, though would I need to put a pair of such drives in a RAID-0 array like the Raptors to see a performance gain?

An article I found on techradar still names the WD raptors as the best for gaming despite them being discontinued years ago. Weirdly the URL says 2016 yet the date on the article says it's from 11 days ago.
It's no use debating a moron; they drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

Just because you have the attention span of a fruit fly doesn't mean the rest of us are so encumbered.

"As you know science is not fact"- HuskerJay
"The Delta Fyler [sic] isn't even a shuttle craft" -HuskerJay69
"The Dominion War wasn't really all that bad"- Admiral Mercury

User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8634
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Re: "Rate my Rig" thread

Post by Starglider » 2018-09-10 05:16pm

EnterpriseSovereign wrote:
2018-09-10 05:12pm
Makes sense, though would I need to put a pair of such drives in a RAID-0 array like the Raptors to see a performance gain?
A RAID-0 array on a decent controller increases sequential performance proportionally to the number of drives. It generally doesn't help with latency. So probably yes you would.
An article I found on techradar still names the WD raptors as the best for gaming despite them being discontinued years ago.
Sites without benchmarks are worthless for performance comparisons. Look at something like AnandTech instead, they have the random & sequential R/W speeds for a huge range of drives + workload-specific performance benchmarks.

User avatar
Ace Pace
Hardware Lover
Posts: 8255
Joined: 2002-07-07 03:04am
Location: Wasting time instead of money
Contact:

Re: "Rate my Rig" thread

Post by Ace Pace » 2018-11-28 02:20pm

Fuck Fractal design. They made an amazing case, an amazing layout and a beautiful side window of "tempered glass".
Which is where the fuck you comes into it. I dropped it maybe 1cm and it just shattered the way no tempered glass should shatter.

So, advice for a mid sized case, that's cheap?
Must contain a full length GPU, ATX motherboard, and between 3-4 hard disk drives (2.5 and 3.5 inch mix)
Brotherhood of the Bear | HAB | Mess | SDnet archivist |

User avatar
Dominus Atheos
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3738
Joined: 2005-09-15 09:41pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: "Rate my Rig" thread

Post by Dominus Atheos » 2019-02-03 05:35pm

Someone explain to me about SSDs, backwards and forwards compatibility, and real world performance vs synthetic benchmarks please. Games are getting bigger and I need a 1tb ssd as the 500gb 850 evo that is also my boot drive isn't enough anymore, but everything's complicated and I don't have the patience to parse it all out.

I have an old z97 mobo (that I don't feel like replacing since apparently moore's law is dead for cpus and video cards) that supports SATA Express 10 Gbs... which apparently isn't a real thing that anybody came out with real products for. It also has an m2 slot that supports pcie2 x2... which they also don't make products for. I see lots of pcie3 x4 products though, some of which are "nvme" which is apparently better then not nvme.

The manufacturer's website for my motherboard
says it's compatible with the samsung sm951 which is pcie3 x4 nvme... and also nearly fictional and not really widely released. The only thing that is a really real product that the website says my mobo supports is the samsung 950 pro x4 nvme... which they don't make anymore. Still, I assume that this means that everything should work with my mobo. And may work even better whenever I have to upgrade my system.

Or is all of this just marketing hype and nothing in the real wold is capable of bumping up against the limit of the much cheaper sata3?

User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4694
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: "Rate my Rig" thread

Post by TheFeniX » 2019-02-03 06:07pm

Dude, just go and buy a Samsung Evo 8XX 1TB SATA3 or something. They're like $150 now and backwards compatible. Unless you're doing some incredibly specialized tasks, the speed of the controller and interface for your drive is going to mean pretty much nothing. NOTE: "Gaming" is not that specialized task.

My 7200RPM HDD pulls like 130MB/s (on a sequential read, which is bullshit speed padding for most tasks). And you can still game on that, millions of people do. My Evo 850 pulls 500MB/s. Even if you don't pull those numbers, gaming isn't about straight thoughput. What it's (usually) about is pulling multiple small/medium sized files extremely quickly, which SSDs do on a level WAY outside that of HDDs due to the random access nature.

Pretty much all the newer SSD interface speed stuff is for epeen. It's like dealing with Quad channel RAM when all you do is game: trust me, it's never going to be your bottleneck.

Just go buy the cheapest SATA SSD from a quality manufacturer. I hear Crucial is good, but I stick with Samsung. You never know when you might replace it and maybe you've got another PC to put it in or want to convert it to an external drive. SATA's backwards compatibility is great for that. But even if you could get more speed on another interface, I doubt you're ever going to get NEAR 500MB/s playing a video game and SATA3 does that.

EDIT: I should maybe add, so I backed up some mods last night from one SSD to another. 20GBs transferred in about 25 second. If you honestly need more speed than that, then you're either rendering or video editing. And your CPU/software is likely to bottleneck you first either way.

User avatar
Dominus Atheos
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3738
Joined: 2005-09-15 09:41pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: "Rate my Rig" thread

Post by Dominus Atheos » 2019-02-12 09:22am

You're talking about frames-per-second, and you're right, ssd speeds have almost no effect on FPS.

What ssd speeds do affect is load times, and some of these have 2-3 times the synthetic benchmark numbers. But synthetic benchmarks are bullshit, and a lot more goes into loading a game level than the numbers hdtach will spit out.

But I finally found a real world comparison after literally years of curiosity and the answer is... not very much difference.

Image
The Intel Optane SSD 900P Series was the winner in the game load test. The Intel Optane 900P 480GB PCIe NVMe SSD with 3D XPoint was found to be 36% faster than the Seagate Barracuda Pro 10TB SATA III hard drive and 20% faster than the Crucial BX200 series SATA III SSD.
Read more at https://www.legitreviews.com/game-load- ... 3AkyPsA.99
20% difference between the fastest ssd and the slowest. So cheapest (samsung) ssd it is!

User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4694
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: "Rate my Rig" thread

Post by TheFeniX » 2019-02-12 10:02am

Dominus Atheos wrote:
2019-02-12 09:22am
You're talking about frames-per-second, and you're right, ssd speeds have almost no effect on FPS.
You'd be surprised, an SSD isn't going to give you consistent FPS gains, but it might be the difference in poorly optimized games and/or ones trying to load way too much on the fly (SWTOR and Creation Engine Games). SWTOR seemed to dump and load UI assets on the fly, as well as character models, so depending on what you were doing you could see a few seconds of noticeable FPS drops as the engine choked. While large engagement have FPS number tank even with the best hardware and network latency was likely a huge factor (for the engine): my HDD was tapped out on reads near 100% of the time during said engagements. Which leads me to believe the game was consistently dropping character models in and out of memory.

I wonder just how much better the game would have ran had I an SSD at the time.
What ssd speeds do affect is load times, and some of these have 2-3 times the synthetic benchmark numbers. But synthetic benchmarks are bullshit, and a lot more goes into loading a game level than the numbers hdtach will spit out.
The days of 2-5 minutes load times on BF1942 maps is about done. Back then a good HDD Stripe could cut those load time under half. But predictive streaming of assets has come a long way from the the days of Half-Life 2's <loading........>.

I run most my games off an SSD stripe now (long story) and whereas I think I benchmarked something stupid like 850MB/s on random read/writes, I get maybe 1 second off something like an FFXIV dungeon load time. And even then, the SSD itself cut load times down way more than that. So, your benchmarks don't surprise me.

Post Reply