1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

New Performance/Gaming Computer Build, budget ~$1500 give or take

Discussion in 'System Builder's Advice' started by vawrvawerawe, Nov 11, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. repman244

    repman244

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,104 (0.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    455
    We were talking of USB 3.0 in general (being slower than SATA but it's more than enough for a hard drive)...HDD is limited by it's own speed of read.
     
  2. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,684 (6.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,984
    Location:
    some AF base
    Find me a hard drive that maxes out SATA II, when you are finished with that find me an add-on 1x/4x card that is faster than an onboard SATA II setup. Until then no you are still incorrect.

    Done

    [​IMG]

    I bet if you ripped the HDD from your USB3.0 enclosure and used it on the internal ports there would be a negligible performance difference.
     
  3. vawrvawerawe

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    Messages:
    581 (0.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    33
    Sorry, but tell me again, you have this 5400RPM or 7200RPM hard drive connected to USB 3.0 in an external enclosure, and you are seeing a steady data transfer rate of 450MB/s transferring random files like you would do in real life? I don't believe it. This looks like an internal high-end SSD specs -- and PEAK specs, at that. Not steady transfer rate. And not real-life transfer rate, because this is a benchmark test which would likely never happen in real life. And on a Mac, no less. I would never buy a mac!!! lol

    UPDATE: HAHA tineye showed me, this is merely a SSD. It is 2x high-end solid state drives on RAID0 maxed out on a benchmark test. Here is one place this benchmark was taken and you extracted this image from: http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/turnkey/iMac_2010_27/benchmarks/

    Here is the tineye search which showed me all the places this image you found: http://www.tineye.com/search/1b0592559e4d0c5a268482136c2486ba65261b5f/

    Now that your picture is proved bogus, please send a real screenshot.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2012
  4. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,684 (6.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,984
    Location:
    some AF base
    If you have a regular 5400RPM/7200RPM drive installed into a SATA port do you see a steady transfer rate of 450MB/s?

    [​IMG]

    Your really good at stuffing that foot deep down into your mouth aren't you.
     
  5. repman244

    repman244

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,104 (0.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    455
    So what if it even is an SSD, the point is about USB 3 speeds...Drive benchmarks are quite accurate compared to real life performance of drives.
    If you test standard sequential read/write that is a real-life scenario for a storage drive.
     
  6. vawrvawerawe

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    Messages:
    581 (0.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    33
    no, this is not even remotely close to usb 3.0 speeds. this is internal sata3 2x $1000 SSD at RAID0.

    I asked for a regular hard drive real-life screenshot.

    Let me show you a screenshot of usb 3.0 real-life transfer speeds.

    [​IMG]

    p.s. I just watched that movie the other week. I fogot how hilarious and excellent actor Chevy Chase was!! You should watch the movie!!
     
  7. repman244

    repman244

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,104 (0.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    455
    Sorry to ask but can you read? Me cdawall, and even erocker already told you that if you have a hard drive you won't see maximum speeds of USB 3.

    The whole discussion was because of this:
     
  8. vawrvawerawe

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    Messages:
    581 (0.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    33

    ok let me show you internal sata transfer speed for the same file.

    update: the movie transferred in a half-second, there wasn't even a popup. so i grabbed 4 movie files and transferred. 311MB/s

    [​IMG]

    now tell me again, usb 3.0 has the same real-life transfer speeds??
     
  9. repman244

    repman244

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,104 (0.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    455
    It needs to be the same drive and same file....
     
  10. vawrvawerawe

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    Messages:
    581 (0.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    33
    same drive and same file.
    I two the same drives. One I have inside my computer, and the other I have as usb 3.0.
     
  11. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,684 (6.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,984
    Location:
    some AF base
    Want to get that foot out of your mouth or keep calling me a liar?

    Look really really close see how the image came from anandtech not your random mac site that hasn't got a single benchmark that matches what I posted.
     
  12. vawrvawerawe

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    Messages:
    581 (0.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    33
    Nope.

    Look really close:

    USB 3.0 7200rpm scorpio blue hdd:
    (63MB/s)

    [​IMG]
    (63MB/s)

    Internal SATA 7200rpm scorpio blue hdd (same):
    (probably 600MB/s because the file was 600MB and it took less than a second to transfer the file. so to even get a screenshot I had to grab several movie files)

    [​IMG]
     
  13. repman244

    repman244

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,104 (0.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    455
    It was cached hence the no pop-up, try it with a 20GB file.

    And how do you know the drive in the USB enclosure is identical? You already said it's a bit slow no?
     
  14. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,684 (6.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,984
    Location:
    some AF base
  15. vawrvawerawe

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    Messages:
    581 (0.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    33
    no, the crappy seagate is slow as crap. it gets like 40MB/s, average around 25MB/s and is USB 3.0. So I didn't even bother with that one; instead used the faster drive for this screenshot test. Plus I wanted to use same drive for direct performance comparison.

    YMMV

    Wow can't you read?

    (INCLUDING THE SAME FILE WHICH IS SHOWN IN THE SCREENSHOT)
     
  16. repman244

    repman244

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,104 (0.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    455
    The thing you are forgetting here is that the files that are once transfered are cached for some time. And if you start a new transfer it just pulls it from the cache but Windows doesn't show the transfer.
    Like I said try it with a much larger file and you won't see such speeds.
    Standard HDD's have maximum read/write of around 150MB/s.

    Or if you want to see actual data, download HDTune and run it for both drives.
     
  17. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,684 (6.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,984
    Location:
    some AF base
    Were did you buy this mystically magical hard drive that can transfer faster than SSD's in raid 0?
     
  18. vawrvawerawe

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    Messages:
    581 (0.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    33
    yea, you're right, it can't be 600mb/s (probably has to do with windows' caching that repman was talking about), but doesn't matter - the popup closed before it opened - so less than a second, for the internal drive. But 10 seconds for the external usb 3.0 drive.

    You might have saw the second I grabbed 4GB of files (almost 8x larger) but still about 5x faster speed even when including the caching.

    Anyway, all I'm saying is, in my experience, transferring lots of files is much faster - in my experience - when using internal. And if the caching contributes to the apparent speed, all the better. Another good reason to use internal drive instead of external.

    But there is another major reason to not use external, which is the primary reason I want internal drives. Two primary reasons, actually - and neither are related to transfer speeds.

    1. PRICE of external vs internal varies considerably. Because for external you are also paying for the enclosure. Multiply that by however many drives I buy.
    2. WIRES & SPACE. I want internal so it is just there in my computer, no wires, nothing sitting outside, nothing to knock over and destroy the drive, nothing to take up my floor/desk space, nothing to clutter my office.​

    The noticeable speed increase my my own personal real-time use, of sata over usb 3.0, is just a bonus reason to use internal rather than external.

    p.s. you can argue about benchmark tests and supposed speeds until kingdom come; but that doesn't change what I see happening before my very own eyes, which is that internal sata drives transfer faster than external drives.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2012
  19. repman244

    repman244

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,104 (0.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    455
    Starting speed is still faster, until it hits the non-cached part. You can see that if you start a fresh new copy of let's say a 5GB file and 1GB usually ends up in RAM first. Hence why in Windows you see speeds of 300-400MB/s but after while it drops down to the drives actual write speed.

    The HDD itself isn't writing at that speed tho, so it may seem it writes faster due to the cache but in fact it's not (it's physically impossible to write 300MB/s with todays HDD's).
     
    vawrvawerawe says thanks.
  20. vawrvawerawe

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    Messages:
    581 (0.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    33
    Yes. One big benefit of having a HUGE amount of RAM ;)
     
  21. repman244

    repman244

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,104 (0.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    455
    I don't know if you benefit from it in this case, I've never seen it go above 1GB even when I changed from 4GB to 8GB of RAM. It seems it's the OS sets the limit.
    Another option that you could try is disable write-cache in Windows, so you see the actual write speed of the HDD.
     
  22. vawrvawerawe

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    Messages:
    581 (0.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    33
    Yes, you're probably right. You know better than me here. Although I don't need to disable write-cache, because part of the benefit, even if it's in cache, I don't have to worry about it. One the progress box is complete, I no longer have to worry about it. But for external hard drive, I can't disconnect the drive until the progress box is complete.

    For me, there is an overwhelming number of reasons to why internal drive is better than external drive, for me. Maybe for others it is different, but I know for me, I prefer internal.
     
  23. vawrvawerawe

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    Messages:
    581 (0.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    33
    Case Fans 120mm Silent

    Want to get one or two more case fans, for the side (there is a place for them). 120mm.

    I want very quiet. I saw one site has some only 10db(a) (on low setting) [at highest setting is still only 19db] [LINK]. Another one on the site goes as low as 6db [highest setting is still only 18db] [LINK]. But they are in Europe :(

    Most of the other ones I saw are between 30 and 40db. Which is actually quite audible, especially when you have several fans. [LISTEN]

    So what do you suggest? I want cheap ($5 to $15 max) and quiet (as low as 10db preferred).

    --

    p.s. still waiting to receive the processor and last hard drive. Then I will take pictures.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2012
  24. Irony

    Irony

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,721 (1.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    442
    Location:
    Outer Rim system of the interwebz
    The first fan you link to is a 140mm, so you cant put two of those next to each other in 120mm spaces. Just google those fans, newegg has em. And you realize that that sites' prices are listed in pounds, so those fans are like $22 usd
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  25. vawrvawerawe

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    Messages:
    581 (0.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    33
    no, it is 120mm/140mm (fits both), but like I said it's in the UK and I can't buy from that site.

    And the point here is I want QUIET. not the ones I could just search ebay or newegg for.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page