|
Factory Factory posted:Sometimes I feel like the best way to have a computer that works well is to never install software. Depends on your definition of works well. =P If you merely want to convert electricity to heat without breaking a component or unexpected halting, never go past the BIOS. My experience is that bugs are proportional to the complexity/utility of the software. I think the best you can do is never install something you don't use and remove it if it is no longer used. Basically treat all software as though it were a pre-cancerous growth. Peanut3141 fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Sep 22, 2014 |
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
Uh, so my Samsung EVO 840 has been on for 6103 hours and it says it's written 20 TB in that period of time...That's not normal, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
fookolt posted:Uh, so my Samsung EVO 840 has been on for 6103 hours and it says it's written 20 TB in that period of time...That's not normal, right? That's 78 GB per power-on day. How many hours per day do you use the machine? Because 8 hours a day of use is 26 GB per day - a smidge high but totally reasonable for heavy use.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
I'm not really sure what qualifies as heavy use. I just use it for browsing, listening to tunes, and gaming. Is there any way I can figure out what is writing hard to the drive? Also I do run CrashPlan and it backs up the whole drive. Would that cause an issue? Cron PERLman mentioned an issue with RAPID on the last page. I thought RAPID shouldn't have an effect on endurance 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Main system: Intel 510 120GB Power on hours of 5,127 with a host write count of 1.14TB. Use: internet (reddit, facebook, SA, etc), light gaming and watching tv shows/video Download machine: Samsung Evo 840 250GB Power on hours of 1,385 with a host write count of 9.12TB. Use: 98% usenet, 2% torrents My desktop usage is super light for some reason, I'm actually amazed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Mr. Ali posted:Main system: Those writes for your download machine are on the SSD? Are you downloading to it or to hard drives? I download a lot of torrents to two 4tb drives...would uTorrent cause a lot of writes to the SSD?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Everything is downloaded to the 840 EVO OS drive and then moved to mechanical drives.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Mr. Ali posted:Everything is downloaded to the 840 EVO OS drive and then moved to mechanical drives. Hah, that would totally explain it then. How do I change this in uTorrent?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
fookolt posted:Hah, that would totally explain it then. How do I change this in uTorrent? I don't want to derail this thread but moving files to another drive wont help keep writes down. The write already occurred when the file was written to my SSD. Everything afterwards are reads (if you are seeding or viewing or moving). I just move the files to mechanical drive's because 250GB isn't enough space to hold downloads.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Mr. Ali posted:I don't want to derail this thread but moving files to another drive wont help keep writes down. The write already occurred when the file was written to my SSD. Everything afterwards are reads (if you are seeding or viewing or moving). I just move the files to mechanical drive's because 250GB isn't enough space to hold downloads. I'm no uTorrent expert, but he's probably asking how to change the download location to the mechanical drive so it never hits the SSD at all. In which case, it appears to be at Options->Preferences->Directories.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:Isn't that really quite a lot of writes, though? My Samsung 830 256GB has been on for 5336 hours, and only reports 3.58TiB written. Yeah I'm pretty sure that a normal user shouldn't do more than 10-20GB, which is why my 200GB per day is bugging me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
I've had my new computer since mid march, and I've only done 1.8TB of writes. I also don't have a regular hard drive - everything is on a 1tb EVO.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Sandforce drives don't work well at 480GB because they don't have enough capacity to hold the page tables for that much data. Define "work well". Just because a 480GB drive doesn't bench as well as a 240GB drive doesn't make it crap. Even at its slowest, a 480GB drive still performs better than what most people would ever use it for. How many issues have you had with 480GB SandForce drives in the first place? I have a 480GB SandForce drive in one of my MacBook Pros that has had lots of usage since 2012. OS X/VMware with Office and multiple OSes running at once. I've never had a single issue with it. Not with performance or reliability. I've read negative things about 480GB SandForce drives in this thread, when they've worked perfectly fine for me, yet the 840 EVO that gets so much love actually have caused people real and noticeable performance issues. dissss posted:Hmmm how much of a real world problem is this? None. There are no problems with 480GB SandForce drives. They perform well, have been proven reliable, and with their active garbage collection they are especially good for Mac OS X or any other OS where you may not have TRIM (and this is especially important with Yosemite/10.10 and newer versions). They work great at normal day-to-day tasks, and they even excel in heavy-load situations where past Marvell-based and Samsung drives have been known to grind to a halt. Companies like Intel know what the gently caress they are doing, and they make 480GB SandForce drives. Do you really think a company like Intel would make 480GB SandForce drives if there was something wrong with them and they "don't work well"? If all you care about is peak benchmarks and xxxtreme performance, then look at another drive. I hear those 840 EVO SSDs get good numbers when you enable RAPID (just ignore the 20MB/sec performance drops until Samsung gets around to fixing their broken firmware). If you want a drive that is reliable and performs well, a 480GB SandForce may be just right for you. I never had any issue with mine (OWC Mercury Extreme 6G).
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
Xenomorph posted:Companies like Intel know what the gently caress they are doing, and they make 480GB SandForce drives. Do you really think a company like Intel would make 480GB SandForce drives if there was something wrong with them and they "don't work well"? I like Intel, but this is the company that made a CPU that couldn't divide, a SATA controller that murdered itself, GPUs marketed for media playback that couldn't play back a DVD at standard NTSC framerates, an SSD that lost its poo poo if you jiggled the power cord wrong, a uniquely-identifiable serial number on your CPU that spat itself out after every CPUID instruction, a headlining HPC feature that doesn't work on its debut silicon, Itanium IA-64, and Netburst. Meanwhile, before TRIM, when JMicron drives had IOPS measured in tenths and the X25-M was but a glimmer in Intel's eye, Samsung SSDs never stuttered and had top-class performance consistency and access times. I'm getting pretty sick of the tech warfare around here the past few days. Factory Factory fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Sep 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Peanut3141 posted:I'm no uTorrent expert, but he's probably asking how to change the download location to the mechanical drive so it never hits the SSD at all. In which case, it appears to be at Options->Preferences->Directories. Sorry if this isn't the appropriate thread; I'll edit and post elsewhere if that's the case. Scratch that, I figured out what was writing so drat much by using ProcMon: CrashPlan, Firefox, Chrome, and uTorrent's resume.dat files. Also, I think I caught that Samsung EVO slowdown bug a couple months ago, heh: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3454120&pagenumber=234&perpage=40#post431211026 fookolt fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Sep 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
This poo poo is like 'LOL MAXTOR' all over again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:This poo poo is like 'LOL MAXTOR' all over again. I was thinking more like the IBM Deathstar fiasco. BTW, does anybody know how to check if TRIM is working on OSX? I installed the trimenabler kext on my hackintosh, just wanted to make sure it's doing its thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
Xenomorph posted:I've never had a single issue with it. Not with performance or reliability. I've read negative things about 480GB SandForce drives in this thread, when they've worked perfectly fine for me, yet the 840 EVO that gets so much love actually have caused people real and noticeable performance issues. Just because I keep seeing people saying "OMG THE SLOWDOWNS." My Evo has the issue. I didn't notice anything wrong, whatsoever. The system boots and runs just as snappily as ever. It doesn't feel slower at all. Benchmarked it - yeah, have the issue. But its not noticeable for day-to-day useage, at least for me. Maybe there's an extra second or two on the windows bootup? Maybe? But that's likely just confirmation bias as I'm looking to see something, so I'm seeing it. But they are not garbage - if in 3 months Samsung hasn't fixed it, yeah, okay, I'm game for calling them poo poo. But in the meantime, its a bug, a glitch, a temporary issue. Everyone has had poo poo something come out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Its an amazing mountain we built out of this molehill
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
JnnyThndrs posted:I was thinking more like the IBM Deathstar fiasco.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
This is totally anecdotal but I've been using a 480GB Mushkin Enhanced Chronos for almost two years and if it's slower at anything than the 240GB SanDisk Extreme it runs alongside I haven't noticed 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
FYI, it looks like Newegg is having a sale on some SSDs. They're doing $100 off the Intel 530, I'm thinking about grabbing one for my wife's MacBook: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ..._-20167177-L04B
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
beepsandboops posted:FYI, it looks like Newegg is having a sale on some SSDs. They're doing $100 off the Intel 530, I'm thinking about grabbing one for my wife's MacBook: They were $104.99 on 9/3 ;;
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Fresh installation (recommended): (Optional: Verify the system can complete at least one full pass of Memtest86+ and update the motherboard BIOS.) Ensure the SATA controller is set to AHCI mode in the BIOS. Disconnect all other drives and connect the SSD. Many motherboards have SATA ports provided by chips from different vendors, consult the manual to confirm you are connecting the drive to a SATA port provided by the chipset, either Intel or AMD. Install Windows, then install the latest chipset drivers from the manufacturer's website (Intel or AMD), then the latest AHCI drivers from the manufacturer's website (Intel or AMD). Intel calls its AHCI drivers "Rapid Storage Technology" software. My motherboard is a Gigabyte GA-MA770-UD3, which has the AMD 770 chipset, so I'm guessing from the OP that it supports TRIM commands and isn't quite old enough to be a problem. I'm really confused about the "SATA port provided by the chipset" bit, though. I'm looking in the manual and I don't see anything in there about it one way or the other. Edit: also, how critical is it to update the BIOS? I'm kind of paranoid to try, but I'll do it if I need to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Ignoranus posted:My motherboard is a Gigabyte GA-MA770-UD3, which has the AMD 770 chipset, so I'm guessing from the OP that it supports TRIM commands and isn't quite old enough to be a problem. I'm really confused about the "SATA port provided by the chipset" bit, though. I'm looking in the manual and I don't see anything in there about it one way or the other. From looking at a manual for that motherboard online, it looks like you'll want to set "OnChip SATA Type" to "AHCI" in the bios and then use one of the SATA ports numbered from SATA0 to SATA3 for the SSD. Some motherboards have extra SATA ports that are provided by a different chip which is not ideal. In your case you have two more (4 and 5) that are only enabled under certain circumstances so you'll probably want to use SATA0 for your SSD.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Sorry if this is a silly question, but I kind of want a SSD for my playstation 3. As such, I won't need huge amounts of space - should I just get a 120GB intel drive? Or will the playstation interact with it in weird ways and make it explode?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Bobfly posted:Sorry if this is a silly question, but I kind of want a SSD for my playstation 3. As such, I won't need huge amounts of space - should I just get a 120GB intel drive? Or will the playstation interact with it in weird ways and make it explode? I have a 120GB intel ssd in my ps3 and it works totally fine with no noticable changes in performance. Installation was dead simple too
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
No noticeable change compared to what? To before putting the SSD in, or while you've had it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Bobfly posted:No noticeable change compared to what? To before putting the SSD in, or while you've had it? Very little to no noticeable speed difference. People were playing around with them, and it appears that the speed of the drive in it makes almost no difference - something else bottlenecks the performance. You're better off with a platter-drive, so you get more capacity for less money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Hm, alright. I was wanting it for playing final fantasy 14 (MMO), and was led to believe it made a difference there since you apparently load new resources a lot. But I'm not good enough with computers to know, really. Anyway, thanks for your responses!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Bobfly posted:Hm, alright. I was wanting it for playing final fantasy 14 (MMO), and was led to believe it made a difference there since you apparently load new resources a lot. But I'm not good enough with computers to know, really. Anyway, thanks for your responses! The only games I play on my PS3 are Disgaea4 and NiNoKuni so I am probably not a good indicator. Something like FF14 may be different.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Bobfly posted:No noticeable change compared to what? To before putting the SSD in, or while you've had it? There's very little improvement. Read/Writes to the HDD are bottlenecked by the encryption chip, not the drive itself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:There's very little improvement. Read/Writes to the HDD are bottlenecked by the encryption chip, not the drive itself. I think FF14 is the one and only exception to this rule, because of the way they stream assets. Otherwise everything stated here is accurate in terms of general game performance. Here's a video illustrating the difference an SSD makes to FF14: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1o1I1zb8gU So would I buy an SSD for a PS3? No, unless you are strictly buying it to improve FF14 performance and nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
It's very game dependent. Gran Turismo 5 and 6 actually does get a pretty noticeable boost in loading speed from a SSD.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
SOS to all goons Priority 1: I was about to buy an 840 Evo for my new build and now am frozen with indecision, send help.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
That intel 530 linked few posts up is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Siochain posted:Just because I keep seeing people saying "OMG THE SLOWDOWNS." I've got the issue and it's definitely noticeable. But I'm still used to the HDD that was in that thing. It's just slowdown, and where I do want it fixed that it goes back to super snappy, the system's still usable. It's not data loss or a dead drive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:I've got the issue and it's definitely noticeable. Yeah, for me, I really don't notice. I rarely reboot, all my programs on the SSD (Chrome, Office, some work crap, etc. ) seem to load the same, and still faster than the old HDD I had. And yes, its not dead or lost data (yet) - that'll be what would piss me off hahah.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Hey guys - I'm also paralysed by indecision at the moment. Was about to pick up an 840 but then this issue came up. The 530 seems great, but also quite expensive per GB. Is the Crucial MX100 pretty much useless? The OP seems to take a fairly negative view of it, but I've seen some positive reviews on other sites, along with some recommendations on other online communities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
I'm going to buck this thread and say the MX100 is fine. Personally, if I was considering the 840 EVO before the latest unpleasantness, I'd probably spring up not down, though. ~500 GB prices in USD: MX100: 512GB @ $210 840 EVO: 500GB @ $240 530: 480GB @ $250 WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 22:14
|
|