Jump to content

CallMeDrJones

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    12

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards

This user doesn't have any awards

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

CallMeDrJones's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

3

Reputation

  1. CallMeDrJones
    Seems like we're at a bit of an impasse, eh? Anyways, I just completed the order. Two 960 EVOs: one 250GB for OS/programs and one 500GB as a scratch disk. Saves money and keeps scratch on a dedicated drive. I might allocate ~100GB as cache for the HDD.
  2. CallMeDrJones
    @Oshino Shinobu One more question, would you consider it acceptable to use a 1TB NVME drive as both boot and scratch, as @Electronics Wizardy recommended? Slightly more cost effective than two 500GB drives and also the 1TB version seems to be the best performer among 960 EVOs.
  3. CallMeDrJones
    If you're into RGB, keep in mind that the Z170 Pro Gaming/Aura does NOT have a header for LED strips–just one little area of onboard RGB on the right side. My brother learned that lesson during his build. However, the MSI Z270 Pro Gaming Carbon DOES have an RGB header and it's only a tad more expensive.
  4. CallMeDrJones
    Indeed. The showcase at CES did feature some boards with multiple M.2 slots (AsRock X370 Taichi, MSI X370 Titanium) but RAID support I believe is still unknown. Wish they would just announce all the damn specs for Ryzen already, given it's supposedly like 3 weeks away. Sounds good. I don't need to save a few seconds here and there if it's going to mean hours of inconvenience later. And I'll look into that 2TB drive as well. Not sure what my final configuration will be for game storage but it definitely sounds like separate NVME is the way to go for boot and scratch. Thanks!
  5. CallMeDrJones
    Thanks for the advice. I should add that my entire system will be backed up to a NAS. Since I'll be keeping my "mission critical" data on my HDD, I figured it would just be more of a headache than a real "loss" if my boot volume dropped out. I do understand that RAID0 carries a risk of failure–are you suggesting my particular setup would increase the risk, or that RAID0 is just a bad idea in general? I was looking at the SATA SSDs from a cost perspective already–SK Hynix SL308's are super cheap and have solid performance but only go up to 500GB capacity. Since I'd need more than one anyways I figured I would just RAID them as well. Would you still advise against this setup?
  6. CallMeDrJones
    Woohoo! Refund season, time for a new PC! For my upcoming (waiting for Ryzen) build I'll be doing a combination of photo editing, 4K video editing and graphic design in Adobe, as well as some gaming. For internal storage I'll be installing two 500GB m.2 NVME drives in RAID0 as my boot drive, a few 500GB SATA SSDs (also in RAID0) for games, and a 3TB HDD for photo/video mass storage. I'm also prepared to allocate as much as half of my boot volume as either a scratch volume for my programs or cache for my HDD–I don't really anticipate any projects larger than 300GB in total size, but I'd like to have a bit of headroom. If I'm not mistaken a scratch disk should be more consistent for fast reads within the designated programs, but a cache volume would (somewhat less consistently) speed up reads in a wider variety of uses. Is this an accurate summarization? Which configuration makes more sense for a video editing workflow? And does 500GB of total scratch/cache space sound reasonable, or way too much/too little? Some sage storage advice is greatly appreciated
  7. CallMeDrJones
    Exactly. Core counts aren't everything. On the high end, I'm not realistically expecting the 1800X (if that ends up being its name) to keep pace with the 6900K in every real-world application. But if it can perform equivalently to, or perhaps a bit better than a 12-thread 6850k for a bit less $$$ then I would consider my wait well worth it.
  8. CallMeDrJones
    Could be. I would expect both of the 1800 series to run at 3.4+ base clocks though, which would be consistent with what they've announced so far. No reason they won't release more lower clocked variants to pad their segments.
  9. CallMeDrJones
    @DeadEyePsycho Indeed. Not familiar with previous AMD labeling conventions but I'm aware that all the Ryzen chips are overclockable. What I really want to know, and I don't know if AMD has explicitly addressed this, is how XFR and manual overclocking will work together, if at all.
  10. CallMeDrJones
    WCCFTech reporting, so take it with a heap of salt. Interesting positioning AMD is doing if this is true though. Naming scheme for almost all of the chips (1X00) correspond to the Intel Broadwell-E and Kaby Lake SKUs we'd expect them to be competing with (R5 1600X vs i5 7600K, R5 1500 vs i5 7500). Crossing my fingers that goes for price as well...I'd love to see a R7 1800X "Black" edition in the same price neighborhood as a 6800K, though that's probably wishful thinking since they've been putting it up against the 6900K in most tests. WCCF's source: http://www.coolaler.com/threads/amd-r7、r5、r3-型號出爐-有17款之多.342093/
  11. CallMeDrJones
    The 950 Pro seems to have a huge advantage over the EVO in terms of average sequential read and write; I'll be doing a fair bit of video rendering and photo/video file transfer, so I do believe increased sequential read & write would be of value to my workflow. http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-950-NVMe-PCIe-M2-512GB-vs-Samsung-850-Evo-500GB/m38554vs3477 Any suggestions for how much space to set aside for cache duty? I have no idea how to go about determining this.
  12. CallMeDrJones
    Hi all, I was watching the ULTIMATE Build a Better $1500 Gaming PC Computer "How To" Guide and was interested when Linus said that he planned to dedicate 60GB of the SSD as cache for the HDD to boost performance. I was wondering if a similar thing can be done by dedicating a portion of m.2 storage (say, from a 512GB Samsung 950 Pro) as cache to speed up a SATA SSD JBOD (such as four 2TB Samsung 850 EVO's). If the answer is yes, I have a couple more questions: What kind of read/write gains (roughly) might I expect from a setup like this? Is there a hardware limit to the amount of m.2 space I can allocate for the cache, and is there a performance "sweet spot" as far as this goes? I don't want to set aside 100GB if it won't be efficient. Is there a relationship between the size of the JBOD and the effectiveness of the cache, i.e. will having a larger volume detract from the effectiveness of the cache? Thanks so much!
×