You know you're PC is fast when...

[Vengeance_K1ng]

[TrvpFox]

Windows is complimenting you... Nice. 

[SPFINATOR1993]

2 minutes ago, Vengeance_K1ng said:

I was actually bummed the first time I got that message.  

[Vengeance_K1ng]

1 minute ago, SPFINATOR1993 said:

I was actually bummed the first time I got that message.  

What does it actually do anyway?

[21rkosta]

well you know your pc is slow when

[daniielrp]

1 minute ago, Vengeance_K1ng said:

What does it actually do anyway?

Well readyboost used to be a way of supplementing RAM - the theory being that flash storage over USB was somehow faster than an internal HDD. I never really understood the logic honestly as most USB flash drives aren't that fast. 

[Djole123]

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[thekeemo]

1 minute ago, daniielrp said:

Well readyboost used to be a way of supplementing RAM - the theory being that flash storage over USB was somehow faster than an internal HDD. I never really understood the logic honestly as most USB flash drives aren't that fast. 

It was meant mainly for systems still using IDE

[TheRandomness]

You know your computer is fast when you can see this:

(Not mine ofc)

[SeanAngelo]

18 minutes ago, Vengeance_K1ng said:

same

[Vengeance_K1ng]

14 minutes ago, thekeemo said:

It was meant mainly for systems still using IDE

Yet, windows 10 still has it? i mean 95% of us would be running a SATA Drive

[Djole123]

I should try this on my Cedarview Intel Atom...

[othertomperson]

17 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

You know your computer is fast when you can see this:

(Not mine ofc)

Finally matches the single core performance of Ivy Bridge

[PlayStation 2]

Still doesn't excuse your grammar.

[harrynowl]

When it's too slow to spellcheck for you.

[Rune]

5 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

Finally matches the single core performance of Ivy Bridge

I would say burn, but the CPU probably got there first.

[thekeemo]

15 minutes ago, Vengeance_K1ng said:

Yet, windows 10 still has it? i mean 95% of us would be running a SATA Drive

I've only seen it in vista.. Didn't know other versions has it

[PlayStation 2]

6 minutes ago, harrynowl said:

When its too slow to spellcheck for you.

When someone can't look over what they typed :^)

[Heesleemer]

... when adobe applications open in a second or two seconds. 

[PianoPlayer88Key]

Instead of readyboost, I'd rather have a PCI-Express SSD that

• is, for example double (or triple, maybe quad, depending on budget & other factors) the max size of my system RAM supported by my mobo/CPU
• goes in a 3.0 x16 slot
• has a price/GB somewhere between like a Samsung 950 Pro M.2 drive, an Intel 750 PCI-E drive, or basic non-OC'd DDR3/DDR4 RAM
• has bandwidth comparable to that of a GTX 1080, or at least capable of maxing out a PCI-E 3.0 x16 slot.

The Samsung 950 Pro is too slow (and the smallest ones are too expensive per GB for their speed), the smallest Intel 750 series is too large (my system only supports 32GB RAM), and both M.2 NVMe and the PCI-E SSDs I'm aware of supposedly can't at least maintain a constant *looks on wikipedia real quick...* 15.754 GigaBytes/second read/write speeds, whether sequential or random, whether small or large files.

 

And, looking at DDR speeds ... wow, apparently my DDR3-1600 is slower than PCI-Express, at only 12.8 GigaBytes/second.

 

Okay ... lowest price for 32GB (using 8GB sticks) of DDR3 on pcpartpicker is $2.97/GB, or $94.93 for 32 GB of Corsair Vengeance Pro 32GB DDR3-1600 CL9.

 

Hmm, maybe I need to rethink my criteria for an SSD as swap space.

A Samsung 950 Pro 256GB is $178.99 (70¢/GB), and advertises speeds of

• • Sequential Read Speed: up to 2,200 MB/s
  • Sequential Write Speed: up to 900 MB/s
  • 4K Random Read Speed (QD1): Up to 11,000 IOPS
  • 4K Random Write Speed (QD1): Up to 43,000 IOPS
  • 4K Random Read Speed (QD32): Up to 270,000 IOPS
  • 4K Random Write Speed (QD32): Up to 85,000 IOPS

Those QD1 numbers would concern me. Even the sequential write speed is only 2.2 GB/s (instead of 12.8 or 15.7), but 11,000 IOPS at 4k per operation would be only 44 megabytes/second.

A 400GB Intel 750-series SSD is $329.99 (82¢/GB), and advertised speeds are

• Max Sequential Read: Up to 2200 MBps
• Max Sequential Write: Up to 900 MBps
• 4KB Random Read: Up to 430,000 IOPS
• 4KB Random Write: Up to 230,000 IOPS

The sequential is the same, but the higher QD seems to be improved on the Intel 750 compared to the Samsung 950.

 

Another thing... If I remember correctly, the bandwidth of a GTX 1080's memory is like 320 GB/sec, right?  I guess we won't yet see SSDs THAT fast?

 

Although I'd love to see when we have removable storage, and internet connections, that are so fast that CPU Level 1 Cache bottlenecks it.  Although, I'm not able to find benchmarks for either my i7-4790K, or quad Xeon E7-8890 v4's Level 1 CPU Cache in Raid 0 across all caches/cores.  Any chance Linus could benchmark the latter one of these days?

 

I'm already more frequently running up against my 32GB limit, and I really don't want to have to buy a new board and CPU in the next 6-7 years.  And when I DO buy one, assuming I get what is then the equivalent of LGA1151, not LGA2011, I want to not be running out of RAM for another 7-8 years beyond that.

And I'm not even all that heavy of a user, I think.  Sure, my web browser by itself is probably 15-20 GB on a moderate day, 25GB+ on a more heavy day, but that's before I start running virtual machines, doing extensive media editing, etc.   (My system definitely wouldn't support loading an uncompressed full-length 4K HDR high-fps movie entirely in RAM for editing.  Someday, on a future computer, I want to be able to do the equivalent, related to what's cutting-edge at the time.)

 

------------------------------------

 

TL;DR: 

 

I'd like to someday (soon? or when I can afford it) get a PCI-Express x16 SSD that maxes out the slot's bandwidth, is a comparable price/GB and price/GB/s to standard RAM, and is double or quad the size of the max RAM (32GB) my PC will support.  But, the Intel 750 PCI-E and Samsung 950 PRO M.2 SSDs don't cut it for me, for various reasons.

I'm frequently running close to my 32GB RAM limit (it's rare that I'm below 20GB; 25-30GB is often seen), and that's just with the browser and a few lightweight things.  If I added VMs, editing media, etc, and tried running it ALL entirely in RAM (even full-length UHD movies, etc), my system couldn't handle it.  With a future PC I'd like to be able to do those things.

 

 

 

Oh ... and speaking of bootup times ....

 

I have yet to see a PC that would beat the bootup time of a typical TI-30 calculator, or something like that.

[mhamrin]

On 6/17/2016 at 3:50 PM, PianoPlayer88Key said:

Instead of readyboost, I'd rather have a PCI-Express SSD that

• is, for example double (or triple, maybe quad, depending on budget & other factors) the max size of my system RAM supported by my mobo/CPU
• goes in a 3.0 x16 slot
• has a price/GB somewhere between like a Samsung 950 Pro M.2 drive, an Intel 750 PCI-E drive, or basic non-OC'd DDR3/DDR4 RAM
• has bandwidth comparable to that of a GTX 1080, or at least capable of maxing out a PCI-E 3.0 x16 slot.

The Samsung 950 Pro is too slow (and the smallest ones are too expensive per GB for their speed), the smallest Intel 750 series is too large (my system only supports 32GB RAM), and both M.2 NVMe and the PCI-E SSDs I'm aware of supposedly can't at least maintain a constant *looks on wikipedia real quick...* 15.754 GigaBytes/second read/write speeds, whether sequential or random, whether small or large files.

 

And, looking at DDR speeds ... wow, apparently my DDR3-1600 is slower than PCI-Express, at only 12.8 GigaBytes/second.

 

Okay ... lowest price for 32GB (using 8GB sticks) of DDR3 on pcpartpicker is $2.97/GB, or $94.93 for 32 GB of Corsair Vengeance Pro 32GB DDR3-1600 CL9.

 

Hmm, maybe I need to rethink my criteria for an SSD as swap space.

A Samsung 950 Pro 256GB is $178.99 (70¢/GB), and advertises speeds of

• • Sequential Read Speed: up to 2,200 MB/s
  • Sequential Write Speed: up to 900 MB/s
  • 4K Random Read Speed (QD1): Up to 11,000 IOPS
  • 4K Random Write Speed (QD1): Up to 43,000 IOPS
  • 4K Random Read Speed (QD32): Up to 270,000 IOPS
  • 4K Random Write Speed (QD32): Up to 85,000 IOPS

Those QD1 numbers would concern me. Even the sequential write speed is only 2.2 GB/s (instead of 12.8 or 15.7), but 11,000 IOPS at 4k per operation would be only 44 megabytes/second.

A 400GB Intel 750-series SSD is $329.99 (82¢/GB), and advertised speeds are

• Max Sequential Read: Up to 2200 MBps
• Max Sequential Write: Up to 900 MBps
• 4KB Random Read: Up to 430,000 IOPS
• 4KB Random Write: Up to 230,000 IOPS

The sequential is the same, but the higher QD seems to be improved on the Intel 750 compared to the Samsung 950.

 

Another thing... If I remember correctly, the bandwidth of a GTX 1080's memory is like 320 GB/sec, right?  I guess we won't yet see SSDs THAT fast?

 

Although I'd love to see when we have removable storage, and internet connections, that are so fast that CPU Level 1 Cache bottlenecks it.  Although, I'm not able to find benchmarks for either my i7-4790K, or quad Xeon E7-8890 v4's Level 1 CPU Cache in Raid 0 across all caches/cores.  Any chance Linus could benchmark the latter one of these days?

 

I'm already more frequently running up against my 32GB limit, and I really don't want to have to buy a new board and CPU in the next 6-7 years.  And when I DO buy one, assuming I get what is then the equivalent of LGA1151, not LGA2011, I want to not be running out of RAM for another 7-8 years beyond that.

And I'm not even all that heavy of a user, I think.  Sure, my web browser by itself is probably 15-20 GB on a moderate day, 25GB+ on a more heavy day, but that's before I start running virtual machines, doing extensive media editing, etc.   (My system definitely wouldn't support loading an uncompressed full-length 4K HDR high-fps movie entirely in RAM for editing.  Someday, on a future computer, I want to be able to do the equivalent, related to what's cutting-edge at the time.)

 

------------------------------------

 

TL;DR: 

 

I'd like to someday (soon? or when I can afford it) get a PCI-Express x16 SSD that maxes out the slot's bandwidth, is a comparable price/GB and price/GB/s to standard RAM, and is double or quad the size of the max RAM (32GB) my PC will support.  But, the Intel 750 PCI-E and Samsung 950 PRO M.2 SSDs don't cut it for me, for various reasons.

I'm frequently running close to my 32GB RAM limit (it's rare that I'm below 20GB; 25-30GB is often seen), and that's just with the browser and a few lightweight things.  If I added VMs, editing media, etc, and tried running it ALL entirely in RAM (even full-length UHD movies, etc), my system couldn't handle it.  With a future PC I'd like to be able to do those things.

 

 

 

Oh ... and speaking of bootup times ....

 

I have yet to see a PC that would beat the bootup time of a typical TI-30 calculator, or something like that.

This performance benchmark is from 2015

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/SSD15/1191

 

From this the best ssd for the money seems to be the Samsung 950. Either the 256 or the 512.  

 

 

[mhamrin]

Also, there were something like 60 products in this comparison. 

[BunnyLab]

On June 17, 2016 at 2:05 PM, 21rkosta said:

well you know your pc is slow when

That looks like a dial-up connection.

[21rkosta]

@BunnyLab no dialup is faster

[BunnyLab]

22 minutes ago, 21rkosta said:

@BunnyLab no dialup is faster

Depends on what speed modem you have.  The last dial up modem I had was a 14.4 Kbps.