kmanmx
Golden Master
- Messages
- 9,504
- Location
- Bonn, Deutschland
Is DDR5 expected to drop in cost much in six months ? I wanna do my rebuild next year but the cost of 32GB of DDR5 is eye watering. So are the high end motherboard costs.
I'm old... 250GB for the OS and the 1TB for games.Why the weird size combo?
Z690 price is here to stay and won't drop. DDR5 price won't begin to drop until stock levels out much like the GPU situation. Any new DDR standard takes about a year for prices to go down so it might take longer with the stock issues.Is DDR5 expected to drop in cost much in six months ? I wanna do my rebuild next year but the cost of 32GB of DDR5 is eye watering. So are the high end motherboard costs.
Since only one slot goes x4 4.0 to the CPU it's standard now to do 4.0 1TB for OS and games then 1TB or bigger 3.0 for games and storage in a second slot. Reason being the OS takes more advantage of IOPS than games, but smaller drives have slower speeds and IOPS.I'm old... 250GB for the OS and the 1TB for games.
Wouldn't that beat one major purpose for separating OS and storage which is having to only easily format the OS drive and lose nothing (much)? As for speed loss, I have a feeling 4.0 and 3.0 won't make a desirable difference in games. As for the OS, mine is on 3.0 and the speed is already light speed enough for me that I don't feel the need or the desire for more speed as a regular non corporate user.Since only one slot goes x4 4.0 to the CPU it's standard now to do 4.0 1TB for OS and games then 1TB or bigger 3.0 for games and storage in a second slot. Reason being the OS takes more advantage of IOPS than games, but smaller drives have slower speeds and IOPS.
It is still separated. It's just games won't benefit from 4.0 and drives have slower IOPS and sequential speeds the smaller they are. So a 1TB median for OS to get the faster IOPS (or in general benefit from even being 4.0) and the cheaper 3.0 for drives.Wouldn't that beat one major purpose for separating OS and storage which is having to only easily format the OS drive and lose nothing (much)? As for speed loss, I have a feeling 4.0 and 3.0 won't make a desirable difference in games. As for the OS, mine is on 3.0 and the speed is already light speed enough for me that I don't feel the need or the desire for more speed as a regular non corporate user.
I'm just speculating. I'm just a Gen. 3.0 peasant
That's why I got the mobo I did. the top M.2 is 4.0 from CPU and the other 2 are 4.0 from the chipset and both the M.2 SSD's have the same speeds on them, so in theory I should get sequential R/W of 7K/5K. (random is shit) But I have them in my hand now so I might as well use them. But I do want to do some testing now that you have brought this up once I get the build done. But it just seems like a waste of space for a 1TB drive just for the OS. LOLZ690 price is here to stay and won't drop. DDR5 price won't begin to drop until stock levels out much like the GPU situation. Any new DDR standard takes about a year for prices to go down so it might take longer with the stock issues.
Since only one slot goes x4 4.0 to the CPU it's standard now to do 4.0 1TB for OS and games then 1TB or bigger 3.0 for games and storage in a second slot. Reason being the OS takes more advantage of IOPS than games, but smaller drives have slower speeds and IOPS.
Yea sequential doesn't mean much considering it has such a small SLC cache and drops significantly to 1.9GB after 100GB write. I think my biggest gripe with Samusng is the fact that outside of the buzzword marketing it's a TLC based drive that in anything besides 4K random it loses to the 970 EVO in everything else. This is why I bought the Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus instead, as even though the marketing buzz numbers are slightly slower it outperforms the 980 Pro in literally everything that matters and was significantly cheaper. The numbers get worse the smaller you get with the drive.That's why I got the mobo I did. the top M.2 is 4.0 from CPU and the other 2 are 4.0 from the chipset and both the M.2 SSD's have the same speeds on them, so in theory I should get sequential R/W of 7K/5K. (random is shit) But I have them in my hand now so I might as well use them. But I do want to do some testing now that you have brought this up once I get the build done. But it just seems like a waste of space for a 1TB drive just for the OS. LOL
Just remember it is better to have your scratch drive as a fast drive that isn't the OS drive or where your Adobe product is installed. This is another reason I went with the dual 1TB move. In fact I plan to move to 2TB for the secondary drive relatively soon, and all my UWP games are on my C:. Since Halo, FS, and FH5 are so large.Doing a quick Google search... You are 100% correct. But the speed difference between the drives for the OS doesn't seem that bad. Since I was going to use the 1TB as a catch drive, I can throw Adobe on that drive instead of the smaller one. I'll just have to rethink how I'm going to install everything. Still want to test stuff and like you said, if need be, I do have a brand new 970 EVO 3.0 drive I can use for games.
It's not so much loads times as it is also latency and responsiveness. That being said, I did notice quite a difference in "relative" speeds between my 960 EVO to my R4+.This brings up a valid point. Would you (as per human perception) be able to detect a few hundred mill-seconds load time from a 250 g drive vs. a 1 tb drive? The 1 tb drive definitely has an advantage as far as life span