New build sanity check

[ajones]

Can anyone see a problem with the following build for gaming and and Physics degree work (don't ask me what my son is doing, probably includes a little programming and computational analysis);

Already have:
Corsair 550D case
Seasonic X-series 750W
Water loop (untested as yet; 240 + 120 rads)
+sundries

Planned components:
Gigabyte GA-Z87-D3HP
Intel Core i5 4670K
16GB (2x8GB) Corsair DDR3 Vengeance Low Profile Jet Black, PC3-12800 (1600)
250GB Samsung 840 EVO Basic SSD
2TB WD WD20EZRX Green
Plextor 120GB SSD
Pioneer BDR-209EBK Blu-ray Writer
AMD R290 non-X (maybe X...)

The Sammy SSD will host System and some apps. The Plextor is for ISRT pairing with the HDD. The RAM needs to be low-profile since there's limited space - the Corsair 550D isn't what I'd call helpful when it comes to water cooling (actually, it's a pain in butt) and the fans for the 240 rad in the roof are going to cause me issues.

Thanks in advance!

[Domestic_Ginger]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B.../?tag=ho01f-21

evo is £120 on amazon.

Could try for an unlockable 290; dual bios should remove the risk.

Just the usual cost cutting questions. Need 8gb (ram seems stepp atm); IB instead of haswell; a second hand 3570k may save some dough not mention the mobos being cheaper.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Ditch the EVO SSD and get this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crucial-CT24...rds=m500+240gb

You save nearly £20,get only around 10GB less and instead of TLC NAND you get MLC NAND.

Alternatively get the Plextor:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Plextor-PX-2...ords=m5s+256gb

It has 6GB more storage for another £10 or so and also uses MLC NAND.

The EVO is realtively expensive considering it uses the cheapest kind of NAND ATM. It really should be around £100 or less,considering the price of the M500.

The Samsung 830 was a great drive,but with the 840 they basically replaced the 830 at the same price(at the time) with a cheaper to make drive. They did what Corsair did with the CX400W,ie,replaced it with a cheaper to make model.

People still think Corsair make the "best" PSUs based on their experience of older models. I can see Samsung going that way. I see it as a very calculated move.

Its typical marketing - make a name for yourself,then start cost cutting before it starts dawning on people.

I have had a few SSDs and NEVER have paid a single penny for the tools I needed to migrate my OS partitions over with,so even the software the Samsung comes with it is not really worth spending more on.

[MrJim]

The Samsung 830 was a great drive,but with the 840 they basically replaced the 830 at the same price(at the time) with a cheaper to make drive. They did what Corsair did with the CX400W,ie,replaced it with a cheaper to make model.

Just to clarify, the 840 EVO uses TLC NAND, whereas the 840 Pro still uses MLC. Although TLC offers inherently lower endurance than MLC, with wear-levelling algorithms & over-provisioning, most reviews I've read have stated that the longevity of the 840 EVO should be 'good enough' for most desktop users. It has a 3 year warranty after all, which is the same as the M500.

[Pob255]

Change the plexor 120gb ssd, why? Intel Smart Response Technology only uses up to 64gb AFAIK so get a cheaper 60gb drive or even a 30gb ssd, from what I understand ISRT rarely uses more than 30gb of cache

The other things I'd question, water loop?, is the pc going to be moved about from student digs to home and back each term? if so then that's a lot of hassle because you really should drain the loop before transporting it.
What are you planning to put in the loop?
When you say there's space issues with a rad, what thickness rad? what fans? if you are having space issues with push&pull fans then consider dropping one set, it will lower the cooling performance but not by a missive amount

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Just to clarify, the 840 EVO uses TLC NAND, whereas the 840 Pro still uses MLC. Although TLC offers inherently lower endurance than MLC, with wear-levelling algorithms & over-provisioning, most reviews I've read have stated that the longevity of the 840 EVO should be 'good enough' for most desktop users. It has a 3 year warranty after all, which is the same as the M500.

Yet the M500 is nearly £20 cheaper. I don't see the point of getting the EVO.

[satrow]

The Plextor is for ISRT pairing with the HDD.

If you're referring to using the Plextor for SSD caching, my impression is that Smart Response Technology is designed to cache frequently used programs and Windows System files, etc. (so it caches from the System (HDD) drive, similar to a big, fast ReadyBoost cache), not boost data transfer from storage disks, hence the reason that small, cheap SSDs are used. No need to use an SSD to cache for another SSD.

Search for puget +Intel +SSD +Caching

[kompukare]

The main reason Samsung get away with charging a lot more is because the EVO performs a lot better though:
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/807?vs=965
http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare...0GB/1594vs1551

Or the EVO vs the Plextor M5S
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/631?vs=965

But yes, for Intel SRT 64GB is the maximum so it might even be worth looking at SLC drives (not that I know of any cheap ones).

[kalniel]

If you're referring to using the Plextor for SSD caching, my impression is that Smart Response Technology is designed to cache frequently used programs and Windows System files, etc. (so it caches from the System (HDD) drive, similar to a big, fast ReadyBoost cache), not boost data transfer from storage disks, hence the reason that small, cheap SSDs are used. No need to use an SSD to cache for another SSD.

Or read the bit from his post that you've quoted? He's pairing it with a HDD (which as you say, may contain frequently used programs which can be cached by the SSD).

I guess you might be asking if there is a way of making sure the SRT drive doesn't also cache data from the SSD, which is a good question. You'd want to make sure that SSD data was ignored for the purposes of caching, and I don't know if you can set that up or if SRT applies indiscriminately to all data.

[satrow]

Digging a little deeper into the quagmire that is the Intel site, a recent (Last Modified: 07-Jun-2013) Smart Response Technology User Guide states:

Setup Guide

Configure SATA mode in BIOS setup

Press the F2 key during boot up to enter the BIOS setup menu.
Go to Configuration SATA Drives.
Select the setting for Chipset SATA Mode and change the value to RAID.
Press the F10 key to save settings and restart the system.

<snip>

Select the drive (or RAID volume) to be accelerated. It is highly recommended to accelerate the system volume or system disk for maximum performance.
Select the acceleration mode. By default, enhanced mode is selected.

Enabling RAID drivers might mean losing TRIM functionality and relying on the SSDs' native garbage collection routines to keep them running efficiently.

The latter part does suggest that a data drive can be configured for SSD-cached acceleration.

[tavalin]

Excuse my ignorance but will you really see any benefits of the ISRT whilst using an SSD? I was under the impression it was meant to benefit HDDs.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The main reason Samsung get away with charging a lot more is because the EVO performs a lot better though:
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/807?vs=965
http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare...0GB/1594vs1551

Or the EVO vs the Plextor M5S
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/631?vs=965

But yes, for Intel SRT 64GB is the maximum so it might even be worth looking at SLC drives (not that I know of any cheap ones).

Which is not going to be really noticeable,but the thing is a £20 lower price(M500) or the extra 6GB of storage(the EVO and M5S are closely priced) will be,plus the competitors are still MLC drives. These debates have been had before,ie,the Crucial M4 or Plextor M3 were not the fastest drives two years ago(especially compared to various Sandforce ones),but they were some of the least problematic ones and had consistant performance and long lifespan. The same has been true of many of the Intel drives too,not all were the speed kings in tests. Many of the drives used for commerical purposes are not as fast as consumer drives,but again are very reliable.

TBH,I have used a few SSDs and I really have not noticed a massive difference between the few I have used. However,longterm reliability and amount of storage are more important factors IMHO.

My point still stands all Samsung have done is pulled a Corsair. Just because the CX430 V2 in certain power delivery measurements was probably better than a CX400W,it did not change the fact the former was a cheaper to make PSU at the same price. No different to the 840 EVO.

Maybe when a 512GB TLC drive is £100 and MLC drives are significantly more expensive,I might consider things differently,but ATM the latter can be had for less.

Edit!!

There is another thing about the M500.

It uses something called RAIN,in addtion to the extra space allocated for overprovisioning.

It is a version of technology found in their enterprise level SSDs,where a part of the flash holds addtional parity information,meaning data can be rebuilt from the information if parts of the drive fail.

Second Edit!!

Even then a lot of reviews(even the ones testing drive life),rarely test with a nearly full drive. A 120GB/128GB or 240GB/250GB/256GB drive for most people will be running at nearly full capacity anyway especially with games installed on them. This is why I would prefer a drive more orientated towards lifespan and reliability.

[kalniel]

Digging a little deeper into the quagmire that is the Intel site, a recent (Last Modified: 07-Jun-2013) Smart Response Technology User Guide states
<snip>
The latter part does suggest that a data drive can be configured for SSD-cached acceleration.

Yup, so he's good.

[ajones]

Thanks for the input so far.

Most of it seems to be MLC vs TLC. Are these the same concerns raised when we switched from SLC to MLC? From my experience, the type of drive doesn't really matter too much; the performance gained from HDD > SDD is massive, so any incremental gains from improvements in SSD technology I'm wondering whether you'd notice. Point taken about price. will look around. I'm not considering SLC cache drives given their cost.

Regarding iSRT; I've done plenty of research on that, and yes, you can cache a data drive. You can select the SATA device when configuring iSRT, even when the system is running off another SSD. I also understand that 60GB is the maximum size for the cache partition, so am in 2 minds as to whether using the remaining space as the system partition, or just leave it there to allow for natural wear on the cache partition (manual wear levelling I guess!)... I've not seem much evidence on how long the cache partition will survive!

Finally, the water loop is already installed into the case (240 rad in the roof, 120 in the base). Push configuration on the fans, although if space for the RAM is too much of an issue even with low-profile stuff, I may have to locate the fans externally, pulling through the internal rad. Will look wrong, but the 550D looks are spoiled anyway when you remove the fan plates, so will have to suffer anyway. Pump integrated into the dual 5.25" reservoir to save space. Bottom line, is that everything is crammed in as neatly as I can without changing components, which I'm not considering at the moment.

[MrJim]

TBH,I have used a few SSDs and I really have not noticed a massive difference between the few I have used. However,longterm reliability and amount of storage are more important factors IMHO.

Techreport have been doing a longitudinal test of SSD endurance, which makes interesting reading:

http://techreport.com/review/24841/i...nce-experiment

http://techreport.com/review/25320/t...nt-22tb-update

http://techreport.com/review/25559/t...t-200tb-update

http://techreport.com/review/25889/t...t-500tb-update

It seems that the TLC Samsung 840 does show signs of lower endurance than the other drives tested, but that's after 500TB of writes...

Although the 840 Series is clearly in worse shape than the competition, these results need to be put into context. 500TB works out to 140GB of writes per day for 10 years. That's an insane amount even for power users, and it far exceeds the endurance specifications of our candidates.

Basically, unless you're hammering the drive with writes day in, day out, I don't think endurance is likely to be a problem for most people. Price is obviously a huge factor though - as Cat says, unless the price is substantially lower than the competition, TLC drives have little benefit for users when there are cheaper & more durable alternatives.

[ajones]

Trigger pulled on the order.

Can't promise any detailed analysis, but will let you all know how easy the iSRT configuration was, and how the system "feels" in due course!

Guess I'd better check the water loop works...