Depends on how you define high settings. I usually set texture detail to the highest and reduce some other stuff, and anti aliasing. By doing this, I've been getting a solid 4k 60fps experience with a $399 video card. I am however planning to eventually get a better video card (a 2080 Ti ideally, and yeah I know they are expensive).
How does more RAM help the computer's performance? I'm asking because I might be getting a 16GB (2x8GB) pair of DDR3 DIMMs soon
Depends on whether you were running out before or not. If you had less than 90% memory usage before then adding more literally does nothing
The answer was for both. Having more ram than you need makes 0 difference. Ram is space to perform calculations and load data, it doesn't contribute anything to those calculations. If you don't have enough ram then you will have major performance issues, if you have 10 times more ram than you need then you'll see no performance difference versus having precisely enough ram
I got PCSX2 working. Current issue is the single PS1 game I have (Soviet Strike), imgburn is stuck at 0% when I try to get an ISO from it. Advice would be appreciated. I just figured this all out today, so I'm still new to this all.
Hi, i got an R9 290 as a new gpu, its much better than my GTX 960 for freesync and etc. But it has no HEVC decoder/encoder. If i were to put the GTX 960 in alongside the R9 290 i think it would still work, but I have no more power connectors, i have a 600w Corsair SF600 platinum. I think it could handle it (as long as both cards are not consuming much power). How much of an issue will it be making sure programs use the R9 290 for 3d and not the GTX 960?
Nvidia are cunts and their drivers commit suicide if an AMD card is installed in your system. Source: have had both Nvidia and AMD cards in one system before.
After having it for a while, I've got to say... the Intel 660p is the best value SSD I've ever seen. $200 for a 2 TB one, and the performance has been good.
Sorry for the bump. I have just installed an old 2.5inch HDD (WD Scorpio Blue - 320GB) in my PC (it was on my parent's computer before, but I swapped it out with an SSD-$65 for a Crucial MX500 500GB). Is it best to merge it with the already-existing drive, or leave it as an independent unit? And, why do I feel proud now that my PC turned on after putting in something?
Well, if you need the space, use both. Otherwise, use just the SSD. Better experience with just the SSD. For the best experience, multiple SSDs. Even without RAID, Windows will do write caching on multiple SSDs, making the system REALLY responsive. I found that out after putting a second SSD into my desktop.
The SSD was for my parent's computer, not mine. But, I'm using both my 3.5in and 2.5in (got a metric asston of games). I want a 1TB SSD really bad, but can't afford it
Get an SSD for even 30$ to feel a good bump in speed and responsiveness, even on an older AMD FX 6300 PC (was mine up until 2014, well it was an Athlon II until I updated it to an FX, then got rid of it 3 weeks later). I took the parts from the AMD FX 6300 PC and put them together in an old 10$ cooler master case I had laying about, stuck a 27.99$ Silicon Power (or some similar off-brand) 240gb/256gb SSD in it, and it was off to the races for that PC with it's 8gb of RAM. If you don't need the space for games with the drive mounted internally, use the spare drive for backing up your steam game installs (Steam can make compressed backup files for you if you tell it to back up your games, and point it to a directory on the secondary hard drive). If you need the space, keep it as drive D: and point Steam or other software to your d: drive (or whatever the hard drive shows up as) to install games to. It won't be as fast as a gaming-oriented current drive would be, and no-where near as fast as an SSD, but it's better than having no space at all. 65$ for a 500gb MX500 is a good price. I have four of them in here for redundant backup and file archival purposes, using a 1TB NVME 'Inland Professional' (Micro Center's Generic house-brand) as my main C: drive. The Inland drive is somewhat 'meh' in performance, but it was 100$ when I got it last summer, so I said what the heck why not. For gaming purposes, the difference between a NVME drive and a regular Sata SSD is next to nothing. For professional workloads you would likely be able to tell only when saving/loading large files or reading/writing tons of random small files (which slows ANY drive down). Long story short, I have a drawer full of old hard drives (especially 500gb models) that I use for backups and imaging. Good commercial image software will support spanning multiple smaller drives when backing up the system, but most do not. Good way to NOT lose everything like your saved games and even the 65536 different Firefox passwords for all the different log-ins on many sites! I keep my hard drives in the drawer and not hooked up, when all possible, to avoid major issues with ransomware attacks that would encrypt all connected drives hence defeating purpose of backups. Reliability on hard drives from best to worst goes like this: Hitachi/HGST, Toshiba/Western Digital* / Seagate. White label drives could be any drive as they're bought in lots of 1,000~50,000 units from anyone, to sell and warranty under a different name. *Western Digital bought Hitachi a few years back and is improving their own drives with the Hitachi designs, vs worsening Hitachi name with Western Digital designs. Hopefully there will be no more issues like the 500GB Western Digital RE line had with it's bearings going out. Though still avoid Seagate when at all possible. While Seagate isn't as bad as it was, it's still obviously in LAST place. If you only use hard drives for backing up weekly / bi-weekly / bi-monthly, and then unhook them, any brand will likely last many years if you take care of it. --Good luck!
2016 to 2018 Backblaze (large server/cloud storage provider) reliability reports put Western Digital well below Seagate, Toshiba, and Hitachi/HGST in terms of sheer reliability, with the only outlier being the Seagate ST4000DX000, which is a 4TB model in the Barracuda XT line of drives. Of 185 drives in service for Backblaze, 13.57% failed within the year. Backblaze used them for one year. Some of the most reliable drives you could get on the planet were those made by HGST, which were a Western Digital division, but built in a former Hitachi factory, using former Hitachi designs. HGST went defunct in 2018. 4 drive models according to Backblaze went at least one year with zero failures in the same 2016-2018 time frame: Toshiba MD04ABA400V (0/146 failed in 2016), Toshiba MD04ABA500V (0/45 failed in 2017 AND 2018), HGST HUH728080ALE600 (0/45 failed in 2016 AND 2017), Seagate ST8000DM002 (0/60 failed in 2016). Of all drives still in active service from 4/20/2013 thru 12/31/2018, the least reliable drive was the Western Digital WD60EFRX at 3.96% of 458 drives failed with a combined total of 654,360 total drive days. An equivalent capacity Seagate model, the ST6000DX000, saw an AFR (Annual Failure Rate) of 1.07% or 1,891 drives with a combined total of 2,522,824 total drive days. Within the same time period, Backblaze's most ubiquitous drive, the Seagate ST4000DM000, saw an AFR at 2.77% of 3,441/34,744 failed drives with a combined total 45,272,013 total drive days. Their second most ubiquitous drive, the Seagate ST12000NM007, saw an AFR at 1.39% of 310/31,146 failed drives with a combined total of 8,132,638 total drive days. As of Q3 2019, Backblaze no longer has Western Digital drives in service. I had a WD 30EZRX die with 145 power on hours. Fucking. Junk. While I understand that personal experience tells 8/10ths of a story, the numbers don't lie. Seagate make good 3.5" drives, relatively speaking. Just don't buy the "Seagate Mobile HDD". Those are apart of the Seagate Rosewood line (not Barracuda/Ironwolf/Skyhawk/EXOS/etc.) and are absolutely 100% the worst spinning drive I've ever come across, outside of WD Green.
What can you afford? Name a price, and I might be able to find an SSD within the budget. Also, @redrobin I have one of the first consumer 1 TB drive models ever released from Hitachi (from 2009). It never died, or had any issues. In fact, I could plug it right in and all my data is still there. It is SATA II though due to age. It is sad that Hitachi and HGST died... those drives were really reliable.
Under $100. It's best if it's a 1TB SSD (if there's remotely a 1TB drive under $100) And my dad doesn't want to help. Fuck my 16 year old soul then --- Post updated --- And I thought Seagate drives were good.....
The SSDs I buy are generally a bit over $100 per TB. You might be able to get an open box 1 TB for like $90. Used is an option too, but wear levels may be a concern depending on the type of SSD, and its endurance rating.
