SSD is the biggest performance gain I've seen in two decades.
On Sep 16, 2017 11:00 AM, "Bill Prince" <[email protected]> wrote:
> IMO, the performance gains from a faster processor have been in the too
> little gain category for a number of years. If old processor X can do an
> operation in 1 ms, and the twice as fast processor Y can do the same
> operation in 0.5 ms, are you going to notice the difference? Meh.
>
> OTOH, if your 6GB of memory means you are swapping 100 times/sec, going to
> 16 GB would eliminate all those swaps. Going to mo' memory is almost always
> a winner, and cost effective too.
>
> For the icing on the cake, going full SSD (or maybe one of those new
> hybrid jobs from Seagate) would reduce the time to snatch something from
> storage from hundreds of milliseconds to under a dozen. Yeah, you would
> notice that big time.
>
> The big thing on the horizon is storage class memory; where you won't need
> an SSD or rotating memory at all. This will change everything.
>
>
> bp
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
> On 9/16/2017 8:02 AM, George Skorup wrote:
>
>> So I'm still running on my "vintage" i7-920/X58 system at home. I don't
>> do a lot of gaming. Maybe BF4 once in a while. Got 6GB of RAM and a WD
>> SATA3 spinner in it and it's fine for the most part.
>>
>> Upgrade right now to an i7-7700/Z270 (which is twice as fast as the
>> 920/X58 and uses 1/3 of the power), with 16GB of RAM and an NVMe SSD on top
>> should fly. Or wait for the i7/i9 X-series and X299 chipset to mature a bit
>> more. Kinda leaning towards waiting a bit since the the X-series has much
>> better multi-core performance. 7700 vs 7800X would be something like 15-20%
>> better, just not sure it's worth it. All of the extra PCIe lanes w/ the
>> X-series is kinda meh to me since I don't plan on running more than one
>> PCIe GPU. Plus the 7800X is back up to using the power of the 920. But
>> quad-core 7700 vs 6-core 7800X w/ better multi-core and upgrade to i9 later.
>>
>> I'm torn.
>>
>
>
