PC replacement

Discussion in 'The Veterans' Lounge' started by ptah, May 12, 2022.

  1. Stymie Pendragon

    Ivan,

    You mentioned virtual machine, but I'm not sure that relates to the original post? I've used it in the past to run XP programs at work that weren't capatible with Windows 7. Even then, it wasn't a good experience. It ran in a separate window and was quite laggy.

    Also, I recommend that anyone using Windows 7 unplug from the internet immediately. The last security update for that OS was 1/14/2020.

    I don't mean to nit-pick or derail the conversation, but I wanted to add my thoughts on some of the items in your post.
  2. Iven Augur

    Yep, but not for EQ. It can be foolish to only use SSD drives too.
  3. Iven Augur

    Stynie,

    I was not reffering to software based virtual machines like Virtual Box. It is a hardware based virtualization function that does speed up graphical processes. Without it an OS can perform very sluggish. More infos here:

    https://www.techtarget.com/searchit...IOS-virtual-machine-basic-input-output-system
    https://bce.berkeley.edu/enabling-virtualization-in-your-pc-bios.html

    You should not use a CPU/GPU at all as all those have backdoors implemented. It is not more unsecure to use a modern OS than Windows 7. The people behind the Microsoft propaganda do only want to fear users away from older versions so that they can sell more of their newer products.
  4. Skuz I am become Wrath, the Destroyer of Worlds.

    For MMO games SSD is worth considering mandatory really, it's just a massively faster, smoother & less annoying experience.

    My PC is like 12 years old now (2nd gen Intel i7) but I know the first component that goes into the next PC is going to be a nice fast SSD whatever factor is best bang for buck at the time.
  5. Smokezz The Bane Crew


    I'll have to disagree there. They're dirt cheap now, even up to 2TB. If you need more data on your PC than that, likely it's data that should be on a NAS anyway.
  6. Smokezz The Bane Crew


    Sounds like something for /r/Conspiracy
    Skuz and Stymie like this.
  7. I_Love_My_Bandwidth Mercslayer

    Foolish how?



    Evidence?
    Skuz and Stymie like this.
  8. Windance Augur


    With HD's they generally show signs they are about to give up the ghost. SSD's are more likely to just silently fail.

    Either way, if you care about your data ... back it up somewhere.
    Shanarias likes this.
  9. Windance Augur

    Several years ago I did some speed tests between HD's , SATA SSD's and even using a RAM drive.

    I don't have the benchmarks anymore but the gist of the experiment was EQ spends a lot of time just waiting around for the server to tell it what to do. While there was some difference in the load times it was under 10%-20% going from HD to SSD or RAM drive. Moving from Zone to Zone was slightly better but again, you spend time waiting on the server.

    I was really expecting that running everything off a RAM drive was going to

    On the other hand SSD's do make a difference for how response the OS feels. Boot times went from 45-60s down to 20s. Loading up a web browser feels faster.
  10. I_Love_My_Bandwidth Mercslayer


    I question the premise of your assertion.

    I handle all repairs for my company's endpoint devices (~8000 devices). These devices get used 8-10 hours a day, 5-6 days a week, every week, for 3-4 years. Want to know how many SSDs have failed in the last three cycles (~24000 devices)? Four. Not 4%...Four. Personally, I have had zero SSDs fail in the last 15 computer builds I have done for myself. I've had ~10 HDDs fail in approximately the same number of builds.

    So, while I agree SSDs would probably fail silently as they have no moving parts, the likelihood an SSD would actually fail at the hardware level is so small it can be dismissed. HDD are nearly extinct, thank goodness.

    Absolutely you should back up data that's important to you. If you aren't backing up your important data, THAT is foolish.
    Metanis likes this.
  11. Iven Augur

    They get called security vulnerabilities but this is just an euphemism for detected backdoors. Intel and AMD processors are affected by Spectre, Meltdown and possibly other backdoors since many years.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectre_(security_vulnerability)

    Yeah, SSD do fail immediately without a warning which is rare for harddiscs but that is not the main problem. SSDs do often fail when they do not get used and are not connected to a power source that does grant them electrical voltage. They do need electrical voltage to keep the cell state just like harddiscs do need magnetic fields. But while it can take many years until harddiscs do loose most of their magnetism and the stored data it had been reported that SSDs can loose their electircal voltage just after about a half year which does mean the total loss of stored data. The magnetism can be refreshed by just writing data on a harddisc, and just for this data but there are refresh software tools around, while SSDs, USB sticks and memory cards only have to be connected to a power source (SATA, USB) every now and then. This is why magnetic harddiscs are currently better for long time data storage but a mix is an even better solution as both storage technologies do have different physical advantages and disadvantages.
  12. Iven Augur

    That is interesting. I did red about much higher failure rates in general up to 4% inbetween the specified TBW but there are pretty huge quality differences between the manufacturers. Which SSDs do you use for the company; Enterprise with single cells, which manufacturer ?
  13. Bigstomp Augur

    It's generally cheaper to buy 'enough' of a machine 3x over than to buy a 'top end' machine that will be obsoleted next year.
    Buying a system to last 8 years for EQ is crazy. (Could still be useful after 8 years, for checking email and stuff)
  14. Iven Augur

    Then I am very crazy because I did built a new system that should last 15-20 years. :D A top end machine will never be obsolete in one year, those times are currently gone. I had used a low price CPU for 14 years and it still does work for a lot stuff. About one mainboard, two power supplies, a half dozen CPU fans, a graphic card, a few harddrives, a few DVD burner, and a few Corsair DRAM bars were blasted during that time period. There is definetly a sweet spot for the best price value and currently that should be the lower-medium CPU models like Ryzen 5 and i5. One thing that about all customers do not really care about is the power supply which is the most important piece of a system. A good one does reduce electrical caused hardware failures like they are common for many parts and the power supply itself. Good energy efficience like gold and upwards does also reduce the produced heat which is another hardware killer.
  15. Celephane Augur

    I hardly know how to reply to this. You are crazy, yes. A computer that should last 15-20 years? WTF. No way...surely you've seen computers in that span of time and NONE of them are good for that long. I mean people can boot up a really really old system and some still work, but they aren't useful,.
    I_Love_My_Bandwidth and Metanis like this.
  16. Smokezz The Bane Crew


    Clearly you have no clue how security works.
  17. I_Love_My_Bandwidth Mercslayer

    Mostly Toshiba, Kingston, and Micron. Dell and HP use whatever is cheapest/available and meets their minimum specs in their enterprise laptops. My point here is that SSDs are literally orders of magnitude more reliable than HDDs.
  18. I_Love_My_Bandwidth Mercslayer

    Iven, while I agree with your sentiment - that software requirements vs relative hardware power has decreased, you seem to only choose to view that ratio through your own use cases.

    I, too, have old computers that still function and can still run software from their day. But if I try to view a 4k video or play a modern game title they absolutely cannot handle it. The question of whether a given set of hardware has value relies completely on the use-case. Best price and value only have meaning if we know that the hardware meets the needs of the use case. A Ryzen 5 5600 or i5-12600 might be an excellent value for gaming. But try running Maya, Adobe Premier, or Matlab on that puny processor. You'll be waiting hours on the CPU to finish tasks. So changing the CPU to a Intel Xeon Platinum 8362 or AMD Threadripper Pro 5990WX is a far better value for this use case.

    I know we're talking about EQ, so I digress. EQ doesn't need the latest hardware to run it. But before recommending any hardware a wholistic use case must be known.

    You are correct that a top-end machine is not obsolete in one year, but technology is advancing FAR faster today than it was 15-20 years ago.

    Your sidebar discussion about PSUs is noteworthy. You seem to lack understanding of what ratings and certifications mean. I'd recommend you watch Gamer's Nexus' coverage and testing of power supplies.
    KermittheFroglok and Stymie like this.
  19. Cannikin Elder

    Don't listen to manufacturer ads. NVME SSDs are not "X times faster" than SATA for almost all applications. Those headline figures are only for sequential read/write (and for the latter only until the write cache fills up). The only time those figures come into play are if you are regularly moving and accessing enormous (tens of GB) files like raw 4K video.

    The main benefit of SSDs over HDDs is access latency, as hard drives need to physically move the read/write head, while SSDs can access data almost instantaneously. This latency has absolutely nothing to do with the bus bandwidth. Reading lots of small files is what OS and game loading need, and for that you will not notice any difference between SATA and NVME, maybe less than a second between them (very slight improvement with the latest NAND controllers). Believe me, I have moved my Steam folder from SATA to NVME, and not noticed any difference in game loading.

    Save your money and just get a good SATA SSD from Samsung or Crucial (Micron) like the MX500, unless you know you have an application that benefits from huge sequential throughput (which the OP definitely doesn't). They can be significantly cheaper, especially at higher capacities. Plus, only more recent motherboards are likely to have NVME M.2 slots, while SATA can easily plug into your 8 year old computer. Just stay away from QLC SSDs (basically a 'Q' anywhere in the name is a red flag); they're slower and have much lower write endurance.

    If you don't believe me, you can watch this video. It shows in the blind test, the SATA SSD actually felt more responsive than the NVME drives, both PCIE 3.0 and 4.0.
    Nennius likes this.
  20. Nennius Curmudgeon

    Am I the only person here who is learning a lot from this thread?

    No sarcasm intended or implied, and thank you.
    Celephane likes this.