Even in a best case scenario, RAID 1 (mirroring) will be slower than a single drive (not by much). In a worst case scenario (low end RAID controller, Motherboard Pseudo-RAID - lots of options for things to go awry), RAID 1 is significantly slower. Further, HDDs can also fail from one moment to the next, especially if the user does not care about the SMART data reported by the drive. Not sure why a game needs to run of a RAID, though. The game install for ED is kind of easy to replace....
Pc spec's and magic?
- Thread starter bladebss
- Start date
Even in a best case scenario, RAID 1 (mirroring) will be slower than a single drive (not by much). In a worst case scenario (low end RAID controller, Motherboard Pseudo-RAID - lots of options for things to go awry), RAID 1 is significantly slower. Further, HDDs can also fail from one moment to the next, especially if the user does not care about the SMART data reported by the drive. Not sure why a game needs to run of a RAID, though. The game install for ED is kind of easy to replace....
Trigger's Broom
About that motherboard...
I got my CV1 coming a long way aways in August so I don't have to think about it too much just now, but will I need USB3 sockets to run it or is it just recommended? If it is a requirement, then I guess it's time to swap out the motherboard and case.
About that motherboard...
I got my CV1 coming a long way aways in August so I don't have to think about it too much just now, but will I need USB3 sockets to run it or is it just recommended? If it is a requirement, then I guess it's time to swap out the motherboard and case.
The cheapest option would be a PCI Express USB 3 card.
In short:
- GTX 970 should be good for VR
- PCIE 2.0 shouldn't be an issue. GPUs don't communicate that much over the bus that it would have an impact.
- Only RAID0 performs well with SSDs in my experience.
- Also, onboard RAID controllers are crap. Same for Windows "RAID" Implementations (mirror, stripe, storage spaces). Linux LVM/mdraid does ok for the hw it gets.
- RAID 1 can be faster while reading, because the array can read different blocks off the different block devices concurrently. Depends on implementation
- in theory, worn out SSDs just are not able to store new data, they remain readable. However, electrical faults can make an SSD instantly unavailable.
- HDDs should have all power management options turned off, then they last pretty long in a desktop (>30k hours active is not seldom)
- also check SMART
- and do backup/disaster recovery
- Cobra engine does not have many requirements outside of Horizons. However, it also scales pretty bad and is unable to make good use of potent hardware
- E
does not make good use of RAM. It runs on a few synchronized threads. THis also means that it constantly loads data of the disk (instead of putting it in RAM) and will stutter when there is latency in Disk I/O.
- GTX 970 should be good for VR
- PCIE 2.0 shouldn't be an issue. GPUs don't communicate that much over the bus that it would have an impact.
- Only RAID0 performs well with SSDs in my experience.
- Also, onboard RAID controllers are crap. Same for Windows "RAID" Implementations (mirror, stripe, storage spaces). Linux LVM/mdraid does ok for the hw it gets.
- RAID 1 can be faster while reading, because the array can read different blocks off the different block devices concurrently. Depends on implementation
- in theory, worn out SSDs just are not able to store new data, they remain readable. However, electrical faults can make an SSD instantly unavailable.
- HDDs should have all power management options turned off, then they last pretty long in a desktop (>30k hours active is not seldom)
- also check SMART
- and do backup/disaster recovery
- Cobra engine does not have many requirements outside of Horizons. However, it also scales pretty bad and is unable to make good use of potent hardware
- E
does not make good use of RAM. It runs on a few synchronized threads. THis also means that it constantly loads data of the disk (instead of putting it in RAM) and will stutter when there is latency in Disk I/O.RAID optimization is a bit a science on it's own (I think anandtech had an indepth article some time ago with the impact different controllers, RAID levels, block sizes, disk geometry and so on have on the different performance parameters - that was with NAS/Data Server setup in mind, though and getting optimal game performance might be a completely different thing).
Without the will to dig deeper into the topic, I'd say it's safer to stay away from it (especially with an onboard or software controller) and just get a recent SSD on a motherboard with a decent SATA3 HDD controller and be done with it.
Last edited:
![[DOOK] Droogie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/124/124078.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
The 960 is poor performance per dollar, and 4gb on it is a gimmick. The 128-bit bandwidth limits it too much. AMD offers much better performance for the price now. Especially the 390 over the 970.
There's several tests regarding the 4gb that state otherwise. The AMD 380 apparently profits even more from the 4gig than the Nvidia 960, but both do profit in "smoothness" (might depend on the game, though and how it utilizes internal memory .. they usually use the usual high hitters -Assasin's Creed, FarCry, GTA etc.- who can bring any hardware to it's knees).
Both cards are actually scaling "normally" in the performance per dollar department, which is a setback from previous generations, where the entry level gaming cards offered excellent performance for the buck.
The R380 does seem to be the better bang for the buck, though - I found both cards at exactly the same price points as of today - with about 20% higher overall performance (but that's game dependent .. again).
128-bit bandwidth isn't enough to take advantage of 4gb. It's a bottleneck. It'll run out of bandwidth before it utilizes that muc memory. The 960 is OK at 1080p with 2gb. You won't see any significant improvement going to 4gb due to bandwidth restrictions, though. Even the 256-bit bus of the 970 and 980 can limit them. That's because they're really mid range graphics cards badges as high end, much like the 670 and 680 were.
Honestly, I'd go 670 or 680/770 over 960 for 1080p if I didn't go with the AMD cards.
I generally stick to Nvidia. I run a 980ti. However, AMD has the price/performance right now.
Honestly, I'd go 670 or 680/770 over 960 for 1080p if I didn't go with the AMD cards.
I generally stick to Nvidia. I run a 980ti. However, AMD has the price/performance right now.
Last edited:
128 bit is an easy to read number that's half of 256.
It puts the card's performance at where Nvidia wants it to be (and I would guesstimate limiting the memory bandwidth is the one reliable method they have of capping the performance, when all the GPUs are basically the same and the hacks to reactivate shader units and OC the cards to "full scale" are out days after it hits the market) and I find Nvidias current product strategy abyssal. They're quite obviously trying to move consumers to spend more money on the graphics cards, where actually the entire PC needs to be a balanced system to use that higher performance.
Last edited:
Yes, I completely agree with you. Get a big, good SSD for your apps and E
should run smooth.I can recommend the Intel 750 PCIE series.
128 bit is an easy to read number that's half of 256.
It puts the card's performance at where Nvidia wants it to be (and I would guesstimate limiting the memory bandwidth is the one reliable method they have of capping the performance, when all the GPUs are basically the same and the hacks to reactivate shader units and OC the cards to "full scale" are out days after it hits the market) and I find Nvidias current product strategy abyssal. They're quite obviously trying to move consumers to spend more money on the graphics cards, where actually the entire PC needs to be a balanced system to use that higher performance.
You only have to take a look at the Maxwell cards release strategy to figure NVidia is gouging people. We all know they had the Titan X and 980ti planned for release a few months after the 970/980, but didn't advertise them while the 980 was out so they could price it as high as the 980ti was at release. They knew the enthusiast market would jump on the 980 while they marketed it as their top of the line card, then sell it on Ebay 6 months later when the Titan X/980ti were pushed out. NVidia makes 100% profit off both sales from the same customer and at hugely inflated prices.
Exactly right, but if you lose a drive, you slap in a new one, the mirror rebuilds and away you go. With an SSD thats minutes of downtime instead of hours, if not days of format and reinstalling everything.
Most people consider an intensive backup regime 5-6 minutes after they realize they've lost their drive completely. So RAID is a good lazy way of ensuring the long term viability of your system.
Note: Tried repping you and can't. Have to spread more rep around to others first.
Most of the card progress is made when failure rates drop and the design is refined actually, they obviously do always have the next card planned but you can't start straight away with the Ti versions because its like a MK2 of the same card right? But when they first put the card into production a goodly number of them will fail tests as a 980 and become a 970 or below whichever they are using as the dropoff card.
They certainly gouge but equally the biggest enthusiasts set themselves up for it by always buying the latest and greatest when it constantly changes, that really doesn't change in any kind of hardware, phones, cameras etc all have future "better" products planned its just how progress is made while maximizing profit.
I'm not too worried about the enthusiast range. Those were always crazy price/performance wise.
It's more the mid range and the "sweet spot" around 200$, that did offer exceptional performance for the price (And fit nicely into a <1000$ gaming rig budget - or about 500$ for the "core upgrade components" -cpu+cooler, mainboard, graphics card, ram-, without hampering the other components) in current games with current screensize/resolution that they seem to move upwards.
The 960 does not offer exceptional performance, compared to it's larger brothers and as it was mentioned here before, that performance spot was set quite deliberately with design decisions that does hard-cap the performance.
It's more the mid range and the "sweet spot" around 200$, that did offer exceptional performance for the price (And fit nicely into a <1000$ gaming rig budget - or about 500$ for the "core upgrade components" -cpu+cooler, mainboard, graphics card, ram-, without hampering the other components) in current games with current screensize/resolution that they seem to move upwards.
The 960 does not offer exceptional performance, compared to it's larger brothers and as it was mentioned here before, that performance spot was set quite deliberately with design decisions that does hard-cap the performance.
Last edited:
RAID is no backup. If you loose data through malware, user error or other software errors, it's gone.
A good backup solution should include a plan how to rebuild from scratch (e.g. I would reinstall Win8.1 from disc, install the backup client and restore the system state, data and applications from my backup server). It's also important to figure out how long you can wait until everything is up and running again - that's why those internet cloud backup providers are not an option for me. I have only 30Mbit/s bandwidth, downloading several TBs of data takes forever.
You're absolutely right. However, the 960 will benefit sales-wise by NVidia having the 'top GPU(s) on the market today!' (or at least marketing that says so, though it's technically correct today). Basically, marketing brand-power can sell a hell of a lot of mediocre cards for the money, and their larger market-share helps keep it that way (brand loyalty). AMD really has an uphill battle if they want to keep it a two player race.
The 980ti is actually a Titan X with half the Vram, not an upscaled 980, and performs almost identically to the much more expensive Titan X. You are basically paying for the "bragging" rights to say you spent an extra $300-$500 more for the same card just for the logo on the case. By comparison AMD's Fury is pretty much exactly what you describe; a lower-binned chip that is theoretically capable of being unlocked to the exact same power as the Fury X. Most Fury cards have dead sectors that prevent this (the reason they were binned lower in the first place) but some 'golden' cards can be fully unlocked though this is phenomenally rare. Yea, I'm in a pedantic mood this morning
Yep! They are only a tenner and so it wouldn't be too much of a feeling of throwing good money after bad, especially if I find my machine can cope with the demands of a 90fps CV1
Exactly right, but if you lose a drive, you slap in a new one, the mirror rebuilds and away you go. With an SSD thats minutes of downtime instead of hours, if not days of format and reinstalling everything.
Most people consider an intensive backup regime 5-6 minutes after they realize they've lost their drive completely. So RAID is a good lazy way of ensuring the long term viability of your system.
Note: Tried repping you and can't. Have to spread more rep around to others first.
OK, I can see your point. But I would argue that this is what image backups are for. Clonezilla restores at about 10 Gigabyte per minute or more to a SSD. And thanks for the good intentions about rep!