Liquid cooling is for (lack of) noise, and less strain on the motherboard - overclocking’s aside benefit.
I’ll have to see if it’s worth it to me, I’ve never been bothered by noise too much.
Ok, so get a Cooler Master Hyper 212+ or evo and you’ll be set. Cooler temperatures and not too loud (because the fans on it are pretty large). Note that you still might want to increase your CPU multiplier to make the cpu reach around 4.0ghz - while that will still be “overclocking” pretty much every ivy bridge chip will get way higher than that and thus 4ghz will still be plenty cool enough and be rock solid stable.
FWIW, I will echo this. Why would you put the files that benefit the most from quick access on the slowest drive in your system?
Because you’ll reduce the life of your SSD. If you have to have a SSD, put the static files on the SSD and the caches etc on a HDD. SSDs have a limited write capacity.
But, as Gorsnak points out, the expected write lifetime of current SSDs is far greater than their utility lifespan. With normal use, you are far more likely to throw them away because they are too small or obsolete than to reach their write limit.
It reminds me of later generation Plasma TV owners who would refuse to watch letterboxed movies because they were afraid of burn-in from the black bars. Everything they watched was in stretch-o-vison. So they have a great HDTV that could have a superior picture, but because they heard somewhere that this “burn-in” thing existed, they lived in fear of “wearing it out” and always had a substandard, albeit large, picture.
8 core
32 GIG RAM
Dual SSD
Dual 10 K RPM Raptors
Dual screen
Works for me.
How much was that?
About $1800
I’m still using HDDs that are over 10 years old
Why are you still using 40GB IDE HDDs?!? And what’s the MTBF on those things? I guess the bonus is that you can ward against data loss by backing up onto a $10 usb thumb drive…
80+ GB actually - it’s 40 GB per platter. And the one in this PC is working just fine. I’ve had a period of extended poverty, so I’ve had to make do. But I’ve just indulged in a 2 TB HDD…
This is simply awful advice. The whole point of upgrading to an SSD is to improve performance by knocking down the access times of frequently accessed files. Hard drives aren’t precious artifacts – they don’t have to be carefully maintained so that later generations can enjoy them. Just use them as they were intended. Odds are incredibly high that you’ll upgrade / replace the computer well before any of the key components wear out, including the SSD.
Fair enough, but the OP is looking at a $1500 budget and hence not likely choosing between an SSD and enough ramen noodles to avoid starvation. Your old HDD is completely obsolete even if still usable - it uses a 2 generations obsolete communication bus and is barely larger than common thumbdrive and memory card sizes. People who spend over $1000 on a gaming rig are not likely to be on decade-long upgrade cycles, and giving them advice on performance PC parts doesn’t need to assume requiring that sort of longevity.
The fact remains that for general computing the single most noticeable performance upgrade is an SSD large enough for the operating system and applications, including (especially) frequently accessed stuff like caches and page files . For gaming specifically it ranks only behind a top flight video card, for which the budget was already $400+ and hence well taken care of. The NAND mortality issue will only arise in the expected lifespan of the drive in the most contrived of scenarios.
For reference, I built my current rig just over 2 years ago, and am running my OS and all applications on an Intel 160GB SSD. I just downloaded Intel’s SSD utility which reports various diagnostic values included a SMART E9 Media Wearout Indicator which tells you % of write cycles remaining. E9 on my drive is 97. At the rate I’m going, I’ll exhaust the NAND write lifetime in a mere 64 more years.