Okay folks. Has anyone listed ways to get a FAST hard drive?

[stilly]

Clearly a Sata 2 SSD ONLY hit 7.0 on the MS windows aero experience.

But that BUGS me.

So then, How is it possible to make a FAST hard drive? Do I need to go back to SCSI or SCA or would it be FAST to have a Sata 3 RAID 0 setup with two SSDs ?

But would that NOT need another controller card to run so that I can put a storage drive and two optical drives on the other sata channels on the mobo?

I know this is CALGUNS and not a tech site but surely there are some simple gun owning folks here who clearly have done things that I have not had the chance to do and would not mind sharing with everyone.

I have a multimedia system that I am about to redo and I have a barracuda 7200 drive to put in it, a sata 2 or sata 3 ssd as well as a PATA WD velociraptor 10k or 15k rpm drive.

I have HEARD that Windows 7 sucks for linear video editing but I do not know what that means so I may or may not put windows 7 on it, or I might just stick with XP pro like I have had for the past 10 years...

I THOUGHT that I would take this time to maybe jumble up a few things and since I am gonna wipe out the HD, maybe It is good to put some new hardware in it too. It is a socket 939 4000+ Athlon X2 with about 4GB of RAM and a Quadro FX card (AGP maybe, but I have to look).

Anyways, I was just thinking out loud with this one...

[Coded-Dude]

The scores currently range from 1.0 to 7.9 IIRC......not sure you'll get a perfect score. 7 is great.

[bigbearbear]

Your current SSD might be a little slow or the motherboard doesn't have a good controller. On my Lenovo T430 laptop with a Kingston HyperX 240GB SSD I get a score of 7.9.

You should use Windows 7, 64-bit OS if you're doing video editing. You'll want lots of RAM and 64-bit OS is the way to do it, otherwise you'll be limited to 4GB memory.

If you have the funds, consider switching out the motherboard an CPU for Intel based ones and pour on the RAM (eg. 16GB). Their new CPUs rocks, go for the i7 series if you're editing with good software like Adobe Premier and Photoshop, which can take advantages of the new CPU.

[Jel]

First tell us what the main use for your PC will be. As with any HD, you need to consider read times as well as write times. For most people, they will just notice that things are faster, especially with boot times.

Right now 2 fast SATA III SDD's in RAID 0 would probably be your best bet. But you should have the CPU, RAM, dedicated RAID controller card, and motherboard with the proper SATA III ports to support those drives. Do you absolutely need the RAID card, probably not as a lot of MB have RAID 0 and 1 built on to the board.

You mentioned possibly having an AGP slot on your MB. If this is the case, then I would say that your PC is slightly (being nice here) outdated and you should upgrade your whole system as I'm certain you will not have SATA III ports on your existing MB.

Again, this is all based on what you will use the PC for? If you are just browsing the web and checking emails, then you might be just fine with what you have now.

If you intend to run Windows 7 64bit, like mentioned earlier by bigbearbear, get a lot RAM a decent 64 bit compatible (most current CPU's are) CPU and a decent video card, like a Geforce 500 GT/X series or better.

There are tons of other variables but the HD whether it is a conventional, hybrid, or SSD is just part of the system as a whole.

Good luck.

[Merc1138]

Umm, get good SSDs. Not all SATA 3 SSDs will perform the same. You should be able to get close to 7.9 with a single drive. Additionally(depending on the controller that the SSD is using), total capacity can also make a performance difference. On top of all of that, SSD performance tends to go down the toilet when it's filled to capacity(you need to leave a little free for the internal garbage collection).

To make matters worse, current RAID controllers don't pass TRIM commands, so using them in RAID outside of software RAID(like windows dynamic disks) will kill performance quicker because you end up relying on the internal garbage collection.

On top of that, the SATA III controller you're using also makes a difference. If we're talking about onboard controllers Intel > ASMedia > used diaper > Marvell.

Now since you're using a SATA II SSD, you're going to be limited to 3gbps, realistically around 240MB/s. SATA III being 6gbps, typically you can end up seeing read and write speeds between 450-550MB/s on the >256GB(sometimes the 128GB drives will also be quick in benchmarks, but you have to consider that some memory controllers in SSDs *cough SANDFORCE cough* compress 0's and "cheat" the benchmarks to a larger extent than others) or larger SSDs(assuming you paid attention to everything else I mentioned above).

in short: Your computer is old and you're lucky to be getting a 7 for the HDD score. It's not hard to get a 7.9. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...8&postcount=26 That's with one SATA 3 SSD(crucial m4) running on the intel onboard controller from the z77 chipset.

edit: You also wouldn't want to waste your time with XP and an SSD anyway unless you've got a driver that includes TRIM support(I haven't heard of one for XP), or you'll see the performance of the SSD go to crap over time.

[Hanse Davion]

Keep in mind that Hard Drives only really deal with loading times when it comes to performance. Im willing to settle for a less than perfect hard drive index score providing actual real time performance (loading a level versus actually playing the level in a game for example) is perfect. Also though the above posters hit the nail on the head with the fact that the motherboard also has a role in this particular score.

[Darklyte27]

Samsung 830 SSD and my i5 laptop running windows 7 is crazy fast, boots up in about 10 seconds or is that too slow for you?

[64physhy]

Get a Mac.

[stilly]

Well there are certainly some good things to know here.

My situation is this, I just released a system to someone without planning EVERY little possible situation out although I did get them a 990FX chipset Biostar board to match their Phenom 2 x6 1100 cpu setup so I felt that was a good move (Since I am an AMD fanboy yes it is). but I told them I wanted to experiment with an SSD on their system to see what kind of speed it could offer and they ended up getting a 60GB Sata2 ssd. I of course was thinking that it would be blazing fast compared to the constellation es I also put in there for storage and apps/programs. I also figured that if they filled up that 60GB drive then I would offer them a 100GB upgrade later on if it came to that (but given this individual, I knew that it would not since he is aware of some things with his computer). I had a target budget to hit so I gave it a good shot. In retrospect I could have gotten them a Sata 3 hd from mushkin or maybe another brand but time was of the essence and I had to make the purchase and get the best prices in one day. I had not built a system for over a year so I had to catch up with what was decent out there. Anyways, it performed great and had a 25 second boot time to the desktop and I told him that with the budget it was going to be a high-mid grade game/multimedia system with the emphasis being on the game system so anyways... He was very happy and since the last system I built for him for about $600 for a game system hit a 5.8 on the ms scale with windows 7, this one hitting 7.0 lowest but graphics hitting 7.9 made me feel like I hit pretty close to target. I could ALWAYS second guess the little things and in retrospect hindsight is 20/20 yadda yadda yadda...

Now though In order for me to edit the movies I have been filming I need to revive my old multimedia system and I was playing with the idea of maybe putting in an SSD but when this system was made originally there was no SSD around so it will be interesting and I have no money to spend on it so it is with whatever parts I have or maybe about $50 upgrade so if anything MAYBE the RAM will get upgraded. I think it had 2GB or maybe 4 GB of ram but it only had XP pro 32 bit previously. I know it has a quadro fx card and it is running a 939 AMD X2 4000+ or 4200+. I am not certain, I know it is faster then my master but slower then my game system in speed and my master is a 3800+. At the time it was put together I had read something about linear movie editing not being supported with windows Vista (cause 7 was not out) so as a result XP pro was a better choice. Personally I do not care if it takes several hours to process a full length movie, and my editing will be consisting of mainly tmpeg and small utilities to chop up and clean up pieces and then string them together with Vegas or something else. I have no intention of using Adobe Premiere because I had a hell of a time fighting with it in the past and no matter what, when the final product was rendered the audio was off by about a second and it made no sense and I know it nearly cost me a job that I was doing (AFL/CIO awards banquet) anyways, at the last minute I found that Proshow was able to string the things together and it output nicely to a DvD and all was well.

SO, I have a chance to kind of start over software wise now but I am still putting software together and deciding what I want to use. I will prolly use most of my older software but I also have some new hardware for capping that I want to try out too. Also, I have a job to take a vhs and move it to dvd for my brother in law so that will be my first thing to do.

How important is RAM for video editing? I am quite aware that most systems out there people load up their ram and they do not use it. I can not afford to do that nor will I do that unless ram quantity IS crucial. In that case I might be able to fit 8GB onto this mobo, but I think it will have to be pc 6400 max. I have not looked inside to see what all it is using but I know it has 2 or 4 GB of ram so far. It might also be an AGP mobo so graphics card might be a tad slow. I think it is actually because I recall something abnormal about that quadro fx card I got. If hard drives mean only a few seconds I can deal with that.

I also have YET to see any desktop system boot in less then about 20 seconds so the 10 second boot time is nice, but does not apply here. Different system period. HOWEVER I will have a look at that drive if I need to obtain another. Right now I have a mushkin Sata3 and an OCZ Vertex Sata2 that I got to play with after that last build. (used the profits to check them out).

And of course we have a MAC comment... :\ Well, I do have a MAC thank you, it is sitting outside on top of a 63" lateral file cabinet (for sale) and tomorrow I might bring it inside and yank out the HD and see what it has on it. I have the drivers for a mac drive already so that is no issue. When I am done, I might do the one thing that I can to upgrade it (throw it away). I found it in a storage unit and my job was to clear the HD of anything sensitive and maybe save any personal info I might find on it. After that maybe I will take it to the range and make another Deagle VS movie...

As for going Intel, I hate Intel and all they stand for however I have been liking what I see with the I7 and stuff and I HAD thought that it might be wise to go to the I side to "test" a system, but they do seem a lot more expensive and I have traditionally been a most bang for your buck and keep it cheap guy.

Old habits die hard so it might take a little more reading before I start looking into intel stuff.
Merc those are nice numbers. Based on what I shelled out though I imagine that those came at a few hundred dollars more, maybe even closer to about a thousand more then what was spent on my last project/job. Yeah I take that back, I think about $1500+ more since a quick look shows the graphics card costing about $500 more than the 570 and that was one of the things I had discussed with the client. When the time comes that he needs a faster card, he will have me upgrade it. Until then, that looks like an expensive machine you have. Puts my game system to shame even. Of course I never boast to have the best/fastest hardware and I am certainly no expert but I know a little bit and I know what works. Anyways, more info is always good to know. I hope I have enough paragraphs for people. Thanks so far. I dunno if I need to get a RAID setup just yet. Hasn't video capping come down a bit with usb and all now? I will post back what I have in this system when I blow it all out and see what is under the hood. Thanks guys.

[Merc1138]

Boot times are also dependent on the motherboard BIOS. Current UEFI BIOS can end up with 7 second boot times from hitting the power button if you have option ROMs turned off(things like the PXE boot room for the NIC, onboard RAID controllers and such). It's possible to get quicker, but I have the delay set at 2 seconds so I can actually get to the BIOS if I need to without missing it because I blinked(or having to hit the key 20 times hoping it picked up the keyboard input).

[2shotjoe]

SAS ssd or pci x16 ssd card.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Thefigus]

My RAID 0 2x120GB SSDs score 7.9 on my SATA II controller. Windows 7 boots in approx. 35 seconds

[Darklyte27]

My RAID 0 2x120GB SSDs score 7.9 on my SATA II controller. Windows 7 boots in approx. 35 seconds

35 seconds!!

SSD man, 10 seconds.

[kaboom]

All you need to know is SSD. I have a relatively slow processor (core I5) and I can load Photoshop in about a second. Windows 7 pro boots before the colored thingies come together on the splash screen. I'd guess in the 10 second range.

Spinning drives are great for data storage, but OS and program files should be on solid-state.

[kaboom]

All you need to know is SSD. I have a relatively slow processor (core I5) and I can load Photoshop in about a second. Windows 7 pro boots before the colored thingies come together on the splash screen. I'd guess in the 10 second range.

Spinning drives are great for data storage, but OS and program files should be on solid-state.