EPTOn October 15 2011 17:03 Medrea wrote:
What kind of failure.
DOA, longevity, or permanent crash.
What kind of failure.
DOA, longevity, or permanent crash.
longevity i guess, although id be interested in anything
Computer Build Resource Thread - Page 660
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
When using this resource, please read FragKrag's opening post. The Tech Support forum regulars have helped create countless of desktop systems without any compensation. The least you can do is provide all of the information required for them to help you properly. | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
longevity i guess, although id be interested in anything | ||
|
bRuTaL!!
Finland588 Posts
| ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
There are three standards. 1.0/2.0/2.1 1.0 slots will accept 2.0 cards and SOME 2.1 cards I have an MSI 5770. It will work in my 7 year old motherboard no problems, and no loss of performance. This device is a 2.0 device. But not ALL 5770's are 2.0, many are 2.1 I have a Sapphire 5830. It is a 2.1 device and would not work in that slot. The fans would spin, but no visual could be gained. To make sure you need to determine if the 560 is a 2.1 or 2.0 device. I believe it is new enough that it is under the new 2.1 standard, but manufacturers are not consistent. Someone with nVidia devices will probably step in. Some motherboards that have 1.0 slots can be flashed to accept 2.1 devices. The last BIOS for my motherboard was written in 2006, so I had no option available to me. | ||
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On October 15 2011 16:51 Legatus Lanius wrote: can anyone link me to some statistics regarding ssd failure rates? Not entirely scientific or recent but here is a source talking about failure rates of storage mediums in general. + Show Spoiler [Rough translation from French] + To be recorded the VAS had to be made directly through the merchant, which is not always the case since it is possible to return directly from the manufacturer: however, this represents a minority in the first year. - Maxtor 1.04% (against 1.73%) - Western Digital 1.45% (against 0.99%) - Seagate 2.13% (against 2.58%) - Samsung 2.47% (against 1.93%) - Hitachi 3.39% (against 0.92%) Hitachi is plummeting, which was first in the previous ranking! Western Digital retained its second place despite a failure rate increasing, while Maxtor is occupying the first place. More specifically the failure rate for 1TB drives: - 5.76% Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000.B - 5.20% Hitachi Deskstar 7K1000.C - 3.68% Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 - 3.37%: Samsung SpinPoint F1 - 2.51% Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 - 2.37%: WD Caviar Green WD10EARS - 2.10% Seagate Barracuda LP - 1.57%: Samsung SpinPoint F3 - 1.55%: WD Caviar Green WD10EADS - 1.35%: WD Caviar Black WD1001FALS - 1.24%: Maxtor DiamondMax 23 Hitachi is logically the less well placed, what with two separate lines! What about the 2 TB version? - 9.71%: WD Caviar Black WD2001FASS - 6.87% Hitachi Deskstar 7K2000 - 4.83%: WD Caviar Green WD20EARS - 4.35% Seagate Barracuda LP - 4.17%: Samsung EcoGreen F3 - 2.90%: WD Caviar Green WD20EADS Overall, failure rates recorded are bad. That does not really want to entrust to 2TB of data to these discs alone: a mirroring will not be too much for securing data. Logically 7200 rpm disks are less reliable than the 5400/5900 rpm, with almost 10% for the Western model! For the first time, we also integrate SSDs in this article type. The rates of failure recorded by manufacturer: - Intel 0.59% - Corsair 2.17% - Crucial 2.25% - Kingston 2.39% - OCZ 2.93% Intel stands here with a failure rate of the most flattering. Among the few models sold over 100 copies, displays a rate of no more than 5% VAS. | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
| ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
Aside from the SSD manufacturers, probably the only people who have done any kind of reliability testing with several models, are those selling business-class laptops and workstations with SSDs standard or as upgrade options. I'd look at what Apple, Lenovo, Dell, etc. are using. Too bad they obviously don't make that kind of data public. Usually it's Intel, Samsung, Toshiba, though maybe you need to be careful about which models? And it's not like they have a complete picture either. | ||
|
needsoma
6 Posts
| ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On October 16 2011 02:19 needsoma wrote: can someone tell me the difference between a pci wireless card vs a usb wireless adapter? is one better than the other? One connects through a PCI slot and another connects through USB (2.0). PCI is a faster interface, but USB 2.0 is sufficiently fast enough, so that's irrelevant. Primary concerns should be that a PCI one takes up a slot internally, and PCI is slowly being phased out. Regardless what the interface is, just get one that supports what you need. A wireless adapter with an antenna that can be moved around (i.e. not fixed to the back of the case) is preferred, since reception in a room can vary widely, reception is usually worse close to the floor, and you don't want your computer case blocking the signal. Few PCI/PCIe wireless adapters have such a configuration. Generally you can just use a USB extension cable for most USB wireless adapters, but some come with some kind of stand that's meant to stand up on its own, which is better. | ||
|
needsoma
6 Posts
On October 16 2011 02:29 Myrmidon wrote: One connects through a PCI slot and another connects through USB (2.0). PCI is a faster interface, but USB 2.0 is sufficiently fast enough, so that's irrelevant. Primary concerns should be that a PCI one takes up a slot internally, and PCI is slowly being phased out. Regardless what the interface is, just get one that supports what you need. A wireless adapter with an antenna that can be moved around (i.e. not fixed to the back of the case) is preferred, since reception in a room can vary widely, reception is usually worse close to the floor, and you don't want your computer case blocking the signal. Few PCI/PCIe wireless adapters have such a configuration. Generally you can just use a USB extension cable for most USB wireless adapters, but some come with some kind of stand that's meant to stand up on its own, which is better. wow thanks for the quick response! much appreciated  | ||
|
kunstderfugue
Mexico375 Posts
| ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
On October 16 2011 03:29 kunstderfugue wrote: Do you recommend the GTX 550Ti over the HD 5770? 550 Ti is costier than 6770 and performs worse................... no 550 Ti by the way is a prime example of an obsolete card By the way, after much debate and discussion with my dad we built him a computer: i3 2100 some cheap H61 6770 8gb ram asgard some cheap DVDRW corsair CX430W Samsung 320GB 7200rpm Totals at 376€ including shipping. I'd say that's ok. I kept saying he doesn't need the graphics card or probably the 2100 either but I guess he doesn't mind spending a bit extra. I also said it's better to buy 4gb ram now and buy the other stick later if needed but he said it's too troublesome to think about Overall I'm pretty happy with the build, it's going to arrive sometime early next week and then we'll build it. =) | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
| ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
On October 16 2011 04:27 Myrmidon wrote: Well if he's the type to spend more for quality and less hassle, let's hope he doesn't mind the Asgard or doesn't need to move it around or otherwise interact with it. Hopefully >_> I actually gave Shinobi as an alternative but he said that cases don't matter and that as long as you somehow manage to stuff the components in it's enough if they just stay there without collapsing | ||
scottsauce
United States46 Posts
my setup right now is: i5-2500 (not 2500k) MSI H67MA-E35 mobo 8 gb gskill ddr3 1333 22" monitor that goes up to 1920x1080 | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
StuartLove
Germany267 Posts
| ||
|
scottsauce
United States46 Posts
| ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
scottsauce
United States46 Posts
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102948 this looks good? | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
| ||
