(11-15-2013, 11:03 PM)Link_to_the_past Wrote: To give you an example the cheap Intel drive has 450 MB/sec write performance and the expensive samsung 520MB/.I think you're missing the point of ssds. The biggest advantage is their super fast seek times, and high iops. Some cheap ssds only manage a few thousand iops, while better ones can get 100k+. While it's true, the sequential read/write speeds are generally not so different, there are other significant factors. Certain types of ssds will also get much much slower as you fill them, while others are not affected as much.
Random
|
11-16-2013, 01:48 AM
11-16-2013, 03:00 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-16-2013, 03:01 AM by Link_to_the_past.)
(11-16-2013, 01:48 AM)RachelB Wrote:It was just one example, all of them have super fast seek times and high iops compared to an hdd. If you compare a recent ssd with another in everyday activities the differences are not that high between them though, you can only understand it in a benchmark.(11-15-2013, 11:03 PM)Link_to_the_past Wrote: To give you an example the cheap Intel drive has 450 MB/sec write performance and the expensive samsung 520MB/.I think you're missing the point of ssds. The biggest advantage is their super fast seek times, and high iops. Some cheap ssds only manage a few thousand iops, while better ones can get 100k+. While it's true, the sequential read/write speeds are generally not so different, there are other significant factors. Certain types of ssds will also get much much slower as you fill them, while others are not affected as much. 11-16-2013, 03:33 AM
Well, compared to an hdd, yes, even the worst ssd is going to be much better. But the better ssds beat worst ones by about the same factor of 30 that those ones beat the best hdds, when it comes to iops. If we were talking mid range vs high end, then you're probably right, at least for most use cases. But if we're talking the worst one vs the best one, you'll definitely notice a big difference.
Finally , DDR4 is going to come soon - December 2013 (though I don't like crucial memory)
20% less power , 2x Faster , 2x Density , 2.1GHz+ bus Laptop: Youtube Channel (Vintage Tech/Watches) :: 11-16-2013, 06:33 PM
Feel free to fix it. Oh wait, you're not going to do it because you're one of these idiots who think they have the right to insult the work of someone while not doing anything.
11-16-2013, 07:00 PM
I'm pretty sure he was joking...
Intel Xeon w7-3465X OC | Asus Pro WS W790-E Sage SE | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 FE | 8x16GiB G-Skill Zeta R5 DDR5-6000 | Windows 11 23H2 | (details)
MacBook Pro 14in | M1 Max (32 GPU Cores) | 64GB LPDDR5 6400 | macOS 13
11-16-2013, 07:10 PM
(11-16-2013, 07:00 PM)MaJoR Wrote: I'm pretty sure he was joking...Yeah because all FXAA does is add static (blur the image) 11-16-2013, 09:58 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the FXAA shader is just crap since it's what mudlord put together in barely an hour or so. I guess he spent more time figuring out which license to use for the shader than for writing it, actually :p
11-16-2013, 10:30 PM
Especially since we apparently run the postprocessing shader before the downscaling when it should be done after (according to mudlord).
11-16-2013, 11:31 PM
Damn Nintendo, i'm really gonna have to get a 3DS now.
http://www.gametrailers.com/reviews/kn7g...lds-review
......?????
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 65 Guest(s)