Would I benefit by puttting in a SSD drive in my five year old computer?

[OldPaint]

I dont do INTEL processors.......so cant say if you can upgrade the 3 gig quad xenon processor to a I7..... but with all other good stuff ya got in that one + the addition of the SSD as the OS drive.........at what point does what you have at this POINT...... is going to be worth spending more to gain very little???
install the SSD, load OS, and main programs........ THEN SEE IF........you need more speed.........i have a 2.8 gig quad core AMD...... and i have the option to move to a 6 or 8 core AMD processor......and after i do the SSD........i may go that route.....but at 2.8 gig quad core......never gets bogged down......

 

[MikePro]

upgrade away! SSD rocks for faster saves/loads, as well as that warm/fuzzy feeling gained from additional security/durability of your data.
besides...it also can eventually be used in whatever computer you upgrade to in the future.

 

[Snydo]

Just so you know...the drive controller is only capable of 3.0 Gb/s on that motherboard, so that SSD will be running at half its potential speed. You will likely see a speed boost but imho not enough to justify the investment.
copied from the spec sheet:
[h=3]Drive Controllers[/h]

• Integrated LSI 1068e SAS/SATA 3.0Gb/s controller supports host based RAID 0, 1
  Optional PERC 6/i PCI-e SAS/SATA hardware RAID card supports RAID 0,1,5,10

 

[SignManiac]

Thanks, I had wondered about that as well. Five years is like dog years in computer hardware.

 

[Techman]

the drive controller is only capable of 3.0 Gb/s on that motherboard

Right ,, just as I posted above, The older bus (meaning the data channels) are not fast enough to keep up with the much faster drives.

I7 intell all the way. You can get a machine with a 300 bux i7 CPU or you can get one with a 900 bux CPU.

I have two i7 2600K machines. One has the ASUS mobo and the other has a gigabyte mobo.

They both render 3D graphics as fast as a mouse click. They open Corel draw as fast as a mouse click.
I built my son a new I7 machine for Christmas using a 3930K. The "K" means it is unlocked and has something called turbo. That means it controls the CPU to rev up the CPU to overclock when extra speed is needed.

It has an SSD drive with onbard graphics section right on the chip that makes it so much faster now that rendering is off the graphics card. Thus there is no need to add a dedicated graphics card. He renders his work as fast as typing into a word processor. IT cost just 800 bux complete.

All this new technology and speed with the newer motherboards and great CPU's is why I would get a new machine rather than just get a SSD drive..

 

[round man]

I gotta go with Techman here,...I use two new dell studio xps boxes with what are supposed to be fast normal hard drives at the shop I contract at and then I have my personal laptop(asus I7 8gb ram with a ssd drive),.... the dells are I5 processors with 8 gb of ram so there really shouldn't be that much speed difference between the three computers but there is,...a tremendous amt of difference ,....corel x5 takes forever to boot on the studio boxes and it continually keeps me waiting for that spinning ring in win 7 ,....boot times seem to take forever and the all around performance is sluggish beside my laptop,....hands down my choice if your budget allows it would be the new machine with the I7 processor,as much ram as you can get into it and a solid state drive = a fast a$$ design station,...just sayin,....

edited to add my first choice hands down is for asus components whenever possible,...they are imho the best quality components on the market,...

 

[choucove]

As others above have already stated, there would be some advantages to going with a solid state drive on your computer system. Pretty much any computer is going to have a somewhat noticeable performance increase just from the technology and throughput advancement capable with SSDs. However, the answer of "yes" or "no" is a little more complex than that.

The short answer is, yes, if you upgrade to an SSD in your current system you would notice an improvement in responsiveness. Your traditional 7k RPM SATA hard drives have an average throughput of around 120 MB/s while SSDs can average nearly 500 MB/s on newer SATA 6 Gbps controllers. On your current system you still have quite a powerhouse. A 2.5 Ghz quad-core Xeon (it looks like you actually have two of those installed) plus 20 GB of RAM is nothing to laugh about and just shrug off as too old and too weak. However, the limiting factor of getting the full potential from an SSD investment is your SATA controller, since it is a 3 Gbps only controller. Even so, this means that your SSD would be averaging around 350 MB/s which is nearly three times what your current 7k RPM SATA hard drive is capable of. That being said, if you want to get the full potential of your new SSD you would also need to put in a separate SATA controller which is 6 Gbps capable. There are a LOT of options here for these, usually in a PCI-Express x4 or PCI-Express x8 slot controller card. These range in price from $50 to sometimes more than $1,500 depending upon your needs.

Now, whether or not you need a full 1 TB SSD is up to you and your budget. If you want it, and have the money, then sure go ahead! However, it may be more beneficial to go for a smaller capacity drive, such as 250 GB, for just your operating system and programs, since you already have additional hard drives for actual data storage. Then, invest the saved money into a hardware RAID controller that is 6 Gbps compatible to run your SSD and hard drives from. The addition of a true hardware RAID controller with onboard cache can help noticeably improve performance in itself. Even with an older system like yours, this would make for a nice performance computer system!

This could bring your older system "up to speed" so to speak for less than the cost of a whole new computer system right now. Are the new processor microarchitectures and chipset platforms more powerful and feature rich? Sure. The major advancements throughout the last few processor iterations has focused more on efficiency (getting more processing power but at lower clock speeds and drawing less power) but there is still a noticeable difference going from a five year old quad-core processor to a newest Intel 4th generation Haswell quad-core processor. That being said, if you did invest in a new SATA controller and SSD today, they would work in a new computer a year down the road if you decide to upgrade later!

 

[SightLine]

The T7400 is from Dell's professional workstation line. All of our design stations are Dell Precisions here. A couple are even the older 690 ones. Even those will spank the majority of newer consumer class pc's. The Precisions are built with a different goal - they are designed for bullet proof reliability and expansion. Very few consumer class machines can run 128gb of RAM.... Depending on the configuration of your T7400 (if it has a single processor or dual) you have either 8 or 16 DIMM slots for memory.

That being said - yes the on board SATA / SAS controllers are a generation old but regardless there is no mechanical hard drive made that can transfer at 3gb/s so it yes an SSD will make a BIG difference. No - a SATA3 SSD will not be able to run at it's maximum speed but it will still be far faster than the mechanical hard drive. We have a 250GB SSD as the boot drive in all of ours - Windows and programs run on the SSD and the mechanical drives are just for bulk storage. Photoshop will dramatically benefit with it's swap file being on the SSD.

As far as your specific machine goes - you can upgrade the processor. The T7400 uses the 5400 (Harpertown) generation Xeons - the fastest one you can run would be an X5492 which is a 3.4ghz quad core with a whopping 12mb of cache. Many are also confused on the differences between the consumer class "i" processors and the business class Xeon processors. Just as there have been a few generations of the i3/i5/i7 processors, there is a respective generation of Xeon processors that have essentially the exact same core. The Xeon's however generally have a larger on board cache, additional error correction capabilities, the ability to run multiple physical processors, etc is all. An equivalent generation i7 is no faster than an equivalent generation Xeon.... The 5400 series Xeons I guess are the same as the first generation i7 processors. To be honest though - if yours already had dual processors (potentially dual quad core Xeons) you are not going to see some huge difference going to the newest generation i7 or Xeons - sure it will be a difference but not really enough to make it worth it in my opinion.

I have steadily upgraded the Precision Workstations we have. The oldest, the 690 is now maxed out but it still is a butt kicking machine. My newest one is a T7500 (there is also a newer generation of the Precisions now as well) which I just recently upgraded to dual Xeon X5650 processors and will soon upgrade it to 96GB of ram (currently at 48gb), this one also has a 500GB SSD boot drive. The Xeon X5650 is a 2.66ghz 6 core with 12mb cache - and mine is running 2 of them so I now have 12 cores or just under 32ghz of processing. Task manager is a hoot - since these also support hyper threading Task Manager sees an additional 12 cores making it look like the system has 24 processors. :Big Laugh

Another thing with consumer class i3/i5/i7 based systems, they are single socket so they cannot run dual processors. They are however less expensive than Xeon based systems. Anyways - I ramble too much sometimes but I don't like reading mis-information. On the subject itself - me personally, I'd strongly recommend an SSD for your system.

It IS a bit tricky though on these. You have an on-board SAS Raid controller as well as an on-board SATA controller. You will need to make a couple of changes in the computers BIOS to set it to boot from the specific SATA port you connect the SSD to and due to the server class chipset you will need to set the SATA ports to IDE mode while you clone the current boot drive, then set it top AHCI mode when you are going to actually switch over to the SSD. It's not as simple of a process on these than on a consumer class machine. The best method is really to start from scratch. Just disconnect temporarily the existing drive, install the SSD, set the BIOS to boot from it (in AHCI mode), and install Windows 7 x64 from scratch, get that running, update drivers, then reconnect the mechanical drive and that will just show up as another drive with all the old data on it. Of course you still would have to re-install ALL of your programs, RIP, etc....

Chuocove also has it right.... On adding a PCIe SATA3 controller- I actually did this on my T7500 for the SSD - I bought a Syba PEX40054 card for this purpose. To upgrade to a SATA3 controller. You need a PCIe x4 or higher 2.0 slot to take advantage of this. PCIe 1.0 slots do not have the bandwidth and would see no real benefit. Your machine does have second generation 2.0 PCIe slots though so you could do this. I researched cards to do this with and for the price the Syba card is (or was 6 months ago) the best bang for your buck to do this.

 

[artofacks1]

For $450 , you can get a refurbished newer model Dell box. I would buy a new system all together. You can also go the route of a new mini mac and install pararlells on it. Parallels now adays runs so smooth on the newer osx machines that it feels native.

 

[Techman]

Another thing with consumer class i3/i5/i7 based systems, they are single socket so they cannot run dual processors

They don't need dual processors. The I 7 chip has hyper threading. So when the demand is there they re up to use 8 cores. That is why the I7 is outrunning the xeon chip..

It comes down to splitting hairs..

But here is an example and comparison of a xeon chip over the I7 chip..

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/412/Intel_Core_i7_i7-3770_vs_Intel_Xeon_E3-1220_v2.html

 

[choucove]

They don't need dual processors. The I 7 chip has hyper threading. So when the demand is there they re up to use 8 cores. That is why the I7 is outrunning the xeon chip..

It comes down to splitting hairs..

But here is an example and comparison of a xeon chip over the I7 chip..

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/412/Intel_Core_i7_i7-3770_vs_Intel_Xeon_E3-1220_v2.html

Techman, that's actually a pretty unfair comparison. You are showing a benchmark and review comparing a top-end Core i7 with hyperthreading to an entry-level Xeon without hyperthreading. If you put two similar-class processors, both with hyperthreading, together in a benchmarking they are going to run almost identical. The Xeon may actually out-class the i7 because of additional cache.

Now, of course, Xeons come at a different cost than a standard desktop i7. There's also the need for the right server-class chipset and motherboard (again, higher cost) as well as ECC memory (also more expensive) so overall you are looking at a more expensive system. Unless for a specific situation and you have the budget to do it, I tend to go for the i7 over the Xeon system simply because there is a lower cost to enter that platform. You're not going to get all the same features, but you can still get a great performance and high efficiency system. There's not going to be any desktop system, though, that can match dual-socket Xeon eight or ten-core hyperthreaded processors supporting multiple hundreds of gigabytes of RAM. Most people don't have a way of utilizing (or affording) that sort of system, though!

 

[SignManiac]

Well one thing for sure, I'm well impressed with the knowledge you guys all have regarding the computer side of this business

I'm not in an urgent hurry nor do I have to do this. I'm just exploring the possibilities and weighing any benefits. If I do this, I'm more than likely going with a 250gb drive for the OS and Programs. They're cheap enough now. But I'm really hoping that I can get by with cloning. I sure don't want to do a clean install. My setup would take me days to get all the stuff back on a new drive. I'll have to check to see if I have any slots left for the PCI controller card. Last year I added one for my USB 3.0 external drives.

 

[SightLine]

..............But here is an example and comparison of a xeon chip over the I7 chip..

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/412/Intel_Core_i7_i7-3770_vs_Intel_Xeon_E3-1220_v2.html

Techman, that's actually a pretty unfair comparison. You are showing a benchmark and review comparing a top-end Core i7 with hyperthreading to an entry-level Xeon without hyperthreading. If you put two similar-class processors, both with hyperthreading, together in a benchmarking they are going to run almost identical. The Xeon may actually out-class the i7 because of additional cache.......

Yep..... that's like comparing a new Subaru - one with the turbocharges engine and comparing it against the same model without the turbocharged engine. Not exactly a fair comparison. Of course the better rated one will beat out the other. CPU World does let you compare apples to apples though - this is the same i7 you chose but now compared to its equivalent Xeon.

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/422/Intel_Core_i7_i7-3770_vs_Intel_Xeon_E3-1275_v2.html

When compared apples to apples the only real difference is cost. The i7 actually is a hair slower but realistically the difference is so small that it is meaningless.

 

[OldPaint]

sign maniac........the difference between "cloning" you new SSD and a CLEAN INSTALL...... is just that. any garbage/junk on your present drive....will also go to the new SSD........in my experience and my preference.......anytime i get a new DRIVE i LOAD IT............... ALL NEW INSTALLS. takes a little more time but in the long run.........stuff works better.

 

[SignManiac]

That's what I always did in the past and why I would rather avoid it if at all possible. Not sure what junk would be on it? I try to keep my business computer just that, business. I periodically check for Malware crap and so far, mines been pretty clean. I could try the cloning first and if it turns out there's are problems, then I could just start fresh and go the new reinstall route.

 

[SightLine]

I'l say this much.... on the Precisions I have. I did also clone and it worked (and is still working perfect) BUT I also had to ultimately boot from the Windows DVD and choose "repair" installation. One thing - if you are going to use an add in card for more speed, install that first with your computer as it is now. That way Windows will find it, load the drivers for it, and have them already installed when it comes time to switch over to the SSD. On the T7500 I could not get the cloning software to clone the drive to the SSD successfully with the SATA controller in AHCI/RAID mode in the BIOS, I had to change it to IDE mode. You want to change that back though, SSD have a garbage collection routine called TRIM and that requires AHCI mode to be enabled. Some time back on one of the ones I bought I got a Crucial SSD and got the easy transfer kit with it which includes a bootable cloning program that works very well and also includes a USB adapter for the SSD to connect it when you are actually cloning the drive.

You will also need a SATA cable and a 3.5" drive bay adapter bracket to mount the SSD although they are so light you could just stick it to the bottom of one of the unused 5.25" bays with a piece of light double sided tape. Don't use VHB for that..... lol. Just the other day buy.com had a 240gb Kingston SSD for $99.00. Its almost worth it to go with a 500gb or larger nowadays. The Crucial M500 series and several others are very very well rated.

 

[player]

I have cloned drives with perfect results. Acronis works. Either Western Digital or Seagate has their own free version of Acronis available as a download. It only works on their drives. It worked perfectly for me.

 

[artbot]

best place for an SSD in an older machine is a scratch drive for photoshop. and or two one for scratch and one for the OS only. they don't need to be that large.

 

[Techman]

When compared apples to apples the only real difference is cost. The i7 actually is a hair slower but realistically the difference is so small that it is meaningless.

Thank you,,, This is exactly why I feel the I7 is the better choice. It costs less as at the CPU price,,, However, that is not the entire picture. The entire machine can cost less because there is no need for a vid card. And it costs less because a server motherboard is not needed. And it costs less because one I7 does the same work as two Xeon chips.

So, back to Signmaniac. Get the 250 gig SSD drive for OS and programs and build a WIN 7 Intel I7 box around it with a 1 terrabyte hard drive for data for about $800 bucks.

Why? because machine technology is changing very fast. Win 9 will be out soon and from what I can see they will attempt to kill off win 8 and win 7 type machines too soon.

 

[SightLine]

An i7 does not in any way do the same work as 2 Xeon chips when you are comparing like processors. There are also non-hyperthreading i7 chips just as you pointed out a non-hyperthreading Xeon. The best i7 out has 6 cores with hyperthreading giving it 12 virtual cores and has 15mb of cache. The top Xeon has 15 cores with hyperthreading giving it 30 virtual cores and has a massive 37.5mb of cache. So by your logic techman you would need more than 2 i7 processors to equal the performance of one single Xeon. I'm not trying to be a d**k I'm just pointing out some flawed logic and comparisons.

I do agree though that the costs are considerably less for an i7 based machine. You can use any old consumer class board, the cheapest ram, and all the other cheapest components money can buy. Xeon based systems (in the class of professional workstations, although there are also pro workstation class machines that are not xeon based) are for places who consider uptime and reliability critical. For me those are, these workstations (and servers) are the lifeblood of my company. If some random program decides to have a glitch or some chip on a stick of ram decides to get flakey, on systems with more expensive registered ECC memory, it just shrugs it off and keeps right on going mapping the bad bits out. On an i7 system, that same scenario = a system crash. If it happens to be a bad stick or ram then you have to play games to figure out which stick is bad, on professional systems, it will tell you which stick needs replaced. Pro workstations also for the most part still include real serial and parallel ports which for some reason seem to just immediately work with the older cutters, ect that still use those instead of jumping through hoops and holding your breath that an emulated usb to serial adapter is going to work. Even the hard drives in these pro workstations are generally different. They have enterprise grade drives - most consumer grade drives have a MTBF (mean time before failure) rating of well under 500,000 hours, most enterprise class drives have a MTBF rating of over 1,000,000 hours. Its different quality control, top binned components, top rated Nichion capacitors on the motherboard versus cheap no name Chinese made capacitors that will mushroom out and fail much sooner. It really is a different class of engineering, quality control, and hardware component quality that goes into professional grade systems. The lower binned (binning is testing components at the factory for performance and reliability) components do go to consumer class machines and the top binned components go to much higher priced machines. This also comes into play in our very business - look into LED lighting for signs. The top binned LEDs that really do last a long time are also the most expensive. You get what you pay for.... There is nothing inherently wrong with using an i7 or consumer class computer. They are just different classes of machines but stating that an i7 can do the work of two xeons is a joke as is posting a comparison of one that is really not comparable with another.