HDD purchase advice

[themose 11]

Hi,I'm currently purchasing components for an FSX dedicated machine.I'm after some advice with regards to Hard drives. My motherboard will support usb3 and Sata 6GB (Asus P6X58D-E X58).What will give me the best performance? An SSD, a 300GB Velociraptor?? do I wait for the USB3/SATA 6GB drives to come out??Does anyone know if having SATA 6GB will make any differnce to FSX performance at all?in fact does having a quick HDD make much noticible difference in FSX?Please advise.Thanks :)Phil Mosley

[msalo 1]

The SATA 6GB drives are already out. I built a new rig a little over a week ago with a 600GB Velociraptor (6GB/s). I think the issue is they they are flying off the shelves and many stores (even online) can't keep em in stock. Newegg has a 1 per customer per 48 hour limit on these right now.I read that the 600GB vRap is about a 25% increase over the 300GB, but that is a general increase, not necessarily an indication of FS performance increase. It certainly wouldn't hurt.-m@

[idahosurge 2]

The problem that I see with SSD's is their limited size. I have my OS on a 250GB partition (C:) of a 750GB Seagate with 32MB cache. I use the other 500GB (E:) for programs and data storage. I install FSX programs like GEX and FEX on E: since there are only data bases and FSX does not need to access them constantly.I have FSX loaded on a 300GB VelociRaptor (D:) and I just transfered all my MSX and MSE photoscenery from E: to a brand new 600GB Velocirator (G:). The FSX E: and G: drives are already half full, I have a lot of addon freeware airports, planes, etc. not to mention all the photoscenery I have.So with all this said there is not an SSD made that has the capacity for all my FSX related storage needs. As far as two drives, for optimum performance on mechanical HD's you should only have them 1/2 full and no more than 2/3's, that is why I have two FSX related drives. It is all pure physics, the HD head moves back and forth across the platter reading data, the farther it has to move the longer it takes so if you have a full HD it takes a lot longer to get to the data stored on the inner part of the platter than if the data were on a second HD and was stored on the outter part of the platter.The other thing highly recommended for FSX and HD's is to get O&O Defrag and defrag your HD's by Name Defrag. FSX looks for data in numeric/alphabetic order so if the HD is defragged properly it decreases the search time substantially.Another thing that I have read about SSD's is that they can degrade in performance in six months to a year.With all the above said, if you go with an SSD make sure that you do not plan on getting addons for FSX because if you do you will quickly run out of room. Read reviews and get an SSD that is known not to degrade in performance over time.If you go with mechanical HD's, put FSX on a separate HD and if you can afford it to with the VelociRaptor of your choice in size.

[audiohavoc 24]

SSD's are great if you don't run a ton of photoscenery. I have two Kingston 64Gb V-Series Gen 2 SSD drives. Windows 7 and a few FSX related apps live on one drive that has around 22GB free, and the FSX drive has about 12GB free after installing the following:FSX SP1 + AccelerationSceneryTech USAUTX USAGEX USAREX 2.0Airport Environment XFSUIPCPMDG 747XPMDG MD-11XPMDG JS41FSLabs ConcordeXMaddog 2008FeelThere E-JetsLevel-D 767Aerosoft F-16Captain Sim C-130Captain Sim 727-100/200FCaptain Sim 757-200/200FCaptain Sim 767-300For other sims (Black Shark) and data storage, I have a Western Digital Caviar Blue 320GB 7200 rpm drive.

[themose 11]

Thanks guys for your comments.This was the kind of info I was looking for :)Also ... Audiohavoc, I've checked some of your other posts regarding hardware etc and you are a true benchmark. Love your stuff.Phil

[audiohavoc 24]

Thanks guys for your comments.This was the kind of info I was looking for :)Also ... Audiohavoc, I've checked some of your other posts regarding hardware etc and you are a true benchmark. Love your stuff.Phil

I just like to help others out, but thank you for the compliment. I might occasionally have something to contribute, but Bob Scott (w6kd) is the real source of knowledge around here. He has much more experience and concrete knowledge than I do in the computer hardware realm. I am an audio/video/lighting engineer by trade, and I just happen to have a little IT/PC hardware experience. Most of my FSX related knowledge has come from experience, and a lot of time spent researching technical issues and performance guides.

[Bob Scott 7,751]

Another thing that I have read about SSD's is that they can degrade in performance in six months to a year.With all the above said, if you go with an SSD make sure that you do not plan on getting addons for FSX because if you do you will quickly run out of room. Read reviews and get an SSD that is known not to degrade in performance over time.

The idea that an SSD's performance degrades over time is based on early-generation devices that didn't have a good interface between the OS and the firmware to resolve empty-block issues that arise from firmware wear-levelling. With the advent of the TRIM command (which Win 7 deals with natively, and for which some SSD manufacturers provide a Vista/XP utility), that performance decrease issue is relegated to the pages of history.As far as having room for FS...that depends on what you want to have installed. I have fs9 and FSX on separate 160GB Intel X-25M SSDs, and neither is even close to full (less than 100GB on both) and I have a very wide variety of add-on planes and sceneries (but not photoscenery). What I don't do is keep hundreds of liveries that I'll never use from every add-on package, and I don't indiscriminately install every scenery that looks remotely interesting. BTW, it is possible to put sceneries onto a different drive than the FS drive, so additional SSDs for large photoscenery would be possible...but expensive.The biggest drawback to the SSD is still its high relative price compared to an HDD. But if waiting 5 minutes for FS to load drives you nuts, the SSD is the cure. I still classify it as a "nice to have" rather than a "must have," but I consider it VERY nice to have in my system.Audiohavoc--thanks for the nice words, but don't sell your (or anyone's) contributions short...shared experience is an extremely valuable thing in these forums, because no one person's knowledge intersects with all the possible hardware, software (and karma) configurations possible. I can't count the number of times somebody else had a problem before I did and the problem was already sorted out and posted here.CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

[audiohavoc 24]

Bob,Thank you for clarifying the SSD performance degradation issue. As for knowledge, I agree, the more people contributing their experience the better. I just wanted to be clear that I should not be considered an authority on computer hardware or FSX tuning. I speak only from practical experience, not from a theoretical, electrical engineering type of background. Getting back to the topic, I agree that if it is in the budget, SSD is the way to go. If not, then the Western Digital Velociraptor 10000RPM 32MB cache drives seem to be a popular, highly reputable option.