Published on 27th June 2012 by
Originally Posted by Chicken76Suggestion: In the graphs you could have added with a different color, the performance of a Sandforce based unit (say, Vertex3) with compressible data. It would have given a more accurate view of their performance delta in other scenarios than what you tested them for: artificially created data guaranteed not to compress.
Originally Posted by pbryanw@runadumb - Samsung and Crucial seem to have good reports - I thought the problems (& BSODs) were mainly to do with Sandforce SSDs?
Originally Posted by r3loadedThe 256GB Samsung 830 is available for 143 quid, why would anyone go for the Vertex 4 at 200?
Originally Posted by Harlequinthe question is - is the speed increase (which is only minor at times) worth the extra £60.....
Originally Posted by Harlequinwell tpu / andand / hexus and here have all proven that the limiting factor at say 5760x1080 is bandwidth not the amount of ram - and the frame rates are near identical on both 2gb and 4gb cards.
sorry going off topic
Originally Posted by BazNot this. Again.
GTX 680 4GB? No difference. Now don't make me come back there!
Originally Posted by Waynio How did the SSD review comments turn into GPU's. :D
Prod prod prod.
No need to answer, it just tickled my brain. :D
Originally Posted by tohdomtoo bad there are no realworld tests anymore.
One time there was "windows startup time" and "Crysis 2 level loading time" and it was very helpful to compare SSDs. I am not sure many people care about synthetics
You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.
© Copyright Dennis Publishing Limited. Under licence from Felix Dennis.