Comrades in Arms Discussion Board

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/windows-7.../2910?pg=1

I hope it helps!

This article mentioned the importance of using AHCI mode (BIOS setting) for the disk controllers, and made me re-think should I switch? I've been running my Intel SSDs in IDE/ATA mode for over a year now, but I've always felt the drive performance is not exactly what it should be... especially in multitasking.

Overlord, or anyone else who's using SSD (and why not regular SATA HDD too), do you have any experience using these two different modes?

With quick look on this test the results show better write/read speeds in AHCI. It also enables some modern features like NCQ and hot-swapping, so I guess it would be best choice for the SSDs. Apparently WinXP supports only IDE mode.

Perhaps I'll try it soon after doing a clean Win7 install. I've read that AHCI <-> IDE can be switched without reinstalling with some registry editing, but it's about time to do wipe all anyway.

NCO is not an issue on SSD. You can almost forget everything you know about conventional HDD, remember there is NO moving parts inside. It's better to compare SSD with memory card or RAM, hence to storage method. I'll check what I have mine mounted as (IDE<->AHCI), but at a quick glance it still looks most relevant to conventional disks.

BUT, there was a few tweaks I had to do in XP before I got the boost up, compared to W7 (which have SSD support).
I'll update this post when I've found what I did, there was something I had to turn off before I got the famous SSD speed.

HAve you run Intel SSD Toolbox? It might tell you some secrets you don't know

Quote:at a quick glance it still looks most relevant to conventional disks.

For me it looks it's quite the opposite - the legacy IDE mode to be used only when maximum compatibility is needed..

I'm using both SSD and HDD drives , so enabling all possible SATA features would be great.

Ok. Now got Win7 running up again and tested with HDTune, and it gives slightly better read times for the SSDs (didn't test write). For regular HDDs, the results are exactly same, no change.

So I'm pretty satisfied with that.

What's you stats then? No-tuned XP vs W7 is HUUUUGE difference, tuned XP almost check W7. With AA2 in startup folder I'm ready to play 42 sec after I press Power button (ON ofcourse), Un-tuned XP needed almost 3 min to start.
Check your sys-log for details, you should get some errors there.

(09-01-2011, 08:37 PM)Overlord link Wrote:What's you stats then? No-tuned XP vs W7 is HUUUUGE difference, tuned XP almost check W7. With AA2 in startup folder I'm ready to play 42 sec after I press Power button (ON ofcourse), Un-tuned XP needed almost 3 min to start.
Check your sys-log for details, you should get some errors there.

Your powerbutton-to-Arma2 is not the best for comparison (BIOS stuff might take different time, what about auto-loading applications in Windows?), but clearly yours starts up much faster than mine. Getting into Windows takes about 45 seconds for me. That includes 15 seconds waiting in BIOS screens. Arma2 doesn't load up super fast, not even now it has its own dedicated SSD. I'm using the slower version of Intel X25-series drives, but it shouldn't be that big difference(?).

I've used XP too (both 32-bit and 64-bit) and they loaded much faster than Win7 ever did.

My XP use about 14 sec to boot (after tweaks), BIOS time included. I'm pretty proud of my rig (self-configurated, self-build with self-selected components). Not that I am any wizard in any way, I just went shopping in top shelf when I made it.

But SSD should make a better boost on a normal to modern computer than any other upgrade does (what price matter).

About auto-loading apps/services, the clue is to disable as much as possible, and run fast, secure and lightweight AV. My heart bleed when I encounter computers with 115 running tasks when, in reality, only 30-35 is needed to get the show on the road

(09-01-2011, 09:30 PM)Overlord link Wrote:About auto-loading apps/services, the clue is to disable as much as possible, and run fast, secure and lightweight AV.

Yeah, I only load what I need to be running in background: anti-virus, firewall, logitech profiler (for joystick) and backup software. None of them should be heavy on resources, but there still is significant difference between clean Win7 boot than with all those apps.

The longish boot time doesn't really matter here, since my fresh install of Windows operates flawlessy once it's up.

Most important is you can load programs fast and play AA2 without any hick-ups

Was a bit quick to turn down AHCI on SSD.
Turns out that AHCI is a part of all MB SATA/RAID driver which you need to install during OS install. Download the latest driver from your MB manufacturer and select it during OS install when asked if you need/want to load other RAID drivers. This is needed if you want 6 GB transfer rate (at least over 3 GB).

On the other hand, take a look on OCZ RevoDrive 3 X2, looks like a beast according to Legit Storage Reviews.
Just bought a OCZ Vertex 3 (SATA), but will consider this if I have free PCIe slots left. Just got me a fresh USB3 controller which need the same slot.

The Vertex is still in his package, still debating with myself if I gonna install XP or W7 on it 

(09-12-2011, 01:22 AM)Overlord link Wrote:Was a bit quick to turn down AHCI on SSD.
Turns out that AHCI is a part of all MB SATA/RAID driver which you need to install during OS install. Download the latest driver from your MB manufacturer and select it during OS install when asked if you need/want to load other RAID drivers. This is needed if you want 6 GB transfer rate (at least over 3 GB).

I guess XP install gives the problems, since it allows you only to use floppies to load additional drivers. But Win7 has most MB drivers built-in. I installed my system normally when in AHCI and everything went thru fine.

(09-12-2011, 01:22 AM)Overlord link Wrote:Just bought a OCZ Vertex 3 (SATA), but will consider this if I have free PCIe slots left. Just got me a fresh USB3 controller which need the same slot.

The Vertex is still in his package, still debating with myself if I gonna install XP or W7 on it  

Why not use 7 straight away with proper SSD support, so you don't have to go tweaking XP?  And in my opinion, Win7 is also the most reliable Windows system ever made.

Didn't fit me last I installed it,  just hate the UI, and the fact M$ think they know better than me what I'm gonna do on my own computer

(09-12-2011, 12:10 PM)Overlord link Wrote:Didn't fit me last I installed it,  just hate the UI, and the fact M$ think they know better than me what I'm gonna do on my own computer

I know the UI can feel very stupid and awkward at first, it's actually similar to Vista (which was a total disaster on the other parts "under-the-hood"). Learning curve for Win7 interface isn't too steep and you can customize many things. I think it's always fun and useful to learn new stuff. But, it's your choice!  

I have been planing to buy SSD and use it for Arma 2, but little by little other upgrades and high price made it less of a less sensible option (and maybe the fact that the game is now more optimized). I have good fps most of the time, no stutter running from 7200rpm sata-2 HDD.

But how much improvement have you got over HDD, apart from faster loading times? Isn't a RAM disk better/cheaper option?

Nope, it isn't. First of all, to use a RAM disk with efficient you need (for AA2) about 13 GB RAM. That would make a MB supporting 16 GB, with 3 GB for OS and all the rest you run. Secondly, you need to copy the data from HDD to RAM disk after every boot which will feel like waste of time. But when you have the data in RAM it will run FAST.

A hairy option is RAM Drive. It's basically battery backed up RAM array, similar to SSD, except instead of NAND memory they use DRAM (RAM chips). If sky's the limit I would go for such one

Boot time on my box is 14 sec, with AA2 in startup folder I can play 42 sec after I press Power button,
are you able to spin up your HDD on that time