Computer fan too noisey......continually runs at high speed?

[ET180]

Liquid cooling is kinda of good for overclocking, and kinda bad. There is no cpu fan so unless your case fans are great i would lean away from it. I would never really get liquid cooling for anything myself. They never shown a improvement over a large air cooled heatsink like a cooler master evo. Most cases won't support such a large heat sink but that still not the deal with this guy.

If you have a swimming pool...
https://www.thebuehls.com/pool_cooling/

I've done measurements many years ago. Yes, CPU/GPU ran slightly cooler with an open case but hard drives (this was pre SSD) ran very hot.

No one should be using magnetic drives anymore unless it's for long-term storage or as a secondary drive. SSDs generate very little heat. I think my Intel SSD only uses something like 20 mW maximum power.

Had one fan taking the air out. Don't forget, if you give air lots of unfiltered access points, there's also more dust accumulation.

All PCs will gather dust, I periodically blow it out with my air compressor.

 

[Overnight]

...No one should be using magnetic drives anymore unless it's for long-term storage or as a secondary drive...

Magnetic drives? Do you mean spindle drives? Hard drives with platters?

 

[ET180]

I was thinking of magnetic hard drives (the patters are coated with magnetic material).

 

[Overnight]

I was thinking of magnetic hard drives (the patters are coated with magnetic material).

Well, if that is what you mean, then you mean the most basic form of hard-drive there is, and has been, for 40+ years. Why is it now suddenly a point of order that "no one should be using magnetic drives anymore"? If I want 2TB of storage for a couple hundred bux, why should I not do it? How much would I have to pay to get it in some other way? Like SSD? How much is a 2TB SSD compared to a 2 TB "magnetic" drive?

 

[ET180]

Use whatever you want. I don't care. I never said no one should use magnetic drives for any purpose. I said aside from long-term storage or secondary drive. A traditional hard drive cannot match the performance and power efficiency of a modern SSD. SSDs are also a lot more durable than a traditional hard drive. More expensive too, yes, but the prices continue to fall and the massive difference in performance is worth it.

 

[d08]

Not so simple. The worst SSD drives are about as slow as fast HDDs and if you write a lot of data often then the hard drive is your obvious choice, especially when you have plenty of RAM - most of your applications would be sitting in RAM waiting to be called. On top of that is the per GB price difference. While SSDs are clearly the future, there are still cases where HDDs justify themselves as primary drives.

 

[lovethetrade]

Not so simple. The worst SSD drives are about as slow as fast HDDs and if you write a lot of data often then the hard drive is your obvious choice, especially when you have plenty of RAM - most of your applications would be sitting in RAM waiting to be called. On top of that is the per GB price difference. While SSDs are clearly the future, there are still cases where HDDs justify themselves as primary drives.

I think SSD reliability/longevity negates any initial cost advantage HDDs might have.

...and with the move towards miniATX theres also the space saving advantages.

 

[d08]

@lovethetrade I think you mean miniITX and smaller form factors.
If you have a need to write a lot of data then HDDs slightly have the edge. Most hard-drives tend to give a SMART warning before failure as did my last Samsung, had time to save the data. I've yet to have an SSD fail but from what I hear, the failure is immediate with no chance for data salvage.

 

[lovethetrade]

@lovethetrade I think you mean miniITX and smaller form factors.

Thanks, edited

If you have a need to write a lot of data then HDDs slightly have the edge. Most hard-drives tend to give a SMART warning before failure as did my last Samsung, had time to save the data. I've yet to have an SSD fail but from what I hear, the failure is immediate with no chance for data salvage.

Fair enough, I guess it can be bit subjective when you factor in budgets and processes (I.e how you plan to backup) etc

Here's a good article on the subject that will save us going back and forth etc

www.networkworld.com/article/2873551/data-center/debunking-ssd-myths.amp.html

I doubt I'll ever go back to HDD unless initial costs were a major consideration.

 

[ET180]

Not so simple. The worst SSD drives are about as slow as fast HDDs and if you write a lot of data often then the hard drive is your obvious choice, especially when you have plenty of RAM - most of your applications would be sitting in RAM waiting to be called. On top of that is the per GB price difference. While SSDs are clearly the future, there are still cases where HDDs justify themselves as primary drives.

I never advocated that someone should buy the worst SSD drive that they can find. The fastest HDD that I know of is the WD Black. Max sustained read is 113 MB/s and 4.2 ms seek time (http://www.databug.com/WD6401AALS-p/WD6401AALS.htm?gclid=CLLDr-r8v9ICFQ2ffgod-N8I2w). Even the worst SSD drive that you can find should offer a seek time better than 4.2 ms. Compare that to a decent SSD such as the Intel 750 series:

https://www-ssl.intel.com/content/www/us/en/solid-state-drives/ssd-750-spec.html

Maximum sequential read: 2,500 MB/s, max sequential write: 1,200 MB/s. Average latency read or write is 20 uS. Mean time before failure 1.2 million hours and rated for 70 GB per day of written data. No traditional hard drive comes close to that performance. And that's a consumer grade drive. If you want more reliability, they sell industrial grade SSDs. Another benefit of the SSD is that many offer encryption built-in and they never need defragmenting.