Being that I just got a new PC – entirely thanks to you, gentle readers – let’s talk hardware that will run Second Life well. That is, kit that will work smoothly and not turn into a slide-show even if you crank everything up.
I’m not going to exhaustively compare hardware, I’ll just tell you what I know works.
Firstly, the processor. Definitely a Lynnfield processor or better. I’d personally recommend the i7-870 2.93GHz for a number of reasons, cost-vs-performance being right up there near the top. It’s got four cores (which look like 8 with hyper-threading) that automatically go faster if you’re not using all of them. Most particularly, though, the CPU has some dedicated silicon that exists solely to shovel data to your graphics card. Expect to pay about US$290 or so for one of these.
That brings us to the graphics card. This Lynnfield processor gets reduced data throughput to dual-graphics-card (SLI) setups, so just don’t bother with two. Your graphics card of choice, on a budget, is the nVidia GTS 450. That’ll outperform every ATI board made prior to 2010, and almost all of the ones made after. The sweet spot for this board is a resolution of 1680×1050 or below, and it will drive two monitors very happily. Expect to pay US$100-130 for that card.
Pick a motherboard that supports these (the Lynnfield is an LGA1156 socket). I have the Gigabyte GA-H55M-UD2H (revision 1.3), and load it with RAM (make sure you get a motherboard that takes lots). That motherboard will set you back around US$90
I cannot stress that enough. Get yourself a 64bit Operating System (Windows 7 Home Premium will do the job nicely) and get 16GB of DDR3 RAM onto that board. That RAM will make your system breeze along even with dozens of hungry programs.
Finish the whole lot off with a decent cooler, a power-supply, a 7200RPM hard-drive and some sort of box to put it all in.
Now, we’re going to do something with all that RAM. If you’ve already got lots, you can try this at home.
Go to Dataram, and download their free RAMdisk software. It works with 64bit Windows, unlike many.
Create a RAMdisk of the maximum size for the free edition (that’s 4092MB), and select unformatted. Set it to save to disk on shutdown, and restore at startup. That’ll clip four gigabytes of RAM off your usable total, but you’ll hardly notice it.
Now, format that RAMdisk in the usual way to get yourself an NTFS partition. Make a folder on that, and call it (for example) Second Life Cache. Start your viewer, go to preferences, set the cache location to the new one and crank it up to the maximum size of 1GB, and restart your viewer. The Viewer might actually stutter a little here and there because it doesn’t like getting data too fast, but you’ll find that agreeably minor.
Access to cached objects and textures should be super-fast and Second Life won’t be hammering at your hard-drives all the time. If that works well for you, consider going back to Dataram and buying the full version of their RAMdisk software.
[EDIT: There's some strong support for reducing the total RAM by half and spending that money on a Solid State Drive (SSD) to boost boot and access times considerably. This sounds like a good idea, but I have no personal experience with the configuration, and cannot provide a useful comparison between the two options.]
On the default Second Life graphics settings, you can hit around 100fps or so, so feel free to crank the settings up until you find the best settings for you. With everything maxed out, you’ll still be firmly getting double-digits. As a bonus, it should run pretty much everything else extremely well, also.
* No, I don’t offer technical support – life is too short. Take these suggestions or leave them. If you need help, ask a friend or someone at your local computer store.
Dataram works but it’s very bothersome with SL. I end up loading the cache each time on log-in. The save of the ramdisk after a session works but SL did not accept the content after a relog. I dropped Dataram from my system, the improved performance does not outweigh the 4 mins waiting after logging in.
The BEST suggestion about the cache! I always advise people to at least make a directory for the cache, separate from their program installation. Even better is a separate partition, away from their main OS partition (if they can understand that and know how to do such things). Your RAMDISK idea is also a great one.
Since the cache is constantly reshuffling, it is like a super TEMP directory and causes a lot of disk i/o and shuffling. Separating the cache as best you can is always helpful.
Sounds like a nice computer, but if you use it for Second Life, I can only recommend to use a MUCH better graphics card. I had one that is about as fast as the one that you recommend and I recently bought the ATI 6850. It was a huge difference in FPS. Even with the new shadows enabled, I get 20 FPS easily. And it has a very low power consumption. I found a very good comparison table for graphics cards (sorry, it is german): http://www.pc-erfahrung.de/grafikkarte/vga-grafikrangliste.html
My recommendation, save money on RAM (4GB is enough) and CPU and spend more on the graphics card.
Yes to all of this, especially the RAM drive. I also install SL on my RAM drive — I don’t know if this improves performance, but since there’s a whole lot of xml’s and dll’s on it, it seems reasonable that it does. This has worked flawlessly for months.
[...] Dwell On It | How to: Building a solid PC for fast Second Life use via dwellonit.taterunino.net [...]
Im using a 6-core AMD and 8 GBs RAM, the GTS 450 etc. The only thing that ever holds up my system is SL’s servers. I tp to a new location — several grey things and then BAM — everything and all the avis are rezzed in a single burst. Nothing can be done for that situation — there’s a point where the home unit is up to the task but SL is only pushing out so much data. Even their own monitoring ap (press CTRL-SHFT-1 inworld) assumes that SL’s servers can only push out data, at a maximum, equal to 45fps.
The most effective thing I have done lately to drastically improve my Second Life performance is to get rid of every instance of a viewer and reinstalling the optimized version of Phoenix for my 64 bit Windows 7 latptop. This includes manually deleting all Second Life, Phoenix and other TPV folders in AppData > Roaming and Local. Leave nothing there at all.
It literally dramatically improved everything for my one- year old HP Pavilion laptop with 4 megs of RAM, a 2.20 gh Intel Core2 Duo chip, and an ATI 4650 500k card. In other words, something which is primitive compared to your rig which I would love to have.
I tried running two viewers, I installed Imprudence to get into InWorldz, and it degraded my performance massively. I now will delete everything one more, and one viewer, perhaps the new Second Life one since I want to see dynamic shadows and I do not think Phoenix makes the available.
I think the important thing is to worry about how your current rig is performing and update and optimize software BEFORE you purchase a wonder-horse viewer like yours. And I will agree that a better graphics card is what is needed rather than RAM or processing power (I do not think anyone needs more than 8 megs ram for Second Life, and 4 should do just fine).
The most significant hardware purchase I’ve ever made for Second Life is grabbing an SSD. They’re very fast but I kinda of worry since apparently SSD lifespans are directly linked to the amount of writes. Seems like Second Life does a lot of exactly that. Over a year and going with my current SSD for Second Life though and its outperforming any Velicoraptor or other 10k-15k RPM drive I’ve tossed Second Life’s constant asset churning at.
The latest Viewer 2 versions allow for almost 10GBs of cache. No-one seems quite sure how that will affect you as I’m not sure anyone has filled it up yet!
Hitomi, 10 GB are peanuts compared to space!
OK… its great that someone blogged on how to build a PC that is good for SL. I agree with some of the points posted but in other points I do not agree.
1) I have the same i7 CPU mentioned and although it is an AWESOME CPU, this CPU will generally not provide a SL’er any significant improvement in performance. If you are getting an i7 CPU… dont do it because of SL. I have it moreso for some of the 3D modeling tools I use and PhotoShop that actually do put some load on the 8 CPU threads. SL does not.
2) If you really want to make a significant improvement on overall system performance (even with SL), I would not do what is suggested here with RAM (buying 16GB and RAM Driving it with 3rd party software) and then putting in a super slow physical hard drive. Avoid all the hassle mentioned and Buy yourself a good SSD HD (SSD= Solid State Drive). Then only install a maximum of 8GB System RAM. Most ppl do not need 8GB but it gives you good future proofing. I have 8GB because of my Photoshop (where i often use 100MB+ files).
The reason you want an SSD drive and not create a RAM drive is because the huge performance boost of an SSD drive kicks into effect the second after BIOS post happens. RAM Drives cannot benefit your Windows OS. With my SSD drive, I can completely boot up Windows and am ready to work in 20 seconds from powerup!
Better suggestion. 8GB RAM. Two Hard drives… Drive 1 = a 60 or 120GB Booting OS drive / Drive 2 = a large 300+ GB App/Data drive.
As for Graphics adapter. If you dont like Nvidia and want ATI (like I do), make sure you get the ATI 5700 or greater as it has a significant hardware improvement over 5600 or lower.
I have to agree with Tateru on the graphics card. Sure, there are better graphics cards out there… but she cited performance for the price. In my opinion, there is no better price/performance ratio out there than the GeForce 450 card. It is fast, reliable, and close to $100.
When running Second Life, the graphics card is just as important as anything else. So one can reliable run SL on a duo-core with the 450 graphics card and have a nice, fast system, so long as we don’t load up a lot of other applications along with it.
Using ramdisk to cache SL is a very good idea. Even if one has to re-cache when logging in, it is still a whole lot faster than hard drive access. The downside– it requires Windows 7 (or Linux etc) to access more than 3 gigs… and of course the cost of the RAM, which is by no means inexpensive. Per gig RAM is hundreds of times more expensive than hard drives (I haven’t done the math, but it’s pricey). So 16 gigs of RAM don’t come cheap. The upside though, is lightning fast performance.
If folks are cash-strapped, I recommend a simple, duo-core system with the Nvidia 450 card and as much RAM as you can afford. It is quite easy to get into a full-bore, duo-core system for between $500 and $600 if one has to stay on the low end.
Good news: some laptops these days are as powerful as desktops. Acer puts out a line of quad-core heavy graphics laptops for around $700 to $800 that just rock (gamer laptops). Desktops are always better of course, but laptops are portable. Don’t expect though, to take the laptop to your local book store hotspot and access SL. Network speed is prime too… and wifi just doesn’t cut it.
So lots of options. I think Tateru came up with a pretty sensible configuration all in all. : )
I have to agree with Jan. A better graphics card now will save the expense of having to upgrade it in a year or 2.
As for RAMdrives, it just did not work out for me. I installed a Velociraptor HD for cache, fast and reliable.
Unfortunately your processor is an intel (AMD person myself) lol.
@Shug I’m brand-agnostic myself. I chose the Intel processor purely on features – like the dedicated PCIe silicon.
Good article from Toysoldier. The idea of an SSD drive is great. Now mind you, RAM is faster (I think it is anyway… direct motherboard plugin and all that), but SSD does offer more bang for the buck and works with Windows XP systems.
I’m still going to side with Tateru on the graphics card situation. The GeForce 450gs has 1 gig of memory and is a fast, powerful card. Yes, there are more powerful ones out there… but most people I know can’t afford $300 to $500 for a graphics card. The only thing I think would warrant extra expense is if someone could get a 2 gig card. That might warrant the extra cost. The GeForce 450 works just fine with SL… unless someone is trying to push the board to absolute limits (ie, ULTRA with 1900 x 1600 display, all graphics maxxed). Imo, SL simply doesn’t warrant it.
I also agree that an i7, while nice, isn’t necessary. To my understanding (and I’m no tech), SL is a single-core program that cannot take advantage of multi-core technology. There may be some other issues involved there, but a duo-core or quad-core works just fine. AMD quad-core processors can be purchased for $100, often with motherboard included (cheap motherboard, but it works).
That doesn’t mean that Tat didn’t get a nice system. It’s probably a good all-around general system that will last her for ages and will do a fine job. So while others may have personal preferences, bottom line is Tat’s system does work well with SL. It may have cost her about twice as much as it needed to (because SL can work just fine on far less)…. but it’s a valid system.
For those with lower budgets, here’s a good spec:
AMD quad-core processor. No sense wasting money on a duo core these days. Quad core is cheap now.
Intel processors rock… but they’re expensive… at least 2-3 times the cost of an AMD.
4 gigs RAM (at least). Windows XP can only use 3 of those… but 4 allows faster processing regardless due to dual-channel RAM configurations. Some people prefer to have dual 2 gig chips rather than a single 4 gig.
Two hard drives: at least 500 gig for primary programs (C:) and at least 1 terrabyte for data (D:).
Since terrabyte hard drives are now under $100… imo one is foolish to buy anything less for data.
Nvidia 450gs or better graphics card, or AMD 5650 or better.
GOOD power supply.
This kind of system will cost you right around $400 to $500… and SL will rock on this.
* Don’t skimp on the power supply. Buy a good one. Cheap power supplies = bad power.
* I prefer Seagate hard drives. I’ve had problems with every WD I’ve ever owned. You’ll get a lot of debate on that… but I’ve been in the industry a long time.
Again, the more powerful graphics card you can afford, the better. But remember.. graphics card technology changes regularly.. and people who bought top-of-the-line $500 GeForce 9800 cars 2 years ago wish they’d have bought a cheaper card and just upgraded as time went by. The 450 is just fine for now, and probably will be for at least 2 years to come– at which time you can upgrade to the next killer $100 card.
Follow-up:
Ezra makes a very good point that I’d forgotten: SSD drives do have a limited lifespan (what is it… 1,500 writes to a specific area). I would have to believe SL will stomp that in nothing flat. So Tat may be right there… RAM may be a better way to go for cache storage.
@Wayfinder SSD drives have firmware that institutes special wear-patterns that spread out writes to the storage, reducing the incidence of a portion wearing out much sooner than the rest of the drive. This significantly increases their longevity.
> SSD is a far better performance overall performance improvement and price point than ANY RAM Drive solution – as well as much more simple. If you people do not know what SSD drives are – take an hour of your time and GOOGLE it. You will see far far far greater over all powerup to powerdown improvements on your system by using your SSD drive than any RAM Drive solution at a MUCH lower price point. SSD drives place the entire Windows 7 OS and everything else into RAM (SSD drives are RAM Drives that interface with the SATA interface of your system).
As I already pointed out to Tateeru in Twitter…. I can powerup my PC, start up windows, login into windows and complete ALL Startup applications and be completely ready to use Windows in 20 seconds with an SSD drive. With a RAM drive or a hard drive – you are looking at minimum 45 second to 2 minutes. Even Tateru agrees.
And.. the cost of a 60GB SSD HD is now running about $100. 16GB of high speed DRAM exceed this easily. All you need for a BOOTING SSD Windows7 drive is 60GB since a fully installed Windows 7 is about 35GB. Then you have a second installed large slow 300GB hard drive (which runs 10 to 50 times slower than even a SATAII SSD drive) to install all your windows applications and your data onto it. There is no gains to install an application on a SSD drive – only the Windows OS benefits.
I did notice after replacing my std HD with a Bootable SSD drive that SL was a bit faster but it was not by far the biggest factor to improve SL LAG.
> Your best factor by far to improve SL performance is the Graphics card. All other factors like CPU and massive amounts of RAM (beyond the minimum acceptable 4GB for a Windows7 OS), a super fast Internet connection (beyond any service giving you 2mbps download speed), a super fast SSD drive, or even a RAM Drive, etc…. will only provide minimal improvements.
> Windows 7 64 bit will help as the newer viewers with 64 bit and multi threaded support will improve your SL experience – but again – not as much as a good graphics card.
> For a graphics card, you can get very powerful OEM / 3rd Party versions of either the NVidia or ATI name brand cards and much lower prices! Dont buy the brand name if you want to save money.
I bought a Saphire HD5770 Graphics card (which is basically the ATI HD5770 graphics card exactly and is also prettymuch the direct competitor to a GTS450 in performance) and I only paid $160 for this card (the 5750 is almost as good for $130). The ATI version of this same card is more and you gain no benefits by buying brand name. I even directly download and use the drivers from ATI.
> The big thing to take note of….
There is only so much you can do to remove lag from SL. Very quickly you will notice that there is a point where the rest of the lag comes from Linden Labs and over virtualization of sims on physical servers and their Internet service being congested and too much scripts on sims, etc. MY PC and my laptop are pretty much as powerful as you can make a Windows 7 PC (all my windows 7 experience factors are at 7.5 to 7.9 – and 7.9 is the max value). I still have frequent moments in SL where things are laggy and wont rez… its not my PC.
I have a 25mbps Internet pipe to my home. I have set the SL viewer’s network bandwidth from 800kbps to unlimited – IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE.
The Graphics Card and a motherboard that supports a good graphics card is your #1 thing to focus on.
No Wayfinder….. although SSD drives have a shorter lifespan that a traditional HD drive, its farrrrr more than what you think and no SL will be stomping on an SSD drive.
Read the specs of the SATA II drive I have from OCZ…
http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-agility-2-sata-ii-2-5-ssd.html
MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure = 2 million hours)
Also read this about the Myths of SSD drives wearing out. In fact chances are your traditional hard drive will break or fail far sooner than any SSD drive.
http://superuser.com/questions/39719/what-is-the-lifespan-of-an-ssd-drive
Educate yourself ppl on SSD drives and then … do yourselves a big favor…. invest in an SSD drive for your Boot OS drive. You will not be disappointed!
I had a 4 year old HP Laptop with a traditional drive. It was getting so slow on bootup and usage that I was already ready to give up on it (bootup to use took like 2 minutes). I decided to replace the drive with a 120GB SSD Sata II drive. WOW! This same laptop now starts up windows and is ready to use in about 40 seconds. It breathed new life into the old laptop.
I have 6 systems at home (2 desktops and 4 laptops)… I have bought 3 SSD drives to replace old hard drives on 3 of them.
That’s good to hear about SSDs. I’ve heard horror stories but like I said mines been chiming along just fine with Second Life for more than a year now without issues, just blazing performance.
For maybe more info than you need to know on SSD tech:
http://www.anandtech.com/print/2738
It’s not about the current hardware. Things have changed.
It doesn’t really cover the problem of write-cycle limits, which is what wear-levelling is about. Just using the figures for bandwidth, drive size, and number of writes, if you were writing flat-out, the life would be about 1 day per gigabyte of size. But the need to erase data on overwrites drops that, a lot.
Fortunately, we can’t write an SL cache any faster than your internet connection. Very roughly, that may mean something like a month per Gigabyte of drive size, which means a five-year life. I don’t think that’s too bad. And remember, that’s still assuming 100% bandwidth use, 24/7. You’re not using SL 24/7, and even if you were, you’re not going to be maxing out the connection with textures to be cached.
I’d say the write-wear problem isn’t going to be a big problem. A five-year life at the most pessimistic means that ten years, even fifteen, is likely. And that’s a longer life than most systems. What was the hot hardware fifteen years ago?
Thanks for the info on that Toysoldier. I’ll definitely check in to that. The last “reliable” info I had on an SSD was that it allowed about 1,500 writes to any single area. I’ll look to see if I can verify or debunk that claim. : )
Wow. Thanks for all the input on system specs. We have been debating here at home whether inability to run SL is from their side or ours. Looks like a bit of both!
Actually, SSDs with the memory wear issue tend to be based on cheaper Flash memory. they HAVE developed enough in terms of speed and endurance that the only reason one would use a traditional RAM and battery-powered hard drive SSD instead is because the application has been accelerated into another new bottleneck with heavy use of Flash-based SSDs. (This has happened already on EVE Online, funnily enough xD)
An additional comment on graphics cards. When I built this machine I bought a shiny new, $500 Nvidia GTX480. For a long time I thought I had wasted my money since SL did not efficiently use the graphics driver. I was wrong! I am now running Firestorm and am able to enable shadows with little depreciation of stability or FPS!
Always buy the best graphics card you can possibly afford. It will pay in the end.
That article I quoted gave a life of 10,000 writes, which when you take into account the multiple writes needed to change data, isn’t dramatically better than the 1,500 which Wayfinder mentions.
I’m not sure I can trust the figures I have but 100,000 program/erase cycles seems commonplace now, which is ten times better than the figure I based my estimate on.
Hard drives, the sweet spot on pricing is based on platter sizes. I don’t know if there’s an equivalent for SSDs, but the impression I get is that spare space will extend the useful life and help with write speeds.
You guys just make me jealous. -.-