Best 60GB SSD

[dpapag]

I need a 60GB SSD.

Any deals going on right now? I'd like to keep it under $100, but is the Vertex 3 worth it? I assume it's compatible with my EVGA 680i. On the rig in my sig I plan to use it to install the OS on and run a few games, while using the 1TB Seagate for storage.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227737

[King107s]

Your mainboard doesn't support SATA3 so I'd say youre looking for a SATA2 SSD and that would be a Vertex 2 which is still pretty darn fast....

[cw823]

Your mainboard doesn't support SATA3 so I'd say youre looking for a SATA2 SSD and that would be a Vertex 2 which is still pretty darn fast....

+1, if you're upgrading soon to a sata3 board then I might suggest differently, but no reason to spend extra if you're limited to SATA2, imho.

[dpapag]

SATA 2 it is!

For my next board which will be a Gigabyte Z68X-UD3H-B3, what SATA 3 SSD would you recommend?

[Know Nuttin]

You should be able to get an Agility or Solid 3 under $100 (newegg), which would be plenty fine. They use asynchronous DRAM so it's not as fast as the Vertex line but you may be hard pressed to notice in real day-to-day usage.

[CompuTamer]

OCZ Solid 3 is on a nice special at Newegg right now :)

[issicus]

im looking at getting a SSD too. OCZ is the cheapest."$169.99, $139.99 with Rebate, Free Shipping" (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227726) is a pretty good deal for a 120gb SSD..

or maybe get two 60gb agility's RAID0, a bit more though 90x2=180. that would be damn quick..

[issicus]

in fact i just ordered one..

[tachi1247]

SATA 2 it is!

For my next board which will be a Gigabyte Z68X-UD3H-B3, what SATA 3 SSD would you recommend?

there is no reason to not get a sata 3 drive unless you're going to save a lot of money. The prices I've seen on agility or vertex 2 drives aren't any better than getting a sata 3 version.

if you're interested ive got a coz solid 3 60gb drive for sale in the classifieds.

[cw823]

there is no reason to not get a sata 3 drive unless you're going to save a lot of money. The prices I've seen on agility or vertex 2 drives aren't any better than getting a sata 3 version.

if you're interested ive got a coz solid 3 60gb drive for sale in the classifieds.

With all due respect your advice is rather skewed by your link to your classified sale. I've seen enough problems with the new SATAIII drives that I chose to stick with the tried and tested V2. Perhaps when it's time to upgrade there will be a solid option by a company not called Intel.

[Ivy]

The new SATA 6 drives are indeed pretty dodgy at times, my old Vertex 3 caused serious stability issues. In overall they simply was still at beta condition, however, i guess right at this moment, most drives should have theyr issues fixed. I just feel sad for all those "labor rats" wo had to much enthusiasm for being able to wait a half year in order to get a fixed series.

Besides: About Crucial M4 and the better performance for new firmware, its all a bit a hypocritical situation because Crucial artificially was limiting any drive below 512 GB in order to slow them down. So the 512 GB will be clearly fastest, its kinda a marketing strategy in order to boost the most expensive one. That doesnt change that they use synchron nand at least and they perform very good, at any condition.

For the Vertex 2 i would be aware about the fact that OCZ was kinda dirty at another marketing strategy which isnt uncommon in this buisness: They used 2 different nand for the same drive and customers wont know whats truly inside unless they tested it http://www.anandtech.com/show/4256/the-ocz-vertex-3-review-120gb/3. Not both nand do perform the same which kinda is keeping you in a rain with bad smell. Luckily that strategy is being decimated because it had to much bad response.

[NonConJon]

Newegg has a 60GB Patriot Pyro for $75 (AR). I'm looking at this as a cache for my HDD mass storage array.

[issicus]

you guys think the agility 3 sata3 120gb is a piece of ****? cuz i just bought one. its in the mail.

[johan851]

Strictly speaking about 60GB SSDs, I wouldn't go for an SATA 3 drive. 60GB drives are much slower than drives with a higher capacity of the same model because there are less channels to access in parallel (think RAID 0). Getting the latest and fastest 60GB drive isn't going to get you much improvement beyond an older 60GB drive like the Vertex 2.

I wouldn't get a Vertex 3 because of the compatibility issues some people are having, but if you have one and it works it seems like it's going to keep working without much trouble. In the 120GB range I would say the Crucial M4 is your best bang for the buck right now, and the Intel 510 is probably the most reliable (and expensive) high performance drive.

[Ivy]

Vertex 3 MI compatibility is in fact a very complicated matter. I think there isnt only the usualy grade of incompatibility, there is aswell some bad SF controllers around, which might cause higher instability than others. Why im telling this is because my system didnt work stable with a 120 GB Vertex 3 MI but it does indeed work with a newer 240 GB Vertex 3 MI fully stable (now used as my game drive). So it seems like roulette. Only get this if RMA is your second name.

you guys think the agility 3 sata3 120gb is a piece of ****? cuz i just bought one. its in the mail.
The Agility 3 is a solid piece of hardware, but it wont reach same performance such as Vertex 3 MI, and is even slower than the usualy Vertex 3 (no MI) because it "only" got asynchronous nand. For highest performance synchronous nand are top edge but aswell expensive and usualy most people barely notice the difference. For OS drive i personally recommend a 60-120 GB synchronous SSD (makes OS a bit more responsive) and for game drives a asynchronous drive with 240 GB might be the best deal (i even use synchronous because the Toshiba nand may live longer).

In the 120 GB class, my opinion is, after i tested it, that the Crucial M4 is a awesome piece and it does definitely exceed the Agility 3 by good margin. Maybe the Agility is nowadays cheaper but tbh for a performance lover i wouldnt mind paying 50$ more for my drive.

[issicus]

agility 3 is cheap. thats why i got it. if it works like it says it does. a 25mbyt differece ant much.

[Ivy]

Alright, if price matters a lot then its a good deal. You cant tell in advance if it works, the SF controller is to dodgy, but usualy it should.

The difference is much higher, do never trust such standart numbers. For example my M4 is scanned in 10 min, the Vertex 3 MI with same software is scanned in 3-4 min, the Agility 3 is probably more than 5 times slower at that action. The Raptor HDD may need up to 1 hour for it, even if you see "only 200 MB/s = 3/4 slower" on the paper. The difference comes down to the IOPS which can make huge difference at such matters, but it wont necessarely benefit you, it all comes down to its use. Numbers are marketing strategy and are close to meaningless in reality. The best stuff you can do is to check IOPS, usualy best hint in order to see performance. Even benchmarks fail to discover accurate data because in real term its usualy a combination of many different file sizes and approaches, and then it depends on the overall IOPS and its a way to complicated matter to make a accurate benchmark for. But generally, if you can play a game, while scanning the SSD in 3 min and wont notice any FPS breakdown, then its a ferrari SSD. ;) Easyest to find out.

[Know Nuttin]

It does seem like a bit of a crapshoot at this point.
In all honesty, it's pretty hard to notice differences in between async and sync NAND for every day use. If you live by benchmarking all day, then the numbers will show you the differences. If you just use it, it isn't as slow as the disparity in benchmarks is.

[Ivy]

I didnt say that the difference is always noticeable, in fact most users get along well by the cheapest junk of SSD and might not notice any difference because either theyr programs or theyr system cant make use of a more powerful one. However, the expensive Toshiba toggle nand on the Vertex 3 MI or Patriot Wildfire will most likely last longer in the long run, and thats another quality you will miss on the Agility 3.

If you load a game the Vertex might be 1-3 sec faster but pretty much any SSD load it fast anyway, so for that kind of matter actually any trash will be sufficient. Even a WD Caviar black is pretty fast at doing this (because mostly sequential read and a HDD got no problem with). The boot up time can be decimated to zero when PC is putted into sleep mode (i dont think most performance users truly care for that few Watt the PC need for sleep). Then just wake it up and no bootup time. In daily term, only a scanner will truly reveal a huge difference or when you have to load several thousand pictures. So how to judge performance? Thats up to what you use it for and if you like to shut it down completly on a daily basis and then boast around every time it boots up fast. Sorry for the slightly unfitting sound, just wanted to clearly tell that there is no standart meaning to it.

I guess the only true daily use of a SSD is to have higher responsiveness, so it always will instantly react, but that is doable with absolutly any SSD, so why do we talk about performance at all, then we no need to talk about anymore. I mean, someone ask if the drive is bad or what else.. no it isnt bad, its just as fast as the other 1000 one. ;) However, just because most people cant smell the difference between a quality alpine butter and a cheap mass production butter, it doesnt mean that there is no difference. I didnt say that the difference is worth the bucks, its only worth it for those who can smell alpine butter, and thats just a few. Still, thats why we use that performance board for because we may have such gourmets.

[steeven_steeven]

You may want to look into the compatability issues Nvidia chipsets have with SSDs.

I'm experiencing it right now. I bought a Corsair Froce 3 60gb that was on sale for $89 and the damn thing runs in SATA1 speed on my crappy 750i Nvidia chipset.

[RGone]

You may want to look into the compatability issues Nvidia chipsets have with SSDs.

I'm experiencing it right now. I bought a Corsair Froce 3 60gb that was on sale for $89 and the damn thing runs in SATA1 speed on my crappy 750i Nvidia chipset.

And he ain't telling no fib. I was walking thru his thread a few days ago and the Nvidia chipset is problematic. And when faced with the newer 3 series drives, the speed seems a kick in the face. Sata 2 SSD would make one feel at least presentable rather than feeling sad from seeing a series three drive saying it is running in Sata 1.5 mode.

[King107s]

I didnt say that the difference is always noticeable, in fact most users get along well by the cheapest junk of SSD and might not notice any difference because either theyr programs or theyr system cant make use of a more powerful one. However, the expensive Toshiba toggle nand on the Vertex 3 MI or Patriot Wildfire will most likely last longer in the long run, and thats another quality you will miss on the Agility 3.

If you load a game the Vertex might be 1-3 sec faster but pretty much any SSD load it fast anyway, so for that kind of matter actually any trash will be sufficient. Even a WD Caviar black is pretty fast at doing this (because mostly sequential read and a HDD got no problem with). The boot up time can be decimated to zero when PC is putted into sleep mode (i dont think most performance users truly care for that few Watt the PC need for sleep). Then just wake it up and no bootup time. In daily term, only a scanner will truly reveal a huge difference or when you have to load several thousand pictures. So how to judge performance? Thats up to what you use it for and if you like to shut it down completly on a daily basis and then boast around every time it boots up fast. Sorry for the slightly unfitting sound, just wanted to clearly tell that there is no standart meaning to it.

I guess the only true daily use of a SSD is to have higher responsiveness, so it always will instantly react, but that is doable with absolutly any SSD, so why do we talk about performance at all, then we no need to talk about anymore. I mean, someone ask if the drive is bad or what else.. no it isnt bad, its just as fast as the other 1000 one. ;) However, just because most people cant smell the difference between a quality alpine butter and a cheap mass production butter, it doesnt mean that there is no difference. I didnt say that the difference is worth the bucks, its only worth it for those who can smell alpine butter, and thats just a few. Still, thats why we use that performance board for because we may have such gourmets.

True.... but most of us here have an obssesion with performance and thats where the latest and greatest comes into play. I probably did not need to upgrade my Q9550 to an i7-960 but I certainly wanted to enough to spend the big bucks on an entirely new system and i'm sure I'll upgrade again to something even more overkill in the near future. Same thing for video cards btw... Just the way we are :)

*can't mention/advertise classifieds sales outside classifieds - I.M.O.G.*

[Ivy]

Actually, the difference between my old and my new PC was so insane that i didnt lose a single tear and im happy i got ride of it. I can feel the new performance at anything i do, even at my browser its all more responsive. I can now pretty much throw anything at it and it just works out of the box. I can push all settings always to the max, and the system shows as good as no weakness at all. Its insane joy for any gourmets out there, its a new level of freedom you have on power systems, so i definitely adore it. Once you got something like that you cant go back to something weaker anymore, because it feels like grandmas walking stick as soon as you push up the settings to higher levels. The new system is aswell several times faster at 7-Zip executions because the CPU does support AES and 7-Zip runs much faster at doing it. Aswell the HD speed plays a role and the RAM, and i sometimes have to use 7 ZIP a lot, it truly makes huge difference. On slow PCs, the programm is so slow, i almost fall asleep. Usual users who only use a PC for internet browsing may not notice any difference but thats not me.

Old system: C2D, HD 4850 OC, 4 GB RAM, Win Vista 32 bit, Matrox system HDD
New system: 990X, HD 6950 OC, tripple channel 12 GB RAM, Win 7 64 bit, 128 GB M4 system SSD

Btw your link doesnt work for me because:

Ivy, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

[Zerix01]

I've had very good luck with my 60GB m4's in RAID 0. Every benchmark I have thrown at these things show me the same speeds they advertise 450MB's read and 90MB's write. In RAID 0 they are 650MB's read and 180MB's write. I am held back a bit from the SB800 south bridge chip on my AMD based board, so I should be seeing 900MB's reads (FYI, all eight ports are filled. The top end speed issues could be from many factors). Still not a big deal, 650MB's is huge.

Something to consider here. My write speeds look pathetic compared to some of what OCZ puts out. But what are we writing from? DVD? Another HDD? 1 Gb ethernet comes pretty close but then what are you accessing on the other end? My 3 drive RAID 5 array almost saturates these SSD's but there is still room for more writes.

[King107s]

Actually, the difference between my old and my new PC was so insane that i didnt lose a single tear and im happy i got ride of it. I can feel the new performance at anything i do, even at my browser its all more responsive. I can now pretty much throw anything at it and it just works out of the box. I can push all settings always to the max, and the system shows as good as no weakness at all. Its insane joy for any gourmets out there, its a new level of freedom you have on power systems, so i definitely adore it. Once you got something like that you cant go back to something weaker anymore, because it feels like grandmas walking stick as soon as you push up the settings to higher levels. The new system is aswell several times faster at 7-Zip executions because the CPU does support AES and 7-Zip runs much faster at doing it. Aswell the HD speed plays a role and the RAM, and i sometimes have to use 7 ZIP a lot, it truly makes huge difference. On slow PCs, the programm is so slow, i almost fall asleep.

Uusal users who only use a PC for internet browsing may not notice any difference but thats not me.

Old system: C2D, HD 4850 OC, 4 GB RAM, Win Vista 32 bit, Matrox system HDD
New system: 990X, HD 6950 OC, tripple channel 12 GB RAM, Win 7 64 bit, 128 GB M4 system SSD

Btw your link doesnt work for me because:

Ivy, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

You have not yet met the requirments set to use the classifides, sorry.

BTW the jump you made is huge, so i'm not suprised you saw a big difference

Anyway.... Back on Topic

SATA2 SSD is definitely the way to go, and IMHO 60GB is too small, get at least 100GB or bigger

[Miltz]

Reading this thread made me dizzy... i'll make it simple. The best value right now is the crucial M4 64GB. And I'm not repeating what I read. I have 3 of these and the work great. No issues ay all. Now if you're only buying on price and don't value stability or your data, there's a ton of drives for that are ok. OCZ being on of them. Spend a few bucks more and get the M4.

[Ivy]

The 90 MB/s write is a artificial limitation, but i generally suggest the 128 GB one. Its still a pretty good price and it will reach 200 MB/s write easely, each drive, and there is more room for stuff to use the drive for. Even as a OS only drive with 64 GB is pretty close on its spec. A basic installation can easely reach 40 GB and its better for the nand when they arnt all used for wear level. So 128 GB is currently the sweet spot, thats certain.

Final advise: M4 128 GB, any other do it at your own risk, and its aswell future proof in term there it will be moved to another system.

Raid 0 is surely nice, but the risk of having data loss is twice as high because of the fact that the failure from one single drive will aswell render the second drives data useless. Aswell it doesnt improve reaction time (could be a bit slower), only the pure pass through performance. Most controllers aswell cant handle 2 strong SSDs in raid 0, its to much to handle for any controller chip.

[johan851]

I hope this is not inappropriate to mention but, coincidently...
Sorry, but this is inappropriate to mention outside of the classifieds.

[Ivy]

I got spamed by a bot once i used my real mail in this board, so apparently my mail isnt protected well enough, and i was going back to gmail. So classified will stay a questionable thing for me, as a lover of security and lesser spam.

[johan851]

^ I haven't had that issue myself in the last nine or so years. Surprising.

[I.M.O.G.]

I got spamed by a bot once i used my real mail in this board, so apparently my mail isnt protected well enough, and i was going back to gmail. So classified will stay a questionable thing for me, as a lover of security and lesser spam.

If you received bot spam, it wasn't due to our site.

No one has access to our email database, we do not sell emails, and we do not share them with anyone. Other sites might, your ISP might, but we protect member security and privacy 100% - no one can get any of the private information you provide to us.

[Ivy]

Maybe the other OC site. Im not fully sure its from this site but it happend short time after i used ISP mail for one of those boards (forgot which one). I registered at several of them almost same time, anyway, thanks for info, i might think about.

[I.M.O.G.]

Could have been. Just wanted to assure you, and everyone else, that our database is secure. If the emails weren't safe here, I wouldn't be part of the site. I hate spam as much as everyone else, maybe even more considering how much forum spam we get hammered with.

[Know Nuttin]

The 90 MB/s write is a artificial limitation, but i generally suggest the 128 GB one. Its still a pretty good price and it will reach 200 MB/s write easely, each drive, and there is more room for stuff to use the drive for. Even as a OS only drive with 64 GB is pretty close on its spec. A basic installation can easely reach 40 GB and its better for the nand when they arnt all used for wear level. So 128 GB is currently the sweet spot, thats certain.


What do you consider a "basic installation"?

[wingman99]

Also are installing windows 7 64bit.:popcorn:

[cheapskates]

NCIX.com has an OCZ Vertex 3 60gb for $99.99 after a $10 MIR, with free shipping!

http://us.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=62030&vpn=VTX3%2D25SAT3%2D60G&manufacture=OCZ Technology&promoid=1365

Deal ends on Wednesday though.

[cw823]

NCIX.com has an OCZ Vertex 3 60gb for $99.99 after a $10 MIR, with free shipping!

http://us.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=62030&vpn=VTX3%2D25SAT3%2D60G&manufacture=OCZ Technology&promoid=1365

Deal ends on Wednesday though.

New member, and both of your posts are in Cyberdeals for NCIX. Hmmm

[Ivy]

What do you consider a "basic installation"?
Win 7 64 bit ULT = 40 GB including a few temporary i net files and mails (barely taking any space). Being future proof will come extremely close to 60 GB and then all nand would be taken, no wear balance (TRIM, Garbage Collection) can effectively work anymore. Such a drive is crying. Shortened lifespan, lesser futureproof, lesser performance, and some people call it "the best deal", not my view but everyone can have theyr own.

[Know Nuttin]

Win 7 64 bit ULT = 40 GB including a few temporary i net files and mails (barely taking any space). Being future proof will come extremely close to 60 GB and then all nand would be taken, no wear balance (TRIM, Garbage Collection) can effectively work anymore. Such a drive is crying. Shortened lifespan, lesser futureproof, lesser performance, and some people call it "the best deal", not my view but everyone can have theyr own.

40GB seems a bit excessive unless you run with a huge page file (and subsequent hibernation file)?

I don't do games, I have a pretty standard installation with Office 2007 including Outlook/AV/Firefox/iTunes and with Photoshop CS5, no hibernation file (no need to with a fast bootup, imo), smaller page file (1GB), I'm only at around 16GB used.

[Ivy]

OK found out, the difference is that my system uses 12 GB pagefile and 12 GB hibernation file + 16 GB core files = 40 GB. Both is equal to my amount of RAM and very recommended if any functions are used. Pagefile is critical for many programs and may lead to failures without, however, the size remains a discordant issue with endless different opinions, at such a point i use the standart rule: Memory size = pagefile size (at least for any memory above 6 GB).

According to this probably best choice just to let the system handle it. http://lifehacker.com/5426041/understanding-the-windows-pagefile-and-why-you-shouldnt-disable-it

Maybe the true problem is we have different systems, i didnt know that i am facing some "lower" settings. Aswell weird why the backup is using 37 GB, if there is no used pagefile there is no use to reserve space for nothing (not as a backup).

[Know Nuttin]

I got no clue then, i did a standart installation without enabling or disabling anything. I will start to investigate but i surely dont run it with "minimum install", i want the best performance possible. Usualy WIN 7 is managing the pagefiles and stuff themself and you can not run the OS without any pagefiles because many programs are in demand of it, no matter how much RAM. As far as my knowledge goes, WIN 7 pretty much will adjust itself to the optimal settings and doesnt need much tweaking if any at all (unlike other WIN versions). Finally, i have no complaints, it runs with awesome performance and i have absolutly no need for any kind of improvements, but yeah, it takes 40 GB for OS only. Many programs arnt even installed, i just pop them out of a ZIP folder, but it goes that fast that it feels like installed.

Checked: Pagefile seems to be 12 GB (any drive) and doesnt look like to much, its just about right to have overhelming power for everything else, not more and not less. 12 GB RAM, 12 GB Pagefile, 2 GB VRAM. The system will make optimal use of RAMs unless it is in need of pagefile so there is no use to destroy it, its rather critical when to less. No clue about hibernation, i should have it disabled, i only use sleep.
According to this probably best choice just to let the system handle it. http://lifehacker.com/5426041/understanding-the-windows-pagefile-and-why-you-shouldnt-disable-it

If you have 12GB RAM, then you have a 12GB hibernation file. Remove that and you're at 28GB. Even halve your page file, you're at 22GB.

If you read the whole article you linked to, then you missed key parts

For example, if your system has 4GB of RAM and your peak memory usage was 5GB (including virtual memory), you should set your pagefile to at least 1GB and the maximum as 2GB to give you a buffer to keep you safe in case a RAM-hungry application needs it. If you have 8GB of RAM and a max 3GB of memory usage, you should still have a pagefile, but you would probably be fine with a 1 GB size.

Note that I did not say I disabled my page file. I set it, just like in the article you linked to, to a certain amount that gives me buffer space in the event that need it. My peak ram usage is around 6-7GB. I have 8GB physical RAM and then a 1GB page file.

In any case, I was just curious as to how you got 40GB as typical installation size. The thread was for best 60GB SSD, so I'll leave it at that.

[Ivy]

Well it doesnt matter, but if people want to go without sleep and low pagefile, sure why not, finally i understand how 64 GB are able to work.

[Know Nuttin]

Well it doesnt matter, but if people want to go without sleep and low pagefile, sure why not, finally i understand how 64 GB are able to work.

Without hibernate, not without sleep.

[tachi1247]

With all due respect your advice is rather skewed by your link to your classified sale. I've seen enough problems with the new SATAIII drives that I chose to stick with the tried and tested V2. Perhaps when it's time to upgrade there will be a solid option by a company not called Intel.

i stand by my original recommendation regardless if whether I am selling a drive in the classifieds or not. At relatively the same price for a sata II as a sata III why would you not get the faster drive? In fact, the drive I chose to keep (over the one I'm selling) is a crucial m4 so I was merely sharing with the OP what my own research had lead me to do.

[issicus]

i just installed win7 64 sp1 it used 14.5 gb fyi.

just got my agility 3 120gb . at least its not DOA.

[Ivy]

OK i did remove hibernate file because i didnt need it, but its still 31 GB left, double of that what others got. Anyway, i wont remove pagefile, thats pointless.

[Know Nuttin]

OK i did remove hibernate file because i didnt need it, but its still 31 GB left, double of that what others got. Anyway, i wont remove pagefile, thats pointless.

I still keep a page file, and recommend the same, I just don't let Windows decide for me since I don't want an 8-12GB page file nor do I need one. If you feel happy with a 12GB page file, all the more power to you. However, I wouldn't say that a 12GB page file is "typical".

[Ivy]

Alright, i still keep it, because i have my 128 GB wholely dedicated to OS and now i have plenty of space left. For games i use the Vertex 3 MI, should it someday burn out, it doesnt matter to much because its all backed up and no critical OS data.

10 years ago, everyone would have had big eyes if you told them that you got 1 GB RAM and how is it nowadays? Would be nice if the PC even remains usable in 5 years, as a backup PC (i always like to have backup, you never know what can happen). I make completly new PC every ~4 years but i keep the old one up to 8 years as a backup. Selling is rather low money. PCs lose like 40% value, every year, so in 4 years maybe 500 bucks for a PC which did initialy cost 3k. So i rather keep it as a backup, it still got same power such as cheap noname systems (at that time) who cost same price and without all my awesome improvements.