• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Fragging wonderful: The truth about defragging your SSD


Coram Daes

.i hate fanbois.
Member
#21
Which is not what I am talking about. I am addressing storage capacity as still being an issue.

Defrag stuff apart.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    W7x64P
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Main WKS/Gaming Sloth
    CPU
    Phenom II X6 1075T, 3000 Mhz
    Motherboard
    Asus Sabretooth 990FX
    Memory
    16 GB PC3-10700
    Graphics Card(s)
    2 x ATI 6750
    Sound Card
    Asus Xonar DX
    Monitor(s) Displays
    2 x LG Flatron L2000C (3:4)
    Screen Resolution
    2 x 1600x1200
    Hard Drives
    WDC WD740ADFD (10k rpm)|
    WDC WD5000AAKS |
    WDC WD10EARS
    PSU
    750 W
    Case
    Cooler Master CM 690
    Cooling
    Cooler Master Hyper 612S
    Keyboard
    Logitech G110
    Mouse
    Logitech G700
    Internet Speed
    ADSL 30 MBit
    Antivirus
    ESET Endpoint Protection

HerrKaLeun

Member
Member
Posts
87
#22
Coram Daes;288892[B said:
Because SSD are not mainstream yet.[/B] To me, SSD is still a new technology, emerging in usage as prices for the drives goes down. There is still too much of a price difference for server drives and desktop drives with higher storage volumes in order to start yelling about mainstream.
They are pretty much mainstream for OS. $100 gives you all you need. For data you use a spinner, and with W7/8 defragmentation is not a noticeable issue anymore.

About 3 years ago viable and inexpensive SSD were available, which is ages in computer-time.

And even for someone who doesn't want to afford one, the fact that defragging is not needed is general knowledge, and has been to anyoen just reading about SSD in the past 3 years.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 7 Pro 64
    CPU
    Core i3 3.3 GHz
    Memory
    16 GB 1600 MHz
    Hard Drives
    SSD Samsung 830 128 GB

Coram Daes

.i hate fanbois.
Member
#23
I agree that the OS may reside on an SSD and gain performance by it. I also agree that the SSD capacity and price is not really an issue when we are talking about OS allocation. Today.

I do NOT agree SSD's were cheap even three years ago. I do NOT agree that the knowledge about not having to defrag SSD's was common spread three years ago, and hence I do NOT agree to most of what you write, also in a pretty condescending tone.

Anyone can claim "hey we all knew that" without being able to present any facts to the matter. I do not.

I am ALSO saying that optimizing SSD's is a technology that may or may not hit the market, depending on if research may find a way to do so. That is beyond any of us, but we already see a valid tech in use for optimizing SSD storage, the one mentioned earlier, TRIM. I am not saying that is defrag, as we interprete it historically, I am only saying it is some kind of optimization. That is undeniable.

Also, what you seem to forget is that with any computer that have several drives attached to it, the overall performance of that computer is not deemed by the OS boot time alone, or of the R/W operations on the OS disk, but of the disk access needed for the computer/server in question to perform its role. In that case you may very well have an SSD as OS disk, but SAS or SATA drives as storage/work space and the overall speed of the computer will not be largely enhanced, only because the OS resides on an SSD.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    W7x64P
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Main WKS/Gaming Sloth
    CPU
    Phenom II X6 1075T, 3000 Mhz
    Motherboard
    Asus Sabretooth 990FX
    Memory
    16 GB PC3-10700
    Graphics Card(s)
    2 x ATI 6750
    Sound Card
    Asus Xonar DX
    Monitor(s) Displays
    2 x LG Flatron L2000C (3:4)
    Screen Resolution
    2 x 1600x1200
    Hard Drives
    WDC WD740ADFD (10k rpm)|
    WDC WD5000AAKS |
    WDC WD10EARS
    PSU
    750 W
    Case
    Cooler Master CM 690
    Cooling
    Cooler Master Hyper 612S
    Keyboard
    Logitech G110
    Mouse
    Logitech G700
    Internet Speed
    ADSL 30 MBit
    Antivirus
    ESET Endpoint Protection

jimbo45

New Member
VIP Member
Guru
Hafnarfjörður IS

Posts
4,373
#24
Hi there
I posted some issues on how the I/O actually works on OS'es like windows - if one reads this then the whole concept of "Long File chains" etc are essentially irrelevant to the whole issue -- anyway just to re-iterate.

Most modern OS'es - especially Apple Ios, Windows 7 / 8 / 8.1 the actual I/O is performed where possible ASYNCHRONOUSLY with your work. The OS'es use a complex algorithm (which is optimized the more you use the OS) known as PRE-FETCHING.

What this means in plain English is that the OS can make a pretty good guess as to what data you are likely to use next and for example while you might be typing a reply to the Forum the Pre-fetch routine has already retrieved some data and stored it in the Disk Cache so when you need it the I/O doesn't need to be done as the data is already available.

These algorithms while complex are usually pretty good and this is where the design of the Disk is important -- the size of the CACHE needs to be large enough so the OS can PREFETCH a reasonable amount of data whith a good probability of getting a good hit -- I.e it has made a decent guess.

Going into complex statistical analysis here is way beyond the scope of this post - but these algorithms are pretty smart these days.

Particularly in the case of things like OS'es -- where the main data doesn't actually change too much -- the non persistent data like work areas and page data don't need to be saved permanently on Disk at all.

DEFRAG for an OS -- especially where the OS has been moved to it's own partition isn't really necessary AT ALL - and hasn't been for a long time -- assuming you have decent spinners and the disk has a decent cache. Any 7200 RPM disk is probably OK to ignore defragging.

5400 RPM disks are usually JUNK anyway so even if you DID defrag them you would still be twiddling your thumbs waiting for I/O most of the time. These disks should you still be unfortunate enough to have any are best left for data that's usually only READ like multi-media files or backup / archive.

SSD's are different and having no mechanical parts can react a lot quicker -- PREFETCH is still worth while on these but data access is an order of magnitude faster so they can operate with smaller caches - to make them cheaper.

There's a whole slew in this issue which consists of more than just "Long file chains". - I wonder if the makers of these products actually understand how the OS actually works.

The best you can do for any system is to PUT THE FASTEST DISKS INTO THEM. Slow I/O will kill any system stone dead - even if you have an I7 processor.

Anyway my last word on this - I can honestly say I don't think I've EVER noticed a miniscule of improvement after defragging a disk -- replacing a slow one with a faster one with a bigger cache -- that's another story - and an SSD is best of all.

Cheers
jimbo
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Linux Centos 7, W8.1, W7, W2K3 Server W10
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    Monitor(s) Displays
    1 X LG 40 inch TV
    Hard Drives
    SSD's * 3 (Samsung 840 series) 250 GB
    2 X 3 TB sata
    5 X 1 TB sata
    Internet Speed
    0.12 GB/s (120Mb/s)

LittleJay

New Member
Power User
Posts
1,338
#25
Anyway my last word on this - I can honestly say I don't think I've EVER noticed a miniscule of improvement after defragging a disk -- replacing a slow one with a faster one with a bigger cache -- that's another story - and an SSD is best of all.


I'll second that.
:thumb:
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8.1 Pro x64 bit
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    CyberPower
    CPU
    i5 2500K
    Motherboard
    Asus P8P67 Deluxe
    Memory
    8 gigabytes Corsair PC3-12800 DDR3
    Graphics Card(s)
    EVGA GeForce GTX 460 superclocked
    Sound Card
    Integrated
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Viewsonic 23" LCD
    Screen Resolution
    1920 x 1080
    Hard Drives
    128 Gb Samsung 840 Pro SSD
    128 Gb Kingston Hyper X SSD
    1 Tb Western Digital Caviar Black HDD
    PSU
    1000 watt Coolermaster modular
    Case
    Coolermaster Haf X full tower
    Cooling
    Coolermaster Hyper 212 plus
    Keyboard
    Logitech
    Mouse
    Logitec M310 USB cordless
    Internet Speed
    1.5 mb/s download 300 kb/s upload

Hopachi

Polyhedric Stellation
VIP Member
Pro User
Orbiting the Moon

Posts
2,975
#27
For speed improvement, Defragging was useful on Win98, on fat32. Since ntfs, defragmenting didn't gave a significant boost anymore.

I never defragged on 7200rpm spinners for speed and now there's no way I'm defragging on SSD.

The only time I find defragmenting useful (for spinners only, but might apply for SSD as well) is when you want to shrink down a partition but it's not giving enough space for this because of fragmentation (files chunks are spread up to the end of disk). You most likely need to defrag the disk first. If you use one or two good programs (some like the free Defraggler) that also give the names of the files needed to defrag, you can get there copy/move or delete the files: pagefile.sys cannot be defragged because is unmovable so you might wanna disable it first (even delete it manually afterwards), defrag the disk now, shrink down the partition after defrag, when all is good and then re-enable the pagefile again. There are cases when this steps are required, if you have small and/or full disks. Usually if there's enough space on the disk, you will be able to shrink the partition enough without defragmenting, but again, hopefully there are no pagefile pieces in the way of the shrink operation.

On a daily usage, no defrag is really required, if the disk has very large files stored then there's a higher chance for those to be fragmeneted (split into smaller pieces) of course. :)
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 10 x64
    Computer type
    Laptop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    HP Envy DV6 7250
    CPU
    Intel i7-3630QM
    Motherboard
    HP, Intel HM77 Express Chipset
    Memory
    16GB
    Graphics Card(s)
    Intel HD4000 + Nvidia Geforce 630M
    Sound Card
    IDT HD Audio
    Monitor(s) Displays
    15.6' built-in + Samsung S22D300 + 17.3' LG Phillips
    Screen Resolution
    multiple resolutions
    Hard Drives
    Samsung SSD 250GB + Hitachi HDD 750GB
    PSU
    120W adapter
    Case
    small
    Cooling
    laptop cooling pad
    Keyboard
    Backlit built-in + big one in USB
    Mouse
    SteelSeries Sensei
    Internet Speed
    slow and steady
    Browser
    Chromium, Pale Moon, Firefox Developer Edition
    Antivirus
    Windows Defender
    Other Info
    That's basically it.

lehnerus2000

Power User
VIP Member
Power User
Adelaide

Posts
1,343
#28
I used to find that XP ran better if it was properly defragged.

I can't say that I notice any real performance improvement in W7 after defragging.
It might shave a few milliseconds off of operations (thus unnoticeable).
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 (64 bit), Linux Mint 18.3 MATE (64 bit)
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    n/a
    CPU
    AMD Phenom II x6 1055T, 2.8 GHz
    Motherboard
    ASRock 880GMH-LE/USB3
    Memory
    8GB DDR3 1333 G-Skill Ares F3-1333C9D-8GAO (4GB x 2)
    Graphics Card(s)
    ATI Radeon HD6450
    Sound Card
    Realtek?
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Samsung S23B350
    Screen Resolution
    1920x1080
    Hard Drives
    Western Digital 1.5 TB (SATA), Western Digital 2 TB (SATA), Western Digital 3 TB (SATA)
    Case
    Tower
    Mouse
    Wired Optical
    Other Info
    Linux Mint 16 MATE (64 bit) replaced with Linux Mint 17 MATE (64 bit) - 2014-05-17
    Linux Mint 14 MATE (64 bit) replaced with Linux Mint 16 MATE (64 bit) - 2013-11-13
    Ubuntu 10.04 (64 bit) replaced with Linux Mint 14 MATE (64 bit) - 2013-01-14
    RAM & Graphics Card Upgraded - 2013-01-13
    Monitor Upgraded - 2012-04-20
    System Upgraded - 2011-05-21, 2010-07-14
    HDD Upgraded - 2010-08-11, 2011-08-24,

Coram Daes

.i hate fanbois.
Member
#29
I am not even sure we are talking about the same basic tech anymore.

Granted Jimbos post makes a lot of sense from that perspective, but is not really what I was addressing or responding to.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    W7x64P
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Main WKS/Gaming Sloth
    CPU
    Phenom II X6 1075T, 3000 Mhz
    Motherboard
    Asus Sabretooth 990FX
    Memory
    16 GB PC3-10700
    Graphics Card(s)
    2 x ATI 6750
    Sound Card
    Asus Xonar DX
    Monitor(s) Displays
    2 x LG Flatron L2000C (3:4)
    Screen Resolution
    2 x 1600x1200
    Hard Drives
    WDC WD740ADFD (10k rpm)|
    WDC WD5000AAKS |
    WDC WD10EARS
    PSU
    750 W
    Case
    Cooler Master CM 690
    Cooling
    Cooler Master Hyper 612S
    Keyboard
    Logitech G110
    Mouse
    Logitech G700
    Internet Speed
    ADSL 30 MBit
    Antivirus
    ESET Endpoint Protection

DooRules

Member
Member
Posts
181
#30
It certainly has been common knowledge that you do not need to defrag an ssd for years. Just because you didn't know that doesn't change the facts.

Trim is not anything like defrag, neither is GC. Both trim and GC are run at the controller level and require no input from the user.

There is no need to "optimize" any modern ssd. They are plug and play, just like any spinner drive.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    W7

jeffrys

Power User
Power User
BELGIUM

Posts
503
#31
"Sure, lower capacity SSD drives 128GB and 256GB are rapidly decreasing in price, but for 0,5 TB drives and above you are still sweating it at around and above 4 times the price compared to a SATA HDD.

A 500GB HDD will cost you about $60 at Amazon

A 500GB SSD will cost you about $300 or above..."

True Coram, but in order to have your HDD fast, not only do you need to defrag it, but keep in mind that when using 60 % (or more) of the disk capacity your performance will degrade. You do not have that with a SSD.

HDD are nice for static data and.....that's it.

Jeff

have to edit this:

" I do NOT agree that the knowledge about not having to defrag SSD's was common spread three years ago,"

BUT IT WAS. I use SSD's from the take off, i guess some 5-6 years ago. My first buy where 6 OCZ (their first make) and already then it was common sence NOT to defrag a SSD.

Jeff
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    WINDOWS 8.1 x64
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    CPU
    INTEL CORE I--3770K LGA1155
    Motherboard
    ASUS P8Z77-V
    Memory
    KINGSTON 2400 MHZ KHX24C11K4 16GB
    Graphics Card(s)
    INTEL HD GRAFICS 4000
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Philip BDL3245€ 32 inch
    Screen Resolution
    1920 x 1080
    Hard Drives
    2 SAMSUNG 840 PRO RAID 0 ON BOARD 2 x 128 GB
    Keyboard
    LOGITEC MX™ 5500
    Mouse
    LOGITEC MX 5500
    Internet Speed
    120 Mbps

jimbo45

New Member
VIP Member
Guru
Hafnarfjörður IS

Posts
4,373
#32
"Sure, lower capacity SSD drives 128GB and 256GB are rapidly decreasing in price, but for 0,5 TB drives and above you are still sweating it at around and above 4 times the price compared to a SATA HDD.

A 500GB HDD will cost you about $60 at Amazon

A 500GB SSD will cost you about $300 or above..."

True Coram, but in order to have your HDD fast, not only do you need to defrag it, but keep in mind that when using 60 % (or more) of the disk capacity your performance will degrade. You do not have that with a SSD.

HDD are nice for static data and.....that's it.

Jeff

have to edit this:

" I do NOT agree that the knowledge about not having to defrag SSD's was common spread three years ago,"

BUT IT WAS. I use SSD's from the take off, i guess some 5-6 years ago. My first buy where 6 OCZ (their first make) and already then it was common sence NOT to defrag a SSD.

Jeff
Hi there @ jeff

Don't want to keep labouring the point but modern spinners DO NOT NEED TO BE DEFRAGGED -- you basically for the domestic market have 5400 RPM and 7200 RPM drives -- 10,000 RPM SCSI expensive drives etc are usually specialized server stuff so we'll concentrate on the Domestic stuff.

1) 5400 RPM disks are so slow anyway that the performance is just going to be horrible whatever you do and anything short of replacing the drive will not yield any user perceptible performance.

2) OS data doesn't change much - most non persistent data is in the page area and scratch data which get re-initialized every time -- unless you run your disks 95% full no defragging will help in optimising these OS areas.

3) User data is essentially READ ONLY (in general) such as music / multi-media so it doesn't really benefit from any defragging - the rate for example at which Music is played on your audio card is far slower than even HORRIBLE disks so you won't get an I/O penalty here.

4) I've explained how basic OS I/O works in previous posts and how it's overlapped with processing and the concept of PRE FETCHING -- any 7200 decent spinner will perform adequately - 5400 one's won't - simple END OF STORY. Always have your OS separate from DATA partitions.

5) SSD's will always improve ANY system.

6) Bottleneck on the OS is usually caused by POOR disk I/O (5400 RPM devices) - and running too many apps with insufficient RAM -- NONE of this will be improved to any perceptible degree by defragging.

If you are running online servers / web sites where users can make queries on DB's then you MUST HAVE FAST DISKS.

Anyway in all this not ONE person has even posted on what sort of performance you SHOULD expect by defragging a disk so IMO the whole question is largely irrelevant anyway.

You can still improve performance on Desktop type systems by having the OS age and Scratch work areas on a different device to the OS (unless the OS is an SSD - I/O is fast enough on SSD's to have the page data etc on the OS disk.

Also rule nr one -- DUMP any 5400 RPM spinner - or just use for backup and archive.

Cheers
jimbo
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Linux Centos 7, W8.1, W7, W2K3 Server W10
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    Monitor(s) Displays
    1 X LG 40 inch TV
    Hard Drives
    SSD's * 3 (Samsung 840 series) 250 GB
    2 X 3 TB sata
    5 X 1 TB sata
    Internet Speed
    0.12 GB/s (120Mb/s)

lehnerus2000

Power User
VIP Member
Power User
Adelaide

Posts
1,343
#33
I thought that I read somewhere that "Wear Leveling" isn't as effective if you don't have free space on your SSD.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 (64 bit), Linux Mint 18.3 MATE (64 bit)
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    n/a
    CPU
    AMD Phenom II x6 1055T, 2.8 GHz
    Motherboard
    ASRock 880GMH-LE/USB3
    Memory
    8GB DDR3 1333 G-Skill Ares F3-1333C9D-8GAO (4GB x 2)
    Graphics Card(s)
    ATI Radeon HD6450
    Sound Card
    Realtek?
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Samsung S23B350
    Screen Resolution
    1920x1080
    Hard Drives
    Western Digital 1.5 TB (SATA), Western Digital 2 TB (SATA), Western Digital 3 TB (SATA)
    Case
    Tower
    Mouse
    Wired Optical
    Other Info
    Linux Mint 16 MATE (64 bit) replaced with Linux Mint 17 MATE (64 bit) - 2014-05-17
    Linux Mint 14 MATE (64 bit) replaced with Linux Mint 16 MATE (64 bit) - 2013-11-13
    Ubuntu 10.04 (64 bit) replaced with Linux Mint 14 MATE (64 bit) - 2013-01-14
    RAM & Graphics Card Upgraded - 2013-01-13
    Monitor Upgraded - 2012-04-20
    System Upgraded - 2011-05-21, 2010-07-14
    HDD Upgraded - 2010-08-11, 2011-08-24,

CountMike

Well-Known Member
VIP Member
Guru
Belgrade , Serbia

Posts
4,664
#34
Let me ad couple more drops of fuel on the fire. Large data base program and MS Office (at least) intentionally leave some space free for files that are continually growing as the amount of data in them is expanded and so increase reading and writing speed. Such space looks like it is fragmented and defragmenting and solidifying such space can actualy slow them down.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8.1 Pro
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Home made
    CPU
    AMD Ryzen7 2700x
    Motherboard
    Asus Prime x470 Pro
    Memory
    16GB Kingston 3600
    Graphics Card(s)
    Asus strix 570 OC 4gb
    Hard Drives
    Samsung 960 evo 250GB
    Silicon Power V70 240GB SSD
    WD 1 TB Blue
    WD 2 TB Blue
    Bunch of backup HDDs.
    PSU
    Sharkoon, Silent Storm 660W
    Case
    Raidmax
    Cooling
    CCM Nepton 140xl
    Internet Speed
    40/2 Mbps
    Browser
    Firefox
    Antivirus
    WD

Mystere

Power User
VIP Member
Power User
Posts
1,925
#35
Let me ad couple more drops of fuel on the fire. Large data base program and MS Office (at least) intentionally leave some space free for files that are continually growing as the amount of data in them is expanded and so increase reading and writing speed. Such space looks like it is fragmented and defragmenting and solidifying such space can actualy slow them down.
That hasn't been true for well over a decade, since the inclusion of Sparse file support in NTFS.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8.1 Pro
    CPU
    Intel i7 3770K
    Motherboard
    Gigabyte Z77X-UD4 TH
    Memory
    16GB DDR3 1600
    Graphics Card(s)
    nVidia GTX 650
    Sound Card
    Onboard Audio
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Auria 27" IPS + 2x Samsung 23"
    Screen Resolution
    2560x1440 + 2x 2048x1152
    Hard Drives
    Corsair m4 256GB, 2 WD 2TB drives
    Case
    Antec SOLO II
    Keyboard
    Microsoft Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000
    Mouse
    Logitech MX

crawfish

Member
Power User
Posts
454
#36

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8.1 Pro with Media Center

lehnerus2000

Power User
VIP Member
Power User
Adelaide

Posts
1,343
#37

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 (64 bit), Linux Mint 18.3 MATE (64 bit)
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    n/a
    CPU
    AMD Phenom II x6 1055T, 2.8 GHz
    Motherboard
    ASRock 880GMH-LE/USB3
    Memory
    8GB DDR3 1333 G-Skill Ares F3-1333C9D-8GAO (4GB x 2)
    Graphics Card(s)
    ATI Radeon HD6450
    Sound Card
    Realtek?
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Samsung S23B350
    Screen Resolution
    1920x1080
    Hard Drives
    Western Digital 1.5 TB (SATA), Western Digital 2 TB (SATA), Western Digital 3 TB (SATA)
    Case
    Tower
    Mouse
    Wired Optical
    Other Info
    Linux Mint 16 MATE (64 bit) replaced with Linux Mint 17 MATE (64 bit) - 2014-05-17
    Linux Mint 14 MATE (64 bit) replaced with Linux Mint 16 MATE (64 bit) - 2013-11-13
    Ubuntu 10.04 (64 bit) replaced with Linux Mint 14 MATE (64 bit) - 2013-01-14
    RAM & Graphics Card Upgraded - 2013-01-13
    Monitor Upgraded - 2012-04-20
    System Upgraded - 2011-05-21, 2010-07-14
    HDD Upgraded - 2010-08-11, 2011-08-24,

jeffrys

Power User
Power User
BELGIUM

Posts
503
#38
Well Jimbo,

you might be right, but i always had to defrag my HDD's, but that was 6 years ago, before i switched to SSD's.

I never used SATA drives until SSD's came along, always used SCSI drives with a Raid card.

So no, i do not have exerience with Win 7 or Win 8 on HDD's.

Jeff
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    WINDOWS 8.1 x64
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    CPU
    INTEL CORE I--3770K LGA1155
    Motherboard
    ASUS P8Z77-V
    Memory
    KINGSTON 2400 MHZ KHX24C11K4 16GB
    Graphics Card(s)
    INTEL HD GRAFICS 4000
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Philip BDL3245€ 32 inch
    Screen Resolution
    1920 x 1080
    Hard Drives
    2 SAMSUNG 840 PRO RAID 0 ON BOARD 2 x 128 GB
    Keyboard
    LOGITEC MX™ 5500
    Mouse
    LOGITEC MX 5500
    Internet Speed
    120 Mbps

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)