Do you run Windows 10 on a seperate SSD?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 121
  • Start date Start date
WD Blue SN550 doesn't cost really any more per GB than SATA SSD.



Partitioning is for keeping things separate in case of needing to nuke OS.

And if you had proper amount of memory to avoid paging, even in HDD era having OS and say games on same drive wasn't problen.
Once booted, OS simply has very little drive activity and with low data rate.

The problem with partitioning is you still run the risk of losing the other partition if you nuke the drive. If it's just games, I'm relaxed about it, but I wouldn't risk it with a data partition. If I'm starting over with a full reformat, I tend to pull everything except the OS drive just to cut down the risk of me doing anything stupid.
 
You tend to get better quality NAND in a SATA SSD which has price parity with a SN550 - at least if you know which drives are good. For sure the cost difference between these kinds of drives has sharply fallen though, as this kind of setup which I have was more optimized for the market conditions of about ~3 years ago, when I bought my drives.
SN550 is TLC drive.
Its price point is achieved by drive not having DRAM chip. (controller has smaller integrated memory)
Which doesn't really matter much any in normal home use like gaming with only minimal IOPS loads.

Though compared to brand/fashion/RGB overpricing people are ready to pay in many parts DRAM equipped drives don't really cost more.
 
OS and apps on single drive, usually split apps away onto an apps/programs partition, everything else is away from that drive. Usually move docs/downloads away from the OS drive, so i can(if needed) nuke/replace the main drive and really only need to reinstall OS, some apps and recover logins.
 
SN550 is TLC drive.
Its price point is achieved by drive not having DRAM chip. (controller has smaller integrated memory)
Which doesn't really matter much any in normal home use like gaming with only minimal IOPS loads.

Though compared to brand/fashion/RGB overpricing people are ready to pay in many parts DRAM equipped drives don't really cost more.

For sure, I just meant that even amount TLC you get drives which will claim different NAND endurance, usually pending on the node and the controller they use. I personally like buying drives with high IOPS, just because I don't like the idea of drive failure.

I back everything up, but still don't like the idea of having to deal with a drive related downtime after I was nearly fired once when working from home, and having to frantically buy a new drive and reinstall windows on it. I agree though that what happened to me is unlikely and (arguably) overly worried, especially considering that most people aren't like me with 4 year old SSD's which get used ~16 hours a day.
 
I personally like buying drives with high IOPS, just because I don't like the idea of drive failure.
IOPS has absolutely zero relation to endurance.
And very little relation to performance in home use in which only few threads at time are accessing drive with only few commands queued.
 
IOPS has absolutely zero relation to endurance.
And very little relation to performance in home use in which only few threads at time are accessing drive with only few commands queued.

My mistake I meant to put "Terra bytes written" which is a completely acronym (TBW) - which is also not all the story with drive endurance either, but is a better measure than IOPS :cry:

Also, the SN550 is a great drive, I bought one for my Dad, and would probably use one as a secondary drive if I was buying an SSD today. I just tend to use overbuilt drives for my boot disk out of fear primarily.
 
I don't have any set pattern, but generally now solid state drives have got bigger/more affordable, I'm not just putting Windows on there. For example I bought a 1TB NVME drive, that runs Windows, apps and games that I'm newly installing.
On older systems, it's a bit different. For example I have a system with a 60GB SSD, what with windows update/driver bloat etc that's basically enough to run Windows, page file and basic apps, even then I have to do a clearup sometimes to remove temp files etc.

A slight aside but I've found that my 'data storage requirements growth' is a lot lower than it used to be. My main PC has two 1TB drives in, in fact useable space is only 1850GB. That's less than I had like 10 years ago. I think this is because internet connections are much faster and streaming services have taken off, so the need for local storage is reduced (don't need to keep games you aren't currently playing installed if you can download them in half an hour, don't need a big stash of video/music if you can stream it etc). I'm at the point now where I don't have mechanical drives in my main PC, speed is more important than storage capacity once you get to a certain size.
 
Windows and main apps on an SSD then NVME drive for games. Got a separate 2tb SSD for storage of photos and videos etc.
 
Is there any truth to games loading/performing better in a separate drive from the OS? I have some games on my OS drive and some on another identical SSD and have not noticed any better performance that I've noticed
 
Is there any truth to games loading/performing better in a separate drive from the OS? I have some games on my OS drive and some on another identical SSD and have not noticed any better performance that I've noticed
There may be a slight improvement in data speed having your games on a seperate drive as it not sharing data with Windows , programs but nothing noticeable.
 
Is there any truth to games loading/performing better in a separate drive from the OS? I have some games on my OS drive and some on another identical SSD and have not noticed any better performance that I've noticed
Unless you have too little memory causing constant paging, OS uses drive minimally after its booted/loaded.
That little use wasn't issue even in HDD time and SSDs are far better on handling multiple simultaneous accesses.
 
Unless you have too little memory causing constant paging, OS uses drive minimally after its booted/loaded.
That little use wasn't issue even in HDD time and SSDs are far better on handling multiple simultaneous accesses.
There may be a slight improvement in data speed having your games on a seperate drive as it not sharing data with Windows , programs but nothing noticeable.
Yeah that makes sense, heard some people say it recently and it made sense to have an effect but yeah none that I've seen.
 
Nope, RAID 0 SSDs running Windows, apps, and games.

I like to live dangerously xD

In all seriousness, I'm not too bothered, as I only have a few apps and games that I play and most stuff like documents and saves live up in the cloud
 
Back
Top Bottom