I'm about to build a new rig and i've narrowed down my choices to two motherboards.. one has an MSATA slot(and better sound but is more expensive), one doesn't. As i usually fill every drive port a motherboard/case has, i am intrigued by this
was looking at the Mushkin Atlas 120gb MSATA ssd, or a corsair force (gt?) of the same size as my boot and programs drive
is there any difference in lifespan? and before you say it'll be obsolete before it dies, the rig this new build replaces is 7 years old and the 80gb **IDE** boot and program drive is even older than that(i don't reboot my pc often and its never O** - i cant even say the word that isnt ON..
) this new build has to last some years and the SSD will die before i stop using it, i want to do everything i can to increase ssd lifespan.. the IOPS is really confusing, some manufacturers claim wildly different numbers for what looks like the same NAND
any performance differences? it doesn't look like it but i never believe manufacturer specs without research
I'm told that TOGGLE nand is the best.. true/false? that's why i looked for the mushkin in the first place
Is there lifespan benefit from overkilling boot drive size? i could get away with a 60 or 80gb model and never fill it (40gb would be more than enough) but SSDs spread the read/writes? does that mean that as there are more cells to use, a 120gb drive will last longer if only ever filled to 60gb than a 64gb drive would?
was looking at the Mushkin Atlas 120gb MSATA ssd, or a corsair force (gt?) of the same size as my boot and programs drive
is there any difference in lifespan? and before you say it'll be obsolete before it dies, the rig this new build replaces is 7 years old and the 80gb **IDE** boot and program drive is even older than that(i don't reboot my pc often and its never O** - i cant even say the word that isnt ON..
) this new build has to last some years and the SSD will die before i stop using it, i want to do everything i can to increase ssd lifespan.. the IOPS is really confusing, some manufacturers claim wildly different numbers for what looks like the same NANDany performance differences? it doesn't look like it but i never believe manufacturer specs without research
I'm told that TOGGLE nand is the best.. true/false? that's why i looked for the mushkin in the first place
Is there lifespan benefit from overkilling boot drive size? i could get away with a 60 or 80gb model and never fill it (40gb would be more than enough) but SSDs spread the read/writes? does that mean that as there are more cells to use, a 120gb drive will last longer if only ever filled to 60gb than a 64gb drive would?