Not convinced by SSD

Ryan-3 · 13 Jun 2010 at 13:45

I have a lot opening on my Pc when I startup, and I have to leave mine 30-60seconds to have it upto full speed

I bet the OCZ Revodrive would be under 10

413x · 13 Jun 2010 at 14:14

I don't know about most but not many programs do I start up mote than once per session, (except folders which are instant anyway)
My lag with FireFox is mainly my internet speed loading up 10 tabs,
All video encodes are done to a mechanical drive anyway
I turn my computer on once a day

I suppose the only real area where lag is is loading game maps, but then if I thought an ssd I wouldn't be able to put many on there anyway, that's why I like the velociraptor.. it has 300gb so I can fit everything on it

I expect a lot of people are like this, and therefore in my eyes it just isn't worth it,

Hard drive still comes before RAM, gfx card, CPU mobo and monitor for me

arc@css · 13 Jun 2010 at 15:14

I was toying with buying an SSD and due to the stock levels not being updated I instead bought a Velociraptor. I appreciate it won't be as fast as an SSD but compared to hard drives it probably is one of the best you can buy. Seems more than quick enough to me. Now, my old Seagate 7200 rpm, that's another matter.

Freddie1980 · 13 Jun 2010 at 15:18

Buchanan0204 - You don't happen to have a first name of 'Keith' by any chance?

Zarf · 13 Jun 2010 at 15:23

arc@css said:
I was toying with buying an SSD and due to the stock levels not being updated I instead bought a Velociraptor. I appreciate it won't be as fast as an SSD but compared to hard drives it probably is one of the best you can buy. Seems more than quick enough to me. Now, my old Seagate 7200 rpm, that's another matter.

VR is too expensive tbh, For the same money you can get an 80GB Intel. It's not that much effort to manage the space and it's much quicker.
Otherwise just get a £40 Sammy F3.

413x · 13 Jun 2010 at 15:54

arc@css said:
I was toying with buying an SSD and due to the stock levels not being updated I instead bought a Velociraptor. I appreciate it won't be as fast as an SSD but compared to hard drives it probably is one of the best you can buy. Seems more than quick enough to me. Now, my old Seagate 7200 rpm, that's another matter.

How much was yours?

arc@css · 13 Jun 2010 at 16:01

al4x said:
How much was yours?

Iirc it was under £120. Somewhere between £100 - 120. Although I wanted an SSD I think most of them were out of my price range at the time, so I settled for one of these. Might grab an SSD sometime this year though.

zinc · 13 Jun 2010 at 17:32

Bint Box said:
Ok, so applications open faster, but in the real world is this any use, you gain 10 seconds or whatever, its just less time you spend picking your nose waiting for things to happen.

These SSD's are the biggest single con trick foisted on the computer public for years, speed advantages, so what, it's seconds and the improvement to the users work output in reality is minimal.

After day to day use when applications open instantly with no loading, it makes a difference for me. Firefox and google chrome for example have started before I even move my mouse into the center of the screen. It just makes the computer overall quick and snappy and a pleasure to use.

I don't think SSD's are a con trick they really do make your computer faster and I have read in many places on this forum and other websites people saying its the single best upgrade you can do at the minute, however only if you can afford it and justify the cost of it. Obviously if your looking for the best value for money for the performance hard drives are still the way to go and will be like that for years to come I think. For me at the minute I just install my OS on an SSD then all my media files such as music and videos go onto a hard drive.

What I do think is a con is the cost

. Had mine about a year now and the model I bought is only £10 cheaper today, they haven't progressed as much as people would like.

easyrider · 13 Jun 2010 at 17:56

Bint Box said:
Ok, so applications open faster, but in the real world is this any use, you gain 10 seconds or whatever, its just less time you spend picking your nose waiting for things to happen.

These SSD's are the biggest single con trick foisted on the computer public for years, speed advantages, so what, it's seconds and the improvement to the users work output in reality is minimal.

I was thinking of getting one of these but for the cost and the hassle that users are having with them they are not worth the bother.

Rgds
Binty

Unless you have tried one then I don't see how you can comment.

I bought a Crucial SSD and could not have a mechanical drive for my OS or Apps anymore due to the speed increase.

I have had zero problems with it.

easyrider · 13 Jun 2010 at 17:58

Buchanan0204 said:
Is there any tests I can do or can someone maybe try and reassure me I haven't wasted £340.

I see no real point in Raid 0 with SSD's

One setup correctly is fast enough.

Raid 0 is not worth the cost outlay over the speed increase over a single OS and App SSD in my view.

jbloggs · 13 Jun 2010 at 18:36

There are really only two scenarios in which you will see any "real" performance increase over using (2 x SSDs in) RAID0 as opposed to using a single SSD and they are, copying/moving large (video) file and regularly unzipping large compressed files, if you do neither of these best sticking to a single SSD...

I have used a few different raptors, 36GB (16MB cache), 74GB (8MB cache) and 150GB Velociraptors, both as single HDDs, but mostly in RAID0 and they are just not in the same league of the SSD. Have 2 x 80GB Intel X25-M G2s (since last September) and have used them in RAID0 and as single SSDs and I see no reason to going back to using HDDs for booting an OS from, they have given a nice performance boost to my systems...

Zarf · 13 Jun 2010 at 19:01

I think the main thing to consider with RAID0 SSD's is that it's almost the same price per GB as buying a Single Drive, so any performance benefits you pretty much get for free, especially as reliability isn't affected anywhere near as badly as with Mechanical drives ... SSD's are inherently more reliable and as they use the same density NAND (the part most likely to fault) There is the same number of NAND chips in a RAID setup as in a single drive of the same size.

In summary, if you need a reasonable amount of SSD space, RAID0 is a very good way to go about it.

Buchanan0204 · 13 Jun 2010 at 19:37

Duke said:
The main point is the speed and access time, but they also have no noise and use a little less power.

Did you expect them to make you a coffee or something?

For £340 I was expecting a little more than to save £3 a year on my electricity bill!

Like i mentioned I was expecting an increase in the speed of installation of programs, operating systems, and general use. (Like everyone seems to be bragging about in the comments and reviews)

P.S. I prefer tea

Buchanan0204 · 13 Jun 2010 at 19:47

Freddie1980 said:
Buchanan0204 - You don't happen to have a first name of 'Keith' by any chance?

Nah, My names Graeme

What gave you that impression... am i sensing a witty joke at my expense here lol

413x · 13 Jun 2010 at 19:47

arc@css said:
Iirc it was under £120. Somewhere between £100 - 120. Although I wanted an SSD I think most of them were out of my price range at the time, so I settled for one of these. Might grab an SSD sometime this year though.

Yeah that's how much mine was aswell

I sticking to my guns and waiting until a 160 - 200 gb version is available for 100 to 150 £ then ill consider it, without my games being on it it won't help enough to justify the cost

Buchanan0204 · 13 Jun 2010 at 19:49

Zarf said:
I think the main thing to consider with RAID0 SSD's is that it's almost the same price per GB as buying a Single Drive, so any performance benefits you pretty much get for free, especially as reliability isn't affected anywhere near as badly as with Mechanical drives ... SSD's are inherently more reliable and as they use the same density NAND (the part most likely to fault) There is the same number of NAND chips in a RAID setup as in a single drive of the same size.

In summary, if you need a reasonable amount of SSD space, RAID0 is a very good way to go about it.

That was the main reason I went down the raid route. Size, 60GB just wasn't enough, and if i was getting a peak in performance at the same time It was a win win.

Duke · 13 Jun 2010 at 20:00

Buchanan0204 said:
For £340 I was expecting a little more than to save £3 a year on my electricity bill!

Like i mentioned I was expecting an increase in the speed of installation of programs, operating systems, and general use. (Like everyone seems to be bragging about in the comments and reviews)

P.S. I prefer tea

I went for two right away in RAID and didn't need the speed so sold one and went back to one which was still far quicker than a 7200rpm drive. Doesn't make them quite so painful on the wallet too

P.S. Me too. One lump or two?

manishpatel80 · 13 Jun 2010 at 21:05

Run some benchmarks like atto to check speeds, could be a problem with you setup

Freddie1980 · 13 Jun 2010 at 21:19

Buchanan0204 said:
Nah, My names Graeme What gave you that impression... am i sensing a witty joke at my expense here lol

I worked with someone who's surname was Buchanan and he's first name was Keith and he was into computer hardware as well.

arc@css · 13 Jun 2010 at 21:39

al4x said:
Yeah that's how much mine was aswell

I sticking to my guns and waiting until a 160 - 200 gb version is available for 100 to 150 £ then ill consider it, without my games being on it it won't help enough to justify the cost

To be honest I think I may have been a little impatient and just wanted to get a new drive whether it was a top of the line drive or entry level ssd. I did need a new one but I guess I could have waited for the stock to replenish.

Still, got to say just how nippy this thing is, can't wait for the next upgrade, that will be an ssd.