SSD or HDDs??

sk82jack

sk82jack

sk82jack

Associate
Joined
30 Mar 2011
Posts
1,401
Location
Reading
I'm trying to set up a new build and was wondering about getting an SSD just for Windows and apps/games as a lot of people seem to be recommending them but I've got a couple of questions first.

The only thing that worries me is that I've heard that the life span of a SSD is no where near that of a HDD, and considering the prices of SSDs, is it really worth investing in one?

Would it not be better to have 2 or 3 HDDs and have them running RAID-0?

That way you have a lot more memory for more or less the same price and RAID-0 is meant to improve speed isn't it?

Don't really know too much about this stuff so just wanted some info really.

Thanks :)
 
one SSD for OS/apps/games

another HD or more for your data (music, videos, files etc)

dont worry about how long they will last, they will outlast how long you want to keep it for

imo, Raid0 is not worth the hassle
 
Does separating your OS/apps/games onto an SSD really make that much of a difference?

Would you notice it even if your only a light gamer? Or do you need to be playing top end games all the time to notice the difference?
 
Anandtech's reviews of SSD's include mechanical hard drives if you look in the 2010 benchmark section, for example the recent m4 review
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4253/the-crucial-m4-micron-c400-ssd-review/10

This shows how much faster a SSD is even in light usage.

The key advantage is in random reads - this next link also includes a comparison between a mechanical and lots of SSD's.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4253/the-crucial-m4-micron-c400-ssd-review/2

As long as you don't buy the REALLY cheap ssd's you'll be ok :)
 
OK I'll give them a little read though and absorb as much knowledge as I can :p

Any suggestions on some decent SSDs to get me started?
 
Oh, also... is it worth going for SATA III SSDs or is the difference between SATA II and SATA III not worth the additional cost?
 
I'm using raid 0 no hassles and don't want to go ssd for a while. Probably not this year.

I access my hdd much except for
loading game.. ssd too small
Playing music... ssd too small

I boot the pc once an evening and launch most apps once

So where I would see a benifit is where an ssd isn't suitable

I'd rather have moderate speed everywhere than fast where I wouldn't really notice it and slow where I want the speed

That's why I'm keeping my raid array and thinking 3rd before getting an ssd
 
al4x said:
I'd rather have moderate speed everywhere than fast where I wouldn't really notice it and slow where I want the speed
Click to expand...

Could you expand on this a bit? What do you mean by 'slow where I want the speed'?

Where does it decrease the speeds?
 
I was meaning because of the cost of capacity of you will be left with games and media on a slow mechanical hdd and only the os and apps on the fast ssd

I felt raid 0 was the best bang for buck
 
oh yeah I understand now, that was just me being an idiot :rolleyes:

I won't be getting my new system for a couple of months now anyway so I'll see what I can find out between now and then and make a decision nearer the time I guess.

Always good to hear different opinions though. Very helpful, especially when I've got no clue myself lol
 
sk82jack said:
Does separating your OS/apps/games onto an SSD really make that much of a difference?

Would you notice it even if your only a light gamer? Or do you need to be playing top end games all the time to notice the difference?
Click to expand...

for me, yes.

windows just feels snappier overall.

its not the cheapest option though so depends on your budget i suppose
 
I've just upgraded to an SSD last week. Got a 160GB Intel X25-M second hand.

The performace upgrade around windows is brilliant. You really need to try it to believe it.

Size of the SSD is the biggest price factor, so carefully consider how much you need. I've probably got too much really. Windows 7 x64 Pro, all the programs I use and 3-4 games only comes to 59GB, so I've got a lot of wasted space at the moment.
 
Yeah if I do get one, I think I'd go for 60-100GB because I really doubt I would need much more than that. Yeah I don't really know what my budget is yet so I'm just trying to cover all the options really but definitely considering the SSD
 
Krislord said:
Anandtech's reviews of SSD's include mechanical hard drives if you look in the 2010 benchmark section, for example the recent m4 review
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4253/the-crucial-m4-micron-c400-ssd-review/10

This shows how much faster a SSD is even in light usage.

The key advantage is in random reads - this next link also includes a comparison between a mechanical and lots of SSD's.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4253/the-crucial-m4-micron-c400-ssd-review/2

As long as you don't buy the REALLY cheap ssd's you'll be ok :)
Click to expand...


These two reviews confuse me slightly.
Benchmarking versus realworld perhaps.

Can someone please explain why in the first sets of data, the intel 300 drive is in the top 2 or 4 for all tests, yet in the second set of data, the intel 300 drive appears slammed into the oblivious middle table to lower table positions.

Are the accurate drive benchmarks not remotely reflective of use, or am I missing something altogether?
 
the problem with these things is that bench marks mean very little as its hard to translate that to real life

everyone that has tried one has commented on how good an SSD is.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
These two reviews confuse me slightly.
Benchmarking versus realworld perhaps.

Can someone please explain why in the first sets of data, the intel 300 drive is in the top 2 or 4 for all tests, yet in the second set of data, the intel 300 drive appears slammed into the oblivious middle table to lower table positions.

Are the accurate drive benchmarks not remotely reflective of use, or am I missing something altogether?
Click to expand...

In the first link it says:

Note that the old storage test system doesn't have a SATA 6Gbps controller, so we only have 3Gbps results for the 6Gbps drives.
Click to expand...

So I'm guessing the drive is a SATA II drive therefore doing well in the test from the first link, but not so well when compared with the SATA III drives from the second link.
 
RAID 0 doesn't really improve loading times because random reads are still slow, SSD's however improve on access times so you'll get a big boost from them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom