Please report back your findings, as said you won't notice anything at first, however once you get into your game it will start loading from the cache, and things will speed up. You have to give it time as it needs to learn what to move to the cache.
Still not convinced by these SSD's
- Thread starter Buchanan0204
- Start date
Please report back your findings, as said you won't notice anything at first, however once you get into your game it will start loading from the cache, and things will speed up. You have to give it time as it needs to learn what to move to the cache.
Been using my first SSD (60gb Vertex 2e) for a few days now. My thoughts? Not worth £85, it its nice though.
It was quotes like A SSD is the single biggest improvement you can make to any PC, that spured me on to buy it. Another quote I read on these forums is far more accurate 'Windows feels a bit more snappy'. That is all.
The drive is preforming correctly. Ive been into PC's since my P75 + Windows 95. Benchies all check out, I researched install procedure and updated firmware as always.
Im mr average OCUK member I guess: Some gaming, some surfing, bit of photo editing and some movies.
A bit of a 'meh' purchace tbh. Dont belive the hype.
The technology is quite new, When you get some decent sized storage for your cash SSD's will be brilliant. Untill then dont feel like you are missing out
Nail. On. Head. I think your post sums up precisely what i feel. Yes, 'Windows feels a bit more snappy' but nothing more then that, and certainly not worth paying current prices for them.
I'll probably try again when you can get the 120Gb drives for about £90 or under. People who are saying it's the single biggest improvement you can make to any PC are seriously over hyping them. Maybe they make a bigger difference to laptops but we're talking about desktops here.
Also, no ones complained about hard drive noise before SSD came along. As it is, I'm actually thinking of getting a Seagate Momentus XT as a stop gap
Last edited:
SSD for OS=Yes its a no brainer plus you are unlikely to ever lose data as SSD's are supposed to be recoverable even when they are worn out they go into read only mode. You only really need a 40GB model as well more is nice but 40GB is enough for the OS with 20GB+ to spare for the odd game/application.
SSD For Games=No unless you like wasting stupid money. Most games cannot possibly see much if any boost due to file size alone (modern games typically use massive data files 1GB or higher). SSD's struggle to handle large single file's. Games which contain small files will see a massive bosot but these are few & far between........
Raid0 is also a waste of money with SSD the only noticeable boost is in an artificial benchmark. Even using an SSD for your OS is not that much faster loading than a 7.2K RPM HD if you used a decent HD it will be around 10-15 secs faster on boot up then in realworld useage most of the time a decent SSD will be quicker but only around 20-25% its not night & day unless you had a crappy HD full of junk.
If you put Raid0 vs 1xSSD you would notice maybe 5-10% difference for 100% the cost in general useage!
There are always exceptions though & by that I mean if you can afford to spend £600-800 on a single SSD there are much faster models out there designed for business/power users but who really wants to waste that when the difference is minimal!
SSD For Games=No unless you like wasting stupid money. Most games cannot possibly see much if any boost due to file size alone (modern games typically use massive data files 1GB or higher). SSD's struggle to handle large single file's. Games which contain small files will see a massive bosot but these are few & far between........
Raid0 is also a waste of money with SSD the only noticeable boost is in an artificial benchmark. Even using an SSD for your OS is not that much faster loading than a 7.2K RPM HD if you used a decent HD it will be around 10-15 secs faster on boot up then in realworld useage most of the time a decent SSD will be quicker but only around 20-25% its not night & day unless you had a crappy HD full of junk.
If you put Raid0 vs 1xSSD you would notice maybe 5-10% difference for 100% the cost in general useage!
There are always exceptions though & by that I mean if you can afford to spend £600-800 on a single SSD there are much faster models out there designed for business/power users but who really wants to waste that when the difference is minimal!
Associate
OK if that's over hyping it could you tell me what other piece will provide a more noticeable upgrade on average?
No one has complained about hard drive noise before? Do you seriously believe that?
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,489
Talking complete twaddle, ignore me!
[has woken up]
[has woken up]
Last edited:
I went from a samsung F3 to a vertex 2 and i have to say the difference is amazing. If you cant see a difference then i am shocked mate tbh. 20 seconds max to boot and fully load startup items. everything is so much more responsive too. I can't understand why you see no difference.
Really depends on your useage. A lot of people on here are heavy gamers who are getting roped into the SSD hype when really there money would be better spent elsewhere.
Like several people have already stated, if all you do is boot your PC and play games all night with the occasional web/email/photo edit, SSD's really are not going to give you much beyond the, "wow, look how fast Windows loads".
It's all about priorities unless you don't really care for value for money and just want absolute performance regardless.
Agreed. For most gamers, putting an extra £100 into your GPU would be better than buying a £100 SSD. Also remember that a lot of games are stored on your disk as a small number of heavily compressed files, which reduces their loading times' dependence on HDD speed, particularly random access speeds. With a fast CPU you might not see much difference between game loading times.
Can the people who keep banging on about the boot times please tell me why this is so important? I really can't understand why knocking 10 seconds, probably less off your boot time is such a big deal. Do you do 85 restarts each day? If so then I understand, however I was under the impression, when you turned the pc on, you kept it on until the nexy day or whenever you stopped using it.
When using an HDD, do you sit and shout at the windows loading screen, "hurry up, I can't take this anymor!!" Personally, I have two vertex 2e's in my system in raid0 and yes it boots quick, but I really don't care. I hit the button and then head for a drink and come back, either that Or I sort something out on my desk, or just wait.
So, what's the big deal with boot times? Why do you care? Does the extra 5-10 seconds each day really make your £100 60GB SSD worth it?
N.B. Hibernate is a wonderful thing.
When using an HDD, do you sit and shout at the windows loading screen, "hurry up, I can't take this anymor!!" Personally, I have two vertex 2e's in my system in raid0 and yes it boots quick, but I really don't care. I hit the button and then head for a drink and come back, either that Or I sort something out on my desk, or just wait.
So, what's the big deal with boot times? Why do you care? Does the extra 5-10 seconds each day really make your £100 60GB SSD worth it?
N.B. Hibernate is a wonderful thing.
Boot Times are nice, but as I and many others have mentioned a million times already for heavy users like me who have loads of running programs/services and do a lot of multitasking SSD's are a massive general performance increase, not only is the baseline performance increased, but it never gets bogged down. It's a similar improvement to a major RAM upgrade back in the Vista days, or when we first got a Dual Core CPU.
If you're a heavy desktop user there's no better bang for buck upgrade than an SSD. Even fairly light users with older machines can benefit, my mums macbook (which is a little ram starved at only 1.5GB) was absolutely transformed by a vertex2e for around the same cost as a RAM upgrade.
If you're a heavy desktop user there's no better bang for buck upgrade than an SSD. Even fairly light users with older machines can benefit, my mums macbook (which is a little ram starved at only 1.5GB) was absolutely transformed by a vertex2e for around the same cost as a RAM upgrade.
Is that it? I realise what you are saying. That's all very well. However I was directing the question at people who purchase one purely for boot times. There are a lot of them. If you have an SSD because you need to load 30,000 images in Lightroom on a daily basis, then I totally get it. However when spending that amount of cash to increase boot.... hmmm, somethings not wired correctly (not in the pc).
If you don't like the thread, don't click on it. "Simples"
No one is saying there not technically faster. Of course they are, in a benchmarking tool. I would get across city centre traffic in rush hour in exactly the same time whether I was driving a Lamborghini or a Fiat Punto. My point being, nothing utilises SSD speeds at the moment, with the odd exception of professional photographers, video editors etc.
Not everyone buying an SSD does these things. People are falling into the trap that they're AMAZING!!! and then getting them and thinking, "hmmm, is it broke."
As mentioned a million times, it all depends on what you use it for though. I want to know what the obsession with boot times is however. I can't understand that.
P.S. I have two ssd's and I'm still bitching
Boot times is an easy way to see the difference an SSD makes. When I upgraded from an X-25M to M4 my MBP went from a fast boot time to instantaneously. It's a visible difference. It's not why I bought the SSD but it is an easy way to describe how much of speed boost SSD's provide.
Agreed. I've got Windows installed on some ancient clogged up 300GB drive, looked at my emails I ordered it in July 2005. It takes a minute to boot into desktop. Big deal.
Yes given the choice between a 15s boot and a 60s boot I'd much rather have the former. But on a desktop machine I come to expect it... if I want to quickly do something like check email, web, social networks bla bla I can do this via portable devices like a smartphone. My desktop is something that I'll typically sit down at for an hour or more, so 1 minute boot time is pretty insignificant by comparison.
I will likely be ordering a SSD soon but that's just because I'm a geek and can afford it, I don't hold any illusions about it being a miracle performance fixer. For gamers spending extra on the GPU will nearly always be better value for money.
Yes given the choice between a 15s boot and a 60s boot I'd much rather have the former. But on a desktop machine I come to expect it... if I want to quickly do something like check email, web, social networks bla bla I can do this via portable devices like a smartphone. My desktop is something that I'll typically sit down at for an hour or more, so 1 minute boot time is pretty insignificant by comparison.
I will likely be ordering a SSD soon but that's just because I'm a geek and can afford it, I don't hold any illusions about it being a miracle performance fixer. For gamers spending extra on the GPU will nearly always be better value for money.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 8,204
Pretty much sums it up for me. I nearly cancelled my 480 for sli and bought a SSD instead because people were like OMG they are amazing. Came and saw this thread and it all made a lot of sense. I'll get an ssd when there is nothing else for me to get pretty much.
Caporegime
Been holding off on an ssd myself, waiting till prices are a bit better. Currently using a samsung F1 320gb as my os drive, its probably the weakest part of my system, but i can live with it for a while yet.
Associate
I must admit I was one of the guys that was getting sucked into the SSD world untill I have
seen this thread now I am totally thinking its about time I brought myself a new Gfx card
instead and leave the SSD till I am happy with everything else that I have got.
seen this thread now I am totally thinking its about time I brought myself a new Gfx card
instead and leave the SSD till I am happy with everything else that I have got.
"boot times is an easy way to see the difference an ssd makes." That is indeed correct..... To boot times! Nothing else.
Why the obsession with boot times? If people really think about it. They've been caught up in a fad that forces you to believe the quicker it boots the better everything else is. What a load of nonsense.
"When I upgraded from an X-25M to M4 my MBP went from a fast boot time to instantaneously"
How did this effect your usage on the Mac. Did shaving a few seconds off really make everything you did on it that day so much more exciting and efficient because you saved a second or two?
As I quite clearly stated the boot times was not the reason for buying the SSD.
I just tried to answer your question with an example about why people might be obsessed with boot times but you sound like you did not shave enough seconds off your boot times and are very angry?
