Sweet spot SSD right now?

[bledd]

I run a 256GB PCI-E SSD for my OS and a 512 GB for steam and other games.

256 seems good for the most part prior to the pci-e ssd I split my 512GB into 2 for windows and games.

Games on steam are reaching 60GB so 120 is out of the question due to how steam un packs. Unless Valve change that then 256 will be too small in a few years.

I purge off old games that I'm not currently playing. If I fancy playing one, then I'll just leave it trickling down whilst I'm playing another game

 

[Scougar]

Just use steam mover to create symbolic links to your games. That way you don't have to keep keep re-downloading games, you just move them on and off the SSD/HDD when necessary. Works very well (and works for other things like Origin as well).

p.s. I was amazed that Shadow of Mordor was 43 GB to download.

 

[bigjimmyauk]

Just use steam mover to create symbolic links to your games. That way you don't have to keep keep re-downloading games, you just move them on and off the SSD/HDD when necessary. Works very well (and works for other things like Origin as well).

p.s. I was amazed that Shadow of Mordor was 43 GB to download.

I don't use that method I create a folder on the desktop called ssd games. I cut the game folder from my D drive paste it into the folder. Click delete local content in steam then click install and point it to the ssd folder it then knows that all the files are already there. Take about 3 minutes to move a game. And I agree games are getting very large in size. It seems to be since the digital download age lol. My modded fallout new vegas is pushing 30gb and I think arkham knight is around the same if not more.

 

[Scougar]

From memory, steam mover is just a click of a button to move back and forth. Saves any faffing, I found it very handy.

 

[ED209]

I have 2 SSDs, ive got steam and all my games on my second drive so if I ever format all I need to do is create a shortcut back to the steam.exe and everything is back again

 

[badbiddy]

I recently bought a 2nd 850 EVO. Went for 500GB. That's the best value per GB of the Samsung EVOs.

Another +1 for Crucial though, my Dad has one (not sure which model) and it boots to Windows7 desktop in less than 10 seconds from pressing the power button. Insanely quick.

 

[DragonQ]

I'd say 250-256 GB Samsung 850 EVO or Crucial BX-100.

The 1 TB versions of these budget SSDs have been as low as £230 so I expect them to be maybe £150 by the end of the year.

 

[Scougar]

Might save my pennies for a 500 as I'm in the same camp where 256GB is that much anymore. Currently all my steam games reside on my HDD and only using 40GB of my 120GB SSD (I purged a lot of stuff when I upgraded to win10).

 

[TwsT]

I purge off old games that I'm not currently playing. If I fancy playing one, then I'll just leave it trickling down whilst I'm playing another game

me too but still finding 256gb filled up quicker than expected.

Intewrnet is so fast for me ATM I can smash most games down in about 20 mins tops.

 

[bledd]

me too but still finding 256gb filled up quicker than expected.

Intewrnet is so fast for me ATM I can smash most games down in about 20 mins tops.

Indeed.

It's coming to the point that your older HDD will be the limiting factor when it comes to Steam downloads if you've not moved to SSD.

 

[fish_dan]

You were right to go lower

 

[Mattus]

I've concluded that all consumer SATA3 SSDs are essentially the same in real world use. I just upgraded to the 500GB 850 EVO from a 64GB Crucial M4 (early SSD which is much slower in synthetic benchmarks). I can tell the difference sometimes, but only just.

I really think you'd struggle to tell the difference between two drives of the same generation in consumer use. Might as well buy whatever's cheapest and most reliable!

 

[theMilitant]

Another vote for the Crucial BX100 from me. I've had nothing but good experiences with my Crucial SSDs and I think the 250GB BX100 especially is very competitively priced.

 

[traveyb]

Huge fan of the Samsung SSDs at the moment

 

[FinglisHobbit]

I got a bx100 250gb for £53 this weekend. Definitely seems to be the sweet spot to me. Might pick up another next month.

 

[titaniumx3]

I'm currently using a Intel 240gb for my OS and programs and 1TB Samsung for games. I was originally going to get a 500gb for games, but looking at something like GTAV, I think 1TB will easily last a few years.

I personally think it's better to get the more budget SATA drives like the Samsung EVO drives and just try to maximise the amount of capacity, instead of the more high end versions, as SATA is going to be obsolete pretty soon. The next time I build a system, I will definitely be getting a PCIe based SSD for my boot drive.

 

[dacads]

I doubt SATA is going to be obsolete soon.

Good to see prices finally coming down I got my Samsung 250GB for around £100 a few months ago, now similarly capacity ones are going for half that.

Personally even though it is the sweet spot, I would opt for 500GB as just with a few games and programs 250GB will get full pretty quick!

 

[Chugz]

250GB BX100 hits that great sweet spot. Write performance is a little lacking vs. the 850, but it matches it in everything else.

 

[Scougar]

Think I am gonna start saving properly for this new SSD, then stick the old SSD in the PS3.

Will probably get something like a 250GB to keep the cost down.