What is the best price:performance ratio?

SirConfused

SirConfused

SirConfused

Associate
Joined
3 Feb 2009
Posts
942
Before I start, I know that the best performance would come from just having a massive RAID setup full of top end SSD's, but unfortunately for the moment that's out of my budget by quite a long way.

Basically I am looking to find out what out of the various options would give me the best performance (read load times and write speed) without forcing the bank to send the repo men round earlier than expected :p.

If I wanted say, 250gb, would it be better to use a high speed drive like a raptor, an SSD of smaller capacity or a regular speed HDD in RAID?

Thanks in advance for any help.
 
it's hard to answer because it depends what you use the drive for. I reckon £120 of 64gb ssd plus £80 of 1.5tb storage for £200 is better value than 6 320gb F1s RAID0 for similar price. That's comparing like-for-like - same cost,same capacity. Once you start changing those, it starts depending on financial circumstances and needs too, which makes it more complicated.
IMO raptors aren't worth it because they charge a premium with nowhere near the same performance gains as SSD.
 
Last edited:
miniyazz said:
it's hard to answer because it depends what you use the drive for. I reckon £120 of 64gb ssd plus £80 of 1.5tb storage for £200 is better value than 6 320gb F1s RAID0 for similar price. That's comparing like-for-like - same cost,same capacity. Once you start changing those, it starts depending on financial circumstances and needs too, which makes it more complicated.
IMO taptoes aren't worth it because they charge a premium with nowhere near the same performance gains as SSD.
Click to expand...

taptoes? That's some serious mistyping.
 
if you went down the SSD route, get 128GB SSD min (OS, programs, games) and an 1TB disk (any other files)
get OCZ Aglility (recommend Corsair P128) or higher they are all fast ignore Data rate numbers and ignore RAID with ssd pointless as the IOPS are very high
you find that you run out of space on 64GB or you not be able to keep 20GB free

or for a lot less 2x samsung F1 or 2x segates 7200.12 and put them in RAID 0

SSDs are makes the system respond far faster then using HDDs, but you pay for it
 
Last edited:
An agility would be great for you, good price and amzing support on the ocz site. My vertex is unbelivble, and the garbige collection works wonders
 
Thanks for the replies folks.

Let me start off again by qualifying the original question slightly further. The current setup I have is an 80 gig for windows and a 500gig for game installs. I have 54 gigs free after windows and all the apps I use are installed but my installed games folder totals over 200 gigs.

I have always found in the past that having windows and game installs on seperate physical drives helps things quite a bit for the fairly small amount of extra money you pay. Now it looks like I would have to cut down the amount of games I have installed at once and go for an SSD with windows and the game installs on it.

I haven't read too much into SSD's as they were still out of my practical price range up until fairly recently but now they are starting to look a lot more affordable. Am I correct in assuming that due to the nature of SSD's having the OS and game installs on the same drive wouldn't be any slower than if I had them on seperate ones?
 
due to the access times of an SSD, all can be done on 1 SSD drive as all parts of the SSD run at the same speed (do not buy the kingston OCZ Core/Apex as it can suffer from stutter problems any other SSD is fine starting from Aglility up or corsair P128)

even on an HDD it can as when your loading games OS has nothing to do with games loading just need to partition up to 25% total space to keep speed up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom