Which budget SSD?
- Thread starter Orch
- Start date
That is very impressive.
I`ve built and upgraded a fair few PCs and laptops with SSDs, and I don't think I`ve ever seen "off" to desktop in under 10 seconds. Most motherboards delay proceedings by a few seconds (even with BIOS option such as "fast boot" enabled), then the actual loading of Windows takes at least 5 seconds.
I have seen a few systems (including my own) boot in what seems to be very little time. Once all drivers and updates have been installed, then it seems to average around 15 to 25 seconds, depending on the system spec.
However "long" it takes, it's much fatser than with a mechanical hard drive, and that's one of the reasons I recommend SSDs to all of my customers and friends.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 33,000
- Location
- Rutland
Not the way I would go.
The benefit of an SSD is the random access times mostly. So if you're accessing lots of little files (IE OS booting and loading startup programs) then an SSD is very quick whereas a mechanical drive is seeking all over the place and bogs down.
Loading a game however is loading a large amount of continuous data, which is less taxing on a mechanical drive.
So if space is limited your best option is to put your OS and programs on the SSD, getting you quick boot up times and a much more responsive system. Stick all the big games and media on a mechanical drive, you'll benefit from the fact that when loading games you're not accessing OS files, so the drive is doing far less seeking.
As I said this is the setup I use and it's perfect, always the in the first 1-2 on the server. I have a 250GB SSD and a 1.5TB mechanical drive. I could move the games onto the SSD but everything loads so quickly I haven't bothered.
I take it that a game like BF3 is very dependant upon the OS when loading levels then.
I would have thought that most games do have to access a fair few small files as well as larger ones when loading up and loading levels.
I can see that if a game is relying heavily on the OS when loading levels, then having the OS installed on an SSD is going to benefit loading times.
If a game has to load in, say 2GB of data for a level (even if it is a single file), then loading that level from an SSD will be a fair bit faster (~ 3x ?) than from a mechanical drive.
The question is, which is fatser - game or OS on SSD ? I suspect it depends on the game.
I would have thought that most games do have to access a fair few small files as well as larger ones when loading up and loading levels.
I can see that if a game is relying heavily on the OS when loading levels, then having the OS installed on an SSD is going to benefit loading times.
If a game has to load in, say 2GB of data for a level (even if it is a single file), then loading that level from an SSD will be a fair bit faster (~ 3x ?) than from a mechanical drive.
The question is, which is fatser - game or OS on SSD ? I suspect it depends on the game.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 33,000
- Location
- Rutland
There's never going to be a situation where it would be sensible to put the OS on a mechanical drive and the game on the SSD. It's perfectly possible you may load the game quicker with this setup, however you lose the main benefit of having an SSD - fast boot times and a much more responsive system - so the question you pose is largely irrelevant.
One of Orch's main reasons for considering a (cheap) SSD seems to be that BF3 load times are slow.
I mistakenly suggested that a 64GB SSD would be OK (with a little care) to install Windows 7 and a couple of games. It has been pointed out that a BF3 install is rather large, so it would be a struggle to install the OS and BF3 onto a small SSD.
Your suggestion of installing the OS onto the SSD and the game onto a HDD is interesting, and would certainly speed up everyday use. I suspect that it would also speed up game loading, even if the game is on the HDD.
My "largely irrelevant" question may not be so irrelevant to Orch.
I think a very good compromise might be to settle for installing Windows and BF3 onto the SSD and have other games installed on the HDD (there should be room, with a little "housekeeping"). Therefore Orchy gets maximum performance for BF3, and gets better loading times for other games (if indeed games do load more quickly from a HDD if Windows is on an SSD - I haven't tried it yet, but I'll take your word that they do).
If this isn't acceptable, then my question "OS or game on SSD ?" does become very relevant.
All great reading this guys thank you very much.
Ok so new idea
Found some OCZ 60GB refurbed SSD's for £30. I'm thinking nab one this month for the OS, see how I get on with OS on SSD and games on HD. If all is good then great, if not grab another one next month for games. Maybe even run the two of them in RAID0?
What do you guys think?
Ok so new idea
Found some OCZ 60GB refurbed SSD's for £30. I'm thinking nab one this month for the OS, see how I get on with OS on SSD and games on HD. If all is good then great, if not grab another one next month for games. Maybe even run the two of them in RAID0?What do you guys think?
All great reading this guys thank you very much.
Ok so new idea
What do you guys think?
Go for the Crucial V4.
Better reputation for reliability, and the extra 4GB could be "crucial"
Go for the Crucial V4.
Better reputation for reliability, and the extra 4GB could be "crucial"
Oh really? 25% more and slower speeds? Not doubting you just querying!
I think it was the OCZ Vertex 2's that had a reputation for failing.
Having said that, I bought a brand new 60GB for £30 a while back. I knew the risk, but it was for my old laptop which I only use once in a while. Did the trick, speeded up the laptop and is still working OK.
I think the overwhelming conclusion to your original question is that you should go for 120GB+ if you can afford it, but a 64GB will bring some benefits with compromise.
Having said that, I bought a brand new 60GB for £30 a while back. I knew the risk, but it was for my old laptop which I only use once in a while. Did the trick, speeded up the laptop and is still working OK.
I think the overwhelming conclusion to your original question is that you should go for 120GB+ if you can afford it, but a 64GB will bring some benefits with compromise.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 4,505
- Location
- Wales
Did a quick video this morning, counted from the moment the monitor comes on to the desktop is aroung 7-8 seconds
Orch honestly it's truly a great upgrade, for me though i definitely would get at least a 120gb, after installing windows 8, Anti virus, most used apps and arma 3 i'm left with 70Gb.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 4,505
- Location
- Wales
Even shocked me, there's was a time when i could press the power button and make a cuppa before i'd be on the desktop, can barely sit down before it's there now
All great reading this guys thank you very much.
Ok so new idea
What do you guys think?
Ah.
If it's a case of waiting a month or two for more funds, you could save up for 120GB.
I am now leaning towards this to be honest. My mind is changing by the minute at the moment though so I'm trying not to impulse buy and give it a chance to settle.
It would make things easier just to get a 120gb and be done with it though.
Waiting the extra month simply adds to the excitement of waiting for the courier to arrive, from the moment you press the BUY NOW button.
The thrill of the chase ?
Seriously, save up for 120GB if you can.
I "struggled" with 80GB (cost £185) for nearly 3 years. 250GB does make life a little easier.
If you shop around you should be able to get 120GB for less than £70.
Watchout for OcUK's special deals, they sometimes come up with some seriously good deals on slightly older stuff (last year's SSDs, for example).