|
I'd recommend the Intel 320 120GB for $200. Doesn't do quite as ridiculously well in benchmarks, but makes up for it with reliability and a good warranty.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:57 |
|
|
Now I'm torn between the Crucial M4 128GB and the Corsair Force Series 3 120GB. I'll get the M4 if it's worth the higher price tag.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
Probably not, I'd buy whichever is cheaper
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
A fair few people have been reporting a particular showstopping problem with the M4 on the Crucial forums: http://forums.crucial.com/t5/Solid-State-Drives-SSD/0x00000f4-error-on-M4-64GB/td-p/76392 Mr Chips fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Jan 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
^^^ welp. Force 3? Fell victim to a lovely OCZ drive, my Max IOPS threw a disc read error 30 minutes after installing Windows. Sending it back and getting an M4  Should have read this thread first!
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
Well, it's hard to say if whatever is going on there is systematic or a bunch of people are showing up and saying "omg my drive failed too must be design flaw". It will be interesting to see if they find anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 05:38
|
|
|
Looks like I'll be getting a Force Series 3 120GB then unless those are having reliability issues as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 05:43
|
|
|
Just the SF22xx bug that's been squashed, I think
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
I really want to make the switch to SSD, the only thing holding me back is that my Dell Inspiron 530 Mobo doesn't seem to support AHCI which from what I understand is required for TRIM to work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 05:58
|
|
|
It is. But TRIM is not nearly as big of a deal as people make it out to be. Yes, write performance will degrade over time as the drive goes from being pristine to well used. Depending on the drive, it can sometimes be a fairly significant degradation. But for most users, even in the worst, most degraded state, the SSD is still at least an order of magnitude faster than any mechanical drive out for the considerable majority of disk operations. And for some small portion of your usage (likely well under <10%) it might end up being a bit slower than the fastest HDDs available. And that's not even considering the garbage collection that a lot of drives use to keep up performance without TRIM anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 06:36
|
|
|
Any chance of compatibility issues between 2010 MBPs and Intel 320s or is this thing really DOA? It isn't being detected at all. Killed my Corsair F60 and now I get a seemingly dead Intel 320 80gb from Frys. . Manufacturing date on the drive is 12/4/11 or something.
BlackMK4 fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Jan 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
After rejiggering the laptops in my life, I've got two unused SSDs, a 120 GB and a 160 GB. I'd like to toss them in my gaming PC and am trying to figure out the best effectiveness/effort ratio, re: how to organize them and whether to reinstall/move my OS or just use the SSDs as auxiliary app storage. There's a number of factors:
tl;dr I'd like to just throw the 160 GB in and copy currently-playing games over to it, but I want to make sure I'm not missing out on serious in-game performance benefits by keeping the OS on HDD, and that Intel drives are less likely to croak on me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 19:38
|
|
: Least work would be "throw in the 160 and use it as app storage", but that conflicts with the above concerns in a few ways.
|
Now I'm tempted to get two Corsair Force 3 120 drives or two Samsung 470 128 drives and set up a RAID 0. Or am I venturing into  territory since it would be primarily for games?Edit: Goddamn it, the Force 3 drives sold out on Newegg and I didn't get one in time because of my indecision. Are the Force GT drives a good deal for $195? spasticColon fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Jan 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 19:48
|
|
|
bitprophet posted:tl;dr I'd like to just throw the 160 GB in and copy currently-playing games over to it, but I want to make sure I'm not missing out on serious in-game performance benefits by keeping the OS on HDD, and that Intel drives are less likely to croak on me. spasticColon posted:RAID 0 [...] Or am I venturing into Getting a single large SSD would be a better choice. SSDs operate a bit like RAID internally and so their performance scales with the amount of flash in them. A 256GB SSD usually costs about the same as a pair of 128GB ones, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
In that case I'll just get a single SSD then. I see that the Samsung 470 listed in the upgrade thread is only $150 on newegg or should I spend $45 more and get a Force GT 120? The Force 3 is sold out unfortunately and I'm still kicking myself for not getting one in time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
I'd probably just get the 470
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
Dogen posted:I'd probably just get the 470 Would I be sacrificing much speed and/or reliability since the 470 is cheaper?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 00:16
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:Would I be sacrificing much speed and/or reliability since the 470 is cheaper?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
I may just wait until the Force 3 120 comes back in stock. At this point I would only want to spend over $200 if it's actually worth it. I only considered two drives in a RAID 0 if I got one drive then got a second one later if it was worth it. The 180GB Force 3 is very tempting because of the extra space but is it worth spending over $200 for?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
More games that you can install without futzing with them, and generally bigger drives (up to 256 gigs, usually) are generally faster against smaller in the same line due to being able to access more flash simultaneously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 01:54
|
|
|
I can vouch for the Patriot Wildfire. I think its same same as the Force 3
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
Well the Force 3 120 is back in stock for $170 on newegg but the Force GT 120 is now down to $180 so I think I'll spend the extra  and get the Force GT drive. The Force GT 120GB drive is now ordered and thanks to all who helped me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 09:35
|
|
|
Mildly technical question - given that SSDs keep the difference between industry standard base-10 GB and actual GiB as non-user-accessible room for wear leveling, exactly how much free space should you keep on an SSD to ensure TRIM and background GC do their jobs efficiently without adversely affecting write amplification? I've been keeping 15% free, but it seems like I could get away with 10% without hurting anything...
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
It really depends on the workload, mostly how often you'll be writing to the drive and generating dirty pages that need to be cleared. For normal desktop workloads that's probably not very often, so you can get away without much free space. This is especially true on Sandforce drives, since their internal compression and deduplication frees up a lot of space to use as spare area.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
Alereon posted:It really depends on the workload, mostly how often you'll be writing to the drive and generating dirty pages that need to be cleared. For normal desktop workloads that's probably not very often, so you can get away without much free space. This is especially true on Sandforce drives, since their internal compression and deduplication frees up a lot of space to use as spare area. Any time there's a Steam sale, I invariably end up moving basically the whole drive's worth of data on and off it, sometimes more than once. As such I've been keeping it at ~15% free space or greater as reported by Windows 7. This is with a Plextor SATA3 SSD using a Marvell controller, not exactly renowned for super background collection. On my OS SSD (and secondary Steam SSD), both Kingston V+100s, I try to keep 20% free because the write amplification is crazy high and the secondary Steam one is only a 96GB drive to begin with. It stores only games that I know I'm not going to uninstall - S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games, FO:NV, Skyrim; games that can actually make use of the faster speed, games with very high replay value, etc. I would just like to repeat that I strongly regret not making my Steam folder on an HDD, because that means I've downloaded and moved >120 games onto and off of the Plextor 128GB SSD, which is a much higher than normal workload 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
Agreed posted:
Physically move your steam folder then reinstall steam, everything is still there it will work fine. I reinstalled windows and moved my steam folder to a different HDD (it was sitting on a 500GB that was giving some SMART errors that I wanted to retire). Worked perfectly fine. You could even reinstall first or whatever you just move your entire game folder where you want it. Just keep in mind copying 300gigs of stuff can take a long time. I did have some crash on start up issues when I copied the encrypted (?) .ncf files so I let it redownload that and keep the data folders which are the bulk. Basically throw \steam\steamapps\common where you want it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
pixaal posted:Physically move your steam folder then reinstall steam, everything is still there it will work fine. I reinstalled windows and moved my steam folder to a different HDD (it was sitting on a 500GB that was giving some SMART errors that I wanted to retire). Worked perfectly fine. You could even reinstall first or whatever you just move your entire game folder where you want it. Just keep in mind copying 300gigs of stuff can take a long time. This works much, much better before you have NTFS junctions for the vast majority of games. I am -pretty sure- that I can just kill the junctions, move the games into /common and it shouldn't kick too much of a fuss, and I do intend to do that soon but I have no idea why I thought it would be a good idea to install steam on an SSD in the first place. Vastly underestimated how good Valve is at getting you to trade money for games you don't have time to play.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 23:07
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Vastly underestimated how good Valve is at getting you to trade money for games you don't have time to play. Holy balls, yes. Those drat sales!
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
Well my 8 month old Vertex 2 drive died today. gently caress. I got it slightly before everyone realised what shitheads OCZ are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 04:12
|
|
|
Alctel posted:Well my 8 month old Vertex 2 drive died today. gently caress. I got it slightly before everyone realised what shitheads OCZ are. The usual symptoms?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 06:56
|
|
|
DNova posted:The usual symptoms? Being OCZ? Check.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 07:05
|
|
|
Alctel posted:Well my 8 month old Vertex 2 drive died today. gently caress. I got it slightly before everyone realised what shitheads OCZ are. Welcome to the club! Still, at least when I eventually got through the RMA process, after providing an extremely detailed explanation of the issue, which meant they didn't ask any further questions, they sent me a brand new Vertex 2E straight from Taiwan, not a refurb. Although my original was 34nm and the new is probably 25, eh, it's going in my laptop, so it's not going to be such a big deal if it falls over. Some people say the problems started with the Vertex 3, but they clearly never had a Vertex 2.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 10:24
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:Welcome to the club! Still, at least when I eventually got through the RMA process, after providing an extremely detailed explanation of the issue, which meant they didn't ask any further questions, they sent me a brand new Vertex 2E straight from Taiwan, not a refurb. Although my original was 34nm and the new is probably 25, eh, it's going in my laptop, so it's not going to be such a big deal if it falls over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 10:32
|
|
|
Will we see much SSD news or product launches at CES? I searched and could only see info about two drives being launched from manufacturers I'd never heard of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 11:41
|
|
|
Should see some stuff yes, although most doesn't really come out till the February launch cycle. Already packed on my CES meetings, might not even have enough time to get drunk at press parties anymore
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
Between these two: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233191&Tpk=CSSD-F120GBGT-BK http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820171545 Is the brand and SATA III worth the $55 or $25 AR?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
How are SSD's for doing backups vs traditional hard drives? Specifically in terms of reliability against data loss or corruption. I would probably be putting it in an external enclosure, connecting to it once every few months. My understanding is that SSD's never lose the ability to read data, so even if the drive malfunctions the data is still recoverable, whereas if a traditional hard drive malfunctions either the data is lost or you have to pay $$$ to recover it. Is data loss possible on todays SSD's? Are they more reliable for doing backusp than traditional hard drives? If so, what kind of SSD's would you guys recommend for this purpose, I'd be more interested in capacity and reliability over performance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
whiskas posted:How are SSD's for doing backups vs traditional hard drives? Specifically in terms of reliability against data loss or corruption. I would probably be putting it in an external enclosure, connecting to it once every few months. They have a high cost per gigabyte, and I thought that if you leave an SSD powered off it loses everything after 6 months or a year or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
whiskas posted:How are SSD's for doing backups vs traditional hard drives? That seems really silly, why not use some regular flash drives instead?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:57 |
|
|
DNova posted:The usual symptoms? Keeps locking up randomly after about 30secs of writing to it. Full system crash
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 00:00
|
|