|
0.78/GB for a SSD. I just can't believe it.
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 13:12 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 11:53 |
|
|
fookolt posted:That's...really strange. The price outside of that page is $249 but when you click on the product to go to its product page, it's $199. (if this works, this is the SSD deal of the year right here) gggiiimmmppp fucked around with this message at May 4, 2012 around 13:38 |
| # ? May 4, 2012 13:27 |
|
|
gggiiimmmppp posted:Keep in mind, Staples will pricematch Amazon (but not newegg), so you can carry this over to staples and apply one of those $30 off $150 coupons that you can find by googling. Oh poo poo!
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 13:27 |
|
|
I'm replacing my 120 GB OCZ Vertex 2 with the 240 GB Corsair in the OP. If I am imaging my Windows 7 installation currently on the OCZ to place on the Corsair, do I still have to worry about partition offset? Shouldn't it be the same for both if Windows 7 always does 1024k?
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 13:41 |
|
|
Of course all this would happen the instant the return period ended on the open-box 128 gig M4 at Microcenter I had snatched up for $130 and was all smug about it. I keep hoping it was some kind of fluke but every day quality SSDs keep racing each other to the bottom 
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 15:29 |
|
|
Just snagged the 256gb M4 for $199 from Amazon. Price wars are awesome 
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 15:54 |
|
|
So would it make sense for me to do RAID 0 with the Crucial SSD? I'd rather get 2x256 now instead of waiting for the 512GB to hit $400 or $500, but I'd prefer to have all the space combined. Although I wish my motherboard had SATA 3 ports 
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 16:04 |
|
|
I wouldn't trade Trim for RAID0. If you're on an Intel platform and plan to run Alpha RST drivers that enable it, then by all means. I'm actually considering going that route eventually because I want 480-512GB of space and the price premium and lower performance makes larger drives unattractive.
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 16:26 |
|
|
Alereon posted:I wouldn't trade Trim for RAID0. If you're on an Intel platform and plan to run Alpha RST drivers that enable it, then by all means. I'm actually considering going that route eventually because I want 480-512GB of space and the price premium and lower performance makes larger drives unattractive. Ah right, you can't have both TRIM or RAID0 except for those Intel alpha RST drivers. I have an X58 motherboard. Is that eligible?
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 17:02 |
|
|
New Intel RST driver just popped up, from a lenovo win8 beta driver package. Though it seems it's the driver only, not the full intel RST package with the config software.
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 18:31 |
|
|
So is there any reason at all to suspect that Crucial M4 pricing will last or should I jump on it immediately? I'd be replacing a decrepit old 256gb WD drive and I've never had a problem holding my OS and games on it, so it isn't like I foresee needing more space for my OS drive.
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 18:35 |
|
|
I think it's the same with all computer related purchases - they're always going to get cheaper in the long run, but if the price is acceptable to you, a bird in hand is better than two in the bush.
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 18:38 |
|
|
Oh I'm sure a year from now they'll be $150 or something like that, I just mean in the very near future (say a month or so). From looking around it seems like this little price war has come out of nowhere for no real reason, so I don't why it would spill over to other drives or last more than a day or two. edit - Took the plunge. If I rode this lovely old HD for this long, then I'm sure I'll be able to use this one (it's a mere 8x faster) until it falls apart. FallenGod fucked around with this message at May 4, 2012 around 19:41 |
| # ? May 4, 2012 18:39 |
|
|
Alereon posted:As an illustrative example, laptop harddrives have less distance to seek and thus lower seek times than desktop drives, yet they are significantly slower in actual use because the shorter tracks mean lower sequential transfer rates. Actually, laptop drives often have higher seek times than desktop drives, despite the shorter seek distances. Partly because they're often 5400 RPM and pay an extra 1.4ms of rotational latency, but even the 7200 RPM drives don't always match up (I don't really know why, maybe it's power consumption, or from size constraints). For a given amount of data, desktop drives will also have an advantage in being able to put the data in fewer outer tracks (especially since the desktop drive is more likely to have multiple platters). As much as we try very hard to make accesses sequential, it never works out in the real world. Even if you manage to get all of the accesses for one program perfectly sequential, there are still plenty of disruptions (page file accesses, MFT and all sorts of other file system override, other programs running in the background) that keep you from achieving the full sequential speed mechanical drives are capable of. As for what I was actually saying, the drives in question (and most of the high end drives now) can max out a SATA3 interface whether you get the 64GB version or a larger one. So regardless of the importance of sequential access speed, the drives are still on equal footing there.
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 18:56 |
|
|
Zenzirouj posted:Of course all this would happen the instant the return period ended on the open-box 128 gig M4 at Microcenter I had snatched up for $130 and was all smug about it. I keep hoping it was some kind of fluke but every day quality SSDs keep racing each other to the bottom I paid $170ish for a 128 last year and was pretty pleased with myself 
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 18:58 |
|
|
It would be interesting to see a $/GB chart of hard disk drives vs solid state drives over the last 10 years
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 19:29 |
|
|
You'd probably have to leave out the last year of HDD prices just because of the flooding messing up the supply. Regardless, the Crucial price war makes for a pretty precipitous price drop. It dropped about $100 over the past year, and now it's suddenly dropped another $100 in just the past week or two. 
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 19:48 |
|
|
fletcher posted:It would be interesting to see a $/GB chart of hard disk drives vs solid state drives over the last 10 years 80GB Intels were $595 in 2008
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 19:52 |
|
|
Nate RFB posted:I'm replacing my 120 GB OCZ Vertex 2 with the 240 GB Corsair in the OP. If I am imaging my Windows 7 installation currently on the OCZ to place on the Corsair, do I still have to worry about partition offset? Shouldn't it be the same for both if Windows 7 always does 1024k?
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 21:23 |
|
|
Nate RFB posted:Anything? I'm about to start the system imaging. It seems like there are conflicting reports in this thread, some that seem to indicate that going W7 on a SSD to W7 on another SSD can be done with no problems (IEatBabies' post), and otherw that say you need to use 3rd party tools. In any case, yeah, you should be fine.
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 21:36 |
|
|
Its easy to fix that 120Gb partition on a 240Gb disk though- just expand within disk manager. (Right click My Computer > Manage > Disk Manager) The partition offset can be checked in diskpart.
|
| # ? May 4, 2012 23:10 |
|
|
what dud root said! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 00:46 |
|
|
Circuit City just ran out of the Crucial m4s, so they're back to $230 on Amazon. You can still get the 7mm Crucial m4 from TigerDirect for $209, which is only $10 more and with free shipping.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 02:31 |
|
|
Obviously the M4's are pretty popular here. I was looking at the 128gb M4 or the SanDisk Extreme 120gb. Thoughts? They are within $10 of another.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 04:45 |
|
|
If it's within $10, it's worth noting that the M4 has 8gb more space.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 04:57 |
|
|
The SanDisk is $10 more but apparently is 510 MB/s write versus the M4's 175 MB/s. It also uses the new 24nm nand toggle (whatever the hell that means)
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 05:08 |
|
|
Am I going to see an appreciable difference between the Crucial M4 vs the Samsung 830 if I'm not on SATA 6Gbit/sec? My mobo is the EX58-UD4P so I cap out at SATA2 3Gbit/sec interfaces. I was just going to get the Samsung 830 prior to now but the Crucal M4 price drop to $229 has just thrown that right out since now the M4 is $60 cheaper.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 05:12 |
|
|
Is caching still good for non-system drives? Like if I have Windows on one SSD, then a bigass regular drive for games and such can I use a second SSD to cache it?
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 05:20 |
|
|
The Milkman posted:Is caching still good for non-system drives? Like if I have Windows on one SSD, then a bigass regular drive for games and such can I use a second SSD to cache it?
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 05:26 |
|
|
I guess you could, but non-MMO games are already among the programs that get the least benefit from SSDs. That on top of the lower-than-actual-SSD performance of caching means you'll probably never see a difference.Nam Taf posted:Am I going to see an appreciable difference between the Crucial M4 vs the Samsung 830 if I'm not on SATA 6Gbit/sec? No. You'd be hard pressed to see a difference if you were on SATA III.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 05:27 |
|
|
poxin posted:The SanDisk is $10 more but apparently is 510 MB/s write versus the M4's 175 MB/s. It also uses the new 24nm nand toggle (whatever the hell that means) That's sequential writes on compressible data when most of your perceived difference is going to be in other statistics. I'd go for the m4 to save ten dollars, get 8gb more space and end up with a generally more trusted controller.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 08:11 |
|
|
Factory Factory posted:I guess you could, but non-MMO games are already among the programs that get the least benefit from SSDs. That on top of the lower-than-actual-SSD performance of caching means you'll probably never see a difference. what do you mean by this? I see a tremendous improvement in many aspects of all sorts of games with ssds. Hell there are a lot of shooters wher not having an ssd puts you at a huge disadvantage, such as BF3.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 11:24 |
|
|
DrDork posted:Re-imaging to another SSD will not induce any new issues for you. So, assuming you set it up properly the first time (ie, did a clean instal and let Win7 set the partition up, or when you cloned over your HDD partition you ensured proper offsets), you should be able to simply clone over to your new SSD without any further fuckery. Mind you, some of the more simplistic imaging tools may not pay attention to the new drive being larger than the old one, and you may end up with a 120GB partition on your new 240GB drive, leaving the remaining 120GB as a separate partition, rather than as one large 240GB partition. Whether this is desirable or not is up to you, and I know a bunch of imaging tools (Norton Ghost is the only one I've used personally) will let you set things up however you want.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 11:55 |
|
|
PUNCHITCHEWIE posted:what do you mean by this? I see a tremendous improvement in many aspects of all sorts of games with ssds. SSDs are a ton slower than RAM. If you have enough RAM, the only benefit you'll see from using an SSD over a mechanical drive is in loading times. The only games where you'll notice a difference in-level is if the game constantly loads stuff in the background while you're playing. Typically this is just MMORPGs and open-world games (e.g. Skyrim). For anything else, once you've actually loaded in, all the data is in memory and your disk drive is doing jack squat.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 12:03 |
|
|
Putting this in here also, or should I put this in the W7 thread... I got my machine assembled. My first W7 and first (128 gig)SSD setup. So what is the most common (easy helps too) setup when doing a SSD boot setup? I have seen a couple. Right clicking the Users file and moving it to the HDD sounds most attractive, obviously. I have also seen a scheme where you run in an audit mode, run a script and so on. Sounds dicey. I'm scared, hold me.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 12:46 |
|
|
Jabor posted:SSDs are a ton slower than RAM. If you have enough RAM, the only benefit you'll see from using an SSD over a mechanical drive is in loading times. Theoretically this is true, but in reality not so much. Aside from the load times (with which some games pushing 2+ minute load times from spinner HDs these days making that worth it alone in my opinion) many games just aren't that smart about loading/preloading assets intelligently. I have 8GB of RAM and an i5 running at 4.5Ghz, but I still noticed tons of pauses/stuttering/lack of responsiveness to the controls all the time when a game had to hit the HD for some sound file or effect it hadn't preloaded properly. I've noticed this is especially true in shooters and "indie hipster studio games" which seem to be all the rage these days. Games also vary widely in how and when they use OS resources and libraries, and again you can see a huge benefit when the game makes some system call that isn't already in RAM. And aside from that there are a lot of lovely C developers out there that make games that don't even know how much RAM your system has, much less utilize it properly, resulting in lots of games that keep freeing memory all over the place at the application level even when you've 6GB still free, and then it needs to go back to disk 30 seconds later. If this is the sort of that annoys you it's very worth the money, it helps in many more situations than just load times. PUNCHITCHEWIE fucked around with this message at May 5, 2012 around 12:53 |
| # ? May 5, 2012 12:47 |
|
|
Also crossposting: I'm about to put together a new IVB build, and I happen to have two Intel X25-V 40GB SSDs spare. For TOP SECRET GOVERNMENT REASONS, I cannot sell these or give them away. So, is there any practical use for such small drives in a new build? Could I shove my page file on them instead of my main SSD? Someone suggested using them for specific folders, so I might just use them for torrents or Steam games unless there's a better use.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 12:54 |
|
|
LittleBob posted:Also crossposting: RAID 0 them up and load Windows completely on them. Thats what I do.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 15:22 |
|
|
Bogatyr posted:Putting this in here also, or should I put this in the W7 thread... Windows 7 will optimize what it needs to on its own. Don't mess with anything.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 16:28 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 11:53 |
|
|
PUNCHITCHEWIE posted:Theoretically this is true, but in reality not so much. You're right about indy games and other poorly managed applications, though. Their saving grace is usually that their loads are so small that as long as you're not really killing your HDD with other activity, the loads will still be quite fast. You do occasionally run into those outliers, though, which for whatever reason just hate loading intelligently. In such cases, by all means, toss them on a SSD.
|
| # ? May 5, 2012 18:11 |
|
