|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:So I'm building a proper desktop for the first time in nearly a decade and I'm looking at SSDs, I'm wondering: are the SSDs in the 500GB capacity range worth it, or should I wait? Currently I'm rocking with three 7200RPM drives, one at 200gb, one at 500gb, and one at 1TB. I'd like to replace the 200GB 7200RPM drive with a nice, sizable, reliable SSD, but they seem to still be well over $1/GB which is more than I'm comfortable paying. dorkasaurus_rex posted:Also, being somewhat new to the modern PC building world, I heard SSDs are really small and most cases (mine is a Lian Li) don't actually have small enough bays for them without some kind of harness to hold them in place. Is this true?
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 20:24 |
|
|
DrDork posted:It's all going to depend on what you're willing to pay. 512GB SSDs are still very expensive, usually in the $700 range. Add to that the fact that 128/256gb drives are the cheapest SSDs per gigabyte and you have a pretty strong argument against getting a 512gb SSD. SSDs are also falling in price faster than HDDs, so you can potentially lose a lot of money within the next couple of months instead of only a bit of money.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
Do you have 500GB of stuff worth having on an SSD? Big, contiguous files like movies, music, most games, etc. work just fine on a spinner. OS, programs, and MMO or similarly unpredictably-loading games are the things you want on an SSD. For most people, a 120 to 256 GB SSD is plenty, with other things loaded off to other drives. You're clearly comfortable with multiple drives already, too.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 21:00
|
|
|
Yeah, I went from a 1TB main drive to a 120gb SSD and I'm doing just fine. Learned how to make symlinks for Steam and Origin, and non-MMO games etc. load just fine off another drive. They actually seem faster than they used to be on the OS spinner drive, as that drive isn't being constantly used by the OS now. Still have 50GB free on my SSD now too.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 21:04
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Do you have 500GB of stuff worth having on an SSD? Big, contiguous files like movies, music, most games, etc. work just fine on a spinner. OS, programs, and MMO or similarly unpredictably-loading games are the things you want on an SSD. For most people, a 120 to 256 GB SSD is plenty, with other things loaded off to other drives. You're clearly comfortable with multiple drives already, too. Do you think SSDs will someday become so big and cheap that they'll completely replace hard drives? They don't really have anything going against them except price and capacity, surely both of those will only go down and up respectively.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
Never. If you converted all the semiconductor fabrication in the world to NAND flash, it couldn't handle the demand for new storage, and sufficient raw materials would be a huge problem in short order. It will take some other technology entirely to displace either NAND SSDs or hard drives. The balance of what is installed on endpoint machines may change - everything in your hands uses flash while the spinners sit in external cases or servers in The CloudTM, for example. But neither tech is going anywhere for a while.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Never. If you converted all the semiconductor fabrication in the world to NAND flash, it couldn't handle the demand for new storage, and sufficient raw materials would be a huge problem in short order. It will take some other technology entirely to displace either NAND SSDs or hard drives. What about the recent accidental breakthrough that allows the creation of memristors from Silicon? I'm torn. Is there really any compelling reason to buy/not to buy an SSD in July 2012? I have a lenovo X220T, Ideally I'd need 256GB space but I could live with 128GB. I have a desktop HDD for all my media but it's nice to have photos etc on the go. I currently use 100GB with no games installed. I'm essentially buying to coincide with Windows 8s RTM release. The drive needs to be 7mm and Sata3 so I was looking at a samsung 830 or a crucial m4. The mSata slot on this laptop only runs at sata2 speeds otherwise that would be perfect. edit: I can always get an Ultrabase and put a mechanical drive in that I suppose. ToG fucked around with this message at 04:19 on May 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
Memristors are not NAND flash. That would be an example of some other technology entirely. If you're really THAT on the fence about an SSD, just get it. Because everyone's primary computer should have an SSD unless they literally just use web browsers (and even then, most devices like that use SSDs anyway - phones and tablets and Chromebooks, for example). Stop wasting your life a few seconds at a time every time you start your computer or a program. Sometimes the difference can be dramatic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47dt-y27eYk Also, you will probably not see the difference between a SATA 2 and SATA 3 SSD in desktop use, because the parts of program loading limited by CPU or network connections become the main delays. If you want the extra storage of an HDD with your system, don't think for a second that an mSATA SSD would feel pokey just because it's SATA 2. Factory Factory fucked around with this message at 04:22 on May 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Memristors are not NAND flash. That would be an example of some other technology entirely. Hah, I just read that myself and thought I was a little too ambiguous. I edited my post to clarify just as you posted. I was postulating that memristors would be this replacement. I'm aware of the difference. They were previously made of some rarer metal though. I just wanted to know if there's any pricedrops/new technologies looming I should wait for really. I use this pc as a desktop replacement hooked up to a monitor. It's i5/8GB ram and the price difference between a Sata3 7mm SSD and an mSata drive isn't massive.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
Technologies: No. Price drops: Probably, but who's to say? Something better is always on the horizon. When I bought my 256GB Crucial C300, it was $500 with a $50 rebate. Now, 16 months later, a 256GB Crucial M4 is $240 with no gimmicks, and it's a significantly faster drive. Yet 16 months before I bought my drive, the hot stuff was the OCZ Vertex, priced at an extremely-aggressive $725 and with I/O speeds as "slow" as a tenth what a Vertex 3 offers. In a year, you may look at what you paid and shake your head. But in the meantime, you'll have been stuck with a spinner drive.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 04:35
|
|
|
Yeah I know all this. My X220T cost me in the region of £1300 (with extra ram) and now I can get the same for £1100 AND there's an X230 looming with ivybridge. I'll wait till windows 8 hits RTM and buy the biggest 7mm SSD I can afford. I can live with a mechanical drive for a few more months. If anything it'll help me transition to windows 8. Is there a benefit to the 256GB over the 128GB in terms of speed or is all just capacity? and the difference between is Samsung D830 and Crucial M4 is so slight it seems that price would decide that battle, Right?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
Depends on the drive model. With the M4 there's almost no difference. With the 830, there's a difference (256 GB is faster), but it's not a big deal. Generally, when there's a difference, writes are faster but reads are the same.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 04:52
|
|
|
It's looking like a 128/256GB Crucial M4 at the minute but we'll see how funds play out. All I need now is for someone to release a decent eGPU enclosure that uses ExpressCard and not Thunderbolt (or make one myself). Thanks for the help.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
ToG posted:Is there a benefit to the 256GB over the 128GB in terms of speed or is all just capacity? and the difference between is Samsung D830 and Crucial M4 is so slight it seems that price would decide that battle, Right?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
grumperfish posted:If it'll be running at SATA2 speeds there's probably not going to be a difference in speeds big enough to be concerned with really. Just keep an eye on the price differences. Unfortunately you missed the Newegg sale price on the 830's, but there might be another sale or something around the 4th. I'm in the UK so newegg is useless to me. My Sata port on this laptop is SATA3. (I.e. Where the current drive is) The mSATA slot is SATA2. grumperfish posted:Nevermind on Newegg then. At SATA3 speeds, it'll be fast enough regardless of the drive you pick that you'd be unlikely to notice any difference between the M4 or the 830, so it's probably best to just purchase based on relative pricing for the size drive you can afford. FTFY ToG fucked around with this message at 05:15 on May 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 05:09
|
|
|
ToG posted:I'm in the UK so newegg is useless to me.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
Biggest human being Ever posted:Do you think SSDs will someday become so big and cheap that they'll completely replace hard drives? We haven't even managed to replace magnetic tape yet: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/05/tape-lives-supercomputer-to-be-built-with-380pb-of-tape-storage/
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 06:26
|
|
|
ToG posted:The drive needs to be 7mm and Sata3 so I was looking at a samsung 830 or a crucial m4. The mSata slot on this laptop only runs at sata2 speeds otherwise that would be perfect. Regardless of ports I love my 830's. ToG posted:I'll wait till windows 8 hits RTM and buy the biggest 7mm SSD I can afford. I can live with a mechanical drive for a few more months. If anything it'll help me transition to windows 8. ToG posted:Is there a benefit to the 256GB over the 128GB in terms of speed or is all just capacity? and the difference between is Samsung D830 and Crucial M4 is so slight it seems that price would decide that battle, Right? evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 10:58 on May 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 10:53
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:This doesn't make sense. "Because I'll have to install an operating system no matter what then."
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 11:13
|
|
|
I am noticing more and more talk about SATA3 6GB/s, I have my M4 on a slower SATA2. If I spent $25 on a PCI-e SATA3 controller card would I notice any difference? I mean sure benchmarks might look better, but what normal usage?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 14:36
|
|
|
Not unless you're constantly transferring files between two very fast drives (a common example is moving large video from a RAID array to an SSD for editing). Don't bother, it's not worth the headaches or the invisible speed increase.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 14:40
|
|
|
I'm a week into my Seagate Momentus xt750 hybrid and am noticing the positive effects of the caching. Windows startup and shutdown times are easily half what they were with my WD Scorpio 7200 rpm HDD. I have some pretty intense Excel and Access files and load times are easily half there too. Why did I choose a hybrid over an SSD? I really do need 750GB of storage space in my laptop, and need my optical drive to load clients' data. I got a steal on an open-box Momentus from a local mom-and-pop store - $125. If this can last me another 3 years, my next laptop will have an SSD. I'm happy so far!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 14:51
|
|
|
Kairos posted:"Because I'll have to install an operating system no matter what then." Colonel Sanders posted:I am noticing more and more talk about SATA3 6GB/s, I have my M4 on a slower SATA2. If I spent $25 on a PCI-e SATA3 controller card would I notice any difference? I mean sure benchmarks might look better, but what normal usage? 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 16:12
|
|
|
So am I the only one who really likes SRT caching? Windows boots up within 10 seconds and all that, and games get cached when I play them regularly (like after 2-3 times) so I get pretty quick load times. I tend to only play the same 2-3 games anyway until I switch one out for a new game. Obviously the big disadvantage is that you have to load it once from the HDD before it can be cached, but I think it is worth it just so I don't have to constantly micro-manage my SSD with what games I am currently playing and all that. Plus I only have a 64GB SSD which is too small to store more than 1-2 games on, but even if I had a 128GB I'd still prefer using 60GB of it as cache. WHen 256GB hits $150 I'll probably switch the 64GB to a dedicated system drive and use the 256GB for games, but I am pretty happy with SRT right now.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
I'm looking into creating a trimmed down Windows 7 iso to install on my new SSD. Anyone have any experience with this, can I make a difference that's worth it? This is the software I had in mind to do it with: http://www.rt7lite.com/
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
Just cut your hibernation file out and shrink your swap file down to a gig. How small is this SSD? You shouldn't have to manage it as long as you keep your games and videos and music off it.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
Kairos posted:"Because I'll have to install an operating system no matter what then." Basically this but also my general frustrations. It's much easier to cope with "Man, I'll have to configure this to look just right again" when you've got "Holyfucknuggets batman, I just opened 200 programs in under a second" going through your head. Biggest human being Ever posted:I'm looking into creating a trimmed down Windows 7 iso to install on my new SSD. Anyone have any experience with this, can I make a difference that's worth it? This is the software I had in mind to do it with: http://www.rt7lite.com/ I have used tools like this in past but they never really saved enough space to make me think "Yeah I'll do this every time".
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
Hey, could we update the OP about RAID+TRIM? Intel's new RST driver, 11.1.0.1006, enables it on most modern boards (according to its help file): • Trim (Microsoft Windows 7* only) This feature provides support for all pass-through solid-state drives (SSDs) in your storage system that meets the ATA-8 protocol requirements. Also, support is provided for SSDs that are part of a RAID 0 array. This feature optimizes write operations, helps reduce device wear, and maintains unused storage area on devices as large as possible. Seems like free performance, especially with the 2x128GB M4 drives priced the same as 1x256GB.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice guys. I think I'll skip that trimming stuff for this install, 256gb should be ok for some programs and games anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
Some of us make do with 60 and still have a room for a game or two. You'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
Biggest human being Ever posted:Thanks for the advice guys. I think I'll skip that trimming stuff for this install, 256gb should be ok for some programs and games anyway. If you install non-slipstreamed 7, remember to clean up the SP1 install files as you can save several gigabytes that way. cmd prompt, as admin: dism /online /cleanup-image /spsuperseded /hidesp
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:If you install non-slipstreamed 7, remember to clean up the SP1 install files as you can save several gigabytes that way. I wasn't particularly hurting for space, but this freed up 4GB- thanks for this.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Hey, could we update the OP about RAID+TRIM? Intel's new RST driver, 11.1.0.1006, enables it on most modern boards (according to its help file): Is this only for people who are using SSDs as part of a RAID array? Just checking.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
Benjamin Black posted:Is this only for people who are using SSDs as part of a RAID array? Just checking. The RST is for Intel RAID controllers in general, but yeah, the big news is, now the driver passes Windows 7's TRIM commands to SSDs in RAID. And because SSD failure is slow, metered, and predictable, risk of losing the whole array is low. Here's Intel's page on it: http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?DwnldID=20984
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:The RST is for Intel RAID controllers in general, but yeah, the big news is, now the driver passes Windows 7's TRIM commands to SSDs in RAID. And because SSD failure is slow, metered, and predictable, risk of losing the whole array is low. Here's Intel's page on it: http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?DwnldID=20984 Aren't firmware and software based raid arrays generally not worth it anyway? I've been told by someone who builds server clusters for a living not to touch raid arrays unless it's completely hardware-based. Anyway, on an unrelated note, I was curious about the pagefile. I know it's a bad idea to disable it, but I also don't want it to take up too much space on my new SSD. What's a good size? I have 8GB of memory, but I don't know if the standard '1.5x your memory' rule is even still applicable in this day and age, a 12GB pagefile seems excessive and would take up a lot of space. Also, I assume it would be best for the SSD to do a fixed size. I know the OP says a couple things on the subject but I guess I was hoping for more opinions and some reasons why I might want to go with a particular suggestion.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
Benjamin Black posted:not to touch raid arrays unless it's completely hardware-based.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:If you install non-slipstreamed 7, remember to clean up the SP1 install files as you can save several gigabytes that way. Thanks for the tip, I'll make sure to do that.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:That's a very bad rule of thumb. I was told this after trying a Intel raid array for the very first time and finding it to be slower than just using a single drive, making sure my drivers and firmware were all up to date. So I'm inclined to believe it. Granted those were with HDDs and not SSDs; installations would cause a lot of hang-ups.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
Pure software implementations like Windows Dynamic Disks, Linux mdadm, or Solaris/BSD ZFS are actually quite a bit better than firmware RAID because they've had a ton of development time.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 20:24 |
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Pure software implementations like Windows Dynamic Disks, Linux mdadm, or Solaris/BSD ZFS are actually quite a bit better than firmware RAID because they've had a ton of development time. Huh, I didn't know that. But I've heard software implementations can go horribly wrong if something should compromise the operating system.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2012 22:41
|
|