|
Yeah, they're great, actually on the expensive/fancy side. You should use the enclosure that all the xbox nerds say works.
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 08:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
I'm making a demo machine to show off my indie game, and I'm looking for a cheap SSD to decrease any kind of boot times I would have in case I ever have to restart. I'm looking at this Kingston A400, and for $30 it seems like the right price for something I'll be using maybe 20 days a year. Let me know if any of you have personal horror stories re: this drive or Kingston SSDs OR hero stories for any other cheap SSD. Thanks much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
anothergod posted:I'm making a demo machine to show off my indie game, and I'm looking for a cheap SSD to decrease any kind of boot times I would have in case I ever have to restart. I'm looking at this Kingston A400, and for $30 it seems like the right price for something I'll be using maybe 20 days a year. Let me know if any of you have personal horror stories re: this drive or Kingston SSDs OR hero stories for any other cheap SSD. Thanks much. Well Kingston is known for swapping SSD internals to cheaper/worse ones without changing model name. Also 120GB is getting pretty small by nowadays standards, I would rather get something like 250GB WD Blue instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
makere posted:Well Kingston is known for swapping SSD internals to cheaper/worse ones without changing model name. Swapping internals sounds super shady. Tbh, I don't really need much more than Windows + 60MB for my indie game, so small sizes isn't exactly a detriment (is it?). I just found this Crucial BX500 which is barely more expensive than the Kingston, and it seems as though Crucial's on the OP recommended list? If I need to do serious file storage, I might get a 7200RPM drive for recording video to, but... I think that's all I need, yeah?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
anothergod posted:Swapping internals sounds super shady. Tbh, I don't really need much more than Windows + 60MB for my indie game, so small sizes isn't exactly a detriment (is it?). I just found this Crucial BX500 which is barely more expensive than the Kingston, and it seems as though Crucial's on the OP recommended list? I used to run 120GB SSD as a dedicated Windows drive, would have to do clean up monthly and barely had any space left. With 250GB you will have a much nicer life with less time spent on managing free space (how cheap is your time?)
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
anothergod posted:Swapping internals sounds super shady. Tbh, I don't really need much more than Windows + 60MB for my indie game, so small sizes isn't exactly a detriment (is it?). I just found this Crucial BX500 which is barely more expensive than the Kingston, and it seems as though Crucial's on the OP recommended list? The BX500 should be fine for your use case. While a 250GB disk would have more useful life, it's less than $30 and will meet your needs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
makere posted:I used to run 120GB SSD as a dedicated Windows drive, would have to do clean up monthly and barely had any space left. With 250GB you will have a much nicer life with less time spent on managing free space (how cheap is your time?) This isn't a daily driver machine he's building so I think tiny space should be fine, it's not like he's going to bother with other apps on a demo machine. At worst he can buy a new SSD in a few years after baseline capacity doubles a couple times for the same pricing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
makere posted:I used to run 120GB SSD as a dedicated Windows drive, would have to do clean up monthly and barely had any space left. With 250GB you will have a much nicer life with less time spent on managing free space (how cheap is your time?) obviously yours is very valuable, since you didn't have any time to read the post anothergod posted:Swapping internals sounds super shady. It's shady, though in your case not really worth caring about since you just need a generic SSD of no particular spec and a kingston is pretty much that. But for $1 more I'd get the Crucial. Alternately post a WTB is SAmart if you're not in a rush. With SSD prices so low there may be people upgrading to bigger drives who have a small one to ditch. anothergod posted:If I need to do serious file storage, I might get a 7200RPM drive for recording video to, but... I think that's all I need, yeah?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 00:47
|
|
|
makere posted:I used to run 120GB SSD as a dedicated Windows drive, would have to do clean up monthly and barely had any space left. With 250GB you will have a much nicer life with less time spent on managing free space (how cheap is your time?) I currently run a win 10 machine on a 32gb drive. Sometimes I have to plug in an external to do an update, but it works. It runs torrents, chrome printing and ubiquiti software.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
Speed wise am I better off buying a 970 Evo 1TB or a 970 Pro 512gb? From what I recall the bigger the SSD is the faster it is but I can't find any benchmarks between which would be faster. I don't really need the extra 500gb but if the Evo would be faster I'd go with it. Hold The Ashes fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Oct 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 02:24
|
|
|
Hold The Ashes posted:Speed wise am I better off buying a 970 Evo 1TB or a 970 Pro 512gb? You can always use extra capacity, even if you don't need it right now; conversely you don't really need the extra speed of an NVMe drive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
Hold The Ashes posted:Speed wise am I better off buying a 970 Evo 1TB or a 970 Pro 512gb? Get the EVO. The Pro drives are for professional workloads - for gaming/general computing stuff, the EVOs are the way to go. And yeah, NVMe is sadly kind of overrated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 03:36
|
|
|
I didn't even mean it as "overrated," it's more that, if you're not sure whether or not you need NVMe/PCIe, then that means you don't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 03:58
|
|
|
NVMe is great but somehow consumer enthusiasts and gamers think they are the only high end users in the world
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 04:20
|
|
|
I imagine it would be heaven for anything involving peeking in and moving tons of data bits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 08:06
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:I imagine it would be heaven for anything involving peeking in and moving tons of data bits. They're good for moving large files, but unfortunately most gaming/general computing is still geared toward small files that HDDs have an easier time handling because your grandma thinks an SSD is some ~soshalist~ thing and she doesn't want it in her 'puter, dagnabit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 08:47
|
|
|
Both the 970 Evo and the 970 Pro are NVMe drives, guys. Get the Evo, it's still faster than most SSD and blows away all SATA SSDs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 10:04
|
|
|
That socialist grandma part makes it hard to parse the intent of the HDDs and small files thing. If a game or app delivers its assets in loose small files instead of a packed resource file, the chances of the HDD needing to seek rocket skyhigh, with that the OS filling holes in the disk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 12:39
|
|
|
I don't know if I did a weird job asking my question or if you guys are just weird because I meant I'd be buying one of the two for my boot drive and just wanted to know if a 1TB Evo managed to be as fast/faster than a 500 gig Pro, since at one point the larger the disk size of SSDs the faster they were, but after looking at benchmarks that doesn't appear true anymore (or maybe I'm dumb and it never was). I knew Evos are a better value which is why I asked specifically about speed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 13:40
|
|
|
Unless your workloads require specifically high performance, the difference between two NVMe drives would be negligible. Just buy the one with more space since you'll always be able to find a use for space. The discussion about NVMe vs SATA is because we get a lot of people recommending NVMe drives without examining the context. SATA covers everything the average user wants and is generally cheaper per gigabyte.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 14:13
|
|
|
Hold The Ashes posted:I knew Evos are a better value which is why I asked specifically about speed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 15:10
|
|
|
The PRO is no longer king of one of its best-bang-for-buck use cases, server caching. In circumstances where you actually need the endurance and write-through performance of that drive, you're better served by a 905 on Optane or straight-up DIMM Optane. It's still cost effective as the working drive for software that allows Adobe CS products (and other media editing products, I guess) to transparently manipulate network files as local files, a situation Adobe doesn't support out of the box that becomes problematic with 4K editing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:They're good for moving large files, but unfortunately most gaming/general computing is still geared toward small files that HDDs have an easier time handling because your grandma thinks an SSD is some ~soshalist~ thing and she doesn't want it in her 'puter, dagnabit. Not just speed, there is a whole bunch of admin configuration ability options for all sorts of stuff that enterprise customers want and demand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 15:36
|
|
|
Hold The Ashes posted:I don't know if I did a weird job asking my question or if you guys are just weird because I meant I'd be buying one of the two for my boot drive and just wanted to know if a 1TB Evo managed to be as fast/faster than a 500 gig Pro, since at one point the larger the disk size of SSDs the faster they were, but after looking at benchmarks that doesn't appear true anymore (or maybe I'm dumb and it never was). You're correct in that, within a given SSD line (i.e. drives that use the same controller but scaled amounts of NAND and DRAM) higher capacities are generally higher-performance. This is because the controller has a number of channels that it can address, and lower-capacity SSDs use fewer NAND flash packages that can limit performance while adding more packages can increase performance by saturating the controller's interface. Practically speaking, this means that very low-capacity SSDs (think 128 GB-class or lower) have disappointingly low performance, but jumping to 256 and then 512 GB will show an obvious increase in maximum transfer rates, up to a certain point, often the limit of the SATA 3 interface itself. While if you were generally interested in comfortable performance, you should get an SSD of at least 256 GB if not 512 GB, beyond that the performance difference should be negligible so just get the capacity that works for you. That being said, for any ordinary system that doesn't need to be as fast as possible you can still certainly use any decent SSD; I recommend a minimum of ~128 GB for a Windows-based system for multiple reasons, and even if such a drive isn't incredibly performant it'll still be a far better choice than any HDD. Again, worry about the actual usable capacity and not the theoretical speed. Because of the performance scaling across capacities, a lot of SSD reviews nowadays tend to group the benchmarks by capacity to give the fairest comparison, but you can still find older reviews that illustrate this behavior.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
Laserface posted:I can get a cheap Crucial MX500 1TB 2.5" SATA III drive. would be used exclusively as an external storage drive for my Xbox. Are they OK to use? reviews from storage reviews seem fine. Just to update on this, all external enclosures are not equal. I bought a cheap USB 3.0 enclosure and it only hits 120MB/s read/write speeds. this is because it does not support UASP, or USB Attached SCSI Protocol. it can be difficult to ascertain which enclosures support this, but you can usually just google the chipset listed in the specs if it is available. some vendors actually list UASP support for the device too. Anyway, just thought I'd share.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 05:36
|
|
|
That's why generally when it comes to that kind of stuff I go with SIIG or Startech.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 05:47
|
|
|
I was testing a PCI-E M.2 SSD on a PCI-E slot adapter board in an Optiplex 990 (Sandy Bridge with an i7-2600). I noticed that with no other drives connected it showed up in the BIOS as a boot option. So I installed Windows on it. It boots which I didn't think it would because Sandy Bridge didn't really have PCI-E SSD support but I realized I updated to BIOS A20 for Spectre/Meltdown patching and they must have baked more in than just that. My ASUS Z87-A motherboard doesn't have a BIOS update available and probably couldn't boot off this disk without a lot of work. Go Dell, I guess? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 07:50
|
|
|
Rexxed posted:I was testing a PCI-E M.2 SSD on a PCI-E slot adapter board in an Optiplex 990 (Sandy Bridge with an i7-2600). I noticed that with no other drives connected it showed up in the BIOS as a boot option. So I installed Windows on it. It boots which I didn't think it would because Sandy Bridge didn't really have PCI-E SSD support but I realized I updated to BIOS A20 for Spectre/Meltdown patching and they must have baked more in than just that. My ASUS Z87-A motherboard doesn't have a BIOS update available and probably couldn't boot off this disk without a lot of work. That's pretty neat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 11:40
|
|
|
Could be wrong but most Optiplexes are UEFI enabled.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 15:06
|
|
|
Yeah, it's using UEFI, I just wrote BIOS out of habit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
Just finished a new Windows XP install on an SSD-based system at work (required for old equipment). I got the partition 4K-aligned and I've over-provisioned by a ton (20% of the drive). Is that pretty much the extent of optimizations for Windows XP? Hopefully this box lasts another 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
I remember in Windows 7 it was wise to run the Windows Experience Index so the OS would 'know' it's on an SSD and turn off background defragging. If XP has anything similar (can't remember anymore) then that would be worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
Windows XP doesn't even know what an SSD is and has no notion of TRIM whatsoever. I think some vendors did include manual trim options in their toolkits back in the day, but good luck hunting down a version that'll still run on XP. Other than that, you've done pretty much everything you can do to make XP more SSD-friendly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
SSDs don't really need to be defragmented, right? I thought I read that a couple years ago when I installed my first SSD and I assume the tech wouldn't change in such a way as to start requiring that when it wasn't necessary before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 06:12
|
|
|
SSDs do their own low-level maintenance. Defragging them just adds unnecessary wear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 06:42
|
|
|
If you have one of the OEM 840 EVO drives that never got a firmware update for the read speed loss over time you could do defrags to mitigate that, though that is less defrag and more rewrite all your data periodically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 06:59
|
|
|
isndl posted:If you have one of the OEM 840 EVO drives that never got a firmware update for the read speed loss over time you could do defrags to mitigate that, though that is less defrag and more rewrite all your data periodically. They released a special utility to mitigate the issue more effectively. Don't us a defragger. Also, SSDs inherently don't profit from defragging. The sector alignment the OS sees doesn't correspond to the physical alignment of the sectors. Lambert fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Oct 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 08:43
|
|
|
Lambert posted:They released a special utility to mitigate the issue more effectively. Don't us a defragger. Unless there was a later update to the utility that I missed, Samsung Magician doesn't recognize some OEM models as 840 EVO variants (PM851, I think it was?) and you're SOL. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 09:37
|
|
|
isndl posted:Unless there was a later update to the utility that I missed, Samsung Magician doesn't recognize some OEM models as 840 EVO variants (PM851, I think it was?) and you're SOL. Oh, that's too bad. I remember waiting a long time for the firmware update to my mSATA 840 Evo (had two of those drives, real POS).
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 09:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
Lambert posted:Also, SSDs inherently don't profit from defragging. The sector alignment the OS sees doesn't correspond to the physical alignment of the sectors. Yep. The only thing you accomplish by running a defrag tool on a SSD is to wear it out sooner. The layout of your data on physical media could actually become more fragmented, not less, and even if it works it's hard to imagine how it could improve performance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 09:59
|
|
