Why do people keep recommending SSDs?

Why are most users in this section so eager to recommend SSDs? The cost per gigabyte is too high and the increase in boot/ load times isn't worth the money because mechnaical HDDs are more than fast enough. For example, my main drive is a Samsung Spinpoint 500GB 7200 RPM SATA hard drive. Here are the load times on a boot up from a full shut down. I monitored them using the stop-watch application on my Zune HD:

1. Beginning Point: Pressing Power Button on Computer Case ---> 00:00:00

Ending Point: End of motherboard boot up ----> 00:00:30

Duration: 30 seconds

2. Beginning Point: Windows start up ---> 00:00:30

Ending Point: Windows Login Screen ---> 00:01:28

Duration: 58 Seconds

3. Beginning Point: Actual Login ---> 00:02:05

Ending Point: Computer has reached full speed in loading applications ---> 00:03:20

Duration: 75 Seconds (1 minute and 15 seconds)

Total Duration: 200 seconds (3 minutes and 20 seconds)

I would imagine that most people with 7200 RPM mechanical hard drives would have similar boot times, assuming that their computer isn't extremely old. Obviously, an SSD will be much faster. I would imagine that after the 30 seconds it takes for the motherboard to start up, there would only be an additional few seconds before you were logged into an instantly usable OS; the only bottle neck would be how long it takes the person to type in their login passoword and hit the enter button. So, I'd say that with an SSD, it would take anywhere from 45 seconds to 1 mintute to be competely logged into the OS. That's less than 1/3 the amount of time it takes my computer and computers similar to it to login. However, I still don't think that this makes SSDs worth the price. No one should be so impatient that they'd be willing to spend $3.00 per gigabyte just to boot into their OS within a minute or less. Three minutes isn't an eternity. Even when you count the read and write speeds, which would make loading up applications, copying data, and saving data much faster, an SSD still isn't worth the money. Also, they're especially not worth the money when you consider the fact that after an application has loaded into random access memory (RAM), there is practically no appreciable difference between a mechanical hard drive and an SSD. Hence, SSDs are a complete waste of money unless you're someone with an impractically low level of patience. Now, shall we commence? Discuss!

You know,apps and games also load up faster?MonsieurX

You must not have read the entire OP.

Even when you count the read and write speeds, which would make loading up applications, copying data, and saving data much faster, an SSD still isn't worth the money.

BluRayHiDef

NOTE: A game is an application.

You are trading ridiculously fast read/load speeds for lifespan. Thus why really only the people who can afford to drop a ton on a rig recommend them. Its not a big deal if you can replace one when it craps out (which it will) in a couple years. But for everybody else the reliability and fairly good speed of a SATA3 drive is more than enough. Personally I wont switch to SDD until they do something about the lifespan, which I don't think is possible based on the physics of flash memory.SerOlmy

Another good point as to why SSDs are not a good recommendation.

Well most people recommend them because they want more people to buy them... If more and more people buy them, it starts to force a new standard in digital storage, which means Lower Prices.... (not everyone can pay what they cost now, so they rely on others to help reduce the price)

This is the main reason why people do it ;)

Now I would love to get one on my next build, but I also compose music so streaming (audio or recording/samples) from the SDD would actually be very benificial to me. (for this I need a relatively decent size SDD, which would be very expensive, which is one reason why I am waiting a year or two before I build it)

You are trading ridiculously fast read/load speeds for lifespan. Thus why really only the people who can afford to drop a ton on a rig recommend them. Its not a big deal if you can replace one when it craps out (which it will) in a couple years. But for everybody else the reliability and fairly good speed of a SATA3 drive is more than enough. Personally I wont switch to SDD until they do something about the lifespan, which I don't think is possible based on the physics of flash memory.SerOlmy

Where did you get this information? Everything I've read indicates that SSDs will far outlast the 3 - 5 year life span of a typical HDD.

ANY flash memory has a limited number of write cycles to a specific destination (basically each bit) before it fails. This is usually quantified somewhere in the drive information (though it may be hard to find) and can be anywhere from a few 100,000 to 1-2 million write cycles. That might seem like a lot, but under intense use that gets eaten up pretty fast. At which point the drive becomes unreliable, basically producing the equivalent of bad sectors.

EDIT: This is one of the reasons you don't see SSD's in servers, because of the huge number of times data is writen in a week you can eat through that 2+ million cycles in as little as a few months.

Why are most users in this section so eager to recommend SSDs? The cost per gigabyte is too high and the increase in boot/ load times isn't worth the money because mechnaical HDDs are more than fast enough. For example, my main drive is a Samsung Spinpoint 500GB 7200 RPM SATA hard drive. Here are the load times on a boot up from a full shut down. I monitored them using the stop-watch application on my Zune HD:

1. Beginning Point: Pressing Power Button on Computer Case ---> 00:00:00

Ending Point: End of motherboard boot up ----> 00:00:30

Duration: 30 seconds

2. Beginning Point: Windows start up ---> 00:00:30

Ending Point: Windows Login Screen ---> 00:01:28

Duration: 58 Seconds

3. Beginning Point: Actual Login ---> 00:02:05

Ending Point: Computer has reached full speed in loading applications ---> 00:03:20

Duration: 75 Seconds (1 minute and 15 seconds)

Total Duration: 200 seconds (3 minutes and 20 seconds)

I would imagine that most people with 7200 RPM mechanical hard drives would have similar boot times, assuming that their computer isn't extremely old. Obviously, an SSD will be much faster. I would imagine that after the 30 seconds it takes for the motherboard to start up, there would only be an additional few seconds before you were logged into an instantly usable OS; the only bottle neck would be how long it takes the person to type in their login passoword and hit the enter button. So, I'd say that with an SSD, it would take anywhere from 45 seconds to 1 mintute to be competely logged into the OS. That's less than 1/3 the amount of time it takes my computer and computers similar to it to login. However, I still don't think that this makes SSDs worth the price. No one should be so impatient that they'd be willing to spend $3.00 per gigabyte just to boot into their OS within a minute or less. Three minutes isn't an eternity. Even when you count the read and write speeds, which would make loading up applications, copying data, and saving data much faster, an SSD still isn't worth the money. Also, they're especially not worth the money when you consider the fact that after an application has loaded into random access memory (RAM), there is practically no appreciable difference between a mechanical hard drive and an SSD. Hence, SSDs are a complete waste of money unless you're someone with an impractically low level of patience. Now, shall we commence? Discuss!

BluRayHiDef

having used a few computers with SSD drivers, this is incorrect.

ANY flash memory has a limited number of write cycles to a specific destination (basically each bit) before it fails. This is usually quantified somewhere in the drive information (though it may be hard to find) and can be anywhere from a few 100,000 to 1-2 million write cycles. That might seem like a lot, but under intense use that gets eaten up pretty fast. At which point the drive becomes unreliable, basically producing the equivalent of bad sectors.

EDIT: This is one of the reasons you don't see SSD's in servers, because of the huge number of times data is writen in a week you can eat through that 2+ million cycles in as little as a few months.

SerOlmy

I've heard much larger lifespan estimates from very reputable sources.

SLC SSDs have been predicted to last 50 to 100 years and MLC have been predicted to last 7-10 years, at a rate of writing 100gb a day to them. That far outstrips anything a HDD and its moving parts can promise.

3 minutes to start up a PC everyday, roughly means 18 hrs your sitting there wasting every year. Life is too short to be wasting 18 hrs every year.

3 minutes to start up a PC everyday, roughly means 18 hrs your sitting there wasting every year. Life is too short to be wasting 18 hrs every year.

GTR12

I don't shutdown my computer everyday; I only do so when it needs to install updates and the re-start. I usually put the computer to sleep, from which it can recover within seconds.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Why are most users in this section so eager to recommend SSDs? The cost per gigabyte is too high and the increase in boot/ load times isn't worth the money because mechnaical HDDs are more than fast enough. For example, my main drive is a Samsung Spinpoint 500GB 7200 RPM SATA hard drive. Here are the load times on a boot up from a full shut down. I monitored them using the stop-watch application on my Zune HD:

1. Beginning Point: Pressing Power Button on Computer Case ---> 00:00:00

Ending Point: End of motherboard boot up ----> 00:00:30

Duration: 30 seconds

2. Beginning Point: Windows start up ---> 00:00:30

Ending Point: Windows Login Screen ---> 00:01:28

Duration: 58 Seconds

3. Beginning Point: Actual Login ---> 00:02:05

Ending Point: Computer has reached full speed in loading applications ---> 00:03:20

Duration: 75 Seconds (1 minute and 15 seconds)

Total Duration: 200 seconds (3 minutes and 20 seconds)

I would imagine that most people with 7200 RPM mechanical hard drives would have similar boot times, assuming that their computer isn't extremely old. Obviously, an SSD will be much faster. I would imagine that after the 30 seconds it takes for the motherboard to start up, there would only be an additional few seconds before you were logged into an instantly usable OS; the only bottle neck would be how long it takes the person to type in their login passoword and hit the enter button. So, I'd say that with an SSD, it would take anywhere from 45 seconds to 1 mintute to be competely logged into the OS. That's less than 1/3 the amount of time it takes my computer and computers similar to it to login. However, I still don't think that this makes SSDs worth the price. No one should be so impatient that they'd be willing to spend $3.00 per gigabyte just to boot into their OS within a minute or less. Three minutes isn't an eternity. Even when you count the read and write speeds, which would make loading up applications, copying data, and saving data much faster, an SSD still isn't worth the money. Also, they're especially not worth the money when you consider the fact that after an application has loaded into random access memory (RAM), there is practically no appreciable difference between a mechanical hard drive and an SSD. Hence, SSDs are a complete waste of money unless you're someone with an impractically low level of patience. Now, shall we commence? Discuss!

GummiRaccoon

having used a few computers with SSD drivers, this is incorrect.

What is incorrect? The information I have about SSDs is positive information. I noted how much faster they are compared to hard drives. What have I said that's wrong? Also, here's a word of advice: Don't make ambigous statements like "That's incorrect." Please, be more detailed.

SSDs are a complete waste of money unless you're someone with an impractically low level of patience. Now, shall we commence? Discuss!BluRayHiDef

This is one of the reasons you don't see SSD's in servers, because of the huge number of times data is writen in a week you can eat through that 2+ million cycles in as little as a few months.SerOlmy

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]SSDs are a complete waste of money unless you're someone with an impractically low level of patience. Now, shall we commence? Discuss!CellAnimation

Wow. You think that I can't afford an SSD? I could buy a few of them right now if I wanted to, but I wouldn't because they're a rip-off.

They aren't necessary but they're definitely worth it as a boot drive. The boot time to desktop is faster and most notibly once on the desktop my PC is instantly usable. Whereas when I used a mechanical HDD it'd take 2-3 minutes before everything was no longer sluggish, and the PC as a whole just feels more responsive. To me that was worth $95 for a 60gig boot drive, which is really more then you need (got 38-39gb free still) and that's with a few apps.

[QUOTE="CellAnimation"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]SSDs are a complete waste of money unless you're someone with an impractically low level of patience. Now, shall we commence? Discuss!BluRayHiDef

Wow. You think that I can't afford an SSD? I could buy a few of them right now if I wanted to, but I wouldn't because they're a rip-off.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="CellAnimation"] :roll: While SSDs are expensive, IMHO they are well worth the price if you need the performance. Pretty much all of your thread reads like a fanboy rant. You can't afford 1, that's fine... so what? Anyone who has used a modern SSD would read your thread and laugh.CellAnimation

Wow. You think that I can't afford an SSD? I could buy a few of them right now if I wanted to, but I wouldn't because they're a rip-off.

Call it whatever you want. I laid out the numbers and expressed my opinion and respectfully asked people whether they agree with me or not. That's the purpose of a DISCUSSION forum. Ya dig?

[QUOTE="CellAnimation"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Wow. You think that I can't afford an SSD? I could buy a few of them right now if I wanted to, but I wouldn't because they're a rip-off.

BluRayHiDef

Call it whatever you want. I laid out the numbers and expressed my opinion and respectfully asked people whether they agree with me or not. That's the purpose of a DISCUSSION forum. Ya dig?

Much, much quieter. Faster. Love em.xsubtownerx

My dude, I doubt that SSDs are appreciably quiter than mechanical HDDs, since mechanical HDDs aren't very loud to begin with. I've never noticed any of mine running. This is a moot "advantage".

My boot already takes less than one minute, maybe a two if you include avast searching for updates & CCC fully booting. Games load fast enough and other programs load super fast.

I'm sticking with mechanical until SSDs are better value. At this point in time they just aren't worth it to me. I'm fairly patient anyway :P

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]Much, much quieter. Faster. Love em.BluRayHiDef

My dude, I doubt that SSDs are appreciably quiter than mechanical HDDs, since mechanical HDDs aren't very loud to begin with. I've never noticed any of mine running. This is a moot "advantage".

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]Much, much quieter. Faster. Love em.xsubtownerx

My dude, I doubt that SSDs are appreciably quiter than mechanical HDDs, since mechanical HDDs aren't very loud to begin with. I've never noticed any of mine running. This is a moot "advantage".

What if you can't or can barely hear your HDD in the first place?

That makes the point moot...

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]Much, much quieter. Faster. Love em.xsubtownerx

My dude, I doubt that SSDs are appreciably quiter than mechanical HDDs, since mechanical HDDs aren't very loud to begin with. I've never noticed any of mine running. This is a moot "advantage".

It's a moot opinion because it's not something that anyone would ever notice. When's the last time you've heard someone complain about the noise coming from their mechanical hard drive? They're quite enough.

Not even close to worth it. A complete and total waste of money. Absolutely no way to justify the price when compared to what you could get for it. For overall performance it would be much better to simple stock up on RAM and turn page files off completely.

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

My dude, I doubt that SSDs are appreciably quiter than mechanical HDDs, since mechanical HDDs aren't very loud to begin with. I've never noticed any of mine running. This is a moot "advantage".

BluRayHiDef

It's a moot opinion because it's not something that anyone would ever notice. When's the last time you've heard someone complain about the noise coming from their mechanical hard drive? They're quite enough.

Not even close to worth it. A complete and total waste of money. Absolutely no waste to justify the price when compared to what you could get for it. For overall performance it would be much better to simple stock up on RAM and turn page files off completely. i5750at4Ghz

This. Or you could just get a couple of 1TB 7200 RPM drives and put them in raid or just get a 10,000 RPM drive. With either of those options, even though you still wouldn't have the speed of an SSD, you'd still have appreciably faster performance AND way more storage capacity. Either of these options is way more economical than getting an overpriced SSD, as the cost per gigabyte and price to performance ratio would slap that of an SSD in the face.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"] In your opinion it's moot, right? Because it's fact that they run much quieter. (no moving parts and such).xsubtownerx

It's a moot opinion because it's not something that anyone would ever notice. When's the last time you've heard someone complain about the noise coming from their mechanical hard drive? They're quite enough.

You can't possibly be serious. Either you hear something or you don't; either you notice something or you don't. You don't need to perform a comparison to realize this. No one needs to buy an SSD to relize that they're HDD is loud or not.

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]Not even close to worth it. A complete and total waste of money. Absolutely no waste to justify the price when compared to what you could get for it. For overall performance it would be much better to simple stock up on RAM and turn page files off completely. BluRayHiDef

This. Or you could just get a couple of 1TB 7200 RPM drives and put them in raid or just get a 10,000 RPM drive. With either of those options, even though you still wouldn't have the speed of an SSD, you'd still have appreciably faster performance AND way more storage capacity. Either of these options is way more economical than getting an overpriced SSD, as the cost per gigabyte and price to performance ratio would slap that of an SSD in the face.

Would be even better for you i7 guys with triple channel and 12 gigs.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]Not even close to worth it. A complete and total waste of money. Absolutely no waste to justify the price when compared to what you could get for it. For overall performance it would be much better to simple stock up on RAM and turn page files off completely. i5750at4Ghz

This. Or you could just get a couple of 1TB 7200 RPM drives and put them in raid or just get a 10,000 RPM drive. With either of those options, even though you still wouldn't have the speed of an SSD, you'd still have appreciably faster performance AND way more storage capacity. Either of these options is way more economical than getting an overpriced SSD, as the cost per gigabyte and price to performance ratio would slap that of an SSD in the face.

What's the downside to using no page files?

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

This. Or you could just get a couple of 1TB 7200 RPM drives and put them in raid or just get a 10,000 RPM drive. With either of those options, even though you still wouldn't have the speed of an SSD, you'd still have appreciably faster performance AND way more storage capacity. Either of these options is way more economical than getting an overpriced SSD, as the cost per gigabyte and price to performance ratio would slap that of an SSD in the face.

BluRayHiDef

What's the downside to using no page files?

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

It's a moot opinion because it's not something that anyone would ever notice. When's the last time you've heard someone complain about the noise coming from their mechanical hard drive? They're quite enough.

BluRayHiDef

You can't possibly be serious. Either you hear something or you don't; either you notice something or you don't. You don't need to perform a comparison to realize this. No one needs to buy an SSD to relize that they're HDD is loud or not.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"] The people who say they can't hear their HDDs are the ones who have yet to own SSDs.xsubtownerx

You can't possibly be serious. Either you hear something or you don't; either you notice something or you don't. You don't need to perform a comparison to realize this. No one needs to buy an SSD to relize that they're HDD is loud or not.

I never said that they weren't quiter/ completely quite. I said that this is not appreciable, meaning no one would notice. Hence, it's a moot "advantage".

^seriously blurayhidef? i think you're just trolling us now for real. fishing666

?? :?

His point seems very valid to me.

[QUOTE="fishing666"][QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"]

?? :?

His point seems very valid to me.

BluRayHiDef

It's trolling because you don't agree with my point. Wow, just wow. I've been doing what anyone with a point does, putting it forward. It's called debating. I guess everyone who debates or defends a point is a troll. :roll:

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="fishing666"] i mean his whole thread is trolling.fishing666

It's trolling because you don't agree with my point. Wow, just wow. I've been doing what anyone with a point does, putting it forward. It's called debating. I guess everyone who debates or defends a point is a troll. :roll:

My dude, my choice to make a graphics upgrade is irrelevant to this thread. Whether I wanted a graphics card upgrade or not, I would never get an SSD with the current market prices. So, this was a moot tactic on your end to subvert my argument.

This whole thread is moot.

And everyone can hear their harddrive, it is as plain as day. tststststststs tsstststtsststtsssttssttssttssttstssttststststst sttsst stts st st s tts t st s ts st

This whole thread is moot.

And everyone can hear their harddrive, it is as plain as day. tststststststs tsstststtsststtsssttssttssttssttstssttststststst sttsst stts st st s tts t st s ts st

GummiRaccoon

If you have the money, I find the purchase of an SSD is a very worthwhile one. My OS and any applications that I have installed on mine either boot up instantly or in a much quicker pace, so I'm particularly happy with what I got out of it.

However, that's not to say that my point invalidates yours, Blurayhidef. I particularly do appreciate saving those few seconds here and there, as I do get quite impatient with some long load times. But if you feel satisfied with the performance that your current hard drive provides, then there really is no justifiable point for you to purchase an SSD.

However, I still stand by my suggestion that you should save that money and get a new build altogether when you feel performance is severely lacking. Metro 2033 is not a fair example, as it is well-known that the game has some horrible optimization going. I would recommend you wait until games like Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3 come out, as they boast proper implementation of DX11 features. Doing so will then give you a real idea if you truly need an upgrade or not.