Why do people keep recommending SSDs?

For me personally I would agree it's not worth it. Doesn't mean I don't want one though, because I do. But the amount of money it would cost me to get an SSD with the capacity I'd want wouldn't be worth it. Maybe some day, on my next "rig" 5 or 6 years from now when the costs have hopefully been greatly reduced. Right now it wouldn't be worth the financial loss.

troll thread. SSDs are quieter, faster, more power efficient, less prone to failure, and last longer than a mechanical drive. this is easily worth the money. hell you can buy a 60GB SSD and you will see the benefit clear as day for a cheap price (~$150)

What's the point of a i7 920 at 4GHz and 6GB triple channel memory if a spinning disk with high access time is slowing your whole system down?

What's the point of a i7 920 at 4GHz and 6GB triple channel memory if a spinning disk with high access time is slowing your whole system down?

simplyderp

This is why RAM exists.

[QUOTE="simplyderp"]

What's the point of a i7 920 at 4GHz and 6GB triple channel memory if a spinning disk with high access time is slowing your whole system down?

BluRayHiDef

This is why RAM exists.

hahahahahhahahahaa oh wow

100% troll thread

Maybe people recommend SSD's because you don't equal everyone? Shocking i know.

I view them as a pure luxury item. They are nice at speeding up general PC usage but for the cost they are still a rip-off.

The main issue with SSD's is the fact that in order to read something you have to read, delete, then rewrite that bit. Add that to the fact that each bit has a FINITE number of times it can be rewritenn before it fails and you have a fairly unreliable piece of hardware IMO. Hell, they recommend not formatting or running defrag on a SDD for precisely that reason. SerOlmy

[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.Janus67

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.

It is true that in-game performance [minus load times] will not be noticeable. You won't see a 10% increase in FPS (unless the game has some heavy mid-game loads [probably games like GTA/etc that have an open/constantly loading world]). The noticeable difference is doing common tasks between boot-up times, loading applications/games, and simply moving files around and opening/extracting files+folders. That is when you can tell the difference.Janus67

[QUOTE="Janus67"]It is true that in-game performance [minus load times] will not be noticeable. You won't see a 10% increase in FPS (unless the game has some heavy mid-game loads [probably games like GTA/etc that have an open/constantly loading world]). The noticeable difference is doing common tasks between boot-up times, loading applications/games, and simply moving files around and opening/extracting files+folders. That is when you can tell the difference.i5750at4Ghz

wow man just install OS + frequently used programs on SSD not every single one of your games

I can see that argument. I think it is just up to the person to decide where they want to put their files - the main point of the drive is for your OS and commonly launched applications + a game or 2 if you have the space. It isn't mean to be a storage drive where you load 300GB worth of games.

I personally won't be buying a nice SSD until they get to around the $1/gb in size [I just don't have a couple hundred to spend on a non-replacement part for my PC]. My boss bought our team each a 90GB Vertex 2 and it is just super fast compared to a standard mechanical drive, then again it is for an IT workstation so for installing apps, running VMs, etc it does a great job.

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="Janus67"]It is true that in-game performance [minus load times] will not be noticeable. You won't see a 10% increase in FPS (unless the game has some heavy mid-game loads [probably games like GTA/etc that have an open/constantly loading world]). The noticeable difference is doing common tasks between boot-up times, loading applications/games, and simply moving files around and opening/extracting files+folders. That is when you can tell the difference.Firebird-5

wow man just install OS + frequently used programs on SSD not every single one of your games

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"] Which is the major issue I have with SDD. The limited size. Hard to take advantage of there biggest advantage when you max out there capacity in a week. Again maybe it's just me, but my steam/WoW folders alone are almost 250 gigs. Add in all my retail and direct2drive games and its close to 350 gigs.i5750at4Ghz

wow man just install OS + frequently used programs on SSD not every single one of your games

the OS alone increases system responsiveness extremely noticably. that's maybe because, the OS is the thing that loads in and loads out all those services. i guess that's the difference between us, but i sure as hell dont feel ripped off when i get a supa speed boost and i cant install 500GB worth of games on it... all it would decrease is the loading times anyway.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"] Which is the major issue I have with SDD. The limited size. Hard to take advantage of there biggest advantage when you max out there capacity in a week. Again maybe it's just me, but my steam/WoW folders alone are almost 250 gigs. Add in all my retail and direct2drive games and its close to 350 gigs.i5750at4Ghz

wow man just install OS + frequently used programs on SSD not every single one of your games

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

wow man just install OS + frequently used programs on SSD not every single one of your games

Janus67

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

wow man just install OS + frequently used programs on SSD not every single one of your games

Firebird-5

the OS alone increases system responsiveness extremely noticably. that's maybe because, the OS is the thing that loads in and loads out all those services. i guess that's the difference between us, but i sure as hell dont feel ripped off when i get a supa speed boost and i cant install 500GB worth of games on it... all it would decrease is the loading times anyway.

While boot times are the largest benchmarkable difference, they arent the reason i would recommend and SSD as OS drive.

Everything just loads and works a little faster. At most, its half a second here, or half a second there. Maybe even less. But theres a noticeable "snappy" response common tasks. Browising around in Windows Explorer is faster, searches are faster, movie previews/thumbnails load up quicker, sleep/hibernate times are faster, the RAM-like speeds for virtual ram makes a difference to even programs outside of your SSD (particularly when switching between programs under heavy memory use), and so many otehr little things.

Once in a whie, i have the start menu hang up for a second or so. Hardly anything major and something im sure everyone has experience at least rarely. That no longer happens with an SSD.

For most of the things i've said, there exists not benchmarks to actually measure (except maybe sleep/hibernate times). But theres a definite notable increase in general performance.

Like i said, its, at best, a half second here or there. But i think it makes a worthwhile purchase for any $850+ system.

I wouldn't even consider the boot times benefit because i rarely ever shutdown my computer. In fact, i dont think it matters considering most people with SSD's todaya re performance junkies with RAID setups that increase boot times due to the RAID controller anyways.

Meh, until SSDs get a lot cheaper and larger I'm sticking with HDDs. The idea of the SSD is nice - very fast load times. But the prices are still far too high, and in the grand scheme of things you're gaining a couple of minutes...which you could just spend getting a drink or checking your messages etc. (Unless you really like the boot screen :P ).

In-game load screens are generally somewhere between 10-20 seconds on my system, so gaining a few seconds from an SSD for a given game just isn't that useful.

They're a nice toy if you have the cash, but really they're an option we can all live without if we have to.

Albeit being an older video, I think this shows you a good advantage of having SSD, and the intel x25-m isn't even one of the faster ones. Application loading is seamless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_Jz7IMwBt4

Albeit being an older video, I think this shows you a good advantage of having SSD, and the intel x25-m isn't even one of the faster ones. Application loading is seamless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_Jz7IMwBt4

JunkTrap

That reminds me of when I was 13 or so and I created 16,384 notepad documents to open simultaneously, I think it took several hours.

Albeit being an older video, I think this shows you a good advantage of having SSD, and the intel x25-m isn't even one of the faster ones. Application loading is seamless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_Jz7IMwBt4

JunkTrap

And for those who want a quantitative benchmark, here's the benches I got for my X-25M G2 and F3 Spinpoint:

X25-M G2

1TB Samsung F3 Spinpoint

The first thing to note is that the access times on the SSD at 171x faster than the HDD. The HDD's graph of read speeds over time also highlights a key issue with HDDs, which is that their read speeds get slower and slower as time goes on (as anyone who has ever copied large files can attest to). Meanwhile the SSD manages to keep constant performance the entire time (while having average read speeds nearly double that of the HDD).

Finally, you'll notice that while the HDD has a temperature of 31C, the SSD doesn't report a temperature. That's because unlike HDDs, SSDs don't generate heat. That may only be a big deal for desktop users who are OCD about heat, but for laptop users it makes a huge difference. SSDs are also completely quiet, unlike HDDs. And as another bonus, SSDs aren't subject to the sudden death syndrome that plagues HDDs (they're also resitant to fall damage which is another great reason to use them in laptops).

That reminds me of when I was 13 or so and I created 16,384 notepad documents to open simultaneously, I think it took several hours.

GummiRaccoon

http://newton.ex.ac.uk/research/qsystems/collabs/pi/pi6.txt

Save 10 of those in notepad and open them, have fun waiting :)

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

That reminds me of when I was 13 or so and I created 16,384 notepad documents to open simultaneously, I think it took several hours.

GTR12

http://newton.ex.ac.uk/research/qsystems/collabs/pi/pi6.txt

Save 10 of those in notepad and open them, have fun waiting :)

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="simplyderp"]

What's the point of a i7 920 at 4GHz and 6GB triple channel memory if a spinning disk with high access time is slowing your whole system down?

Firebird-5

This is why RAM exists.

hahahahahhahahahaa oh wow

100% troll thread

How is that trolling? It's a fact that RAM exists to get rid of the latency which would exist if programs ran directly from the HDD. The only time that a HDD will be a bottleneck is when applictations are being launched. When they're launched, they're loaded into the RAM and the HDD no longer affects the program's performance. Hence, what I said was true; that is why RAM exists. SSDs would be a big deal if RAM didn't exists, but sice RAM does exist, SSDs are not a necessity for in-application performance.

[QUOTE="GTR12"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

That reminds me of when I was 13 or so and I created 16,384 notepad documents to open simultaneously, I think it took several hours.

MarioJP_

http://newton.ex.ac.uk/research/qsystems/collabs/pi/pi6.txt

Save 10 of those in notepad and open them, have fun waiting :)

Dang, desktop CPU's are too fast now lol. It took me 5 mins using my phone to view it.

[QUOTE="MarioJP_"][QUOTE="GTR12"]

http://newton.ex.ac.uk/research/qsystems/collabs/pi/pi6.txt

Save 10 of those in notepad and open them, have fun waiting :)

GTR12

Dang, desktop CPU's are too fast now lol. It took me 5 mins using my phone to view it.

I opened them all up with ease.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

This is why RAM exists.

BluRayHiDef

hahahahahhahahahaa oh wow

100% troll thread

How is that trolling? It's a fact that RAM exists to get rid of the latency which would exist if programs ran directly from the HDD. The only time that a HDD will be a bottleneck is when applictations are being launched. When they're launched, they're loaded into the RAM and the HDD no longer affects the program's performance. Hence, what I said was true; that is why RAM exists. SSDs would be a big deal if RAM didn't exists, but sice RAM does exist, SSDs are not a necessity for in-application performance.

hahahahsahadhsajd ashjdk jfhasldjfhasd;klj fhbsanljgnesakljgvnfbds;jlngEAFDjgFDSKG:NVADSFKNGKJAESfdv stop trolling

SSDs easily double HDD read rates

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

hahahahahhahahahaa oh wow

100% troll thread

Firebird-5

How is that trolling? It's a fact that RAM exists to get rid of the latency which would exist if programs ran directly from the HDD. The only time that a HDD will be a bottleneck is when applictations are being launched. When they're launched, they're loaded into the RAM and the HDD no longer affects the program's performance. Hence, what I said was true; that is why RAM exists. SSDs would be a big deal if RAM didn't exists, but sice RAM does exist, SSDs are not a necessity for in-application performance.

hahahahsahadhsajd ashjdk jfhasldjfhasd;klj fhbsanljgnesakljgvnfbds;jlngEAFDjgFDSKG:NVADSFKNGKJAESfdv stop trolling

SSDs easily double HDD read rates

My dude, did you read what I wrote? I said that it doesn't matter because programs are run from RAM, not from the HDD/ SSD. In other words, SSDs have no affect on in-application performance. READ what I wrote. READ it.

SSDs easily double HDD read rates

Firebird-5

And just in case you can't manage to read the stuff that has come before, we know. This is not a thread about whether SSDs have better access times (we know that's true), it's whether it's worth paying the price for the quicker load times.

SSDs are often two or three times the price of an HDD for a quarter of the storage space. Yes, they improve load times, but the question surrounds whether you really need to spend the extra cash for a couple of minutes every time you switch on your PC and load up the application or game of your choice.

The current design of modern computers (multi-core CPUs, fast RAM, GPUs and several other computer science performance methods) means that boot times are often no more than 1-2 minutes and high performance applications (games, photoshop etc) load in 30 seconds.

SSDs improve that...but you don't really need it.

If I had more money I would definitely buy a 60GB - 100GB SSD drive since they currently cost from $100 to $200. I think this is a fair price and would be a good solution for me because I never use more than 80GB of HD. Hell I rarely use more than 50GB. Sadly I don't have enough money atm but in the future I am going to own a SSD drive.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

How is that trolling? It's a fact that RAM exists to get rid of the latency which would exist if programs ran directly from the HDD. The only time that a HDD will be a bottleneck is when applictations are being launched. When they're launched, they're loaded into the RAM and the HDD no longer affects the program's performance. Hence, what I said was true; that is why RAM exists. SSDs would be a big deal if RAM didn't exists, but sice RAM does exist, SSDs are not a necessity for in-application performance.

BluRayHiDef

hahahahsahadhsajd ashjdk jfhasldjfhasd;klj fhbsanljgnesakljgvnfbds;jlngEAFDjgFDSKG:NVADSFKNGKJAESfdv stop trolling

SSDs easily double HDD read rates

My dude, did you read what I wrote? I said that it doesn't matter because programs are run from RAM, not from the HDD/ SSD. In other words, SSDs have no affect on in-application performance. READ what I wrote. READ it.

There probably isnt any point in continuing this discussion with BluRay.

Eventually, when they come down in cost, he'll get one and realize how much better they are. Its alot like high-end audio or IPS panels. They are superior. Its not entirely evident or obvious beyond one or two quantitiative benchmarks. But once you use it, you'll appreciate it and never want to look back.

I've never met a person that has owned an SSD as their OS drive and NOT recommend it to other except when budget is tight. Doesn't that say enough? Why havent you been able to find someone that does own one as it agaisnt it?

There probably isnt any point in continuing this discussion with BluRay.

Eventually, when they come down in cost, he'll get one and realize how much better they are. Its alot like high-end audio or IPS panels. They are superior. Its not entirely evident or obvious beyond one or two quantitiative benchmarks. But once you use it, you'll appreciate it and never want to look back.

I've never met a person that has owned an SSD as their OS drive and NOT recommend it to other except when budget is tight. Doesn't that say enough? Why havent you been able to find someone that does own one as it agaisnt it?

XaosII

And the major reason most don't have anything bad to say, is only becasue they are trying to validate there purchase.

I wouldn't recomment a SSD to anyone, TRIM is a bandaid to a large problem they have right now.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

hahahahsahadhsajd ashjdk jfhasldjfhasd;klj fhbsanljgnesakljgvnfbds;jlngEAFDjgFDSKG:NVADSFKNGKJAESfdv stop trolling

SSDs easily double HDD read rates

Makari

My dude, did you read what I wrote? I said that it doesn't matter because programs are run from RAM, not from the HDD/ SSD. In other words, SSDs have no affect on in-application performance. READ what I wrote. READ it.

Also when raid is done properly a huge reason for the increase in speed is a dedicated controller plus tons of cache.

When I had a quad xeon box (xeon 550mhz x4) with 6 10k rpm scsi drives in raid 5, that thing was so much snappier when moving data than my current rig.

I got rid of it cuz it was 7U. haha that thing was gigantic

My dude, did you read what I wrote? I said that it doesn't matter because programs are run from RAM, not from the HDD/ SSD. In other words, SSDs have no affect on in-application performance. READ what I wrote. READ it.

BluRayHiDef