Ever since I had to get new hardware because of a meltdown on my computer, I have replaced many parts and now will most likely have to replace the CPU as its getting too old.
I've been reading alot about SSD and want opinions from people who have them or have HAD them. Why would having a SSD for a DESKTOP be better? From what I've heard once SSD's are shot, you cant reformat to reinstall, you need a new HDD....
MOBO: Biostar TZ68K+ Intel Z68 ATX CPU: Intel Core i7-2700K RAM: G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) CPU COOLING:Corsair Hydro Series H80 VIDEO: MSI TWIN FROZR II GeForce GTX 570 HDD: Intel 320-160GB SSD HDD: 250GB WD SATA HDD: 1TB WD SATA HDD: 500WD SATA MEDIA: Plextor Dual DVD PSU: CORSAIR HX750 750W CASE: Antec Twelve Hundred V3 ATX Full Tower OS: WIN 7 x64 Home Premium Monitor: Westinghouse 32" LCD 1080p
Once any hard drive is shot - its shot and has to be replaced...so nothing new there
If you have money to burn and want faster boot up times - getting an SSD would be something to consider.
no I mean I was told that if the HDD gets corrupted and needs to be reformatted, that it's not possible. If this isnt the case, then what HDD would people recommend I get. My mobo is:
Currently, I'm using 55GB for my C:/ and all I have on it are windows and program files.
Damn winsxs. I've been trying to trim my Win 7 install, but haven't had much luck other than off loading my documents and programs to other drives. Win 7 seems like a space hog. I haven't found a "vlite" version yet either.
Main Rig:Watercooled
2500k (4.4Ghz)| Biostar TZ68A+ | G.Skill 2x8GB
EVGA 680GTX | Intel 320 SSD + Crucial M4 256GB | Corsair 750TX | Corsair 800D Hackintosh Workstation:Aircooled
3570k (4.2Ghz)| Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H | Mushkin 4x4GB
EVGA 640 GT | WD RE4 500GB | PCP&C 600W | G5 Case Toys:
iPhone 4 | iPad 3 | PS3 | Xbox 360 | PSP-3000 | Supermicro based NAS | Steelcase LEAP! Currently playing: Guild Wars 2 Last Game Beaten: Walking Dead EP1
Ever since I had to get new hardware because of a meltdown on my computer, I have replaced many parts and now will most likely have to replace the CPU as its getting too old.
I've been reading alot about SSD and want opinions from people who have them or have HAD them. Why would having a SSD for a DESKTOP be better? From what I've heard once SSD's are shot, you cant reformat to reinstall, you need a new HDD....
If you want an idea what you can do with an SSD, look at the video links in my signature.
Buy a decent, cheap WD hard drive and wait the extra few seconds.
I'm just saying... unless you are doing something specific that warrants it, it usually just creates more problems than solves. Like loading into a zone in an online game like 5 seconds before anyone else... It's like "congrats", you just wasted $200.
An ssd is not about faster load times of single applications. Any drive, SSD or mechanical HDD, can load single applications quickly.
An SSD is about never having your computing experience slow down, because you are doing too many things at once. It is about never waiting for a thrashing hard drive to calm down before your computer becomes responsive again. It is about making your computing experience *smooth*, not making your computing experience *fast*.
I never understand why people will drop several $100's on new CPU, motherboard, and RAM to get a better computing experience, and keep that new system shackled down to a $60 7200rpm mechanical HDD. If you want to upgrade your computer, your money will go much farther buying an SSD than any CPU upgrade you could ever buy.
The SSD speeds come at a price.
1. SSD’s are very expensive when comparing to HD’s. At $300 for a 240Gbs SSD vs. $70 for 1Tb 7200RPM HD it’s a no brainer. I Raid 0 my boot drive(s). Since data integrity is not relevant, I don’t care if it craps out. All my stuff is on my internal backup drives.
2. Limited storage space. We’re at a point where you can get 2TBs and 3TBs HD’s. The largest SSD’s I’ve seen so far are 600GBs, unfortunately the cost is $1154 (not a typo). That’s the cost a new decent laptop or SLI\Crossfire setup for your desktop rig.
If this was a laptop I would say try the Seagate Momentus XT 500GB Solid State Hybrid (unless you wipe with 100 dollar bills then go for an SSD). You get decent storage plus fast boot speeds. But from all the articles I have read so far you won’t see much advantage on desktop computers when using one of those.
I setup an OCZ 120GBs SSD on a friend’s laptop and it cut the boot time by half (she has a semi decent HP, so I didn’t expect much from it). On a desktop you will see even more of an improvement as long as you have a decent on-board controller and CPU (super cheap mobos need not apply, that would be like putting makeup on a pig)
If you are willing to spend the money then go for an SSD. Otherwise just dump two 1TBs 7200’s into a RAID 0 and stick with it until the SSD’s come down in price.
I don't care about boot speeds because that is done infrequently and bringing a raid 5 array and a raid 1 array online takes a bit of time no matter how fast the OS is ready to go. What is important is accessing data as fast as possible once the system is running. That is where the SSD is important. I use the SSD for working files while most of my stuff resides on the raid arrays. I agree that 4 TB array of SSD's is cost prohibitive for most home users, but the SSD can play an important part of any home computing center.
SSD’s are very expensive when comparing to HD’s. At $300 for a 240Gbs SSD vs. $70 for 1Tb 7200RPM HD it’s a no brainer.
Your whole argument is based around the fact that large bulk storage on SSD technology is expensive. Yes, it is.
But think about it for a minute:
(1) What do people use mass bulk storage for (1TB+ hard drives)? Most people use it to store bulk media... photos, videos, music, pr0n.
(2) Does that bulk media (photos, videos, music, pr0n) benefit from SSD speeds? No.
(3) What DOES benefit from SSD speeds? OS, applications, game load times.
(4) Is 120GB enough to store OS, applications, and games? For most people, yes.
That is exactly why SSD owners always have a secondary bulk storage mechanical drive, to store their bulk media. They keep the space-eating content like music, photos, videos, etc off of the SSDs, because it is a waste of very valuable and expensive SSD storage space.
Yes, using an SSD is far less convenient than just buying one gigantic 7200rpm 2TB mechanical HDD, partitioning it as one giant C:\ drive, and calling it a day. But it is very manageable. And hundreds of thousands of hardcore computer enthusiasts who absolutely demand the best performance are willing to go through the inconvenience, because it gives them performance you cannot get anywhere else.
Check out some of the videos in my signature, if you want to know more about what SSDs can do.
One thing people do not do very often is mount a volume in an empty folder on the root volume.
I have many volumes, but they are all accessed via C:\<something>.
I understand your arguments and I do agree to a certain degree.
Here is my BUT...:
I can fill a 120GBs boot drive with apps in about 1 evening.
My primary Raid 0 array is currently 2TBs. It is 1.4TBs full. That’s my games, apps and anything I’m currently working on (surprisingly games eat up free space quickly...bloody Steam sales...). My backup storage drives: 3x 2Tbs WD Greens (non raided). Since they are storage\backup and media playback only they don’t need to be fast (FYI, I am aware of the head “issue” on the WD Green drives).
For someone like me, or any other pack rat (and I personally know a few), a 120Gbs SSD would be painful to use due to the number of installed apps and games.
So it really comes down to this: if you have only a few apps and games that you use and can afford one then get an SSD (just do some research before you go out and buy the cheapest one you find). If you are a hoarder and need a lot of space for you boot drive and want to do it on the cheap then setup a HD Raid array.
120 GB of apps is a very large amount. I suspect that you've also loaded the data files for those apps on the drive, the paging file, etc. The paging file should NOT be on the same volume as the OS. I have over 500 apps loaded on my notebook. The Program File folder takes less than 10 GB and the Program Files (x86) folder takes less than 5 GB.
IMO your issue is really with the location (organization) of files, not the total size.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Steve R Jones
Bookmarks