Printable View
You are right. The issue is that the storage space vs cost of SSD’s puts it out of the price range of a lot of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
BTW, OCZ Vertex 2 240Gbs can be purchased for 349.99 (before rebate). I am tempted to get one for my Asus G73.
If you can afford it then do it. The performance difference between SSD and non-SSD is huge. Every machine I own has some form of SSD on it for OS and Apps.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrystalMeph
I do not bother installing my entire steam library at once because like most I do not play 10-15 games at the same time. However, I do occasionally load the whole thing onto a drive and create backup of my entire library. This allows me to restore any portion of it without the need to re-download the whole game again from Steam. And by occasionally I mean every 6 months to a year or so.
i feel the oppositeQuote:
Originally Posted by CrystalMeph
to me, loading the 5-7 games and apps that i use daily about 5 seconds faster each time, every time is more important than fishing for a DVD or downloading a 5gb torrent (shouldnt take more than an hour or two on a modern connection) to use that one game or app that i might use once every few months
and like UA said... its not hard to keep your less used apps/games on a separate drive... i keep all my apps/games in ISO format on my NAS (2x2TB). It takes less than 15 minutes for me to get a rarely used program from my NAS installed to my main drive if I ever need it.
i really dont see the point of having all your games/apps installed like that except for maybe a psychological factor or assurance. Its like having those huge 120GB mp3 players with all your songs loaded at all times when you only listen to the same 10 albums.
Is this the Ford vs Chevy thread? Or should I ask AMD vs Wintel?? :eek:
Ok, question; I understand SS drives have a limited number of read/writes (or something as that). Similar to flash drives. A limited number of accessing the 'drive'. Isn't this a factor in this decision?
Technically yes, the NAND flash chips used in SSDs have a limited number of "write" cycles before they cannot be written any further. At that point, those NAND flash cells revert to read-only mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by videobruce
But that is the myth of Write Endurance. Write endurance doesn't matter. You will never run into a write endurance problem on an SSD.
If you actually break down the write endurance numbers, they turn out to be 20GB of writes every single day for the next 5 years. You will not be writing 20GB of data to your drive every day. You will not be doing it for 5 straight years. And (most importantly), you will most likely be replacing your SSD within a few years anyway to upgrade its capacity or performance.
Write endurance sounds scary to people, because SSDs are a new technology that they haven't used before. But when you actually do the math, you quickly see that write endurance doesn't apply to you.
This "Write Endurance" is the term for these NAND flash chips in SSD?? I wasn't sure if if was read, write or both.
(Sorry for the newbie questions)
I've been toying with a new SSD as my current 60GB SSD (bought a couple of years back) has always been irritatingly small but probably going to stick with it as a larger one isn't going to be enough to fit my data on anyway and it forces me to keep data off the OS drive which makes reinstalling a lot quicker.
John
Correct. Write Endurance = number of write/erase cycles the NAND is good for.Quote:
Originally Posted by videobruce
45nm MLC NAND = 10000 w/e cycles per cell
32nm MLC NAND = 5000 w/e cycles per cell
2xnm MLC NAND = 3000 w/e cycles per cell
Seems like a drastic reduction, but even with the modern SSD's using 22nm flash (or 25nm), they are rated (due to spare area, wear leveling, etc.) for well over 5 years of normal use as mentioned by kent1146.
If you don't want to feel like a newbie anymore check out Anandtech's SSD anthology. It explains all of the basics in a way that is very easy to understand. :)