SSD - Another Noob Question

Good choice, the difference is huge, for everyday work. I have a high-end desktop without SSD, and a high-end laptop with SSD, the high-end laptop is so much faster for anything except gaming and heavy rendering and such.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
6,292
It finally came in, I blame the snowpocalypse most of the country is in.

Cloned C: and stuck the SSD in alone to make sure everything was good and my initial thoughts are yes it is faster. Nothing overwhelming but I've yet to do more than boot, open up a few things and shut it all down a few times as I'm at work.

I used Samsungs clone tool and I was surprised it did it from within windows rather than a reboot straight to the tool. I guess I've been using my old bootable CD clone tool for to long and things have evolved. Everything seems to be working fine tho.

edit: And I noticed that this is my 666th post. I hope my laptop doesn't open up a portal or something as the post was about it.
 
Toff said:
edit: And I noticed that this is my 666th post. I hope my laptop doesn't open up a portal or something as the post was about it.
Click to expand...
Dunno about laptop, but I'd definetly blame it on the weather. :D
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
Instead of ssd Im planning to buy hybrid drive (sshd). They are normal drives that also contain ssd. According to some tests their performance was closer to real ssd than the normal one while offering much higher capacity for much smaller price.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
3,160
Location
Europa Universalis
I am not sure if things has changed, but before those sshd were more likely to break compared to normal HD.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
6,292
I wouldn't do that zakhal. Because I was on limited budget I was thinking about that when putting together my new machine. So I did some research and found out that the hybrid drive would only have SSD-like performance with cached data, not everything. It'd be better on average than a regular hard drive for that cached data, but otherwise, it's just a hard drive.
There is also a fact that, as has GG pointed out, most of SSHDs have 3 years warranty while SSDs have 5 and 10 years ones.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
zahratustra said:
I wouldn't do that zakhal. Because I was on limited budget I was thinking about that when putting together my new machine. So I did some research and found out that the hybrid drive would only have SSD-like performance with cached data, not everything.
Click to expand...
All i really need is windows to start faster (wife complains about that) and cache is propably enough for that.

In any other use the ssd drives are totally out of my price range. For windows I would need atleast 1Tt and for ps4 2Tt.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
3,160
Location
Europa Universalis
Just don't.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
zakhal said:
For windows I would need at least 1Tt and for ps4 2Tt
Click to expand...

What? I have 256 gigs SSD which happily accommodates Windows AND 2 or 3 games I choose to play (with 132 gigs of free space left)! Rest of the stuff is stored on 1TB HDD.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
zahratustra said:
What? I have 256 gigs SSD which happily accommodates Windows AND 2 or 3 games I choose to play (with 132 gigs of free space left)! Rest of the stuff is stored on 1TB HDD.
Click to expand...

I have three operating systems and space for one more in my current hard drive. Each has 250gb so that comes to 1Tt. And since the current drive is allready quite full I would never swap it for smaller drive.

Apart from that I have 6Tt of other drives for games etc. And those are mostly full too. I have some 330 games in steam alone.

zahratustra said:
There is also a fact that, as has GG pointed out, most of SSHDs have 3 years warranty while SSDs have 5 and 10 years ones.
Click to expand...
The last hd failure I had was in 2002 and after that I have bought 5 new hds. I dont see why sshd would break more often than hd. Atleast I havent seen any real info on that yet. Warranty alone is not enough imho.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
3,160
Location
Europa Universalis
1. Don't see why you need 250gb partitions for each OS - especially an OS that you might use once in a blue moon. I think I did just fine with Win7 on a 64gb SSD back in their early days.

2. 330 concurrently installed Steam games? Lol.


I think this thread is more about priorities than it is hardware. Get an SSD for your default OS, one or two standard platter drives for your other OS's, and then your Terabyte drive for various media
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
5,980
Location
Florida, USA
zakhal said:
I dont see why sshd would break more often than hd. Atleast I havent seen any real info on that yet. Warranty alone is not enough imho.
Click to expand...

I think the only problem may be with the maturity of the technology. There were a LOT of SSD failures in the earlier models, but this was down to manufacturing and design problems, rather than flaws in the fundamental tech. The current generation seems highly reliable. It's possible that these hybrid drives are also not mature yet, hence reports of high failure rates, but you're right - there's no good reason why they should fail more often.

By the way, I also keep my entire game collection permanently installed on my gaming PC. I started doing it because of my fondness for modding and tinkering with games, and didn't want to reinvent the wheel every time I reinstalled them. I call it 'game farming'. :)
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
I still have a 128gb vertex 2, known as the drive of death... As it happens, its sandforce 1200 controller is incompatible from haswell upwards. Meaning it's only detected 50% of the time at boot, need to reset a couple of times until it catches on. Still I coped with that but this morning it seemed to have died completely.

So yes I'm happy ssds have matured, though I still need to get one of those. I want 512gb for under 100 euro.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
1,502
oof, a Sandforce controller… My first SSD was a corsair "force" based off of that… one of my worst computing experiences ever. Unpredictable now you see me, now you don't BSODs.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
5,980
Location
Florida, USA
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
What are you talking about ? 108 dollar is 99 euro.

A crucial mx100 256gb is 92 euro around here.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
1,502
It's only $120 for the 850 EVO. I'd spend just a few dollars more from a known manufacturer than whomever that is.
 
ilm said:
What are you talking about ? 108 dollar is 99 euro.

A crucial mx100 256gb is 92 euro around here.
Click to expand...

92? Where? In local stores over here that model is min 120€.
You're however right, Crucial is the cheapest SSD out there, just checked the wide seller that (apparently) ships to all EU countries unlike bloody Amazon:
http://www.computeruniverse.net/products/90551846/crucial-ssd-mx100.asp
It's 97€ there.
I've paid much more than this for my Kingston almost a year back so this price, both Crucial and this Kingfast, looks too good to be true.

Toff, 850 EVO 250 is 117€ in this shop, and I agree with you, better to pay a few bucks more than to have the gadget farted fast. That's why I asked for Kingfast if anyone heard about them before.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom