SSD or no?Post Date: 2010-10-11 |
Post Reply
|
Author | |
Rodgeryng
Newbie Joined: 01 Oct 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 21 |
Quote Reply
Topic: SSD or no? Posted: 11 Oct 2010 at 6:29pm |
Well, do I go for an SSD for the OS or no? I will definately have a second 1TB drive for pictures but am unsure about the main drive. Read somewhere that the SSD drives might not last as long as traditional drives? Seems a bit counter intuitive to me...thought they would be more stable.
I keep a computer for @4+ years as my main before passing it down the line. The unit I am typing on now is about that old with original hard drives. Would expect to do the same with the next computer.
|
|
maxyme
DS Veteran Joined: 14 Aug 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1514 |
Quote Reply Posted: 11 Oct 2010 at 7:47pm |
With the SSD it will improve loading times and saving times for pretty much everything. Aditionally someone posted that it only took 15 seconds to boot up on a ssd which is amazing since it takes 8 minutes to boot windows 7 on my crappy laptop right now.
SSDs are shock proof so they probably can last for a very long time. from what i have found there are no studys yet since they are so new but they should be able to last much longer then hdds. 4 years is fine should last a while longer then that. |
|
Steam:pcmaster160
|
|
AmbientChong11
Groupie Joined: 16 Sep 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 216 |
Quote Reply Posted: 11 Oct 2010 at 8:10pm |
MTBF for SSDs are about 1000000 hours, maybe more or less, but these aren't in real-time. Don't worry about it failing within 4+ years. SSD for the OS and any intensive apps.
HDD for files, music, photos, and etc.
|
|
Dragoonseal
DS Veteran Joined: 03 Apr 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2247 |
Quote Reply Posted: 11 Oct 2010 at 11:46pm |
G2 Intel SSDs are rated at 1,200,000 hours MTBF. Last I checked, 1TB HDDs are rated at 500,000 hours MTBF. The recently released (a week ago) specs for the new G3 Intel SSDs coming out are listed as having 4 times the lifespan of G2 models. You definitely don't have to worry about modern SSD lifespans, they are much more reliable than mechanical HDDs. |
|
Lilim
Intel Core i7 920 @4.2GHz HAF 932 - Dual SLI Nvidia GTX 480s 3x Intel X25-M G2 (80GB) SSD RAID0 |
|
maxyme
DS Veteran Joined: 14 Aug 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1514 |
Quote Reply Posted: 11 Oct 2010 at 11:58pm |
Is there a release date yet on the intel g3 ssd?
|
|
Steam:pcmaster160
|
|
Dragoonseal
DS Veteran Joined: 03 Apr 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2247 |
Quote Reply Posted: 12 Oct 2010 at 12:33am |
Same as it has been for months and months. Q4 2010 - Q1 2011. |
|
Lilim
Intel Core i7 920 @4.2GHz HAF 932 - Dual SLI Nvidia GTX 480s 3x Intel X25-M G2 (80GB) SSD RAID0 |
|
maxyme
DS Veteran Joined: 14 Aug 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1514 |
Quote Reply Posted: 12 Oct 2010 at 12:46am |
Thanks. Somehow missed it. What's the vest site to keep up to date with PC hardware tech? Prefferably one with a feed? Thanks.
|
|
Steam:pcmaster160
|
|
AmbientChong11
Groupie Joined: 16 Sep 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 216 |
Quote Reply Posted: 12 Oct 2010 at 12:52am |
I use MaximumPC and Tom's Hardware.
|
|
maxyme
DS Veteran Joined: 14 Aug 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1514 |
Quote Reply Posted: 12 Oct 2010 at 4:49pm |
thanks
|
|
Steam:pcmaster160
|
|
MagiK
DS Veteran Joined: 25 Aug 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1074 |
Quote Reply Posted: 12 Oct 2010 at 4:56pm |
MaximumPC FTW I like them. I also Like CPU.
If the G3 SSD's come out before DSO releases the Signature build, Ill use a small one for OS and a BIG one for the games and apps. |
|
Dragoonseal
DS Veteran Joined: 03 Apr 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2247 |
Quote Reply Posted: 12 Oct 2010 at 5:09pm |
G2 Intel SSDs don't noticeably degrade in performance when filled (minor write speed hit if stuffed full), The G3 models should have even less of an issue with that since it looks like they will have a lot more over partitioned space. Instead of the highest possible out of the box performance scores Intel seems to be instead going the route of reliability and consistent performance. The G2s are already great at this, it really takes serious effort to hamper their performance in any meaningful way, so the G3s should be downright outstanding in that regard, keeping out of the box performance almost no matter what you do to them. So I wouldn't bother with a small one for OS, just use one big one for OS/apps/games. |
|
Lilim
Intel Core i7 920 @4.2GHz HAF 932 - Dual SLI Nvidia GTX 480s 3x Intel X25-M G2 (80GB) SSD RAID0 |
|
justin.kerr
DS Veteran Joined: 06 May 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5084 |
Quote Reply Posted: 12 Oct 2010 at 5:22pm |
As usual, Dragoonseal is spot on.
Intel has publically stated that the G3's are focused on getting a larger population to adopt/adapt to SSD's.
The performance will be good, and have good wear characteristics, and also maintain themselves very well, and at 1/2 the cost.. those are the goals of the G3.
I imagine they will have a higher performance model coming soon, but for most users a 160-320 Gb Intel SSD will be vastly faster than what they have been using, and gaining another few percentage points in performance would never be noticed.
|
|
MagiK
DS Veteran Joined: 25 Aug 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1074 |
Quote Reply Posted: 12 Oct 2010 at 5:28pm |
I agree with the technical reasoning you are using but I have this irrational desire....no NEED to keep things separate. I want the OS alone on a smaller drive
Games on a second drive (a 600GB G3 SSD would be perfect) and User files/documents/pictures etc on one storage drive and Video on a 4th...... I seem to be really into compartmentalizing things...might come from my Intelligence service years...I dont know ...I know its abnormal, but it is the weirdness I call me (Oh yeah reliability is far more important to me than bleeding edge performance from the SSD's or any hdd for that matter) Edited by MagiK - 12 Oct 2010 at 5:30pm |
|
Dragoonseal
DS Veteran Joined: 03 Apr 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2247 |
Quote Reply Posted: 12 Oct 2010 at 6:58pm |
But the problem with that is that smaller SSDs are slower, and/or lose performance easier or faster. Write speed will be the most noticeably affected, but go small enough and even read speeds will start to nose dive.
One of the biggest secrets of SSD speeds are their highly parallel nature. They have many NAND chips all working together like a miniature RAID array, with the SSD controller tying them all together (and usually being the main bottleneck). Take an 80GB Intel SSD for example, it is a 10 channel drive. That means it has 10 NAND chips of 8GB working in parallel. The 40GB model is only 5 channel and noticeably slower in a lot of regards, capping out at 170MB/s sequential read speeds (vs 250MB/s) and 40MB/s write speeds (vs 80MB/s), as it only has 5 NAND chips working in parallel. On top of this the smaller SSDs usually have a lot less over provisioned spaced for wear leveling and keeping performance up, so their performance can drop quicker with use and when you fill them up. All in all you'd be better off just going with one big SSD instead of trying to stuff the OS onto a little one. |
|
Lilim
Intel Core i7 920 @4.2GHz HAF 932 - Dual SLI Nvidia GTX 480s 3x Intel X25-M G2 (80GB) SSD RAID0 |
|
MagiK
DS Veteran Joined: 25 Aug 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1074 |
Quote Reply Posted: 13 Oct 2010 at 7:16am |
Our definition of "small" is somewhat different I will be using the 160GB Intel X25M unless the G3 line is available first... I know I know, way way overkill for OS functions but there you have it, its the way I roll. Better too much than too little.
Edited by MagiK - 13 Oct 2010 at 7:17am |
|
txfeinbergs
Newbie Joined: 22 Sep 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 85 |
Quote Reply Posted: 13 Oct 2010 at 11:31am |
My wife has a new Alienware $2500 system, I had a off the shelf HP (that I stuck an ATI 5850 in after freeing up power by removing the two hard drives and dropping in an 256 MB Corsair P256 SSD). My system boot faster than hers and she has a Raid 0 10,000 RPM drive array. I would laugh because when we played MMOs together and we went to a loading screen, my crappy system would beat hers into the area. Sure, she smoked me on frame rates, but women typically don't care about frame rates (at least my wife doesn't), they just see boot / loading times.
Of course now I have a my DS system as of last Thursday (with an Intel 80 GB SSD (DragoonSeal wouldn't let me put a non-Intel in there) , so now I smoke her in frame rates too! I need to move over my P256 to my DS, but not in a hurry as it would just be for storage.
I guess my rambling point is: SSD or no? YES YES YES
|
|
txfeinbergs
Newbie Joined: 22 Sep 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 85 |
Quote Reply Posted: 13 Oct 2010 at 11:32am |
FYI, my DS system boots all the way to useable desktop in about 25 seconds.
|
|
AmbientChong11
Groupie Joined: 16 Sep 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 216 |
Quote Reply Posted: 14 Oct 2010 at 1:51am |
How do you figure out how many channels, or NAND chips, there are? Is it xxGB/8 = Ychannels?
You made some good points.
|
|
justin.kerr
DS Veteran Joined: 06 May 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5084 |
Quote Reply Posted: 14 Oct 2010 at 9:17am |
here is a great program, to tell how long it takes to boot into windows.
called bootracer, post up your results. Drogoonseal should use it, and start a thread, to see if anyone can beat him.
download here
|
|
Post Reply |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum |