# SSD or HDD?



## dunherm (Sep 23, 2010)

So I'm at a crossroads. I'm thinkin about getting a Kingston SSD Now V SSD 64GB for $120 OR I could get a Samsung F4 2TB for $95.

I could use both at the moment. There really are times where I wish I didn't have to wait for my computer to load which is where the SSD would be super handy.

But... at the same time I could really use 2TB of space. Would make a nice addition as well as increase to my mostly used 3TB of space.

So what do you guys think? I'll get both eventually... just goin crazy on deciding what to get


----------



## Batou1986 (Sep 23, 2010)

atm for the money i say stay with hdd


----------



## dunherm (Sep 23, 2010)

Both are oh so tempting 

It's like... why do I need an SSD. It's not like I want to kill myself 95% of the time for my computer to load... so why not get the 2TB.... but then it's like SSD man! 

Well, really I'll have those moments once in awhile where before I head to class I realllly want to check something... and I know my iPhone 4 is really slow... but then I'll wait for the computer to boot... and I'll get frustrated. That's my primary reason for wanting an SSD. That and wanting to grab my hands on the future.


----------



## n-ster (Sep 23, 2010)

I can tell you I love my Vertex 2s....

I say it depends on your rig, if you got a powerful rig, go SSD, if not go HDD


----------



## (FIH) The Don (Sep 23, 2010)

SSD!!! once you go SSD you never wanna go back


----------



## Jstn7477 (Sep 23, 2010)

SSDs are pretty nice, but 100MB/s read and 80MB/s write seem like a disappointment. Plus, SSDs that aren't Sandforce-based appear to have degraded write speeds over time. I'd stick with a normal HDD unless you can get a much better SSD in my opinion.


----------



## Peter1986C (Sep 23, 2010)

And afaik, short load times only occur when a SSD needs to "load" small files. Like Jstn7477 said above, the read and write speeds don't increase. The access times are shorter though, so programs load quicker but large amounts of data will not be processed faster.

If you get one though, do not defragment it as it will shorten the life of the SSD (flash memory can handle only a certain amount of writes) and won't increase the performance of the device.


----------



## GSquadron (Sep 23, 2010)

2 TB hdds have a lot of problems and are much slower than other hdds with less capacity


----------



## Hayder_Master (Sep 23, 2010)

i move from my raid0 to SSD, it's really big jump if u care for fast booting and fast programs run


----------



## dunherm (Sep 23, 2010)

After hard deliberation I settled for an SSD. I looked at the specials newegg was having and I found that they were selling OCZ Agility SSDs for $110 with a $20 rebate and that pretty much did it for me. Good deal for a 60GB SSD. I selected the DHL smartmail shipping but they sent it through UPS  

The 2TB will come later... early next year. Thanks guys  I really want a fast booting computer...

I don't mind 2TBs being slow... I just want a drive to store things... like my steam games for example which will help later on when my ISP moves to capping bandwidth...


----------



## alucasa (Sep 23, 2010)

It's not just fast booting. Everything becomes smooth. You won't even notice that automatic windows updates are being installed.

Just don't get cheap Kingston SSD.


----------



## MKmods (Sep 23, 2010)

let us know how it works for you (SSD) there are many of us that still havent gone SSD


----------



## overclocking101 (Sep 23, 2010)

my kingston ssd is amazing. it loads everything super fast. it writes like a normal hdd but reads insanely fast i like it!


----------



## n-ster (Sep 23, 2010)

My vertex 2 RAID 0 is insanely fast in both reads n writes n access times are great too... esata external HDDs for insanely fast movie n game ransfers for example is great, or usb 3.0 flash drives for 200MB/s transfers


----------



## Asylum (Sep 23, 2010)

I wasnt that impressed going from a raid0 setup with harddrives to a raid0 setup with ssd's.

It only shaved about 7 seconds off my boot up time.

Programs and such loaded a few seconds faster but thats about it.

Just sold my 2x60gig vertex turbos and reinstalled my harddrives.

Not worth the money for ssd's right now untill the performance picks up and the prices go down.


----------



## gottistar (Sep 23, 2010)

Thats a decision you gotta make up..its a tough one, HDD is clearly the winner for $ and storage space...
If you want a taste of it,  smaller size SSD are cheaper , im sure alot of people like me have got an SSD for OS/programs as a C/DRIVE and have got bigger programs/games/movies/mp3,s etc etc on there HDD,s... wait till they become better value for money.........good luck!

I must admit my i7 920@ 3.8 on my SSD absolutely hammers on start-up..i get a very fast desktop..like everything , you get used to it....then its slow..lol


----------



## Kantastic (Sep 24, 2010)

Every time I use my HTPC I think a component is dying, you just can't compare a traditional hard drive to a solid state drive.


----------



## DanishDevil (Sep 24, 2010)

IMO, don't bother getting an SSD unless you get a good one, because you're going to want more. Go for a Sandforce right now, or just get the HDD and save up for later.


----------



## n-ster (Sep 24, 2010)

DanishDevil said:


> IMO, don't bother getting an SSD unless you get a good one, because you're going to want more. Go for a Sandforce right now, or just get the HDD and save up for later.



wise advice


----------



## DanishDevil (Sep 24, 2010)

I bought an Indilinx drive, and bought a Sandforce within a week. You'll get addicted, and you want the best that's out there. A cheap SSD will give you minimal gains.

Then again, if you've got a laptop to throw the Indilinx into, it works out great


----------



## AsRock (Sep 24, 2010)

Jstn7477 said:


> SSDs are pretty nice, but 100MB/s read and 80MB/s write seem like a disappointment. Plus, SSDs that aren't Sandforce-based appear to have degraded write speeds over time. I'd stick with a normal HDD unless you can get a much better SSD in my opinion.



Well my Intel ones have not degraded yet.

Go SSD if you can afford a good one with a decent GB and use you current HDD for backup and what not.


----------



## dunherm (Sep 24, 2010)

DanishDevil said:


> You'll get addicted, and you want the best that's out there. A cheap SSD will give you minimal gains.


What do you mean? are you saying that the OCZ Agility won't be significantly faster than my Seagate 7200.10 for booting?

I'm not looking for the "best" I just want something in the middle of the pack or decent at a good price. There's no way I would fork over more than $120 on an SSD.


----------



## mudkip (Sep 24, 2010)

SSD, best upgrade for any pc


----------



## Exile_Chavez (Sep 24, 2010)

hey guys question. is the ocz agility 2 have that sandforce thing you guys are talking about? i have never heard of it could one of you explain it please?


----------



## n-ster (Sep 24, 2010)

yea agility 2 has sandforce, though I'd pay a few bucks to get to vertex 2... agility 2 is 10 iops Vertex 2 is 50K iops


----------



## DanishDevil (Sep 24, 2010)

dunherm said:


> What do you mean? are you saying that the OCZ Agility won't be significantly faster than my Seagate 7200.10 for booting?
> 
> I'm not looking for the "best" I just want something in the middle of the pack or decent at a good price. There's no way I would fork over more than $120 on an SSD.



It will, but I think your money is better spent on a current-gen drive. SSDs used to be manufactured for transfer speeds, but only recently have they focused on 4K random IOPS, which translate to performance much more than transfer speeds.

You said you're running low on space. I'd say, buy a 2TB drive (if it's for storage space, go with a WD green).

While you're saving up, calculate how big of an SSD you would like. Calculate the size of your most used programs plus Windows. I put all my currently-played games on my SSD, so I'm more comfortable at around 100-128GB for my desktop, but my laptop has a single 60GB SSD and it's plenty of space for me. If you realize you don't really want much more than a 30GB SSD, you can get a 30-40GB Sandforce drive for around $100-125.


----------



## n-ster (Sep 24, 2010)

I just bought 2x 1tb 7200.12 drives for storage


----------



## dunherm (Sep 24, 2010)

DanishDevil said:


> It will, but I think your money is better spent on a current-gen drive....



Lol I don't think I'd be satisfied with a 60GB, or a 128GB. Like, practically I would love to have a 500GB SSD but let's face it I'm not rich or crazy to spend that money.

I got a 60GB as a compromise: Sure it's older gen, but the capacity is big enough. But I did take a look at the read/write speeds on newer gen drives and they are (well the specs anyway) a hair amount faster. I think 40GB/32GB drives are useless. I don't want just a boot drive. I want to install some programs and maybe a game just to see how fast it loads. Plus the 40/32 giggers end up being a little lower than 60GB drives anyway. Though I'm sure they'd kill my 60GB in 4K performance.

Newegg already sent me the drive but I'll take a look see at the newer drives. I'm sure Newegg won't mind if I send it back without opening it.


----------



## DanishDevil (Sep 24, 2010)

You want to research reviews of the drives, and focus on 4K random IOPS. Great performance is around 50,000.


----------



## largon (Sep 24, 2010)

Once you get used to using a system with OS and apps installed on a SSD, you'll start to notice how painfully slow HDDs are when using a system without a SDD. You just keep wondering if there's something broken as it's so damn slow... And, there's the noise thing too. Back in the day I bought mine, I was blissed by the absence of the usual *click-crack-tritritri* HDDs make.


----------



## dunherm (Sep 24, 2010)

largon said:


> Once you get used to using a system with OS and apps installed on a SSD, you'll start to notice how painfully slow HDDs are when using a system without a SDD. You just keep wondering if there's something broken as it's so damn slow... And, there's the noise thing too. Back in the day I bought mine, I was blissed by the absence of the usual *click-crack-tritritri* HDDs make.



HA so when I use my school lab computers I'll be wondering why they'd so painting slow? Well I already think that way now. When looking at you tube videos it doesn't look toooo fast but we'll see..

They were stupid enough to configure the lab computers with 4GB of RAM with Windows x64 ...


----------



## n-ster (Sep 24, 2010)

whats bad with 64 bit windows n 4GB of RAM?


----------



## Fishymachine (Sep 24, 2010)

dunherm said:


> They were stupid enough to configure the lab computers with 4GB of RAM with Windows x64 ...



Unless you are referring to Vista/7 x86 handling 4GB (which I don't really buy) you just said a stupid thing


----------



## Exile_Chavez (Sep 24, 2010)

does the 35000IOPS make that large of a difference? the 40gb ssd is going for 85 on newegg atm, for a little bit. and a 40gb ssd is big enough for a boot and so i might go for it. the vertex 2 of all things is that cheap :O


----------



## DanishDevil (Sep 24, 2010)

It makes a huge difference. The "snappiness" of response from the computer is going to be directly correlated to IOPS.


----------



## Exile_Chavez (Sep 24, 2010)

interesting, in that case ill probably order the 85 dollar 40gb vertex 2 that is on sale, i think i even have a 10% discount code laying around somewhere....so 77 bucks for a ssd shipped, RIDICOULOUS


----------



## DanishDevil (Sep 24, 2010)

That is a very good deal for a boot drive


----------



## dunherm (Sep 24, 2010)

Fishymachine said:


> Unless you are referring to Vista/7 x86 handling 4GB (which I don't really buy) you just said a stupid thing



Way to be harsh on a simple mistake. Have a social life? Yes they are x86 win7 machines with 4gb of ram.


----------



## Exile_Chavez (Sep 25, 2010)

I am pretty sure, unless there was an update for windows, that the whole point of 64bit is for support of 4gb, that 32bit supports < 3gb and will not formally recognize the 4th gb


----------



## DanishDevil (Sep 25, 2010)

There is an update that recognizes over 4GB, but as a 32-bit OS, it still cannot use more than 3.xx GB.


----------



## Exile_Chavez (Sep 25, 2010)

dunherm said:


> Way to be harsh on a simple mistake. Have a social life? Yes they are x86 win7 machines with 4gb of ram.



So in which case, they may recognize 4gbs of ram, but won't use it


----------



## DanishDevil (Sep 25, 2010)

Yes sir.


----------



## alucasa (Sep 25, 2010)

Exile_Chavez said:


> So in which case, they may recognize 4gbs of ram, but won't use it



More like can't use it. It's limitation of 32bit.

The transition from 16bit and 32bit was easy and fast. Now it's so hard to go from 32bit to 64bit. I guess it will be even harder to go from 64bit to 128bit in the future ...


----------



## Kantastic (Sep 25, 2010)

dunherm said:


> Way to be harsh on a simple mistake. Have a social life? Yes they are x86 win7 machines with 4gb of ram.



The meaning of x86 used in your context refers to 32-bit Windows.

Ouch, I guess I don't have a social life.


----------

