# SSD Prices in Free-Fall: The Next DRAM?



## btarunr (Jun 22, 2012)

Hard drive prices refuse to budge after last year's floods that struck manufacturing facilities in Thailand, even as manufacturers turn record profit. The solid-state drive market, on the other hand, is finally rolling with competition, high volume production, and advancements in NAND flash technologies. With memory majors such as Hynix adding new NAND flash manufacturing facilities to their infrastructure, SSD is expected to finally get its big break in the mainstream market. 

SSD prices, according to price aggregators, are on a free-fall. Models which once held relative pricing as high as $2 per gigabyte, and going deep within the $1 mark. For example, Crucial's widely-praised M4 256 GB SSD has a price per GB of 'just' $0.82, and a market price around $200, something unheard of, for a 256 GB SSD with transfer rates of over 500 MB/s. With SSD major OCZ Technology releasing new generations of drives under the Vertex 4 and Agility 4 series that use Indilinx processors, older Vertex 3 and Agility 3 models are being phased out, some of these are seeing sub $1/GB prices. Intel is also responding to market trends, with prices of its SSD 520 series dropping sharply. Find a boat-load of stats at the source.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## rodneyhchef (Jun 22, 2012)

Excellent, these are starting to come down into the mainstream arena. A 256gb drive would do nicely for an OS and a few games.


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Jun 22, 2012)

rodneyhchef said:


> A 256gb drive would do nicely for an OS and a few games.



agreed, I wont use anything less than 200GB for my OS and stuff.  Thats the only reason i havent bought one yet as the prices for 200GB+ SSDs were pricey for the last cpl of years.  I think I may finally get one this fall/winter.


----------



## Solid State Brain (Jun 22, 2012)

So, does this mean that after hitting rock bottom prices (supposedly soon), they will start rising twice as fast because they were excessively low?

(Remember the 2010 DDR2 bubble?)


----------



## mcloughj (Jun 22, 2012)

Despite owning 2 120Gb SSDs I'd noticed how the prices were making me ponder buying a single 240GB drive when I build my new build. 

Hope it continues!


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jun 22, 2012)

Solid State Brain said:


> So, does this mean that after hitting rock bottom prices (supposedly soon), they will start rising twice as fast because they were excessively low?
> 
> (Remember the 2010 DDR2 bubble?)



No, compare it to memory as a whole. ie one would easily pay €100-€200 for 512MB modules in the past. Prices went down and capacity went up. You now get 4GB modules for €25. The fact that it moved from SDR to DDR to DDR2 and then DDR3 isn't relevant. Memory became cheaper, as does storage in SSD form. The only difference is that interfaces for storage are mostly backwards compatible, memory isn't.
I guess the minimum price will eventually stagnate due to production costs, personnel, shipping, etc but capacity will keep increasing thus price per GB will drop.


----------



## rpsgc (Jun 22, 2012)

Anything that means cheaper prices for us (and sticks it to the greedy HDD manufacturers) is awesome news.

I can't wait for them [HDD manufacturers] to start seeing their "record profits" evaporating as more and more people turn to SSD.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 22, 2012)

the crucial M4's are just amazing bang for buck. Not as fast as the sandforce 2281 drives but its still makes my pc go like a rocket none the less.


----------



## Salsoolo (Jun 22, 2012)

what i was waiting for!
glad i didnt join the club early


----------



## m1ch (Jun 22, 2012)

WTB Crucial m4 256GB in Europe for cheap, any ideas? Looks like this sweet 200$ deal is only availble in US so far


----------



## rpsgc (Jun 22, 2012)

m1ch said:


> WTB Crucial m4 256GB in Europe for cheap, any ideas? Looks like this sweet 200$ deal is only availble in US so far



Like this?
http://www.pixmania.pl/pl/pl/9760815/art/crucial/wewnetrzny-ssd-m4-256-gb.html


----------



## Hustler (Jun 22, 2012)

Give me 256Gb for $100 and i'll go for it...until then, no thanks.

And I'm still not convinced of their reliability, many forums i visit seem full of people having problems with them.


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Jun 22, 2012)

I can't wait to see the HDD duopoly fucktards bite the dust.


----------



## 1rkrage (Jun 22, 2012)

Hustler said:


> Give me 256Gb for $100 and i'll go for it...until then, no thanks.
> 
> And I'm still not convinced of their reliability, many forums i visit seem full of people having problems with them.



those with issues are usually the loudest. meanwhile the ones having no issues are happily treading and enjoying their fast read speeds


----------



## m1ch (Jun 22, 2012)

rpsgc said:


> Like this?
> http://www.pixmania.pl/pl/pl/9760815/art/crucial/wewnetrzny-ssd-m4-256-gb.html



Thanks for the reply, but its still like 60$ more than in US, which is quite a bit, considering the drive is 200$... European Amazon(s) wont price match :shadedshu


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Jun 22, 2012)

awesome, time to get me my second Vertex 3 128gb for just 100€!


----------



## rpsgc (Jun 22, 2012)

m1ch said:


> Thanks for the reply, but its still like 60$ more than in US, which is quite a bit, considering the drive is 200$... European Amazon(s) wont price match :shadedshu



There's this thing called VAT, you know... 



Hustler said:


> *Give me 256Gb for $100 and i'll go for it*...until then, no thanks.
> 
> And I'm still not convinced of their reliability, many forums i visit seem full of people having problems with them.



256G*b* for $100? No problem.
256G*B* for $100? Not gonna happen. You might as well wish for a $500 GTX 690.

And their reliability is just fine. Apart from some shoddy products (mainly from OCZ) there's not really a problem with reliability. And you can't really compare low speeds and the occasional BSOD with full HDD failure.


----------



## Grings (Jun 22, 2012)

Never mind 256gb drives, i wanna see 512gb+ ones get affordable


----------



## naoan (Jun 22, 2012)

rpsgc said:


> There's this thing called VAT, you know...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



People used to say the same things with platter drives...

And I have no doubt that years from now, there will be GPU faster than GTX690 for less than $500. It's just a matter of time.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 22, 2012)

I've seen 256GB SSD's (Samsung 830) for around 150 bucks. I've got only Crucial M4 128GB 3-4  months ago for such price...


----------



## manofthem (Jun 22, 2012)

Grings said:


> Never mind 256gb drives, i wanna see 512gb+ ones get affordable



Amen to this, I would love to find a 512+ at a great price, a perfect game drive.



RejZoR said:


> I've seen 256GB SSD's (Samsung 830) for around 150 bucks. I've got only Crucial M4 128GB 3-4  months ago for such price...



You talking $150 for a new 256 830? I havent seen that kind of price ever, but Man if that's true I overpayed most definitely!


----------



## Mussels (Jun 22, 2012)

i noticed this trend in aus, we're just seeing $1 per GB prices here now.


----------



## Pioneer.twelve (Jun 22, 2012)

I have two 120SSD's but would like to buy a 256 sometime around July 4th when sales go on.


----------



## m1ch (Jun 22, 2012)

rpsgc said:


> There's this thing called VAT, you know...



Its not bec of VAT, just annoying, temporary price diff. and I want my ssd now!


----------



## NinkobEi (Jun 22, 2012)

rpsgc said:


> There's this thing called VAT, you know...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Considering 256GB drives were $300 6-weeks ago, and now they are $170, I would say in the next year or so we'll see them at $100. I guess they are getting the manufacturing process down.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 22, 2012)

Even with VAT, 150 bucks for high end 256GB SSD is dirty cheap.


----------



## suraswami (Jun 22, 2012)

hmm all talk about 256 and 512GB.  I want 1TB SSD for under $200


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 22, 2012)

suraswami said:


> hmm all talk about 256 and 512GB.  I want 1TB SSD for under $200



lets build a terminator and send him into the future where he can hunt and kill all those guys responsible for keep the prices up. the fact that he's already a few decades obselete will make it even more of a challenge and makes the recorded footage worth watching providing he makes it back in one peice.....

First job he has to do though is hunt those employees at WD and Seagate responsible for price fixing and using the thailand floods as a excuse to keep prices up - after that THEN we send him into the future.


----------



## BigMack70 (Jun 22, 2012)

I picked up an OCZ Agility 3 240GB for $170 on sale a few weeks back... such an awesome deal I couldn't pass it up.

I like this trend


----------



## D007 (Jun 22, 2012)

I couldn't be happier about this. 
Finally I may be able to get a SSD of a noteable size, that's not going to kill me in the pocket..


----------



## tacosRcool (Jun 22, 2012)

I like how Intel dominates in high prices


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 22, 2012)

BigMack70 said:


> I picked up an OCZ Agility 3 240GB for $170 on sale a few weeks back... such an awesome deal I couldn't pass it up.
> 
> I like this trend



OCZ are rumored to have some reliability/QC issues & not just because the whole sandforce chipset thing a while back which everyone was having issues with which has now been fixed. so dont do a victory dance just yet.


----------



## Delta6326 (Jun 22, 2012)

glad Ive waited so far can't wait till they get even cheaper.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 22, 2012)

manofthem said:


> Amen to this, I would love to find a 512  at a great price, a perfect game drive.



Already pretty good price, considering what most paid for a 256 6 months ago.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100008120%2050001455%20600038491&IsNodeId=1&name=Crucial&Order=PRICE&Pagesize=20


----------



## Zubasa (Jun 22, 2012)

naoan said:


> People used to say the same things with platter drives...
> 
> And I have no doubt that years from now, there will be GPU faster than GTX690 for less than $500. It's just a matter of time.


Time is money friend, so at the end it is still a matter of money


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jun 22, 2012)

I want Samsung 830 256GB drive!


----------



## seronx (Jun 22, 2012)

Any of you guys know when the 300,000 P/E Cycle SSDs come out?


----------



## jpierce55 (Jun 23, 2012)

I need a minimum of 500gb, I don't want multiple drives, and I don't see myself shelling out even this amount of money


----------



## NC37 (Jun 23, 2012)

Crap, I just bought a Synapse a week ago...sigh.

Oh well, got it on a big discount so, in the end at least I didn't pay full price.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 23, 2012)

jpierce55 said:


> I need a minimum of 500gb, I don't want multiple drives, and I don't see myself shelling out even this amount of money



unless you have a laptop, i just dont undertand that logic.


i have about 12 drives, three of which are internal. OS, games, backups. running with less seems madness to me in a desktop.


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 23, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> I want Samsung 830 256GB drive!



Leaning towards that or the Crucial M4.


----------



## techtard (Jun 23, 2012)

Might be time to upgrade my SSDs capacity-wise. 
If the prices keep dropping, I might be able to replace my caviar black 640GB drive with a sata6 SSD.
Of course I don't need to do this, but it would be nice to have ultra fast loading times in all my games, without having to plan ahead and move things with the Steam-mover program.

Sometimes convenience is worth the few extra bucks.


----------



## Darkleoco (Jun 23, 2012)

Might be able to pick up a 256 gb SSD for my new laptop at this rate


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 23, 2012)

m1ch said:


> Thanks for the reply, but its still like 60$ more than in US, which is quite a bit, considering the drive is 200$... European Amazon(s) wont price match :shadedshu



I recently received it in the mail for $169.99 shipped which is pretty solid for a brand new drive. 

That is roughly .66 USD per GB.


----------



## timmyisme22 (Jun 23, 2012)

Grings said:


> Never mind 256gb drives, i wanna see 512gb+ ones get affordable




Well, in the US (and possibly Canada) we have a weekend sale on newegg.com right now.

Crucial M4 512GB SATA III MLC that with the promo code (EMCYTZT1803) brings it down to $344.99 USD (and free shipping).  That's $0.67 per GB.


The only downside is A: I'm broke and B: It's US (and possibly Canada) only.
Also, seems some people (yet again, not many speak-up, I never leave reviews because I'm lazy) are having problems.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 23, 2012)

Still a *very* long ways to go.  Example (I did not search for the cheapest drive on the market per GB--just the 3TB drive I would buy):
Seagate Barracuda ST3000DM001 3TB 7200 RPM 64MB Ca...

$170 - $20 promo code = $150
$150 / 3000 GB = $0.05 / GB

Put bluntly, I can't see SSDs ever hitting that price.  Yeah, yeah, yeah, they're faster but are they worth spending 13+ times more for?  I struggle to say "yes" to that when they're only about 5 times faster.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jun 23, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Put bluntly, I can't see SSDs ever hitting that price.



And why is that? I remember paying ~€200 for a low end 4GB drive. I remember 64MB USB sticks costing nearly €100. You get 2GB sticks for free nowadays. SSDs will get larger and larger and thus price per GB gets lower, it's simply how things work.


----------



## beck24 (Jun 23, 2012)

SSD's are the biggest single improvement I've experienced. Paid $450 for a 240gb OWC Extreme. Love to see an affordable TB however. Maybe in a year or so.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 23, 2012)

Let me know when they hit under $0.25 / GB, then I'll be interested in SSDs...  Until then they are a luxtury item, and the money can likely be spend better elsewhere in the computer.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jun 23, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Let me know when they hit under $0.25 / GB, then I'll be interested in SSDs...  Until then they are a luxtury item, and the money can likely be spend better elsewhere in the computer.



If you have a decent i5/7 system with a $250 video card, and you have $150 to spare, SSD is the best upgrade you can do.

At $150, nothing else will give you a more noticeable performance upgrade.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 23, 2012)

kid41212003 said:


> If you have a decent i5/7 system with a $250 video card, and you have $150 to spare, SSD is the best upgrade you can do.
> 
> At $150, nothing else will give you a more noticeable performance upgrade.




So you believe that going from something like an GTX570/HD7850 to something like a GTX670/HG7950 would give less of a noticeable performance upgrade than an SSD?  Keep living the delusion...:shadedshu


----------



## Fourstaff (Jun 23, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> So you believe that going from something like an GTX570/HD7850 to something like a GTX670/HG7950 would give less of a noticeable performance upgrade than an SSD?  Keep living the delusion...:shadedshu



It depends on how you define noticeable. Since noticeable is subjective both of you guys are right.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jun 23, 2012)

Are u talking about selling ur current hardware plus adding some money to buy a new video card?

You should try an SSD before actually criticize it.


----------



## beck24 (Jun 23, 2012)

Cold start to open browser in 10 seconds. Applications pop open like a light switch. I'm never going back.


----------



## techtard (Jun 23, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> So you believe that going from something like an GTX570/HD7850 to something like a GTX670/HG7950 would give less of a noticeable performance upgrade than an SSD?  Keep living the delusion...:shadedshu



Actually yes, going from the last gen top end of video cards to the next gen top end would be a less noticible improvement than going from a spinning hdd to an ssd.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 23, 2012)

beck24 said:


> Cold start to open browser in 10 seconds. Applications pop open like a light switch. I'm never going back.



thats what i thought, til my vertex II died. and now i want to wait a few gens.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jun 23, 2012)

Mussels said:


> thats what i thought, til my vertex II died. and now i want to wait a few gens.



Buy an Intel? 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4202/the-intel-ssd-510-review/3


----------



## Mussels (Jun 23, 2012)

kid41212003 said:


> Buy an Intel?
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/4202/the-intel-ssd-510-review/3



damned interesting link, seeing as all i hear about is dead OCZ's


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 23, 2012)

kid41212003 said:


> Are u talking about selling ur current hardware plus adding some money to buy a new video card?
> 
> You should try an SSD before actually criticize it.



I have tried SSDs, several of them, never found the cost worth it at all.

And yes, if I had $150 to spend, I'd sell my current card and put the $150 towards a replacement.



techtard said:


> Actually yes, going from the last gen top end of video cards to the next gen top end would be a less noticible improvement than going from a spinning hdd to an ssd.



Really, what kind of framerate boost are people getting from an SSD? Programs and games on my rig already launch in under 10 seconds, so an SSD shaves a few seconds off that, and that is a noticeable difference?  No, it isn't.

Sorry, going from 45FPS to 60FPS certianly is more noticeable than the game's loading screen being 5 seconds shorter and Windows booting 15 seconds faster. And yes, those are actual time difference I measured on my rig when it had an SSD in it compared to the Seagate 7200.12.

If I had $150 laying around, an SSD would not be what I would spend it on, they aren't worth it.  At this point, I'd probably just save the $150 actually.


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 23, 2012)

Mussels said:


> damned interesting link, seeing as all i hear about is dead OCZ's



no samsung in that list???


----------



## kid41212003 (Jun 23, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> I have tried SSDs, several of them, never found the cost worth it at all.
> 
> And yes, if I had $150 to spend, I'd sell my current card and put the $150 towards a replacement.
> 
> ...



You must be getting old. Old people have a lot of patience (really old one).

Follow up to what i said in the last page:

With a $250 VGA card, gtx 560ti for example, can play any game out there with max setting @1680x1050/1920x1080 with an exception of VERY few games that can't.

I'm pretty sure the majority of us spend out time browsing webs and using programs which an SSD will actually matter more even just by the seconds. Smartphone users will probably understand what I mean here.

SSD will affect all your programs, while a VGA card will only make games faster. I don't think the majority of us play games all day to live.

Maybe it's a matter of opinion, but I think my points fit the majority of gamers with average budget that want to get the best bang for their buck.

Advertisement: Intel 330 Series 120GB with 500/500 read/write for less than $150 @ google.com!


----------



## Morgoth (Jun 23, 2012)

@ kidd0 a ram drive makes ur pc allot faster to.. cost nothing


----------



## TRWOV (Jun 23, 2012)

Hustler said:


> Give me 256Gb for $100 and i'll go for it...until then, no thanks.
> 
> And I'm still not convinced of their reliability, many forums i visit seem full of people having problems with them.



I prefer to use them for caching. That way if they go bad I have the HDD as a fallback.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jun 23, 2012)

kid41212003 said:


> Buy an Intel?
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/4202/the-intel-ssd-510-review/3



Intel's READs kinda suck much??


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jun 23, 2012)

kid41212003 said:


> Are u talking about selling ur current hardware plus adding some money to buy a new video card?
> 
> You should try an SSD before actually criticize it.



If you have a gaming rig, SSDs don't do anything for you in terms for FPS performance. Only load times, and right now games on a normal mechanical drive load fast enough. You must be like 10 years old if you cannot wait 10 seconds for a game to load. I only have an SSD to Windows and all my games and everything else is on a mechanical.



remixedcat said:


> no samsung in that list???



Why would Samsung be on that list. They are some of the most reliable drives right now. Intel, Crucial, and Samsung if you want reliability is the way to go.


----------



## theonedub (Jun 23, 2012)

I was a non-believer in the performance difference SSDs supposedly gave until I got my Performance Pro 256GB- fast boot and shutdown, program installs are insanely fast, programs load near instantly, MSE scan times are 3-4x faster, and the list goes on. I agree that if you have a good all around system and want to up your system performance/response time, buy an SSD.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 23, 2012)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> And why is that? I remember paying ~€200 for a low end 4GB drive. I remember 64MB USB sticks costing nearly €100. You get 2GB sticks for free nowadays. SSDs will get larger and larger and thus price per GB gets lower, it's simply how things work.


Because of the size of an electron.  Magnetism will always be more compact.


----------



## Gsa700 (Jun 23, 2012)

I'll probably regret saying this.......BUT!

I have 3 OCZ drives and haven't had any trouble with any of them.

120 GB Vertex
64 GB Vertex
60 GB Agility 3

I am glad to see the prices drop though. Maybe a sweet 256 GB is in my future....


----------



## cedrac18 (Jun 23, 2012)

Gsa700 said:


> I'll probably regret saying this.......BUT!
> 
> I have 3 OCZ drives and haven't had any trouble with any of them.
> 
> ...



I have an Agility 2 90GB 3.5 inch version super solid and reliable for over a year. Still have plenty of space left and cannot justify buying  a new one. And lol at the guy saying a new graphics card is better to have than an SSD. Not all of us play games 24/7 maybe you should check out the ssd vs hdd comparos on youtube. Responsive system > an extra 10 fps that i could achieve by adjusting some sliders.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 23, 2012)

kid41212003 said:


> You must be getting old. Old people have a lot of patience (really old one).
> 
> Follow up to what i said in the last page:
> 
> ...



Awesome, a 120GB drive that I can't install even a fraction of my games and programs on, what a great help that would be!  Yeah, I can spend $150 to shave 15 seconds off my boot time!  That is totally worth the money.

And I suggest you try some more modern games before saying a GTX560ti can handle them.  Just go look at some video card reviews, W1z's review has a fair share of games that even the GTX570 can't handle at 1900x1200, even without using max settings.  Alan Wake, Alien vs. Predator, Arkham City, Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Dragon Age II, Shogun 2, Skyrim, and those are just the ones in his review, I've got several more install right now that a GTX560ti couldn't handle at 1900x1200.

And after the ~30 second Windows boot time on my mechanical drive, all of my programs load in under 5 seconds thanks to Windows Superfetch, so an SSD is pretty useless unless you are using it to load games faster, and since I can't fit all of the games I play regularly on a 120GB drive $150 for an SSD would be useless.


----------



## Gsa700 (Jun 23, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Awesome, a 120GB drive that I can't install even a fraction of my games and programs on, what a great help that would be!  Yeah, I can spend $150 to shave 15 seconds off my boot time!  That is totally worth the money.
> 
> And I suggest you try some more modern games before saying a GTX560ti can handle them.  Just go look at some video card reviews, W1z's review has a fair share of games that even the GTX570 can't handle at 1900x1200, even without using max settings.  Alan Wake, Alien vs. Predator, Arkham City, Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Dragon Age II, Shogun 2, Skyrim, and those are just the ones in his review, I've got several more install right now that a GTX560ti couldn't handle at 1900x1200.
> 
> And after the ~30 second Windows boot time on my mechanical drive, all of my programs load in under 5 seconds thanks to Windows Superfetch, so an SSD is pretty useless unless you are using it to load games faster, and since I can't fit all of the games I play regularly on a 120GB drive $150 for an SSD would be useless.



No one is suggesting that there is no longer a place in high end systems for a HDD. I have SSD system drives in all my machines and I can tell you it is not about boot times. No HDD configuration, no matter how fast it might be, can match even an entry level SSD in latency and access times which is what improves the user experience much more than just sequential read and write.

As for gaming, my gaming rig has an Agility 3 SSD for the windows drive, and a RAID0 of Caviar Black HDD for storing the game files and VM's.

Windows Superfetch cannot compare. RAID anything cannot compare. SSD is the fastest. No one ever debated the capacity issue.

Get an SSD, you will see the light like most other enthusiasts have.


----------



## Fourstaff (Jun 23, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Awesome, a 120GB drive that I can't install even a fraction of my games and programs on, what a great help that would be!  Yeah, I can spend $150 to shave 15 seconds off my boot time!  That is totally worth the money.
> 
> And I suggest you try some more modern games before saying a GTX560ti can handle them.  Just go look at some video card reviews, W1z's review has a fair share of games that even the GTX570 can't handle at 1900x1200, even without using max settings.  Alan Wake, Alien vs. Predator, Arkham City, Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Dragon Age II, Shogun 2, Skyrim, and those are just the ones in his review, I've got several more install right now that a GTX560ti couldn't handle at 1900x1200.
> 
> And after the ~30 second Windows boot time on my mechanical drive, all of my programs load in under 5 seconds thanks to Windows Superfetch, so an SSD is pretty useless unless you are using it to load games faster, and since I can't fit all of the games I play regularly on a 120GB drive $150 for an SSD would be useless.



Both of us know that SSD is not for everyone, and its clearly not for you. Why try to defend that "SSD is no good" because it doesn't fit your expectations, needs or wants?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 23, 2012)

Gsa700 said:


> No one is suggesting that there is no longer a place in high end systems for a HDD. I have SSD system drives in all my machines and I can tell you it is not about boot times. No HDD configuration, no matter how fast it might be, can match even an entry level SSD in latency and access times which is what improves the user experience much more than just sequential read and write.
> 
> As for gaming, my gaming rig has an Agility 3 SSD for the windows drive, and a RAID0 of Caviar Black HDD for storing the game files and VM's.
> 
> ...



I guess you didn't read that I've had several SSDs.  It does not improve the experience, Windows isn't any more reacitive, most programs don't even open any faster.  As I said, with a mechanical drive most programs, including large ones like the Adobe programs, open in under 5 seconds.  There isn't much improving on that, certainly not enough to justify spending any money on it.

And the capacity issue does come into play, the point of the SSD it to make things faster, if most of my programs are stored on a mechanical drive anyway, how is the SSD helping beyond boot time?



Fourstaff said:


> Both of us know that SSD is not for everyone, and its clearly not for you. Why try to defend that "SSD is no good" because it doesn't fit your expectations, needs or wants?



I'm not saying the SSD is no good, I'm saying the money can usually be spent elsewhere.  If there is nothing else you can upgrade in your computer, then by all means get an SSD.  But in most cases an SSD is a poor upgrade choice.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jun 23, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> I guess you didn't read that I've had several SSDs.  It does not improve the experience, Windows isn't any more reacitive, most programs don't even open any faster.  As I said, with a mechanical drive most programs, including large ones like the Adobe programs, open in under 5 seconds.  There isn't much improving on that, certainly not enough to justify spending any money on it.
> 
> And the capacity issue does come into play, the point of the SSD it to make things faster, if most of my programs are stored on a mechanical drive anyway, how is the SSD helping beyond boot time?
> 
> ...



It coems down to what you use your system for. Because it is hard to deny the fact that hard drives can be the biggest bottleneck for any system. Day in and Day out a hard drive will be the slowest component of a computer. You put an SSD in and that bottleneck is close to gone.

If you are someone who needs a shit ton of storage and stuff then yeah and SSD isn't for you but typically people nowadays have a small SSD just for windows and then 1TB drives or whatever for games and programs and whatever else.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 24, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> It coems down to what you use your system for. Because it is hard to deny the fact that hard drives can be the biggest bottleneck for any system. Day in and Day out a hard drive will be the slowest component of a computer. You put an SSD in and that bottleneck is close to gone.
> 
> If you are someone who needs a shit ton of storage and stuff then yeah and SSD isn't for you but typically people nowadays have a small SSD just for windows and then 1TB drives or whatever for games and programs and whatever else.



That is my point though, if you have to load all your programs from a mechanical drive anyway than they aren't loading or operating any faster, and the SSD is useless.  Like I said, paying $150 just to have Windows load faster is a complete waste of money.  Once Windows is loaded everything is pretty much instant when clicked on, the user experience is pretty much unchanged with an SSD.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jun 24, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Awesome, a 120GB drive that I can't install even a fraction of my games and programs on, what a great help that would be!  Yeah, I can spend $150 to shave 15 seconds off my boot time!  That is totally worth the money.
> 
> And I suggest you try some more modern games before saying a GTX560ti can handle them.  Just go look at some video card reviews, W1z's review has a fair share of games that even the GTX570 can't handle at 1900x1200, even without using max settings.  Alan Wake, Alien vs. Predator, Arkham City, Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Dragon Age II, Shogun 2, Skyrim, and those are just the ones in his review, I've got several more install right now that a GTX560ti couldn't handle at 1900x1200.
> 
> And after the ~30 second Windows boot time on my mechanical drive, all of my programs load in under 5 seconds thanks to Windows Superfetch, so an SSD is pretty useless unless you are using it to load games faster, and since I can't fit all of the games I play regularly on a 120GB drive $150 for an SSD would be useless.



You must have a lot of time on your hands because most everyone here probably doesn't have 5 games+ installed at the same time. What are you going to do after you completed a game? Leave there and look at it?

I have RAID 0 with 3 and 5 drives even with superfetch it's no where near SSD.

My friend's GTX460 can play ALL of the games you listed with high or medium setting. You're _exaggerating_. Turn off the AA and every game gains 20% FPS.

You completely missed my points too. People don't spend all of their time playing game. An SSD will give a more overall performance boosts for the system while a vga card will only help games.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 24, 2012)

kid41212003 said:


> You must have a lot of time on your hands because most everyone here probably doesn't have 5 games+ installed at the same time. What are you going to do after you completed a game? Leave there and look at it?



No, I tend to play games with replay value.  I also don't have a lot of time to play games, being an adult with a life and a job and a family to support.  So I tend to play an hour at most a day, and I don't play the same game constantly, I get board with the same game.  So I tend to have 10+ games installs and be in the middle of playing each.  I don't play one game until the game is done and then move to the next.



kid41212003 said:


> I have RAID 0 with 3 and 5 drives even with superfetch it's no where near SSD.



Even without Superfetch, everything on my system loads in under a second, even games.  I double click the game icon, and I'm at the opening credits in under a second.  Everything on my system is virtually instant, even things that I havn't opened in months, this didn't improve in any noticeable way with an SSD. Literally the only improvement I saw with an SSD inside of Windows was when I first clicked on the folder I keep on the desktop with all my game and program shortcuts in it after a reboot.  Because all the icons have to be pulled from each program, it would take about 10 seconds for it to fully load and allow me to click on the icons, with the SSD it took about 2 seconds.  However, this was only the very first time I open the folder after a reboot, after that the icon cache was in place and it opens instantly. There was no way that one improvement was worth the $200 I paid for my SSD.



kid41212003 said:


> My friend's GTX460 can play ALL of the games you listed with high or medium setting. You're _exaggerating_. Turn off the AA and every game gains 20% FPS.



No, I'm not exaggerating at all.  If a GTX570 can't play those games smoothly at 60FPS a GTX460 can't.  You are just trying to change your statement because you know it was wrong.  You said every game out there at max settings, you were the one exaggerating.  Now you want to change it to medium settings with no AA?  Sorry, but no.  I could play most games on low with an 8800GT, but I don't want to.  I'm not even opposed to lowering a few settings, but to have to go down to medium settings with no AA to be playable isn't what I want to do.  And sacrificing that for mostly unnoticeable performance improvements in other areas outside of games is dumb.



kid41212003 said:


> You completely missed my points too. People don't spend all of their time playing game. An SSD will give a more overall performance boosts for the system while a vga card will only help games.



No, you missed mine, it isn't even about games, it is about the fact that in everything other than games there is no real noticeable performance improvement with an SSD(again except faster Windows boot times).  And SSD improves load times, Windows boots faster and games load faster, beyond that there isn't a whole lot that an SSD improves. Every other function of Windows 7 is instant.  Programs load instantly when launched, menus come up instantly, everything is pretty much instant, an SSD just doesn't improve performance nearly as much as you claim.

But I'm not going to argue with you anymore.  You can believe what you want.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 24, 2012)

newtekie: i agree with your arguments, and that its not valid for your setup.


however, SSD's are certainly viable for HTPC's (no noise), and laptops (less fragile, faster can equal more power savings since the drive idles more).

I certainly noticed speed increases when i had my SSD, its just that it was never that big a deal. i use S3 sleep, so i had no long load times, no caches to rebuild, etc.

SSD's are getting better value, so now more people want them. its that simple.


----------



## cedrac18 (Jun 24, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> No, you missed mine, it isn't even about games, it is about the fact that in everything other than games there is no real noticeable performance improvement with an SSD(again except faster Windows boot times).  And SSD improves load times, Windows boots faster and games load faster, beyond that there isn't a whole lot that an SSD improves. Every other function of Windows 7 is instant.  Programs load instantly when launched, menus come up instantly, everything is pretty much instant, an SSD just doesn't improve performance nearly as much as you claim.
> 
> But I'm not going to argue with you anymore.  You can believe what you want.



And this is the problem everyone is having with your argument there IS a noticeable improvement in overall system response and speed not just windows boot and game load times times, also we are talking about a single HDD versus a single SSD no raid involved. That's also something that i don't know? at least 90% if not all hardware review sites agree with?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 24, 2012)

Mussels said:


> newtekie: i agree with your arguments, and that its not valid for your setup.
> 
> 
> however, SSD's are certainly viable for HTPC's (no noise), and laptops (less fragile, faster can equal more power savings since the drive idles more).
> ...



I can certainly agree with some of that, especially with laptops.  SSDs do use less power, produce less heat, and are less fragile, but they aren't really giving that much of a performance boost there.  But Kid was talking just about the performance an SSD gives.

I don't think an SSD is worth the price in a HTPC.  My HTPC uses a completely silent 5400RPM laptop drive, or at least it is silent from my couch, and since I'm using sleep load times aren't anything to worry about.

I never said there weren't other benefits to SSDs, I just said they weren't worth the prices they currently go for, the benefits don't justify the cost in most cases and the money can usually be spent better elsewhere.  A laptop is a different story, since there usually isn't a whole lot of other places to put the money.  But even still, if I had to pick between two laptops, one with a SSD and the other with a higher resolution screen, I'm taking the higher resolution screen(and yes, I just had to make this decision).


----------



## araditus (Jun 24, 2012)

I can concur with newtekie1 I almost bought an SSD with my last system, but then I bought 4 640bg WD Blacks for the same price (at the time) as a 256gb SSD, I have 12x the space, more proven reliability, and I agree with him that once windows is loaded (bare mine still only takes 13.6 seconds) that every game, program I open I can count to no more than 3 mississippi.


----------



## dom99 (Jun 24, 2012)

I'm going to get a second Samsung 830 256gb for £140 and raid them


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 24, 2012)

I'm getting the Samsung 830 128GB SSD.... I've decided. would get the 256 but it would make me have to wait 1 or even 2 more months... this windows install is getting slow and i'd rather just start fresh on a new drive....


----------



## Xzibit (Jun 25, 2012)

Wake me up when you can get a +500gb SSD for around $100.

In the meantime i'm perfectly fine pushing the start button on my computer and then reaching for a nice cold beverage to take a zip from, Ahh, Windows is done loading.


----------



## Gsa700 (Jun 25, 2012)

Do you guys all really boot up this often? My machines all run 24/7, what is the point of shutting it off every time you are done using it? Just curious.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jun 25, 2012)

kid41212003 said:


> You must have a lot of time on your hands because most everyone here *probably doesn't have 5 games+ installed* at the same time. What are you going to do after you completed a game? Leave there and look at it?
> 
> I have RAID 0 with 3 and 5 drives even with superfetch it's no where near SSD.
> 
> ...



Really? because im pretty sure I have close to 20 games installed all at the same time, right now


----------



## theonedub (Jun 25, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> No, you missed mine, it isn't even about games, it is about the fact that in everything other than games there is no real noticeable performance improvement with an SSD(again except faster Windows boot times).  And SSD improves load times, Windows boots faster and games load faster, beyond that there isn't a whole lot that an SSD improves. Every other function of Windows 7 is instant.  Programs load instantly when launched, menus come up instantly, everything is pretty much instant, an SSD just doesn't improve performance nearly as much as you claim.
> 
> But I'm not going to argue with you anymore.  You can believe what you want.



You've got some points, but I also think you have to take a look at the variety of programs people are running. A prime example is GIMP/Photoshop. These programs will not load instantly on an HDD, but are darn near instant on with a SSD. Antivirus scans that used to take a few minutes now finish in less than 1min. Even simple productivity apps like Office (one of my most used software suites) opens so fast I don't even see the splash screen. Windows Updates get a huge boost, and thats something everyone has to go through. I don't know why its so slow on a mech drive, but on with the SSD the updates finish very quickly. 

While some of the improvements indeed only shave seconds or fractions of seconds, I don't think that even the _perceived _performance boost is something we should dismiss.


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jun 25, 2012)

Hustler said:


> Give me 256Gb for $100 and i'll go for it...until then, no thanks.
> 
> And I'm still not convinced of their reliability, many forums i visit seem full of people having problems with them.




hm reminds me of the other day with my Samsung 256gb ssd, i tried to boot up 3 times and then when i did my log on account had gone along-side my google chrome, and all my links 
it would only log me into a temp account  so it's been formatted since and had a firmware update 

not put win 7 back on it yet


as for the price i paid £300 for it or 467.65 US dollars, now a few months after buying it it's gone down to £209.99 or 327.34 US dollars


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 25, 2012)

theonedub said:


> You've got some points, but I also think you have to take a look at the variety of programs people are running. A prime example is GIMP/Photoshop. These programs will not load instantly on an HDD, but are darn near instant on with a SSD.



Photoshop and Premiere load in under a second after I launch them, though I haven't tried GIMP(I have Photoshop so no need for GIMP).  So yes, on an HDD they do load darn near instantly.  Don't believe me?  See Here.  Seriously, it doesn't get much faster, with my SSD I noticed no difference when launching these programs.



theonedub said:


> Antivirus scans that used to take a few minutes now finish in less than 1min.



Your virus scans should be running when you aren't using the computer, and if you are using a good AV it doesn't matter if it runs when you are using the computer, because it shouldn't be noticeable.



theonedub said:


> Even simple productivity apps like Office (one of my most used software suites) opens so fast I don't even see the splash screen.



I see the splash screen with Office apps, I do admit, but they open fast enough that the splash screen doesn't even get to load fully before the app opens, so I think I can save the $150 and deal with seeing the splash screen for a fraction of a second...



theonedub said:


> Windows Updates get a huge boost, and thats something everyone has to go through. I don't know why its so slow on a mech drive, but on with the SSD the updates finish very quickly.



We it actually makes since, because Windows Updates are usually accessing a large number of different small files, where an SSD shines.  But Windows Updates don't bother me with a mechanical hard drive, they are set to install automatically while I'm at work.  I honestly can't tell you the last time an update was applied when I was on the computer.  So I'll save the $150 and just install the updates when I'm not on the computer.



theonedub said:


> While some of the improvements indeed only shave seconds or fractions of seconds, I don't think that even the _perceived_performance boost is something we should dismiss.



I do.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 25, 2012)

Gsa700 said:


> Do you guys all really boot up this often? My machines all run 24/7, what is the point of shutting it off every time you are done using it? Just curious.



noise, power, heat.

 i use S3 sleep rather than shutting it off, however.


----------



## theonedub (Jun 25, 2012)

Looks like it comes down to whether or not users think its a worthwhile upgrade for them. Its definitely worth it to me, so I guess I'll just enjoy the luxury. Thanks for throwing that video together, that is remarkably fast- my F1 drive never came close to opening PS with that speed and its not a slow drive by any means.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 25, 2012)

theonedub said:


> Looks like it comes down to whether or not users think its a worthwhile upgrade for them. Its definitely worth it to me, so I guess I'll just enjoy the luxury. Thanks for throwing that video together, that is remarkably fast- my F1 drive never came close to opening PS with that speed and its not a slow drive by any means.



I found an older video I did the includes InDesign and Word and Excel, Word and Excel open instantly, the video barely even catchs the splash screen.












Gsa700 said:


> Do you guys all really boot up this often? My machines all run 24/7, what is the point of shutting it off every time you are done using it? Just curious.



I actually do turn mine off every day. Generally I turn it on when I get home from work, and turn it off when I go to sleep, and on my days off I turn it on in the morning and off at night. I don't turn it off every time I'm not using it though.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 25, 2012)

i like that the price is coming down rapidly now. i dont plan on making any big upgrades in the near future since my rig can easily play any game without any issue and the vga is the most expensive component in my machine. however, it seems like for $150 i will see vast improvements for everything else running a SSD since i currently just have a single 500 gb drive.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jun 25, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> No, I'm not exaggerating at all.  If a GTX570 can't play those games smoothly at 60FPS a GTX460 can't.  You are just trying to change your statement because you know it was wrong.  You said every game out there at max settings, you were the one exaggerating.  Now you want to change it to medium settings with no AA?  Sorry, but no.  I could play most games on low with an 8800GT, but I don't want to.  I'm not even opposed to lowering a few settings, but to have to go down to medium settings with no AA to be playable isn't what I want to do.  And sacrificing that for mostly unnoticeable performance improvements in other areas outside of games is dumb.
> 
> No, you missed mine, it isn't even about games, it is about the fact that in everything other than games there is no real noticeable performance improvement with an SSD(again except faster Windows boot times).  And SSD improves load times, Windows boots faster and games load faster, beyond that there isn't a whole lot that an SSD improves. Every other function of Windows 7 is instant.  Programs load instantly when launched, menus come up instantly, everything is pretty much instant, an SSD just doesn't improve performance nearly as much as you claim.
> 
> But I'm not going to argue with you anymore.  You can believe what you want.



All your statements are based on your own experiences on your own machine. 

And the fact that you're running RAID0 don't really demonstrate what others non-SSD users are experiencing on a SPINNING HDD either. Still, the more HDDs in raid the more delay you will have (access time). Games don't need massive bandwidth to load quickly. They need low access time, but SSD has both anyway.

Maybe you don't really play many multiplayer games with a lot of loading between matches, so a few seconds don't really bother you, but you're now the minority. Everything new that's coming out have mutliplayer component. Every match requires loading.

Without Windows nothing can run. Windows runs faster = programs itself run faster. I don't even need to mention the faster access time and higher bandwidth of the ssd.

I'm not exactly stupid to spend $250 (now it's just $150 and even faster) for an SSD that provides little performance. I did my homework. My SSD gives me more than what I expected, and I also had 5 HDDs in RAID0 before (now I have 3). I moved from that and I'm still impressed.

You're the only one who came back to spinning HDD after trying SSD as far as I know, and probably the only one in existence. 

I only disagree with you and in your 1st post you called me delusional.

I had respects for you. Now it's lost. Your opinions are so strong you can't take anything else in.

Gotta empty your cup old man.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 25, 2012)

kid41212003 said:


> You're the only one who came back to spinning HDD after trying SSD as far as I know, and probably the only one in existence.
> 
> I only disagree with you and in your 1st post you called me delusional.
> 
> ...



nope, i went back to spinners. my SSD gave me lots of performance issues before it died, and i'm not willing to go through that again.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 25, 2012)

kid41212003 said:


> All your statements are based on your own experiences on your own machine*S*.



FTFY



kid41212003 said:


> And the fact that you're running RAID0 don't really demonstrate what others non-SSD users are experiencing on a SPINNING HDD either. Still, the more HDDs in raid the more delay you will have (access time). Games don't need massive bandwidth to load quickly. They need low access time, but SSD has both anyway.



Try reading the system specs and sig again, the RAID0 is a data drive. That rig has a single HDD that has the OS and all the programs installed on it.  And that isn't even my main rig, my main rig is running RAID5 with a single OS drive, it is even labeled that way.  Not hard to figure out.

And about games, Deus Ex is one of the worst games with load times, and it literally takes 16 seconds to load from the main menu to playing the game.  I can wait.



kid41212003 said:


> Maybe you don't really play many multiplayer games with a lot of loading between matches, so a few seconds don't really bother you, but you're now the minority. Everything new that's coming out have mutliplayer component. Every match requires loading.



I play plenty of multiplayer, the load times aren't bad, most of the time is syncing with the server anyway.  But beyond that, if it is just going from match to match on the same server, it is either reloading the same map so the data is cached and loading is super fast, or I'm loaded in waiting for the next match to start or for other people to finish loading into the match.

Switching between different servers can cause a longer load time, but generally it is still under 10 seconds, so I can wait.



kid41212003 said:


> Without Windows nothing can run. Windows runs faster = programs itself run faster. I don't even need to mention the faster access time and higher bandwidth of the ssd.



Now your just grasping.  Windows isn't helping apps run faster just because the OS is on an SSD, it doesn't work that way.  The app is still on a mechanical hard drive, the data needed to run that app has to be loaded from the mechanical hard drive, so the app still loads just as slow with the SSD as without.



kid41212003 said:


> I'm not exactly stupid to spend $250 (now it's just $150 and even faster) for an SSD that provides little performance. I did my homework. My SSD gives me more than what I expected, and I also had 5 HDDs in RAID0 before (now I have 3). I moved from that and I'm still impressed.



Yes, yes you are that stupid.  And now your are defending that purchase tooth and nail because there is no way anyone is going to tell you it wasn't a wise purchase.  I personally would have upgrading the GTX480 instead but eh what would I know...



kid41212003 said:


> You're the only one who came back to spinning HDD after trying SSD as far as I know, and probably the only one in existence.



Obviously I'm not.



kid41212003 said:


> I only disagree with you and in your 1st post you called me delusional.
> 
> I had respects for you. Now it's lost. Your opinions are so strong you can't take anything else in.
> 
> Gotta empty your cup old man.



Actually, that would have been my second post, and you are delusional.  But you can keep lying to yourself, if that's what makes you feel better about wasting money on an overprices SSD.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jun 25, 2012)

Gsa700 said:


> Do you guys all really boot up this often? My machines all run 24/7, what is the point of shutting it off every time you are done using it? Just curious.



I am also using sleep mode function, so an SSD is irrelevant since Windows starts up again in less than 2 sec....


----------



## Totally (Jun 25, 2012)

Mussels said:


> nope, i went back to spinners. my SSD gave me lots of performance issues before it died, and i'm not willing to go through that again.



Same here, mine died on me too. Less than a month of use and without warning went kaput. It's replacement, M4 256, working coaster duty since i got it.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Jun 25, 2012)

Hustler said:


> Give me 256Gb for $100 and i'll go for it...until then, no thanks.
> 
> And I'm still not convinced of their reliability, many forums i visit seem full of people having problems with them.



Simple: SSD for OS, apps, temps and pagefile.  HDD for data.

Better: Backup your important data on a regular basis.

Rock solid: RAID your backup.


----------



## Ahhzz (Jun 25, 2012)

Grings said:


> Never mind 256gb drives, i wanna see 512gb+ ones get affordable



No doubt, I'm running a 2Tb hard drive, and downgrading to that small a drive is not really appetizing....


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jun 25, 2012)

Ahhzz said:


> No doubt, I'm running a 2Tb hard drive, and downgrading to that small a drive is not really appetizing....



You have 2TB of data that needs to be accessible that fast? It's not SSD or HD, you can have both.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 25, 2012)

Ahhzz said:


> No doubt, I'm running a 2Tb hard drive, and downgrading to that small a drive is not really appetizing....






DanTheBanjoman said:


> You have 2TB of data that needs to be accessible that fast? It's not SSD or HD, you can have both.



what dan said, i run about 18TB of drives total (with only about 12TB of data atm), and a 120GB SSD did me just fine.


the attitude of fitting absolutely everything on one hard drive is scary to me, data loss would cost you everything.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jun 25, 2012)

Damn son, wtf are you storing for 12TB?!??!??


----------



## m1ch (Jun 25, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> Damn son, wtf are you storing for 12TB?!??!??



My vote goes for HD pron


----------



## Mussels (Jun 25, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> Damn son, wtf are you storing for 12TB?!??!??



if 2TB is good... ONE PER SATA PORT.








(and THEN get the port multipliers out on E-sata!)

(and thats not even all of them, got a few i just havent connected in a while)


----------



## TRWOV (Jun 25, 2012)

<off-topic>

And here I was thinking that 4 HDDs were a little too much (5TB total). What's all that for? BD rips? I have an extra 2.5" 320GB where I backup  the important (work) stuff. Everything else I have backed up on DVDs or I have the original media.

</off-topic>


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 25, 2012)

This news post has spawned quite a discussion/long thread over at overclock.net.


----------



## AsRock (Jun 26, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> If you have a gaming rig, SSDs don't do anything for you in terms for FPS performance. Only load times, and right now games on a normal mechanical drive load fast enough. You must be like 10 years old if you cannot wait 10 seconds for a game to load. I only have an SSD to Windows and all my games and everything else is on a mechanical.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would Samsung be on that list. They are some of the most reliable drives right now. Intel, Crucial, and Samsung if you want reliability is the way to go.



Their is the odd game were it can help.. One is Arma 2 when the spawning happens on the massive custom missions were it would give you much smoother game play and are even better when running a dedicated server.

So you are right about the FPS but depending on game smoother gameplay if the game engine has to load while playing.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jun 26, 2012)

@Mussels

Still no answer on what are you storing on those...


----------



## Mussels (Jun 26, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> @Mussels
> 
> Still no answer on what are you storing on those...



everything. i'm entitled to legal backups of TV shows (TV tuner card), movies that i own, and subtitled anime that isnt available in my region. i also have a technet account, so i've got ISO's for every version of windows, with each level of service pack. even linux iso's.

i also have backups for people i know as well - i fix their laptop, i backup their stuff. cause i know they'll break it again in a week anyway -.-


----------



## CounterZeus (Jun 26, 2012)

I jumped on the SSD wagon as well now, ordered a Samsung 830 128GB


----------



## w3b (Jun 29, 2012)

Mussels said:


> if 2TB is good... ONE PER SATA PORT.



Love the Samsungs there (Seagate had to buy them out  ); at that rate you'll be looking at building a NAS in no time 

As for SSDs; none here either due to price and reliability (too much of a 'customer = paying beta tester' vibe going on atm for my liking  ) and lack of suitability for my requirements.


----------



## Irony (Jun 29, 2012)

I got a little baby 60gb OCZ agility for $45, good for OS. Gotta love 14 second bootups.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jun 29, 2012)

nice


----------



## Phusius (Jul 21, 2012)

You can get a 128Gb Crucial m4 SSD off Buy.com for 34.95.  That is what I did last week, it's $5 off for new customers so 89.95 to 84.95, and then $50 more off when you sign up for a no annual fee Visa.  Which I did.  Canceled the credit card after I paid the 34.95, xD


----------



## alucasa (Jul 21, 2012)

SSD has been the greatest and cheapest upgrades for me.

I wasn't one of those early adapters but close. When I tried out a cheap (for that time) 32gb SSD on an old laptop that used to run like 18 year old bitter dog, it suddenly came to life running like 3 months old kitten. 

Since then, after some researching, I purchased mostly Intel SSDs. It's been some years now and none of them has failed on me so far.

Me not going back.

Games don't matter to me as I don't think I really have time to play games anyway. Well, I do play Football Manager 2012 and have like 2000 hours in it according to Steam.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Sep 14, 2012)

Prices are falling like old tea-cakes.

Just bought 2x 240GB Vertex 3 MAX IOPS. EUR 124 each. http://geizhals.at/de/?phist=630770&age=183

Laptop was struggling with iTunes BLOAT. And slowing to a crawl with just 3GB left on the OS partition. So bought a 240GB for less than the 120GB is replaces.  120GB goes into workstation as OS drive... with HDD for data.


----------



## Frick (Sep 14, 2012)

Completely Bonkers said:


> Prices are falling like old tea-cakes.
> 
> Just bought 2x 240GB Vertex 3 MAX IOPS. EUR 124 each. http://geizhals.at/de/?phist=630770&age=183
> 
> Laptop was struggling with iTunes BLOAT. And slowing to a crawl with just 3GB left on the OS partition. So bought a 240GB for less than the 120GB is replaces.  120GB goes into workstation as OS drive... with HDD for data.



Holy crap that's a good price! They're a bit more here, and still I can't afford one! Rawr!


----------



## Irony (Sep 14, 2012)

That is an awesome price. My friend managed to stack some coupons on top of a good deal on newegg a couple months ago, got that same drive for the same price, $160 dollars. I'm waiting for a really good deal on a 512 vertex 4 or something like that though.


----------



## m1dg3t (Sep 15, 2012)

I lucked out and got an Adata 256Gb for $165! If it works I'll be looking for another one in the future! Especially @ that price  I don't need more than 500Gb on this current "build" 

HDD MFGs, ESPECIALLY WesternDigital, will never see a $ from my wallet again. You wanna ROB people? Ok. No problemo! You never see my currency AGAIN! Same goes for Asus. Goddamned thieves.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Sep 15, 2012)

What's wrong with Asus?


----------

