# SSD or VelociRaptors?



## stefanels (Nov 20, 2011)

Hi all. I need an upgrade for my OS and i not sure what to buy... I want to buy a SSD (96 or 128 GB) but after reading many reviews from Newegg i'm not sure about this... But, i have another choice... a friend of mine has 2x WD VelociRaptor's (WD WD1600HLFS 160GB) in RAID and he's selling them for a very low price (like 130 USD both) and i was thinking to buy it...

What do you think that i should do ?


----------



## Shihab (Nov 20, 2011)

An SSD would smother even the Velociraptor in any benchmark. Only drawback is the price per GB. Though I don't think anyone would buy an SSD for storage anyway.
I vote for the SSD.
What's wrong with the reviews ?


----------



## linoliveira (Nov 20, 2011)

no way in getting 2x HDD (even Raptors) over an SSD for the OS!

and... with more 19$ you can get an OCZ Agility 3 120G at Newegg with rebate.

TPU has an article on the Agility 3, and you can compare it over the VelociRaptor, and you will see a huge performance difference.


----------



## Feänor (Nov 20, 2011)

The ssd will blow any raid 0 (up to even 4 drives) array out of the water. Period. Just choose the os ssd with $/gb in mind, then see what storage option you need. I have a vortex 2 and it just blew me how much faster it is than my previous raid 0 set-up (4 velocirator 74 gb). I'll NEVER go back to hard drives for the os drive!


----------



## Champ (Nov 20, 2011)

So i'm a little behind in storage devices and my brother showed me hybrid drives. How do they fit in this mix?


----------



## linoliveira (Nov 20, 2011)

Champ said:


> So i'm a little behind in storage devices and my brother showed me hybrid drives. How do they fit in this mix?



Hybrid drives use a small SSD for caching the files you use most, and an HDD for storage. For example: 16GB SDD + 750GB HDD in the same drive.
Imagine you boot for the fist time into windows. It will be slow as an HDD, but the second time you boot into windows, it will be much faster due to the SSD cache. But remember... 16GB can't store everything, so you will not experience the 24/7 super fast speed of an SSD using a hybrid drive.

Conclusion: Get an SSD!


----------



## stefanels (Nov 20, 2011)

That TPU review helped me much to see the difference... 
So my other question now it's, what model/manufacturer to buy:
1. OCZ Solid 3 SLD3-25SAT3-120G 2.5" 120GB SATA III MLC
2. Intel X25-M SSDSA2MJ080G201 2.5" 80GB SATA II MLC 
3. Kingston SSDNow V100 SV100S2N/128GZ 2.5" 128GB SATA II

These 3 models i can buy from a local store...


----------



## Feänor (Nov 20, 2011)

You've got only sata2 ports, so keep that in mind when shopping, unless you intend to upgrade your platform to sata3 in the near future. If not, then sata3 ssd performance will be wasted because of the sata2 ceiling. This gets the solid 3 out.

Between the other two, i,d go for the intel, because iirc it is faster than the kingston. You would have to read some reviews to declare a winner. Google is your friend!


----------



## btarunr (Nov 20, 2011)

Shihabyooo said:


> What's wrong with the reviews ?



Reliability. I don't blame them. My SSD often refuses to start. The system starts up with "No boot device, umad bro?" errors. Then I have to power off the system and cold-start it again till the HDD activity LED blinks during POST and the system boots up normally. Sometimes the system freezes over with the HDD activity LED on bright for a few minutes, then the system resumes. Going through countless support forums only taught me that these are things you have to live with if you have an SSD.


----------



## N-Gen (Nov 20, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Reliability. I don't blame them. My SSD often refuses to start. The system starts up with "No boot device, umad bro?" errors. Then I have to power off the system and cold-start it again till the HDD activity LED blinks during POST and the system boots up normally. Sometimes the system freezes over with the HDD activity LED on bright for a few minutes, then the system resumes. Going through countless support forums only taught me that these are things you have to live with if you have an SSD.



Happened to me quite a few times in the last few weeks, seemed to have quit doing it now though.


----------



## linoliveira (Nov 20, 2011)

What is the pricing of the OCZ Solid 3 120GB and Intel X25-M 80GB at the local store?


----------



## Geofrancis (Nov 20, 2011)

raptors in raid are fast compared to a normal 7200 drive but its very noisy and still cant come close to ssd performance.


----------



## stefanels (Nov 20, 2011)

linoliveira said:


> What is the pricing of the OCZ Solid 3 120GB and Intel X25-M 80GB at the local store?



Both is priced the same... like 190-200 Euros


----------



## Neuromancer (Nov 20, 2011)

Feanor said:


> You've got only sata2 ports, so keep that in mind when shopping, unless you intend to upgrade your platform to sata3 in the near future. If not, then sata3 ssd performance will be wasted because of the sata2 ceiling. This gets the solid 3 out.
> 
> Between the other two, i,d go for the intel, because iirc it is faster than the kingston. You would have to read some reviews to declare a winner. Google is your friend!



Nope not at all. The biggest improvement is small file writes, and a SATA 6Gbps hooked up to a SATA2 port will be held to the 285/275 max read write limitation, however, you will hit that much earlier, which is where it is most important.

DEFINTELY get a sata 6G drive even if you are only running SATA2 at the minute. 

Second reason is, when you do upgrade to a SATA 6Gbps board you will experience the full speed capability on large file transfers 

EDIT: Vertex2 was the first SSD that had me dump my vraps in RAID0 to move to SSD. Before sata2 had sandforce it was NOT worth it.

@btarunr, yeah I would not go with a V100 either. They are super cheap though, so it gets you the feel you just have to deal with the chaff.  The sandforce issues have been resolved on SATA 6G although I never experienced them myself I have only had 6 SATA 6G drives. (1 of them I knew before it got to my door it had to be RMAed (corsair Force 120GB) for precisely that reason you mentioned) I did have dissappearing SSD with indilinx drives both reactor and nova series. All in all only corsair products have steered me wrong... Ironic that all I read about are OCZ issues, guess being the largest SSD company out there they will get the most bad press)


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Nov 20, 2011)

If you go with an SSD, stay way from OCZ. They cant make a reliable SSD to save their ass. Get a Corsair or maybe a Patriot. Any SSD would probably be better than an OCZ. I hear nothing and read nothing but bad reviews about them.


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Nov 20, 2011)

I have 3 x 150gb raptors in raid 0 and a vertex 2 on my other pc and there is still a noticable difference in speed between the 2.  The SSD machine only has a dual core processor in it and it still boots to windows a good 15seconds quicker than the raid 0 in my gaming machine.


----------



## linoliveira (Nov 20, 2011)

stefanels said:


> Both is priced the same... like 190-200 Euros



That is damn expensive! 

I would suggest the Solid 3 because the X25 can't hit the wall of SATA 2 in write speeds, and they cost the same.

And as Neuromancer said, if you upgrade to a SATA 3 board, you got the full speed! 


PS: I hate USA so much... because of their low prices!


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Nov 21, 2011)

linoliveira said:


> That is damn expensive!
> 
> I would suggest the Solid 3 because the X25 can't hit the wall of SATA 2 in write speeds, and they cost the same.
> 
> ...



Lol. Low prices? a 1TB WD black HDD is $209! I woudlnt call that a low price.


----------



## stefanels (Nov 21, 2011)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Lol. Low prices? a 1TB WD black HDD is $209! I woudlnt call that a low price.



In Romania a WD 1Tb Black is 220 USD... A little more than in the US...


----------



## kenkickr (Nov 21, 2011)

The closest thing I could say to even recommending a VR over a SSD is if your looking for a good/fast drive for your temp/temp internet directory for a SSD.  VR doesn't come close to 1/2 the performance of a SSD.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Nov 21, 2011)

Factor in shipping for the US and its only a $4 USD difference.


----------



## John Doe (Nov 21, 2011)

Personally, I'd shoot for the pair of VRap's. Read/write wise, they'd be up there with an SSD of same price. The SSD offers near instant access times, but it nowhere is as reliable as a VRap. The VRap is a 2.5 inch HDD under a 3.5 cooling enclousure. It not only is faster than a regular HDD, but also has a lower profile. SSD's (cheap MLC) are bound to firmware issues -- to die out of nowhere. And when it does, there's no way to recover info from logical media. VRap's offer superior redundancy over an SSD.


----------



## Bo$$ (Nov 21, 2011)

If you are spending money why not just end it all and get an SSD. They run MUCH MUCH cooler than vraps, NO noise at all as there are no moving parts, Instant acess time, which make them feel MUCH quicker than any number of mechanical drives in raid regardless of speed and have a good reliability......

As far as i've heard only a few of them have had firmware issues, OCZ are Excellent with their firmware releases and have a superb warranty service!

Im actually getting a Vertex 2E myself 

these are excellent choices:
1. OCZ Solid 3 SLD3-25SAT3-120G 2.5" 120GB SATA III MLC
2. Intel X25-M SSDSA2MJ080G201 2.5" 80GB SATA II MLC 

but I personally would have the OCZ as i know they have a good warranty


----------



## John Doe (Nov 21, 2011)

Bo$$ said:


> SSD. They run MUCH MUCH cooler than vraps, NO noise at all as there are no moving parts, Instant acess time, which make them feel MUCH quicker than any number of mechanical drives in raid regardless of speed and have a good reliability..



SSD's don't have good reliability at all... you don't have to worry about a HDD's condition. Other hand, you have to do the SSD tweaks (if not already done) and make sure you don't constantly write on the SSD (take down it's cycles).

I ditched mine for a VRap and haven't looked back (yes). Also, the VRap can't be compared to the old Raptors. People still think they're loud and hot running. They aren't. In fact, mine is idling at 19C right now. It's close to the room temp. And is silent. Remember, it's a "2.5 inch" drive, like a notebook HDD under an aluminum cooling enclousure. Not 3.5 inch like a regular HDD. Furthermore, SSD's run only some degrees cooler. Most the time you don't have a temp sensor on the SSD to see it.

Those things don't matter at all.


----------



## ERazer (Nov 21, 2011)

grab ssd and wont be regretting later on

imo grab intel ssd might not be the fastest ssd but have good reliability and they have utility that will configure your ssd automatically


----------



## linoliveira (Nov 21, 2011)

John Doe said:


> SSD's don't have good reliability at all... you don't have to worry about a HDD's condition. Other hand, you have to do the SSD tweaks (if not already done) and make sure you don't constantly write on the SSD (take down it's cycles).



Right... i see your point but, lets be honest here...
If you are going to buy an OS drive, i assume you got a "store" drive like 1TB+ HDD.
Is that hard to just do some tweaks to the OS (it doesn't take more than 5min of your precious time) rly?
But then... you still say, "your SSD will die in a couple of time because you have limited write cycles". I agree with you, but just think about the usage of an OS drive:
1- Install the OS
2- Install all the drivers/programs/games and updates.
3- Open the apps/games and enjoy it.

Ok, in the start you might do some 200GB writes in a day, but you will not be re-installing the programs every day, will you?
Speaking for myself, i have done 250GB writes on the first day, and 2 months later i have 376GB writes out of 360TB (and i have not deactivated some settings in windows).
The only reason you can get in trouble with an SSD is some random firmware issue.

With my opinion stated above, i complement with the fact that you dont have to defragment an SSD nor wait for the seek of an HDD, experiencing the real deal of a fast computer with a proper Disk Drive!


----------



## John Doe (Nov 21, 2011)

linoliveira said:


> But then... you still say, "your SSD will die in a couple of time because you have limited write cycles". I agree with you, but just think about the usage of an OS drive:
> 1- Install the OS
> 2- Install all the drivers/programs/games and updates.
> 3- Open the apps/games and enjoy it.
> ...



Write cycles aren't the whole issue. It's the flash cells, cheap ones like to die out of nowhere. You don't know when and why an SSD may give up. Thing is, when the SSD shoots itself, you can't recover data from logical media.

As for firmware issues, they aren't related to Windows tweaks. Some SSD's (i.e, SandForce controller) have firmware bugs like the ones Bta mentioned.


----------



## robal (Nov 21, 2011)

Raid 0 arrays do wonders for throughput, but do nothing for latency.
SSD will wipe the floor with HDD array in terms of OS responsiveness.

Cheers


----------



## linoliveira (Nov 21, 2011)

John Doe said:


> As for firmware issues, they aren't related to Windows tweaks. Some SSD's (i.e, SandForce controller) have firmware bugs like the ones Bta mentioned.



Sorry, that was my bad english sense expression :b
I meant, if you do the right tweaks, you have nothing to worry about. The bad luck could be only if your firmware is bad.

Cheers!


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Nov 21, 2011)

Bo$$ said:


> but I personally would have the OCZ as i know they have a good warranty



They would have to given how high a failure rate they have.


----------



## JATownes (Nov 21, 2011)

John Doe said:


> *SSD's don't have good reliability at all*... you don't have to worry about a HDD's condition. Other hand, you have to do the SSD tweaks (if not already done) and make sure you don't constantly write on the SSD (take down it's cycles).



Posted 3 days ago:


John Doe said:


> Uhm, yeah. Time to do some research on what I just mentioned. Look it up then tell me what the IBM guys say about it. *SSD reliability (especially real SLC like ZeusIOP's, single cell only) is much more improved. It's more reliable than a convertional HDD.*



You really need to make up your mind whether an SSD is reliable or not.


----------



## John Doe (Nov 21, 2011)

JATownes said:


> Posted 3 days ago:
> 
> You really need to make up your mind whether an SSD is reliable or not.



You do realize I was on about a €10.000 single level cell only, enterprise only, limited ZeusIOPS SSD, right? It's not your $200 SSD. It's more reliable than even the most reliable HDD. That was an entirely specific case. We're talking about regular MLC flash here, which in no way compares to enterprise SLC.


----------



## Bo$$ (Nov 21, 2011)

John Doe said:


> You do realize I was on about a €10.000 single level cell only, enterprise only, limited ZeusIOPS SSD, right? It's not your $200 SSD. It's more reliable than even the most reliable HDD. That was an entirely specific case. We're talking about regular MLC flash here, which in no way compares to enterprise SLC.



OP doesn't want SLC anyway. Raid is LESS reliable anyway, no backup if one of the *SECOND HAND* drives fail. 


Get an INTEL SSD and call it a day, fast, reliable, less power used


----------



## John Doe (Nov 21, 2011)

Bo$$ said:


> OP doesn't want SLC anyway. Raid is LESS reliable anyway, no backup if one of the *SECOND HAND* drives fail.
> 
> 
> Get an INTEL SSD and call it a day, fast, reliable, less power used



RAID isn't any less reliable than JBOD. RAID isn't back-up, all it does is to stagger multiple drives. Even if one fails, he still can take it up to data center and save the data. What if the SSD fails? It's impossible to recover data from flash media.


----------



## JATownes (Nov 22, 2011)

I understand we were all talking about SLC the other day, but I still believe you are leading the OP in the wrong direction.  If given the choice between VRs in RAID and a quality SSD, I think the answer is clearly the SSD.  SSD (OS) + HDD (Data) + HDD (Backup) is the best combination.  

And I believe the failure rate of HDD & SSDs are right on par with each other:







Source


----------



## John Doe (Nov 22, 2011)

JATownes said:


> I understand we were all talking about SLC the other day, but I still believe you are leading the OP in the wrong direction.  If given the choice between VRs in RAID and a quality SSD, I think the answer is clearly the SSD.  SSD (OS) + HDD (Data) + HDD (Backup) is the best combination.
> 
> And I believe the failure rate of HDD & SSDs are right on par with each other



Failure rate isn't the point. You don't have anything to worry about with an HDD. With an SSD, you do regardless of the size of concern. That's all I'm saying.

And he isn't exactly about to get a "quality" SSD with that kind of budget. 

Further, no, I'm not misleading him to any way. I owned both and there isn't Worlds difference between an SSD to a VRap. I don't care what anyone else says, the SSD isn't a million times faster than a VRap. Yes, it's faster. But not as much as people make it out to be.


----------



## linoliveira (Nov 22, 2011)

John Doe said:


> Further, no, I'm not misleading him to any way. I owned both and there isn't Worlds difference between an SSD to a VRap. I don't care what anyone else says, the SSD isn't a million times faster than a VRap. Yes, it's faster. But not as much as people make it out to be.



Sure! see it for yourself -> LINK

43secs on the raptors VS 14 for the lonely SSD

Know why? Small files are a pain in the ass for HDD's thats where you rly notice the BIG difference from SSD's vs HDD's in RAID 0.
By a large margin, any SSD will kick the raptor's butt. Period


----------



## JATownes (Nov 22, 2011)

John Doe said:


> Failure rate isn't the point. You don't have anything to worry about with an HDD. With an SSD, you do regardless of the size of concern. That's all I'm saying.



That is what a HDD backup is for.  All the performance, and no risk, because you have an automated image of the SSD made every night.  



John Doe said:


> And he isn't exactly about to get a "quality" SSD with that kind of budget.
> 
> Further, no, I'm not misleading him to any way. I owned both and there isn't Worlds difference between an SSD to a VRap. I don't care what anyone else says, the SSD isn't a million times faster than a VRap. Yes, it's faster. But not as much as people make it out to be.



I would argue that.  My SSDs have an amazing track record, and are relatively inexpensive.  I also have owned both, and yes there is a huge difference between the two.  The "hype" about SSDs is very well deserved, as evidenced by everyone in this thread (besides you) recommending the SSDs.


----------



## Chappy (Dec 10, 2011)

I'd honestly personally prefer Caviar Black 2TB than a VelociRaptor. You can even RAID it for performance increase. I already came from a 300GB VelociRaptor but then realized in the end that capacity is much more important than performance. I even read a review that caviar black performs on par or even higher than velociraptor. For me SSD's are just for Notebooks/Laptops as they're more susceptible to accidental drops and concussions. I suggest you go economical and save lots of bucks as our technology are still fresh. You might be able to get one of this or this in the near future... at a amazingly affordable price.


----------



## jgrahl (Dec 10, 2011)

[/URL]  Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]

this is the performance i get with a 150gb raptor and 150gb velociraptor in raid 0


----------



## Jstn7477 (Dec 10, 2011)

I have a Corsair Force 3 120GB and it has been fast and reliable for the last month. OCZ drives seem to die all the time, although any SSD can fail quickly just like some HDDs. The Kingston drives seem to use slow controllers in general, and Intels also have restrained throughput but seem quite reliable. SandForce chipsets are pretty much the fastest, but the SF-2200 series had some nasty firmware issues from release until recently. My Corsair with that chipset has been flawless, though.

For OS, I would take an SSD anyday. For games I still use my Barracuda Green 2GB and to be honest the games seem to load faster without the OS on the HDD, presumably because you can perfectly defrag the files (no unmovable data) and there's no OS competing for drive access while the game is loading.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## rangerone766 (Dec 11, 2011)

jgrahl said:


> this is the performance i get with a 150gb raptor and 150gb velociraptor in raid 0



i run 3x74gig of the old 8meg raptors. and for years they were blazing fast. but it is time to retire them. my xmas gift is going to be a pair of ssd's. so i say go ssd

i will say one thing, my raptors throughput is pretty close to alot of the sata 2 ssd's, but the latencies are way higher with any mechanical drive. almost every thing will be faster with the new tech.


----------



## Canzara (Dec 11, 2011)

SSD, no competition.
After reading through this thread I thought I would share my experiences.
My first SSD was a first generation Solid series from OCZ. (no trim) I had 2x64gb in raid 0. One of these drives eventually died. OCZ was great about replacement and upgraded me to the Solid 2 for replacement with no hassle. 
Me being impatient replaced my Solids while I waited for the replacement drive with a 120gb Kingston V100. it worked fine. Had no issues whatsoever with it.
Never actually used the solid they sent me. 

Now I'm using a 120gb vertex 3. 

Initially when I got this vertex 3 I was using an older chipset with only sata 2. I couldn't see any real world difference between the Kingston and the vertex 3 under sata 2. There were differences in benchmarks, but not all that dramatic, the vertex was faster but again, it was really only noticeable in benches, not real world use.
There were issues with the vertex initially due to the sandforce controller issue that is fairly common with all  of the sata 3 sandforce drives. I had no issue until I upgraded to the 990fx chipset, then my system would crash about once a day and completely lose the drive. A cold boot would fix it and it would be fine for another day.. After much reading about the issues and a couple of firmware updates/experimenting with drivers etc the problem disappeared. For me I found I had no issues using the AMD AHCI driver, but I did have issues using the default windows AHCI driver. At the time the AMD driver was slower so I resented using it, but its not bad now.
I think most of the issues with the sandforce controller have been fixed with new firmware although I'm not 100% sure as mine works fine and I didn't keep up with it.

People saying the OCZ drives are unreliable, I can't agree. Anytime I had an issue OCZ was great about helping me fix it. The OCZ forums for SSD are second to none IMO. So much information that applies to any and all SSD's its just insane. As well there is software a member made to autotweak windows for your SSD. You can spend days reading up on them there.
When I did have a drive die they replaced it. Any drive could die, but if the company is going to send you a new one, its not as big of a deal. If you have to fight with that company to get your replacement, it quickly becomes a big issue.

Out of your choices, I would get the solid 3. I believe its the best choice there.
Good luck hope this helps some.


----------



## nt300 (Dec 25, 2011)

Can I use a SSD just for a game drive so I can install my games on this drive? Will make better performance in games?


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 25, 2011)

The only thing an SSD will do is help loading times.


----------



## linoliveira (Dec 25, 2011)

The purpose of a SSD is to speed loading times.
Mainly what you do with a SSD is to put the OS and your favorite games and applications (the ones you use most) in it, so you don't have to wait so much time when you are working with something heavy or loading a game level.
As example of it is that windows boots in less than 20secs and heavy applications open almost instantaneously. As for FPS in 3D games you wont even see 1fps difference versus an HDD.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Dec 25, 2011)

Get a SSD and use a RAID0 HDD for games.


----------



## Batou1986 (Dec 25, 2011)

Coming from someone who has had raptors since there inception, get the ssd even the best raptor cant hold a candle to the original vertex SSD's more less anything new.


----------



## vigorsol (Dec 25, 2011)

I have a 128GB realSSD from crucial, sadly not m4, but it has trim enabled. 355 read, 140 write. If you make sure it has TRIM, the data loss should'nt be a problem for atleast the next 5 years, so to all the haters who are jealous of SSD - It's not that bad! the price is high yes, but so is everything else that is good?


----------



## Nauzhror (Dec 27, 2011)

linoliveira said:


> As for FPS in 3D games you wont even see 1fps difference versus an HDD.



I would imagine that varies game to game, seen a few where textures are loaded dynamically from the hard drive to avoid having loading screens when changing areas. A SSD should cause a noticeable increase in performance in such games.


----------



## linoliveira (Dec 27, 2011)

Nauzhror said:


> I would imagine that varies game to game, seen a few where textures are loaded dynamically from the hard drive to avoid having loading screens when changing areas. A SSD should cause a noticeable increase in performance in such games.



link please? because i'm curious.


----------



## Nauzhror (Dec 28, 2011)

linoliveira said:


> link please? because i'm curious.



Sims 3 comes to mind, not sure if it's been documented anywhere though, but the game doesn't have loading screens, and loads textures as they're needed, which when moving quickly from one area to another can cause the screen to blur up and the framerate to drop on a slow hard drive.


----------

