- Joined
- Oct 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,471 (0.59/day)
System Name | Acer Aspire V3-771G-53218G75Maii |
---|---|
Processor | Core i5 3210M (2,5-3,1Ghz) |
Memory | 8GB DDR3 SODIMM |
Video Card(s) | Geforce GT650M |
Storage | Samsung 830 256GB - 750GB Toshiba drive |
Software | Windows 7 x64 Home Premium (non-acer-bloatware) |
Yes but like large HDD's used to be, they're rather 'fresh' and not actually mainstream yet. Large HDD's are cheap because users made them cheap by buying them year after year, materials are in much larger quantities. I wouldn't even say SSD's and HDD's should be competing at all because they're opposites, one is for speed the other is for storage.
They're not even that expensive to be honest, from a storage point of view they're horrendous but when you have the option to increase the slowest device (and only moving part) in your computer for less than a new GPU or CPU its just another cost that you go with (this is going on my local prices). I'm surprised you guys don't complain about RAM modules, now those are expensive!
They are! $100 for a good 8GB of DDR3 is ridiculous! And it doesn't even hold your data, it just processes it? We must be crazy to buy that stuff
Seriously, SSD's are currently meant to replace Raptors and the likes, for a quickly running OS. What's a Raptor cost you? Let me check...
Velociraptor 74 GB €99.90
Velociraptor 150GB €129.50
That's €1.35 and €0.86 per GB respectively, on the cheapest Dutch shop. Still 3-4 times as cheap as SSD's, and I wouldn't buy a Velociraptor since the difference in speed with storage HDD's isn't worth the money for me.