What size SSD are you running?

[Ttaskmaster]

I'm curious, for all of you people out there running with SSD drives, what size do you use?

120GB for OS, Office and major apps.
Basic 2TB HDD for games and storage.

What do you think is an ideal size for an SSD?

As big as I can get for the least money!!
I personally would want just OS on one very small one (physically and... err... gigabytually) that could sit out the way somewhere, with Office and apps on a second one (say120GB) and games/storage on a massive 3 or 4TB one.
OS one makes any potential reinstalls nice and easy, along with not borking your other data if the drive fails.

Is bigger always better? or do you consider cost per gigabyte etc...?

I consider something like that, yes.
Whatever sounds like the best deal going, really. They'll get bigger and cheaper as time goes on, for sure, but there'll come a point when we're laughing at anyone still using "crappy old SSD tech" instead of Neural Gel Packs or whatever follows.

[aidanjt]

Still using my ole 240GB OCZ Vertex 2E that I got years ago. I really need to replace it though, sata 2 bottleneck and the sata 3 compatibility bugs of the controller is a massive pain in the arse.

[Spreadie]

Still using my ole 240GB OCZ Vertex 2E that I got years ago. I really need to replace it though, sata 2 bottleneck and the sata 3 compatibility bugs of the controller is a massive pain in the arse.

Not sure about the compatibility issues, but I seriously doubt you'll notice a difference in performance between SATA II and SATA III, outside of benchmarks.

[GoNz0]

1tb msata evo in my XPS15 laptop, a pair (not raid) 250gb crucial m4 (iirc) and a 60gb something branded in my old games PC.

40gb intel x25 in the media centre.

[Bonebreaker777]

120GB Samsung SSD 830 Dell OEM.

[silent]

at present, my boxed up beast has a 120 gig but its full so i'm replacing when i move with a 256 gig msata on the motherboard, then this 120 kingston v300 will be the slave/game drive and my other 4 hdd's take the storage.

[talus]

I use a 64 GB, just for the OS and essentials. I don't know how much of a performance boost (other than loading times) you get for using one for software.

[Bonebreaker777]

I use a 64 GB, just for the OS and essentials. I don't know how much of a performance boost (other than loading times) you get for using one for software.

Would say depends on the software. CPU-Z and such will not benefit at all while Adobe Photoshop might.

[aidanjt]

but I seriously doubt you'll notice a difference in performance between SATA II and SATA III, outside of benchmarks.

I'm fairly sure I'd notice the difference between 280MB/s and 550MB/s when I'm copying a mass of files between directories or volumes.

[KeyboardDemon]

I'm fairly sure I'd notice the difference between 280MB/s and 550MB/s when I'm copying a mass of files between directories or volumes.

It's a fair point, if you regularly need to transfer large chunks of data between drives a SATA III would complete the operation in half the time that a SATA II drive would take though for many people this is not the norm. In terms of boot times I don't think there is a big difference in start up times between the the two, though I may be wrong. Not that I'm suggesting that anyone buy a SATA II SSD drive now as they won't be able to take advantage of more recent developments in SSD technology such as better reliability and controllers etc..., but if someone is using a mobo that doesn't have SATA III ports they can still use SATA III drives with 16nm NAND chips like the MX100 drives which they could then carry forward to their next build at a later point.

[mrham4321]

128GB for me.

Really the ideal size is the best bang for buck at the moment. And it's coming down and down very rapidly now. 240GB runs you ~ £60. And I paid £90 for my 128GB several years ago

[Bonebreaker777]

128GB for me.

Really the ideal size is the best bang for buck at the moment. And it's coming down and down very rapidly now. 240GB runs you ~ £60. And I paid £90 for my 128GB several years ago

To be exact, 160GB Intel SSD for £63 and 240GB Crucial for £70. But ye,I can see your point.I remember ordering one of the first 64GB Samsung SSDs for £100.Even after a year of using it,still sold for £110 on eBay. Good times.

[Noxia]

256mb Samsung Evo, still got 80gb free, when I get close to filling I shall get a 512 to tide me over.

[wasabi]

128 for OS and a few main applications, separate 256 for applications. And an olld spinny disk for low usage apps / iplayer cahce files / music etc

[DR]

All are around 240GB - all systems I run now have them in there.

We have been experimenting with them in a server environment - a pair of 120GB ones RAIDED - makes an amazing difference compared to spindle drives.

[herulach]

When I first got one 60gb and it was a pita, presently a 256 which is doable as my broadband is fast enough to make rotating games off a non issue and my NAS takes care of all the media needs. With dsl bb I'd either get a smaller one as you'd need more disk anyway or a much larger one.