I keep looking at Getting an ssd but I looked at my Steam directory the other day and its over 200 gig atm so wouldnt be able to fit on an ssd
I keep looking at Getting an ssd but I looked at my Steam directory the other day and its over 200 gig atm so wouldnt be able to fit on an ssd
Because the Sandforce controller works in such a way that the drive starts to slow down with use and the only way to get it back seems to be to Erase the data off the drive and start again.
The other reason is the throttling that they have built to make them last for the life of the warranty, Which is in another thread by 'Cat The Fifth'.
I'm not saying it is a bad drive but, I think my money would have been better spent on a Crucial C300 which was the other drive I was considering buying or even a Kingston as they were quite a bit cheaper at the time.
I have to agree with Saracen in that it only makes a maximum of 30 seconds difference compared to a HDD and I also usually hit the start button, Then wander off to do something else.
The real difference I noticed with it was installing windows or other programs.
Updates & AV scans are only fast of the rest of the machine is too. My Q6600 with spinny disks completes scans (they are similarly clean installs, I refer to the MS SE 'Quick' scan) in a fraction of the time of my Athlon laptop with SSD...
And yeah gotta agree, don't buy one just for the boot times, general quickness should ensue if the rest of the system is good quality. An SSD is also not a sticking plaster for a bloated/broken Windows install, many people could achieve same benefit with an afternoon's work reinstalling.
Ssds = quick boot,quick virus scan, quick search, quick game loading, quick application loading but if you feel all of the above already happen quick enough it might not be worth the cost.
They also do not need to be defraged, nor indexed with MS Search and their smaller sizes make them much easier to make system backups of.
Main PC: Asus Rampage IV Extreme / 3960X@4.5GHz / Antec H1200 Pro / 32GB DDR3-1866 Quad Channel / Sapphire Fury X / Areca 1680 / 850W EVGA SuperNOVA Gold 2 / Corsair 600T / 2x Dell 3007 / 4 x 250GB SSD + 2 x 80GB SSD / 4 x 1TB HDD (RAID 10) / Windows 10 Pro, Yosemite & Ubuntu
HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / 3770K@4.2GHz / 24GB / GTX 1080 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / Hisense 65k5510 4K TV / HTC Vive / 2 x 240GB SSD + 12TB HDD Space / Race Seat / Logitech G29 / Win 10 Pro
HTPC2: Asus AM1I-A / 5150 / 4GB / Corsair Force 3 240GB / Silverstone SST-ML05B + ST30SF / Samsung UE60H6200 TV / Windows 10 Pro
Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB / HD7870 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
NAS 1: HP N40L / 12GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Arrays || NAS 2: Dell PowerEdge T110 II / 24GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Hybrid arrays || Network:Buffalo WZR-1166DHP w/DD-WRT + HP ProCurve 1800-24G
Laptop: Dell Precision 5510 Printer: HP CP1515n || Phone: Huawei P30 || Other: Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 Pro 10.1 CM14 / Playstation 4 + G29 + 2TB Hybrid drive
But it can be frustrating, especially with sub 120gb to pick what to store on them. You also need an empty bit of space at all times for the best performance.
If an ssd saves you 20 seconds a day a year you will save 2.02916667 hours lets say your ssd is gonna last year 10 years thats like 20 hours saved, and im sure an ssd will save you more than 20 seconds a day
But im 16 I only want a ssd for the speed not the reliability or any other reason, I havent had a hdd fail on me nor have I lost any critical data because I dont have any (apart from gcse coursework which was on a usb because im stupid)
Read what he said again. The limiting factor on time is his making a cuppa. Making the computer boot faster will not speed up his cuppa making, therefore he won't save any time at all by getting an SSD
It's always worth looking into limiting factors - will help advise your computer specing/upgrading to maximise results.
Kalniel is quite right.
My PC boots in about 50 seconds, but it takes me about 2 mins to make a cuppa. So I hit "on" and go make the cuppa. 2 mins later, I'm back.
Now suppose the SSD makes that boot 49.99 seconds faster, so it takes 0.01 seconds to boot. It still takes me a couple of mins to make a cuppa, so I'm still back after 2 mins.
Without an SSD, the machine boots and sits idle for 70 seconds. With that (especially fast) SSD, it sits idle for 119.99 seconds instead. So if it's about boot time, I've spent £100 (or whatever) to increase the amount of time my machine sits idle by 49.9 seconds. And that's assuming the phone doesn't rig while I'm making the cuppa, or it'll be idle for a lot more than even that.
For me, the time it takes to boot the machine is fast enough without an SSD that it makes absolutely no difference to me whether the boot time is faster. If that was all an SSD did, I wouldn't pay 50p for one, let alone £100, give or take. Of course, it isn't all an SSD does, so for me, any benefits lie elsewhere. And for others, maybe you, perhaps boot time is important. Fair enough. But I don't give a flying fig about any further improvement in boot times.
As I said in my first post, whether SSDs are worth it "depends on what you're looking for, in my opinion, and on your sense of value for money." And that's a decision for the individual. Nobody can make it for you, because it'll be different for each of us. There is no right or wrong answer.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)