What's the best SSD at around 64gig?

[jim]

I would just restore the whole thing, then move any data onto the storage disk.

Or move the data first, and then make the backup. Either works.

[switchmode]

But as I want to split the data between the SSD and a storage disk how does that work ? When restoring from backup is there a way of telling the software where to put different things ?

Well I've only used it to backup my system drive an SSD 64GB falcon but I just looked at the backup options and it allows you to pick other drives to add to the "System Backup from Image" so you can have more than one drive in your "System Backup". I suppose it puts all the drives you select in one big file.

How it works for restoring I do not know, I suppose it looks for drives and asks what locations to use.
the help file said to follow the prompts at restore time.

If using full drives it could be a massive file !

The restore is a full restore when using the Image option so it looks like you cannot pick and choose it actually mentions this when you start the process of creating a "System Image".


The Windows backup from image seems to be to get a working system from the backup image, rather than a disk imaging tool. Although if you only have a single disk that is what it is.

The plus point is it understands SSD alignment, well it worked for me as they say "Your milage may vary".

If you have Win 7 premium home its included so good for the price. You need to create a restore boot disk, you may be able to use the install disk I'm not sure of that.

[Perfectionist]

they are right on intel, I chose the 160gb intel ssd (more free space makes it faster, so actually bigger drives are faster unlike normally with platter drives) cos of that even though Scan usually do Corsair.

This is a good article with a lot of background and tech details: http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3631
important thing is always the I/Os per second of a 4kb data chunk, that's the standard to measure them for normal PC use by, NOT the sequential write speed which is the number most of them advertise

[kalniel]

This is a good article with a lot of background and tech details: http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3631
important thing is always the I/Os per second of a 4kb data chunk, that's the standard to measure them for normal PC use by, NOT the sequential write speed which is the number most of them advertise

Well, it does depend on usage to be fair - random 4kb is the 'snappiness' feel when just doing normal windows tasks, but sequential read is the most important when it comes to boot times and game loading etc. Personally I'd want the 'snappiness' feel, but if I could only afford a drive that's good at sequentials then I'd still be happy

[Perfectionist]

nah, boot times and game loading are loading lots of smaller different files too, not huge chunks. That said the intel one is very good at both anyway, it's just IOPS that is def the priority when picking a SSD for games or bootup, honestly. Think about all the DLLs, all the texture files, etc.

[jim]

Well, it does depend on usage to be fair - random 4kb is the 'snappiness' feel when just doing normal windows tasks, but sequential read is the most important when it comes to boot times and game loading etc. Personally I'd want the 'snappiness' feel, but if I could only afford a drive that's good at sequentials then I'd still be happy

I don't know about that - that assumes that all of your game files are in perfect sequential order, which is pretty unlikely. Even big games don't have big files in their root, it's normally a huge number of much smaller ones. And even if they are all sequential in the drive, they won't be read in the same order during loading.

Main place you see big sequential files are things like .iso and .bin files, large video files, or enormous installers packaged into executables, which is why it ends up being so insignificant on an SSD that's not designed for storage.