Quantcast

Maximum PC

It is currently Tue Sep 16, 2014 2:56 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: SSD vs HDD
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:37 pm 
8086
8086

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:18 pm
Posts: 2
I actually have 2 questions. I am getting ready to order parts for a new PC build. This is what I'm looking at getting:
MB Gigabyte GA-H77M-D3H
CPU i5-3570
GPU HD7850 2GB
RAM Crucial Ballistix 2x4GB

Question 1) I'm wondering if it would be worth it to get an SSD plus an HDD or just go with an HDD. I have read where the SSD greatly improves boot times but I rarely reboot my computer. The computer is going to be strictly a gaming PC and when not in use it will be in Sleep Mode. I'm looking at the OCZ Agility 3 120GB which i can get for $90 after rebates but I could get a 1TB HDD for not much more and it be plenty of space. If I dont reboot my computer very often(maybe once every 2 weeks) is a SSD even needed?

Question 2) My current PC is Win7 32bit and my new PC will be Win7 64bit. Is it possible to transfer my game files from the 32bit to the 64bit OS? I wasnt sure if there would be any kind of conflict.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SSD vs HDD
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:04 am 
[Team Member]
[Team Member]

Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 4:31 am
Posts: 11088
Location: Home Sweet Home
Personally I would use this hard drive:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6822236243

I am running its 300 gig cousin right now and love it, fast as hell and no problems at all...that is the way I like my rigs to run. I am a gamer.

No troubles transferring your files to a 64 bit system they will run just fine in the program they were written from.

Nasty


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SSD vs HDD
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:31 am 
Little Foot
Little Foot
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 3:41 pm
Posts: 123
Location: St. Louis, MO USA
An SSD, especially for a Gamer, is a game changer (pun intended). Its the best speed boost since high-speed internet. Game maps load much faster and yes, boot to desktop much faster.

Avoid Sandforce controller SSDs -- they've been problematic and still are!

A 126GB SSD soon gets to small if you're a Gamer. Here's a Marvel controlled SSD that has proven itself very reliable: Crucial M4 CT256M4SSD2 2.5" 256GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820148443
Also get an HDD to backup the SSD to using something like Acronis True Image -- makes the backup partition bootable.

See my Signature in my Profile for more ideas.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SSD vs HDD
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:31 am 
Smithfield
Smithfield

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:37 pm
Posts: 5238
SSD performance in games depends on what the game is doing, so the performance is hit and miss across titles. Do a little bit of research to see if the games you're interested in actually have a performance benefit. Otherwise a dedicated hard drive works wonders too. I put all my games on a 2TB Caviar Black and games load pretty damn fast. For example, Skyrim after something like a couple of gigs worth of mods still loads within 20 seconds or less, just for the first load.

And the bit about SandForce isn't all true. Intel uses SandForce, but they also use a custom firmware that doesn't have all the bugs.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SSD vs HDD
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:36 pm 
Little Foot
Little Foot
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 3:41 pm
Posts: 123
Location: St. Louis, MO USA
LatiosXT wrote:
SSD performance in games depends on what the game is doing, so the performance is hit and miss across titles. Do a little bit of research to see if the games you're interested in actually have a performance benefit. Otherwise a dedicated hard drive works wonders too. I put all my games on a 2TB Caviar Black and games load pretty damn fast. For example, Skyrim after something like a couple of gigs worth of mods still loads within 20 seconds or less, just for the first load.

And the bit about SandForce isn't all true. Intel uses SandForce, but they also use a custom firmware that doesn't have all the bugs.
Again, you do not understand how I/O works. A fetch (of a game map, or any file) simply goes faster from an SSD than an HDD. It is not hit or miss based on a game, its a fetch from a drive.
Some of the initial series of Intel's Sandforce controller SSDs had to be recalled from dealer's shelves and required a firmware update. You really should become more knowledgeable and experienced before you post. Members want solid, informed advice, not your opinions!


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SSD vs HDD
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:30 pm 
Smithfield
Smithfield

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:37 pm
Posts: 5238
OS-Wiz wrote:
Again, you do not understand how I/O works.

Oh look, someone who thinks they know better than someone else.

Quote:
A fetch (of a game map, or any file) simply goes faster from an SSD than an HDD. It is not hit or miss based on a game, its a fetch from a drive.

I'll go to Tom's, since it was the first thing that popped up on side research: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bat ... 62-14.html

Not all games are mostly reads, not all games have the same I/O requests, and not all games behave the same way. The only real benefit you get out of using an SSD in games is system response, but again this can be mitigated by how you do your storage. In my case, I never really see a problem because 1. I use a massive hard drive 2. I'm using all the features of SATA and 3. If I'm playing a game I'm pretty much doing nothing else with that hard drive. The only thing that would use it is if my IM goes off (because I log it all).

I'd dig up other posts (various people on the web did this), but I'm feeling lazy right now. But the last time I did any research on this, it was basically either, the same, some improvement, or a few games getting performance you'd expect from 500MBs vs. 150MBs.

Quote:
Some of the initial series of Intel's Sandforce controller SSDs had to be recalled from dealer's shelves and required a firmware update. You really should become more knowledgeable and experienced before you post. Members want solid, informed advice, not your opinions!

Uh. Intel uses custom firmware so all of the firmware issues from SandForce are non-existent. And the recall program is because Intel found out that it can't do 256-bit AES encryption, which is a hardware flaw, not a firmware one.

I'm tired, and I'm sick of people wanting to show off their e-penises, so mods, I apologize but I need to get this out.

Get the fuck off my case.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SSD vs HDD
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:39 am 
8086
8086

Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 17
i suggest you to use HDD its much cost less as we compare to the SSD


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SSD vs HDD
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:30 am 
[Team Member]
[Team Member]

Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 4:31 am
Posts: 11088
Location: Home Sweet Home
Guys, if you want to have a pissing contest, PM each other. This post by the OP isn't getting a proper answer and it isn't fair to him/her.

Nasty


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SSD vs HDD
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:49 am 
Little Foot
Little Foot
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 3:41 pm
Posts: 123
Location: St. Louis, MO USA
Nastyman wrote:
Guys, if you want to have a pissing contest, PM each other. This post by the OP isn't getting a proper answer and it isn't fair to him/her.

Nasty

You're right of course.
I thought the first two replies to the OP were very helpful and answered the OP's questions.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SSD vs HDD
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:45 pm 
8086
8086

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:18 pm
Posts: 2
Aside from the flame-war that got started thanks for everyones input. That's what I like about MaximumPC's forums. They have people who are eager to share their knowledge of our beloved hobby the PC. Much appreciated.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SSD vs HDD
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:49 am 
Klamath
Klamath

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:56 am
Posts: 284
To the OP:

Sorry, I realize I'm 2 weeks late but I thought I'd add my $.02.

An SSD will improve performance in much more than mere bootup. General system responsiveness is perhaps the biggest benefit that most people notice after upgrading from a HDD. This is dependent mostly on random small file transfer rates (e.g. 4KB reads and writes). An SSD-equipped system just seems to jump compared to a sluggish HDD-equipped system.

If you're a gamer you'll find that games launch and levels load much faster if they're fully installed on an SSD. This is dependent mainly on sequential reads. Depending on the game, frame rates may improve as an SSD can supply texture data to your GPU at a faster rate than a HDD.
______

When selecting an SSD don't be deterred by out-of-date advice. For example, the firmware problems that some people experienced with Sandforce 2281 controllers were fixed long ago but some people still badmouth Sandforce and by extension all OCZ SSDs because the Vertex3 was the first off the blocks with the SF2281 and got some early bad press. My two fastest SSDs, an OCZ Revo3x2 and an Adata XM11 both use SF2281s and both are as stable as a rock. The XM11 reaches 339MB/s on 4KB random writes, due in part to firmware but also due to superior NAND flash. Too bad you have to buy a Zenbook to get one.

Check out multiple comparative benchmarks before deciding on an SSD. Unless you're using a PCIe SSD, sequential rates are less important as they will likely be bottlenecked at about a half a gigabyte per second by SATA3. Look at random reads and writes of files less than 16KB and especially at the 4KB transfers.
______

I strongly recommend using an SSD for your system and apps and HDDs for storage. None of my desktop systems or notebooks contain internal HDDs. In the past half dozen years I've used SSDs based on controllers from Mtron, Phison, Jmicron, Intel, Indilinx, Marvell and Sandforce using synchronous and asynchronous MLC and SLC flash, both as single SSDs and as RAID arrays. My first array of Indilinx Barefoot-based Vertex SSDs simply blew away my previous array of 4 Raptor HDDs in RAID-0 and gave me my first taste of being bottlenecked by the southbridge and that was several years ago (oh the joys of manually aligning partitions to NAND block size under WinXP) I'll never boot from a spinner again.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SSD vs HDD
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:19 pm 
Boy in Black
Boy in Black
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 1:40 pm
Posts: 24339
Location: South of heaven
Go SSD, no debate needed. You can get a 120G SSD for under $100 and then spend another $100-150 for a fat storage drive. The term "storage" is critical IMO, as stuff in storage needs no speed but are usually large in size. Example: what's the fastest vehicle in storage, a 1973 Blue Bird school bus or a Bugatti Veyron Super Sport? Neither...they're in storage and just sit there. You do need a big garage if you have a bunch of '73 Blue Birds though.

Videos, and media in general, just don't demand the speed and throughput that an SSD offers. You'd be hard pressed to find a type of media that swamps even a dated spindle drive let alone the listed 1TB 10K Raptor. Yet these are the exact things that fill our drives and call for such capacities. Every machine in my home is on an SSD (except the WHS2), all mildly small with all but one being 120G, and I'm not hurting for space. Even the 256G Vertex 4 is only half filled with every piece of software I can toss at it. The fluff is just stored on spindles elsewhere.

As Jimbo states, boot times are hit and miss and the response is the greatest part of running an SSD. Boot times differ greatly based on the build. An example is my iTX vs my garage ATX PC. The iTX can be back up and usable 20 seconds from selecting "reboot", the garage PC takes 25s from cold just to boot. The Asus H71 iTX is just a cleaner BIOS compared to the clunky MSI ATX's. The actual POST of the hardware before handing off to the OS matters a lot, and it's when the OS (which is software) get's handed off that they can become comparable. If I cut out the POST, they BOOT very quickly.

And yes, Sandforce issues are handled. Vertex 3 had birthing issues, it's been fixed long ago. Many may not like how it was handled, but it was just a fluke as OCZ tried to re-work how to deal with them internally. Thus, Vertex 4 even had it's issues and it's fix made it the perfect S/ATA SSD IMO; and very quickly I might add.

SSD's are just the way to go and there's no legitimate downfall for purchasing and running one anymore. They're physically and technologically superior to any spindle drive on the market. Spindle drives can't get much better even if they spin them at 50,000KRPM. $1 a Gig and it's only going to get cheaper as TLC rears it's beautiful head. ("MLC" was an odd name wasn't it? There's Single, Multiple, and soon Tri...why didn't they just call it DLC instead of MLC? I fear confusion is coming as Tri and the obvious Quad are "multiple" as well and on the horizon)


Top
  Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group