Quantcast

Maximum PC

It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 3:11 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: SSD: OCZ vs Samsung
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:10 pm 
8086
8086

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 3:25 pm
Posts: 68
Location: VA
OCZ Vector Series VTR1-25SAT3-128G 2.5" 128GB SATA III MLC
SAMSUNG 840 Pro Series MZ-7PD128BW 2.5" 128GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)


$10 difference

Any other differences?


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SSD: OCZ vs Samsung
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:11 pm 
Smithfield
Smithfield

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:37 pm
Posts: 5303
Samsung. I'm sure OCZ has picked up their game, but Samsung is always a good choice.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SSD: OCZ vs Samsung
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 7:35 am 
Coppermine
Coppermine
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:40 pm
Posts: 703
Quote:
I'm sure OCZ has picked up their game, but Samsung is always a good choice.
Well, MPC gave the OCZ Vector a Kick-Ass Editor Award.

Between the Samsung 840 Pro and the OCZ Vector, you can't go wrong. My only advice is that if this is a boot drive, I would recommend you bump it up to 256GB.

Hope this helps.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SSD: OCZ vs Samsung
PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:08 pm 
8086
8086

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 3:25 pm
Posts: 68
Location: VA
yep, planning on this being a boot drive. 128 not enough?


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SSD: OCZ vs Samsung
PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:55 pm 
Smithfield
Smithfield

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:37 pm
Posts: 5303
128GB is enough. I haven't even filled up half of mine yet.

It all depends on what you want to use.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SSD: OCZ vs Samsung
PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:28 am 
Coppermine
Coppermine
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:40 pm
Posts: 703
Quote:
yep, planning on this being a boot drive. 128 not enough?

128 can be enough but you really have to be cognizant of your installs and judicious as to where you place them.

First, 128 is really more like 111; an MS OS is going to grab about 30GB, so you're already down to 80GB. Don't forget your AV, office suite, browser, all those little apps you love - while they're small they will add up. Games are about 8-12GB PER game. You can install these onto a larger mechanical disk, but these are the items you want to boot quickly and benefit from an SSD, right?

So you see where I'm coming from: I bought a 128GB SSD about 3 years ago for a boot drive. I put on my usual line up of apps, MS Office, what-not and Steam. I had 2 games on and I was already hovering around 80-90GB full. I realized that if I wanted to install anymore games, I would have to start swapping games out, or move stuff to a mechanical HDD. Instead, I bought an extra 256GB SSD strictly for games. Now, my boot drive is 60GB full (out of 111) and my Gaming SSD is 180GB full (out of 223). And I don't consider myself a major gamer. That is probably about 16 games I've accumulated over the last 3 years.

I know I got long-winded, but "yes" 128 is enough however you are going to have to work at it and you'll have will probably have to sacrifice load times and performance on some items if you do.

Hope this helps.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SSD: OCZ vs Samsung
PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:55 am 
Smithfield
Smithfield

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:37 pm
Posts: 5303
btdog wrote:
Don't forget your AV, office suite, browser, all those little apps you love - while they're small they will add up.

Not really, if you're not the person who just clicks "next" all the time on installing stuff. I have installed on my SSD two media players (MP3 and video), media filters (ffdshow and the like), two digital image editors, Office 2010 (albeit, I only installed Word and Excel, because I don't need the other ones), and basically all the other stuff I will need. Total program folder size is short of 6GB.

Quote:
Games are about 8-12GB PER game. You can install these onto a larger mechanical disk, but these are the items you want to boot quickly and benefit from an SSD, right?

On a side rant, I don't like how no "professional reviewer" has done any testing with load times and SSDs. But from "amateur reviewers", it's hit and miss on a big performance benefit an SSD provides on loads. And from experience, I would actually have to agree to an extent. For instance, I put Skyrim on my SSD. I didn't notice any real improvement to load times or stuttering, but this may have been because Steam was doing a double look up (i.e., symlink to mechanical, symlink to SSD), but that would only affect the stuttering.

Besides that, the only thing you're buying here is decreasing load times, which may also have a CPU dependent portion to it (if the game is compressed, then it will spend a minimum amount of time at the CPU). And most games today are pretty good at keeping you entertained while you wait. Not to mention for sandbox games like Skyrim and Far Cry 3, the only loading screen you'll ever see is the initial one. No, all those logos you see aren't masking load times. The game doesn't need a minute to boot itself up.

The one thing that may fill up without you noticing is the Users folder. Which if you want to do the whole shebang in one go: http://lifehacker.com/5467758/move-the- ... -windows-7


Top
  Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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

© 2014 Future US, Inc. All rights reserved.