What are those fast HDs again?

[NaptownKnight]

I was just wondering. Been thinking of buying a smaller, cheaper one, just big enough to hold my OS to increase my basic Windows speed.

[Akaie]

Solid state drives (or SSD's). Fortunately they are catching on, so the prices are much more favourable now than they were in previous years.

[mrmouth]

Yeah, for my money I still dont like the failure rates. Unless you can afford Intel...

[Top-Tier-Tech]

Yeah, for my money I still dont like the failure rates. Unless you can afford Intel...

Crucial seems to have a very reliable Sata III SSD. When I upgrade my gaming PC I plan to go with them.

[Jaketh]

Im going to wait for IBMs instant storage. Still about 10 years away but it will eliminate the need for separate RAM and harddrives. Solid State drives are still too expensive for the tiny amount of storage reasonable ones offer.

[Top-Tier-Tech]

Im going to wait for IBMs instant storage. Still about 10 years away but it will eliminate the need for separate RAM and harddrives. Solid State drives are still too expensive for the tiny amount of storage reasonable ones offer.

240GB for $420 is reasonable... Compare that to buying 240GB of RAM (not that that's a perfect comparison), point being you get what you pay for and the prices are coming down.

[mrmouth]

240GB for $420 is reasonable

Yeah, that is not reasonable to me.

[snuggans]

240GB for $420 is reasonable... Compare that to buying 240GB of RAM

i'm sorry, that is a terrible analogy. they serve two different purposes and work very differently. in casual use and gaming it's really hard to make the system make use of 8 gigs of RAM, let alone 240. yet it's pretty easy to fill up 240gigs of storage.

[Top-Tier-Tech]

i'm sorry, that is a terrible analogy. they serve two different purposes and work very differently

No really??? I had no idea!! Here, let's quote all of what I said now shall we?

240GB for $420 is reasonable... Compare that to buying 240GB of RAM (not that that's a perfect comparison)

The point is that they are both flash based storage. A better comparison is with USB flash drive's cost per GB.

SSD's are new tech and the prices have come down alot already, 240GB for $420 is a great deal if you want solid state storage, obviously it isn't a good deal if you just want to store data (go buy a HDD).

I'm waiting for the LGA 2011 platform before I stick an SSD on my gaming rig, that'll give them time to come down a bit more.

[Ybbon]

I have a 64GB crucial SSD as my boot and a 1.5TB Samsung data drive.

64GB is way big enough for Win7 Pro and I put some applications on it, most however, and all games and data are on the data drive.
I have Ubuntu 11 on the data drive as a dual boot so that has to spin up first to use the grub menu and then the SSD.

It is faster than my old drive, but that was a piece of - it died after all so not sure whether that was a good comparison.

I've had it getting on for a year with no problems, is it worth doing? not sure, I could have easily just repartitioned my data drive without
the extra cost. If the data drive fails, well the OS is fine, if the SSD fails well the data is fine, but there are other ways to achieve that
and I have another 1TB backup drive anyway.

My perception is it is faster to boot, in a real comparison test, I doubt it is by much.

[Jaketh]

I need lots and lots of storage and 2TB of SSD's would cost about 8,000 dollars versus about 90 dollars in a conventional harddrive.

[Doono]

People miss the point of an SSD, they are not for storage they are for fast data access. A 60gig drive are now under £100, you install your OS on it which uses 20gig and then you have about 35 ish gig free (after the losses), on the remaining space you install apps that benefit from fast access such as a selection of games you currently play or apps like photoshop or CAD software.

Voila windows boots in under 20 seconds and your game loading times are often halved or better. They are easily the best upgrade you can do to any half decent system.

[Top-Tier-Tech]

I need lots and lots of storage and 2TB of SSD's would cost about 8,000 dollars versus about 90 dollars in a conventional harddrive.

People miss the point of an SSD, they are not for storage they are for fast data access.

Exactly, for me I'd want 240GB to hold my games and OS, but for general data storage and for those who have TB's of crap () obviously you store that on mechanical HDD's.

[Jaketh]

Exactly, for me I'd want 240GB to hold my games and OS, but for general data storage and for those who have TB's of crap () obviously you store that on mechanical HDD's.

I have over 600gbs in Steam games alone

[Top-Tier-Tech]

I have over 600gbs in Steam games alone

...Which is pointless...

[Taiji]

I have an OCZ Agility 3 120gb sataIII SSD, it loads Project Reality levels in around 15-20 seconds, and they took nearly 2 minutes on my old 7200rpm sataII HDD. I'm totally blown away by it, can't recommend it enough

My PC restarts so fast that if I get distracted for a moment I have to try to remember if I restarted it at all!!!

The future, hinted at by the old cartridge using consoles, has finally arrived!!

[mrmouth]

The matters of seconds just simply don't matter, to me. Yes, if I were doing a piecing a new build I would take a serious look at SSDs, but as an upgrade, it doesn't interest me yet. I'm running a 10,000rpm system drive and it leaves nothing to be desired.

And Im really not comfortable with the failure rates. I know plenty of people who jumped on the OCZ SSD ship and have had nothing but problems. Seems to only be a matter of time. If you have the money for Intel, then it is something different.

Price/reliability has still not reached the mark where I'm interested, or would recommend it. Especially with 7200rpm drives being pushed so far through better controllers and innovative design.

[Top-Tier-Tech]

And Im really not comfortable with the failure rates. I know plenty of people who jumped on the OCZ SSD ship and have had nothing but problems. Seems to only be a matter of time. If you have the money for Intel, then it is something different.

For the second time is the same doggone thread.... CRUCIAL SATA III SSD's

Cheaper than intel by far and the failure rates are extremely low. OCZ and the Sandforce controllers is what you need to avoid.

[mrmouth]

Yeah, I read that the first time you posted it. Not knowing anything about them I didn't comment. My interest remains nil.

[Top-Tier-Tech]

Yeah, I read that the first time you posted it. Not knowing anything about them I didn't comment. My interest remains nil.

And I read your thoughts on sandforce SSD's (high failure rates) and intel SSD's the first time you posted it as well so why are we saying the same things over and over again?

Crucial is a better recommendation than intel, better price, better performance and similarly low failure rates. That is why I coninue to correct you every time you post the same thing yet again...