Thinking about buying a SSD

2010-08-03 13:04:09

#1

RDMC: Enemy Wheelbarrow Spotted..!!; +736|6563|Area 51

Dear BF2's Tech Team,

Recently I've been thinking about purchasing a SSD for my PC. But I have a problem, I'm not really up to date about these things. So maybe you guys can help me.

I was thinking about installing windows and possibly a game or two and a few programs, say iTunes or something onto the SSD, but will I notice a significant difference over my current HDD? (At the moment I have a Samsung Spinpoint F1 750GB)

Two, can I run a SSD along side my current HDD (Guess these two will have to go in RAID 0, if that is even possible?) and also keep my 200GB backup disk, all running together?

Three, how much storage would I roughly need for this?

Four, could you guys recommend me a few SSD's? I've been looking around and came across this (Site is in Dutch, but I don't think that should matter all too much): http://www.alternate.nl/html/product/So … mp;l3=SATA

This SSD seemed to give me the best bang for the buck, pretty fast reading/writing, 64GB for €135. That is also pretty much the max I'd like to spend on such an upgrade.

Cheers.

2010-08-03 17:17:31

#2

CammRobb: Banned; +1,510|6128|Carnoustie MASSIF

RDMC wrote:
I was thinking about installing windows and possibly a game or two and a few programs, say iTunes or something onto the SSD, but will I notice a significant difference over my current HDD? (At the moment I have a Samsung Spinpoint F1 750GB)

Not much point in putting iTunes on it, you don't need fast read/write speeds for listening to music. Better off putting Windows, games, and programs like Photoshop on it.

RDMC wrote:
Two, can I run a SSD along side my current HDD (Guess these two will have to go in RAID 0, if that is even possible?) and also keep my 200GB backup disk, all running together?

Yes, you can. You don't need to run RAID at all, after all, it's just like having two separate HDDs in your pc already. If you want your OS on the SSD, then you have to install it on the SSD.

RDMC wrote:
Three, how much storage would I roughly need for this?

Depends how big you want it. Only size you'll really get for under £100 is under 40GB

2010-08-03 17:18:49

#3

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6496

heh, looks like the wrong bro got the badge :p

2010-08-03 17:19:57

#4

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|5787|Catherine Black

burnzz wrote:
heh, looks like the wrong bro got the badge :p

>_>

2010-08-03 17:23:54

#5

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6496

it's all good Finray, i know you spend your time in here!

2010-08-03 17:38:53

#6

jsnipy: ...; +3,276|6521|...

burnzz wrote:
heh, looks like the wrong bro got the badge :p

2010-08-03 17:50:05

#7

Bevo: Nah; +718|6519|Austin, Texas

@RDMC: We use the intel 40g SSD for things at work, it should run about $120, and got some pretty great reviews. Not a super high writing speed, but a great read speed (which is more important afaik). A win7 install is 20gig give or take, so that leaves another 20 for your choosing. It would be a godsend for photoshop, and excellent for movie/sound/game editors of any sort. Also great for a game or two, but they soak up a lot of space.

Enjoy!

2010-08-03 17:52:13

#8

jsnipy: ...; +3,276|6521|...

When you guys are talking about photo-shop you are just talking about your scratch disks yes?

2010-08-03 18:04:59

#9

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6665

From what I've read, most recommend not putting the TEMP/TMP and Swap files on SSD.

2010-08-03 18:06:01

#10

jsnipy: ...; +3,276|6521|...

Ilocano wrote:
From what I've read, most recommend not putting the TEMP/TMP and Swap files on SSD.

then whats the big advantage for photoshop then?

2010-08-03 18:09:46

#11

CammRobb: Banned; +1,510|6128|Carnoustie MASSIF

Ilocano wrote:
From what I've read, most recommend not putting the TEMP/TMP and Swap files on SSD.

Is this because of sequential read/write? You are remembering trim, yeah?

2010-08-03 18:10:16

#12

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6647

jsnipy wrote:
Ilocano wrote:
From what I've read, most recommend not putting the TEMP/TMP and Swap files on SSD.
then whats the big advantage for photoshop then?

That doesn't mean people aren't doing it The reason why they say don't, I'd imagine, is because for a while (don't know if this is still the case) people were talking about files that are accessed a lot wearing out the drive. I can't say I see this as being an issue with PS, but who knows.

2010-08-03 18:11:26

#13

CammRobb: Banned; +1,510|6128|Carnoustie MASSIF

ghettoperson wrote:
jsnipy wrote:
Ilocano wrote:
From what I've read, most recommend not putting the TEMP/TMP and Swap files on SSD.
then whats the big advantage for photoshop then?
That doesn't mean people aren't doing it The reason why they say don't, I'd imagine, is because for a while (don't know if this is still the case) people were talking about files that are accessed a lot wearing out the drive. I can't say I see this as being an issue with PS, but who knows.

Not a problem now. Not since TRIM

2010-08-03 18:19:39

#14

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6665

Yeah, TRIM has helped a lot, but cautious me still keeps the Swap files outside of SSD.

Key advantage of SSD is really random read time when coupled with sufficient RAM. It's all about getting to all those little files fast to run your apps and extensions. Loading and saving that Photoshop file will be fast, but it won't really help you much when you're actually working on the pic.

2010-08-03 18:22:41

#15

jsnipy: ...; +3,276|6521|...

CammRobb wrote:
ghettoperson wrote:
jsnipy wrote:

then whats the big advantage for photoshop then?
That doesn't mean people aren't doing it The reason why they say don't, I'd imagine, is because for a while (don't know if this is still the case) people were talking about files that are accessed a lot wearing out the drive. I can't say I see this as being an issue with PS, but who knows.
Not a problem now. Not since TRIM

TRIM would not be applicable to a scratch files since its working inside of a pre allocated file (i.e. no deletes)

2010-08-03 18:27:13

#16

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6665

I rarely use Photoshop, but how often are scratch files written/read? Do you undo a lot?

2010-08-03 19:13:45

#17

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6413|Finland

Reading files will not wear the drive, flash has limited writes. But reaching that number of writes per a cell well, lets just say a regular HDD would be kaput long time before that...

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2010-08-04 02:40:49

#18

RDMC: Enemy Wheelbarrow Spotted..!!; +736|6563|Area 51

CammRobb wrote:
RDMC wrote:
I was thinking about installing windows and possibly a game or two and a few programs, say iTunes or something onto the SSD, but will I notice a significant difference over my current HDD? (At the moment I have a Samsung Spinpoint F1 750GB)
Not much point in putting iTunes on it, you don't need fast read/write speeds for listening to music. Better off putting Windows, games, and programs like Photoshop on it.

RDMC wrote:
Two, can I run a SSD along side my current HDD (Guess these two will have to go in RAID 0, if that is even possible?) and also keep my 200GB backup disk, all running together?
Yes, you can. You don't need to run RAID at all, after all, it's just like having two separate HDDs in your pc already. If you want your OS on the SSD, then you have to install it on the SSD.

RDMC wrote:
Three, how much storage would I roughly need for this?
Depends how big you want it. Only size you'll really get for under £100 is under 40GB

For iTunes I was thinking more along the lines of actually converting music and such, but I guess conversion speeds are more CPU related than SSD/HDD?.

Anyway thanks for the reply, did you happen to take a look at the link that I posted in the OP as well?

Bevo wrote:
@RDMC: We use the intel 40g SSD for things at work, it should run about $120, and got some pretty great reviews. Not a super high writing speed, but a great read speed (which is more important afaik). A win7 install is 20gig give or take, so that leaves another 20 for your choosing. It would be a godsend for photoshop, and excellent for movie/sound/game editors of any sort. Also great for a game or two, but they soak up a lot of space.

Enjoy!

http://www.alternate.nl/html/product/So … mp;l3=SATA

Do you mean this one? Because I've been looking at that one as well, however the one that I posted in the OP has 3x the writing speed (which has to count for something, right?) And a somewhat higher reading speed + more GB's. And it is only €20,- more.

2010-08-04 03:47:16

#19

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6413|Finland

Random read/write performance of the X25-V and the X25-M G2 are superior to that Kingston SSD. And they count most.

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2010-08-04 03:47:40)

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2010-08-04 05:13:22

#20

RDMC: Enemy Wheelbarrow Spotted..!!; +736|6563|Area 51

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Random read/write performance of the X25-V and the X25-M G2 are superior to that Kingston SSD. And they count most.

so you are saying that despite the 200MBs/110MBs versus 170/35MB's, the Intel SSD's are faster? Could you explain this?

2010-08-04 05:27:16

#21

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6413|Finland

RDMC wrote:
GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Random read/write performance of the X25-V and the X25-M G2 are superior to that Kingston SSD. And they count most.
so you are saying that despite the 200MBs/110MBs versus 170/35MB's, the Intel SSD's are faster? Could you explain this?

Yes, take a look at this. I don't think I need to explain more lol...

oops wrong pic...

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2010-08-04 05:29:21)

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2010-08-04 05:34:22

#22

RDMC: Enemy Wheelbarrow Spotted..!!; +736|6563|Area 51

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
RDMC wrote:
GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Random read/write performance of the X25-V and the X25-M G2 are superior to that Kingston SSD. And they count most.
so you are saying that despite the 200MBs/110MBs versus 170/35MB's, the Intel SSD's are faster? Could you explain this?
Yes, take a look at this. I don't think I need to explain more lol...

oops wrong pic...

Just to get it right one last time:

Kingston: 200/110 MBs
Intel: 170/35 MBs

So slower is faster?

2010-08-04 05:41:20

#23

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6413|Finland

RDMC wrote:
GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
RDMC wrote:
so you are saying that despite the 200MBs/110MBs versus 170/35MB's, the Intel SSD's are faster? Could you explain this?
Yes, take a look at this. I don't think I need to explain more lol...

oops wrong pic...
Just to get it right one last time:

Kingston: 200/110 MBs
Intel: 170/35 MBs

So slower is faster?

Those are sequential write/read speeds. You are not constantly copying files to your disk are you? Most use is random write/read operation.

http://www.storagereview.com/intel_x25v_ssd_review_40gb

"Our 4K random test is where the Intel X25-V’s performance starts to make us pay attention. It has a HUGE lead over the other mid-range SSDs and it’s just slightly under the 160GB X25-M. Just like its faster brother, the Intel X25-V has a huge advantage in other drives in random write performance. Random read performance is still very good and slides into second place under the X25-M."

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2010-08-04 05:42:23)

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2010-08-04 05:50:47

#24

FloppY_: +1,010|6284|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
RDMC wrote:
GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

Yes, take a look at this. I don't think I need to explain more lol...

oops wrong pic...
Just to get it right one last time:

Kingston: 200/110 MBs
Intel: 170/35 MBs

So slower is faster?
Those are sequential write/read speeds. You are not constantly copying files to your disk are you? Most use is random write/read operation.

http://www.storagereview.com/intel_x25v_ssd_review_40gb

"Our 4K random test is where the Intel X25-V’s performance starts to make us pay attention. It has a HUGE lead over the other mid-range SSDs and it’s just slightly under the 160GB X25-M. Just like its faster brother, the Intel X25-V has a huge advantage in other drives in random write performance. Random read performance is still very good and slides into second place under the X25-M."

Ye afaik the random w/r is what you get a SSD for no?

Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me

2010-08-04 05:56:48

#25

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6413|Finland

FloppY_ wrote:
Ye afaik the random w/r is what you get a SSD for no?

Yes, and fast load times and access latency.

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

BF2S Forums Thinking about buying a SSD

RDMC wrote:

RDMC wrote:

RDMC wrote:

burnzz wrote:

burnzz wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

CammRobb wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

CammRobb wrote:

RDMC wrote:

RDMC wrote:

RDMC wrote:

Bevo wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

RDMC wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

RDMC wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

RDMC wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

RDMC wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

RDMC wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Board footer