ssd vs hdd opinions
Ok last thread was kind of screwed.
Really want to increase performance in gaming/boot
So I'm looking at a few ways of storage right now.
2)RAID0 2x WD1001FALS
3)RAID0 640GB Blacks (2 platters, instead of three)
1)I look at the expensive yet amazing SSD but with the lack of space unless I buy 3 or more it is going to be a annoyance seems Intel is the only reliable SSD
2)The 2 Black 1TB I'd have to go hunting for any made before November 2009, I guess thats all luck. I hear RAID0 speeds are great and a lot of space(maybe to much unless I develop a scary internet porn habit)
3) The cheapest by far, hunting is probably just as hard,again better storage not much performance difference off the 1tb
SSD boot drive will give you the biggest performance boost. And lots of them are reliable. I use a OCZ Vertex 60GB, and just keep the OS and one or two games I'm playing currently on it. The rest go on my Blacks.
SSD vs HDD
I learned early from some pretty savy techs that the best way to maximize efficiency using SSD is to use one as the OS and nothing more. Then purchase a larger for storage,...If I understand it correctly, the new hds are 6 gbs/sec. I don't understand why you'd want one from back in 2009. Is there something about those drives?
Crap umm yeah it was a value question didn't put that lol. But first no motor parts can keep up with sata 6, really that is for SSD and yeah firmware on anything after November 1, doesn't allow the WDTLER hack to stop the drive from going past 7s to drop from the raid array. I have to buy the 399.99 RE drives
NEXT best is OS + main apps you use all the time and the rest on a fast HDD.
Less best is OS only on the SSD and all apps on the hdd. In this scenario you will boot up fast...but thats about all that will be fast.
Worst scenario is using an older hdd as you OS and app drive. HDDs are sloooow in comparison to SSDs.
1TB Blacks are fast. There aint much dif between 3 and 6gb/s when it comes to HDDs as no hard drive out there is even coming close to saturating 3gb/s hell they are barely over the old sata 1 1.5gb/s mark! Think of it this way, you have a 3 lane highway and a 6 lane. IF there is only traffic to fill up 1.5 - 2 lanes....traveling on the 6 will not get you to your destination faster then traveling on the 3 lane one. ;)
As for the OP. Intel is NOT by a long shot the only "reliable" SSD mfg'er out there. They do make some of the best...but Indilinx, JM, Toshiba and Samsung are just as reliable. ;)
What is your budget? If you can afford $125 for a SSD get a Intel V for your most used apps and OS and stick the rest on a 640 black for total investment of 2 bills or so.
I am NOT a fan of Raid 0 for hard drives. The speed boost is simply not worth the risk or added latency.
SSD vs HDD
Oh ok. I wasn't sure about the SSD vs HDD. I had no idea there were issues with the 6gb/s. Thanks for clearing that up.:whistle:
Os + apps on ssd all Data on spinners.
The indilinx barefoot-based SSDs, the Barefoot ECO ones and the latest Intel are reliable drives, provided you use them like they're intended to be (and OS tweaked accordingly), and are running the latest firmware. I assume the latest Kingston drives are also good to go.
The Sandforce drives, which are really promising, are kinda new and it would be nice to let them "mature" a little before buying.
NP fishingfanatic. Its not that their is issues...its more for future proofing. Im sure in a few years hdds will saturate a sata 2 bus. BUT IMHO sata 6gb/s right now is for SSDs. TBH, it wouldn't surprise me if by the time hard drives saturate sata 2 bus....the next, NEXT revision will be out (prolly "sata 4" or "sata 12gb/s")! :)~
SSD vs HDD
Yeah, Akg. I meant all the pertinent apps as well. To learn that having only the OS, and no important apps on the SSD is less efficient makes perfect sense. Thanks again for helping me out. Regardless, these guys know their stuff, so if someone like AkG comments, you can bet it's a well informed one.:thumb:
|All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:05 AM.|