SSD Prices in Free-Fall: The Next DRAM?

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by kid41212003

If you have a decent i5/7 system with a $250 video card, and you have $150 to spare, SSD is the best upgrade you can do.

At $150, nothing else will give you a more noticeable performance upgrade.

So you believe that going from something like an GTX570/HD7850 to something like a GTX670/HG7950 would give less of a noticeable performance upgrade than an SSD? Keep living the delusion...

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

So you believe that going from something like an GTX570/HD7850 to something like a GTX670/HG7950 would give less of a noticeable performance upgrade than an SSD? Keep living the delusion...

It depends on how you define noticeable. Since noticeable is subjective both of you guys are right.

[kid41212003]

Are u talking about selling ur current hardware plus adding some money to buy a new video card?

You should try an SSD before actually criticize it.

[beck24]

Cold start to open browser in 10 seconds. Applications pop open like a light switch. I'm never going back.

[techtard]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

So you believe that going from something like an GTX570/HD7850 to something like a GTX670/HG7950 would give less of a noticeable performance upgrade than an SSD? Keep living the delusion...

Actually yes, going from the last gen top end of video cards to the next gen top end would be a less noticible improvement than going from a spinning hdd to an ssd.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by beck24

Cold start to open browser in 10 seconds. Applications pop open like a light switch. I'm never going back.

thats what i thought, til my vertex II died. and now i want to wait a few gens.

[kid41212003]

Originally Posted by Mussels

thats what i thought, til my vertex II died. and now i want to wait a few gens.

Buy an Intel?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4202/t...d-510-review/3

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by kid41212003

Buy an Intel?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4202/t...d-510-review/3

damned interesting link, seeing as all i hear about is dead OCZ's

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by kid41212003

Are u talking about selling ur current hardware plus adding some money to buy a new video card?

You should try an SSD before actually criticize it.

I have tried SSDs, several of them, never found the cost worth it at all.

And yes, if I had $150 to spend, I'd sell my current card and put the $150 towards a replacement.

Originally Posted by techtard

Actually yes, going from the last gen top end of video cards to the next gen top end would be a less noticible improvement than going from a spinning hdd to an ssd.

Really, what kind of framerate boost are people getting from an SSD? Programs and games on my rig already launch in under 10 seconds, so an SSD shaves a few seconds off that, and that is a noticeable difference? No, it isn't.

Sorry, going from 45FPS to 60FPS certianly is more noticeable than the game's loading screen being 5 seconds shorter and Windows booting 15 seconds faster. And yes, those are actual time difference I measured on my rig when it had an SSD in it compared to the Seagate 7200.12.

If I had $150 laying around, an SSD would not be what I would spend it on, they aren't worth it. At this point, I'd probably just save the $150 actually.

[remixedcat]

Originally Posted by Mussels

damned interesting link, seeing as all i hear about is dead OCZ's

no samsung in that list???

[kid41212003]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

I have tried SSDs, several of them, never found the cost worth it at all.

And yes, if I had $150 to spend, I'd sell my current card and put the $150 towards a replacement.



Really, what kind of framerate boost are people getting from an SSD? Programs and games on my rig already launch in under 10 seconds, so an SSD shaves a few seconds off that, and that is a noticeable difference? No, it isn't.

Sorry, going from 45FPS to 60FPS certianly is more noticeable than the game's loading screen being 5 seconds shorter and Windows booting 15 seconds faster. And yes, those are actual time difference I measured on my rig when it had an SSD in it compared to the Seagate 7200.12.

If I had $150 laying around, an SSD would not be what I would spend it on, they aren't worth it. At this point, I'd probably just save the $150 actually.

You must be getting old. Old people have a lot of patience (really old one).

Follow up to what i said in the last page:

With a $250 VGA card, gtx 560ti for example, can play any game out there with max setting @1680x1050/1920x1080 with an exception of VERY few games that can't.

I'm pretty sure the majority of us spend out time browsing webs and using programs which an SSD will actually matter more even just by the seconds. Smartphone users will probably understand what I mean here.

SSD will affect all your programs, while a VGA card will only make games faster. I don't think the majority of us play games all day to live.

Maybe it's a matter of opinion, but I think my points fit the majority of gamers with average budget that want to get the best bang for their buck.

Advertisement: Intel 330 Series 120GB with 500/500 read/write for less than $150 @ google.com!

[Morgoth]

@ kidd0 a ram drive makes ur pc allot faster to.. cost nothing

[TRWOV]

Originally Posted by Hustler

Give me 256Gb for $100 and i'll go for it...until then, no thanks.

And I'm still not convinced of their reliability, many forums i visit seem full of people having problems with them.

I prefer to use them for caching. That way if they go bad I have the HDD as a fallback.

[Prima.Vera]

Originally Posted by kid41212003

Buy an Intel?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4202/t...d-510-review/3

Intel's READs kinda suck much??

[MxPhenom 216]

Originally Posted by kid41212003

Are u talking about selling ur current hardware plus adding some money to buy a new video card?

You should try an SSD before actually criticize it.

If you have a gaming rig, SSDs don't do anything for you in terms for FPS performance. Only load times, and right now games on a normal mechanical drive load fast enough. You must be like 10 years old if you cannot wait 10 seconds for a game to load. I only have an SSD to Windows and all my games and everything else is on a mechanical.

Originally Posted by remixedcat

no samsung in that list???

Why would Samsung be on that list. They are some of the most reliable drives right now. Intel, Crucial, and Samsung if you want reliability is the way to go.

[theonedub]

I was a non-believer in the performance difference SSDs supposedly gave until I got my Performance Pro 256GB- fast boot and shutdown, program installs are insanely fast, programs load near instantly, MSE scan times are 3-4x faster, and the list goes on. I agree that if you have a good all around system and want to up your system performance/response time, buy an SSD.

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by DanTheBanjoman

And why is that? I remember paying ~€200 for a low end 4GB drive. I remember 64MB USB sticks costing nearly €100. You get 2GB sticks for free nowadays. SSDs will get larger and larger and thus price per GB gets lower, it's simply how things work.

Because of the size of an electron. Magnetism will always be more compact.

[Gsa700]

I'll probably regret saying this.......BUT!

I have 3 OCZ drives and haven't had any trouble with any of them.

120 GB Vertex
64 GB Vertex
60 GB Agility 3

I am glad to see the prices drop though. Maybe a sweet 256 GB is in my future....

[cedrac18]

Originally Posted by Gsa700

I'll probably regret saying this.......BUT!

I have 3 OCZ drives and haven't had any trouble with any of them.

120 GB Vertex
64 GB Vertex
60 GB Agility 3

I am glad to see the prices drop though. Maybe a sweet 256 GB is in my future....

I have an Agility 2 90GB 3.5 inch version super solid and reliable for over a year. Still have plenty of space left and cannot justify buying a new one. And lol at the guy saying a new graphics card is better to have than an SSD. Not all of us play games 24/7 maybe you should check out the ssd vs hdd comparos on youtube. Responsive system > an extra 10 fps that i could achieve by adjusting some sliders.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by kid41212003

You must be getting old. Old people have a lot of patience (really old one).

Follow up to what i said in the last page:

With a $250 VGA card, gtx 560ti for example, can play any game out there with max setting @1680x1050/1920x1080 with an exception of VERY few games that can't.

I'm pretty sure the majority of us spend out time browsing webs and using programs which an SSD will actually matter more even just by the seconds. Smartphone users will probably understand what I mean here.

SSD will affect all your programs, while a VGA card will only make games faster. I don't think the majority of us play games all day to live.

Maybe it's a matter of opinion, but I think my points fit the majority of gamers with average budget that want to get the best bang for their buck.

Advertisement: Intel 330 Series 120GB with 500/500 read/write for less than $150 @ google.com!

Awesome, a 120GB drive that I can't install even a fraction of my games and programs on, what a great help that would be! Yeah, I can spend $150 to shave 15 seconds off my boot time! That is totally worth the money.

And I suggest you try some more modern games before saying a GTX560ti can handle them. Just go look at some video card reviews, W1z's review has a fair share of games that even the GTX570 can't handle at 1900x1200, even without using max settings. Alan Wake, Alien vs. Predator, Arkham City, Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Dragon Age II, Shogun 2, Skyrim, and those are just the ones in his review, I've got several more install right now that a GTX560ti couldn't handle at 1900x1200.

And after the ~30 second Windows boot time on my mechanical drive, all of my programs load in under 5 seconds thanks to Windows Superfetch, so an SSD is pretty useless unless you are using it to load games faster, and since I can't fit all of the games I play regularly on a 120GB drive $150 for an SSD would be useless.

[Gsa700]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Awesome, a 120GB drive that I can't install even a fraction of my games and programs on, what a great help that would be! Yeah, I can spend $150 to shave 15 seconds off my boot time! That is totally worth the money.

And I suggest you try some more modern games before saying a GTX560ti can handle them. Just go look at some video card reviews, W1z's review has a fair share of games that even the GTX570 can't handle at 1900x1200, even without using max settings. Alan Wake, Alien vs. Predator, Arkham City, Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Dragon Age II, Shogun 2, Skyrim, and those are just the ones in his review, I've got several more install right now that a GTX560ti couldn't handle at 1900x1200.

And after the ~30 second Windows boot time on my mechanical drive, all of my programs load in under 5 seconds thanks to Windows Superfetch, so an SSD is pretty useless unless you are using it to load games faster, and since I can't fit all of the games I play regularly on a 120GB drive $150 for an SSD would be useless.

No one is suggesting that there is no longer a place in high end systems for a HDD. I have SSD system drives in all my machines and I can tell you it is not about boot times. No HDD configuration, no matter how fast it might be, can match even an entry level SSD in latency and access times which is what improves the user experience much more than just sequential read and write.

As for gaming, my gaming rig has an Agility 3 SSD for the windows drive, and a RAID0 of Caviar Black HDD for storing the game files and VM's.

Windows Superfetch cannot compare. RAID anything cannot compare. SSD is the fastest. No one ever debated the capacity issue.

Get an SSD, you will see the light like most other enthusiasts have.

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Awesome, a 120GB drive that I can't install even a fraction of my games and programs on, what a great help that would be! Yeah, I can spend $150 to shave 15 seconds off my boot time! That is totally worth the money.

And I suggest you try some more modern games before saying a GTX560ti can handle them. Just go look at some video card reviews, W1z's review has a fair share of games that even the GTX570 can't handle at 1900x1200, even without using max settings. Alan Wake, Alien vs. Predator, Arkham City, Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Dragon Age II, Shogun 2, Skyrim, and those are just the ones in his review, I've got several more install right now that a GTX560ti couldn't handle at 1900x1200.

And after the ~30 second Windows boot time on my mechanical drive, all of my programs load in under 5 seconds thanks to Windows Superfetch, so an SSD is pretty useless unless you are using it to load games faster, and since I can't fit all of the games I play regularly on a 120GB drive $150 for an SSD would be useless.

Both of us know that SSD is not for everyone, and its clearly not for you. Why try to defend that "SSD is no good" because it doesn't fit your expectations, needs or wants?

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by Gsa700

No one is suggesting that there is no longer a place in high end systems for a HDD. I have SSD system drives in all my machines and I can tell you it is not about boot times. No HDD configuration, no matter how fast it might be, can match even an entry level SSD in latency and access times which is what improves the user experience much more than just sequential read and write.

As for gaming, my gaming rig has an Agility 3 SSD for the windows drive, and a RAID0 of Caviar Black HDD for storing the game files and VM's.

Windows Superfetch cannot compare. RAID anything cannot compare. SSD is the fastest. No one ever debated the capacity issue.

Get an SSD, you will see the light like most other enthusiasts have.

I guess you didn't read that I've had several SSDs. It does not improve the experience, Windows isn't any more reacitive, most programs don't even open any faster. As I said, with a mechanical drive most programs, including large ones like the Adobe programs, open in under 5 seconds. There isn't much improving on that, certainly not enough to justify spending any money on it.

And the capacity issue does come into play, the point of the SSD it to make things faster, if most of my programs are stored on a mechanical drive anyway, how is the SSD helping beyond boot time?

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

Both of us know that SSD is not for everyone, and its clearly not for you. Why try to defend that "SSD is no good" because it doesn't fit your expectations, needs or wants?

I'm not saying the SSD is no good, I'm saying the money can usually be spent elsewhere. If there is nothing else you can upgrade in your computer, then by all means get an SSD. But in most cases an SSD is a poor upgrade choice.

[MxPhenom 216]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

I guess you didn't read that I've had several SSDs. It does not improve the experience, Windows isn't any more reacitive, most programs don't even open any faster. As I said, with a mechanical drive most programs, including large ones like the Adobe programs, open in under 5 seconds. There isn't much improving on that, certainly not enough to justify spending any money on it.

And the capacity issue does come into play, the point of the SSD it to make things faster, if most of my programs are stored on a mechanical drive anyway, how is the SSD helping beyond boot time?



I'm not saying the SSD is no good, I'm saying the money can usually be spent elsewhere. If there is nothing else you can upgrade in your computer, then by all means get an SSD. But in most cases an SSD is a poor upgrade choice.

It coems down to what you use your system for. Because it is hard to deny the fact that hard drives can be the biggest bottleneck for any system. Day in and Day out a hard drive will be the slowest component of a computer. You put an SSD in and that bottleneck is close to gone.

If you are someone who needs a shit ton of storage and stuff then yeah and SSD isn't for you but typically people nowadays have a small SSD just for windows and then 1TB drives or whatever for games and programs and whatever else.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by nvidiaintelftw

It coems down to what you use your system for. Because it is hard to deny the fact that hard drives can be the biggest bottleneck for any system. Day in and Day out a hard drive will be the slowest component of a computer. You put an SSD in and that bottleneck is close to gone.

If you are someone who needs a shit ton of storage and stuff then yeah and SSD isn't for you but typically people nowadays have a small SSD just for windows and then 1TB drives or whatever for games and programs and whatever else.

That is my point though, if you have to load all your programs from a mechanical drive anyway than they aren't loading or operating any faster, and the SSD is useless. Like I said, paying $150 just to have Windows load faster is a complete waste of money. Once Windows is loaded everything is pretty much instant when clicked on, the user experience is pretty much unchanged with an SSD.