Millions believe in a god they've never seen. Scientists believe in the Higs Bosun yet its never been found. You cannot quantify everything with numbers. I understand where you are coming from but I can't help feeling that if you were to try SSD for yourself you would see the point. If i had just looked at numbers I may not have got an SSD. I took stock of comments from some of the esteemed members here, the comments they made were good. I thought I just gotta have one of those. I've never looked back. Everything works faster, period.
You can either believe us, or not. But if you don't, just buy a hdd then and use slow storage, it's your own decision. But if you later realize that an SSD is in fact faster, remember who was the one that didn't want to believe that SSDs are faster. Maybe you should have a look in a computer store, there are always notebooks to play with, probably also some with an SSD. But maybe you'll think that the store uses a tweaked windows version to fake the speed? And you won't be able to time boottimes in a store either most of the time. So it's up to you now. But keep in mind that almost everyone in the world states that SSDs are faster, so the chance is pretty big that it's true...
Is the "faster" equal the "cash" in this age of rapidly diminishing assets. This discussion is a personal choice, you will never come to a consensus. :crystal:
i bought my 128g ssd april 2010, use it for my system drive at the time i spent $170 on it, it works well its fast and it runs all my games a little better so im happy with it and isnt that what counts. you can flash a lot of numbers but until you try it you will never know if its right for you (i did compair ssd's before buying) in the future all computers will have ssd's or some other form of instant access drive but for now ssd's are it.
Not sure who this question is pointed to Stayboogy or me, but as I said before I have used SSD. I have a friend with a Laptop containing an SSD and it's fast. Compared to my laptop with a 5400 rpm drive a 7200 rpm is fast and the SSD is way faster than the 7200 rpm. However I still wouldn't spend on an SSD now. Rather than spend $560 for a 256 GB SSD that will be about 1/4 of my budget towards a new Intel Broadwell laptop in 2014/5, which is sure to have an SSD in it.
Nah, I've meant @ sys HDD users generally (have a look at the original post) The OCZ vertex 2 120GB is available for 150 bucks and it has the wow effect already....
Here 60GB model costs 110 euros. I think instead that, I'm going to get OCZ 60GB Agility 3 Series 60GB as it costs 94 euros while being faster. It will take some time to save the money, but I believe it's worth of it. My rule for upgrades is simple: If you can't see the difference after upgrade other way than in synthetic tests, you've wasted your money.
I am on my second SSD in pci-e format. first one was 110GB pci-e 1.0. It was fast. Win7 bootup was sooo fast that yhe win7 loading dots before pulsing flag barely would meet. With the new Revo 3 x2 pci-e 2.0 hard drive I do not even get to see the dots form before I am at the desktop. SATAIII SSD have reached the envelope now of the port speed. Need to raid multiple SATAIII SSD's to come close to the speeds of these newer pci-e 2.0 revo drives. With two SATA III SSD in RAID 0 the win7 bootup dots dont meet, but you can still see them form unlike with the pci-e 2.0. Yes, price per gb is not as low as they should be, but the speed performance if soooooooooo worth it. Make the switch and you will not regret the $ you spent.
Greetings all! I notice that no one noticed the obvious with stayboogy's post. He is asking if it is worth the money to get an SSD over a HDD given the lack of storage space, while listing 5+ year old hardware as his current system specs. Nuff said. It's not worth it for you mate, you don't get it. You may never get it. It's about the bleeding edge of technology. I had my SSD fail on me (first gen, lasted almost a year, still in warranty). I'm presently waiting for the warranty to come through and PAINFULLY coping with the lack of responsiveness on my system. So you understand, I present my specs: CPU: i7-2600k MOBO: Asus P8P68-Evo RAM: 2 x 4GB Kingston 1600Mhz CL9 HDD: 2 x 1.5TB Seagate 7200RPM GFX: 6970 2GB PSU: Antec High Current Gamer 900W ROM: LG Blu-ray Burner I have had this system for almost a year (except the BD Burner, that's only about 3 months old) and I can tell that these specs will be better than stayboogy's specs for the forseeable future. I had a SATA2 (3Gb/s) drive (Kingston 120GB) and i miss it like an addict misses his hit. I'm replacing it with an OCZ SATA3 drive, though am considering droping to half the size. In short, someone like me sees the reason to upgrade to an SSD. Someone like stayboogy will not see this until that's all that's available and his old ones die. This is not a bad thing, and I do not in anyway mean to ridicule you stayboogy, it is just who you are, you're not a bleeding edge guy, and SSD's are bleeding edge. There IS a performance benefit, but stayboogy would not get it, his system is too old, the storage is not his bottleneck. To respond to the "i see no numbers" remark, many numbers were given, however a good example is this: I loaded a map in Medal of Honor (2010) in 30-40 seconds on average, my fiance's machine however took closer to 2 minutes. The ONLY difference in the systems was she had no SSD, ALL other components were identical. Last but not least: Synthetic benchmarks are useless, just as they are in graphics cards. Make sure to base it on real-world use, as this will differ. Enjoy peeps, -Augur
Yes, a good decision. I recommended the Agility 3 120GB (135€) to a friend last week. ...best upgrade he made, he has said. Your rule is simple and great. If the difference is much more than expected then there is even a wow effect, which the change to SSD simply has. You take benefit at every boot up. On a 120GB SSD you can install your most used applications as well. I have installed all apps which are loaded at every boot up onto it (AV, Firewall), also my most used applications (movie and picture editing).
Emphasis on the should have Yes people who have vast amounts of data most likely store it on conventional HDDs which is great until that HDD crashes & all that treasured accumulated data is gone forever! On a positive note, Raid Mirroring helps prevent total data loss. I said should have because the technology is out there to completely do away with this unreliable 20th century technology. I myself store data on conventional HDD's aswell, but keep them on external drives so are not constantly powered shortening the HDDs life span.
NAND memory will be the future. Magnetic (HDDs) and optical (CD / DVD / Blu-ray) media will disappear. DVD / Blu-ray might remain a long time to publish software / movies......but as storage media for home users they will vanish. ATM SSDs are used for sys partitions. Since HDDs are very cheap per gigabyte I recommend to buy a second one, but not to run it as RAID. Better is to use them as external storage device as netwave has mentioned or in a separate backup server. Backup solutions never have been that cheap. Do it!
Unfortunately, it's quite expensive here. The same SSD costs now 163.00€ here. Considering the exchange rate between dollar and euro, it's too expensive here. Upgrades will cost me an arm and a leg. I'm still recovering from 250€ hit I took for my last acquisitions. I believe SSD is a way to go, but I wish they were so cheaper!