Could An SSD Be The Best Upgrade For Your Old PC?

[brucek2]

@captaincharisma: You may be missing the point. Of course your system requires enough storage for all your files, the bulk of which will be on an inexpensive standard HDD. You can safely put all your large media files, your seldom used apps and games, etc on this storage.

The point of purchasing the SSD is to speed up responsiveness for most every interactive task you do, not to increase total system storage. An upgraded CPU, RAM, graphics card, or MoBo also will not increase total system storage (even less than an SSD!). Rather, all of these upgrades are about increasing responsiveness where you will most notice it, which for many users will come from a SSD.

Of course, if you are currently at the point where you have noticeably sluggy frame rates in your games; or are frequently waiting on a transcode, compile, or other large compute job to complete; then you need to address those issues first before getting to the SSD.

 

[brucek2]

@MrBig55: It certainly wouldn't hurt to have those results, but in my opinion none of those are really what an SSD is about. It is most noticeable to me not in shortening the "big compute tasks" (of which I have relatively few in an average day), but in near eliminating the pause between tasks. I bet I'm like most Tom's readers in that I am constantly shuffling between many different web pages, apps, etc. With an SSD on my desktop I can do this instantly and friction-free. Until I put an SSD in my laptop, it used to be hell trying to shuffle quickly, even though it had a top of the line mobile CPU and plenty of RAM. The reason is all the little I/O that modern operating systems are constantly doing in the background (watch your resource monitor if you don't know what I'm talking about), all of which will take noticeable time to complete on your typical slow laptop drive.

I'm not sure how Tom's could be measure this, but to me this is what an SSD is about. Switching to one may change your workstyle in ways you won't even anticipate until you have one.

 

[livebriand]

My system is VERY similar to #4 - i5 750, 8GB RAM, except a WD Caviar Black HD instead. I have low-end geforce 210 graphics and I run a dual-monitor setup (1280x1024 each). Would I notice much performance gain by upgrading the graphics card?

Back when I had a single 1280x1024 monitor, a Pentium 4 2.8GHz cpu, 1GB DDR and a Geforce 2 mx400 card, I noticed a bit of speed increase by changing to a geforce 6200 graphics card and 2GB RAM - I don't know which was responsible, but ram usage was typically around 500MB. When that system, including upgrades, got Vista, I noticed the desktop was faster when I overclocked the graphics card quite a bit. That all makes me suspect the graphics card.

 

[livebriand]

[citation][nom]jsrudd[/nom]I installed an SSD in my netbook with an 1.6ghz atom processor and it really sped things up. The computer went from unusable to fine for casual usage.[/citation]
I wonder how it would affect my E350 netbook (4GB RAM, Hitachi 7200RPM drive, Thinkpad x120e). I've been looking into that for a while now.

 

[Ubrales]

Excellent article!

Addresses the issues regarding SSDs in older machines.High SSD cost is still a hurdle!

 

[aengineer]

It's a foregone conclusion that SSDs are must-haves in performance-oriented PCs, but our testing reveals that solid-state drives are reasonable upgrades in older mainstream machines, too. We build three old boxes to gauge the impact of an SSD on each.

Could An SSD Be The Best Upgrade For Your Old PC? : Read more

I'm pretty well convinced by this article that an SSD upgrade is worthwhile. From what I've read elsewhere it appears that a fresh install of W7 after installing the latest firmware and Bios updates is the way to get the best results.

Can anyone point me to a step-by-step for replacing an existing W7 hard drive with an SSD. It looks as though there are pitfalls and I'd like to be sure I have a step-by-step set of instructions. I'm interested as part of this in whether I can/should transfer program settings using Windows Easy Transfer.

I have a homebuilt machine
AMD Phenom II X3 720 CPU - Socket AM3
MSI 790X-G45 (MS-7622)
8GB RAM

Thanks

 

[jonahkirk]

I had a G1 Intel drive in an old AMD X 2 939 SATA 1 board and it made a huge difference. Remember, you can always carry over the drive when you upgrade latter. Windows XP users might want an older OCZ barefoot drive with manual wipe tools-I personally used hdparm to occasionally refresh (secure erase) my drive. Now, upgrading ram or processor, have you priced DDR2 or DDR lately? You can often buy a cheap AMD Quad system for only a few bucks more-Though you do get stuck with the Microsoft tax.

 

[livebriand]

[citation][nom]WinMac[/nom]Ever since I got my SSD on my system (i7 920 Rig 3.6GHZ OC, 12GB Ram, GTX 260 x2 SLI) my boot times have decreased from 41seconds to 23 seconds, the programs stored on the SSD like my Browser, itunes, office, Dreamweaver, photshop and other open instantly. I have yet to put any games on it as I dont game that much.[/citation]
I have to wonder how SSDs compare to performance drives like WD Caviar Blacks. I have one, Windows 7 64-bit, i5 750, and Chrome opens in about 1 second. Word opens in around 2-3. I can wait that time, it isn't quite worth the extra money just for that. (in my opinion)

 

[livebriand]

[citation][nom]Anonymous[/nom]"if you're spending most of your time in office productivity apps, browsing the Internet, or watching video/listening to music, an older Core 2 setup is still respectable" What is this nonsense? My core 2 setup still spanks just about every application I throw at it. That line makes the core 2 sound like the atom.[/citation]
Basically:
Core 2 Duo: Good enough
1st gen i series: More than enough power
2nd gen i series: Over your head power

 

[livebriand]

[citation][nom]digirati[/nom]To quote you: "If you're just browsing the Internet, using social media, watching video, communicating over Skype, or word processing, a five-year-old Core 2 Duo still probably feels like a snappy-enough system."HORSECRAP!!!! My wife browses the Internet, uses social media, watches YouTube videos etc., etc. She's using an IBM (not a Lenovo, an IBM) ThinkPad with a Pentium3 1GHz CPU, 512 MB RAM and a 40GB HDD. And that's STILL more machine than she puts to use!If that's all you're doing with your PC, you don't need anything over a Pentium 2 300 and 128 MB RAM. As "ancient" as you're trying to make a Core2 Duo sound, it's still overkill for email.[/citation]
With an ancient insecure OS right? Windows 2000 maybe? Good luck getting a modern browser to run smoothly on that. Plus an older browser won't load things correctly.

 

[livebriand]

[citation][nom]shin0bi272[/nom]I put an ocz vertex 2 in my i7 920 with 6gb of ram on an asus p6t deluxe v2, and it was definitely NOT worth the upgrade. Sure my game's load times from save games are faster (mass effect loads in 5 seconds vs 15 on an echs bhocs 360), and windows loads a little faster than my velociraptor that the ssd replaced, but its not like some super fast amazing machine now. The rig only plays games so any sort of "creativity" work is superfluous to its operation. The price : performance ratio is just way off still. Wait till they come down to under a dollar a gig before you buy one unless you are putting it in a p4 to save it from the scrap heap because you just cant let the old girl die.[/citation]
Most users don't have a VelociRaptor. They probably have something equivalent to a WD Caviar Blue. Your VelociRaptor is already very fast compared to a 7200RPM HD. I agree that they aren't worth the price though.

 

[hangfirew8]

A very good and timely article, but if the authors really believed what they said (

But almost nobody considers adding an SSD

) I doubt they would have written it. Fortunately we can see many forums full of exactly this question (with varied opinions in response.)

I also would have liked to have seen the 2005 system be an AMD 64 x2, as that is what most of us where running at that time. We also have wives and children using these old systems, wondering when a new upgrade will trickle down from our gaming machine and speed up their on-line life. It is hard to explain that one needs to replace memory, CPU and M/B all at once on a Socket 939 system, but $99 sale M4 can let them feel that we really are looking after them.

I also disagree that non-Core processors should not be considered- Pentium D's and higher end WUXGA equipped Pentium M laptops are obvious candidates, especially if the HDD needs replacing anyway. (If still original, the HDD should be replaced preemptively before inevitable failure). Once the old system is finally replaced the SSD is still usable in the next system.

I think lack of SATA III and even AHCI are mostly irrelevant. Windows 7 cost is a good point but even Windows XP can be properly partitioned, formatted, and configured to minimize the need for TRIM, and there are tricks to invoke TRIM there as well. The value judgement really depends on how much you value the snappy, responsive feel an SSD. It doesn't matter to me that my older system can't fully utilize SSD throughput or my SATA I channel is saturated. What matters is for 100 bucks I no longer feel stuck in the slow lane of the Information Superhighway. Getting rid of the chugga-chugga sound each time Firefox or Word is launched is worth something to me, too.

 

[newsurak]

In Calgary, Alberta:
Kingston 64GB = 79$ 210 ms
120 GB = 170$
I bought a 64GB, for my old D940
we'll see how WIndows 7 and the SSD likes an old mobo...

 

[Guest]

@hangfire: True that ! I am on a 2006 single core S939 3200+ (2Ghz) and the SSD upgrade and a fresh Win7 install has made the system snappy enough for me now. 70$ ,and it has infused new life into this baby.
I have it on balanced power plan where the cpu clock falls to 1Ghz regularly and I don't even notice it while doing the routine chores on this machine.

Of course, a uber-xuber xi-fi-core cpu would always be nice. and faster.

 

[Guest]

I put a Corsair Force in new i5 build. I went with a 64 GB model just to test the waters. Man what a difference! It takes longer for the BIOS to initialize than for Windows to boot. It is the biggest upgrade you can do to a PC performance-wise. I will never boot off a platter-based disk ever again. Now if I could only get my boss to see the light!

 

[Guest]

One test factor I am curious about, was the win 7 install / settings "tweaked" for SSD to not write redundant data, as is common practice to retain life of the SSD?

Were these same performance tweaks applied to the HDD tests?

No mention of OS / settings was mentioned in the Test setup specifications. Other than that, nice article.

 

[aengineer]

Mechanics of Replacing a HDD with an SSD

After reading this article I decided to replace my HDD with an SSD. Eventually I succeeded, but stumbled a bit along the way. What follows is what I learned that may aid others.

What I started with:
Homebuilt PC with MSI 790X-G45 (MS-7622) Motherboard, W7 64-bit Home Premium, 2x1TB drives partitioned in an Antec Sonata box.
What I Added - SAMSUNG 470 Series MZ-5PA256/US 2.5" 256GB SATA SSD – to become new system Drive.

Hints for Others

1) Physically installing the disk was a challenge. The adapter I bought to hold the 2.5” drive in a 3.5” slot didn’t have holes that fit the carrier in Antec Sonata case. Also I spent a great deal of time puzzling over the power supply connectors, receiving contradictory, bad advice from several specialist vendors on how to adapt a Molex 4-pin connector to suit the connector on the SSD. Eventually I was lucky and found that MSI or Antec had included the proper power cable, but it was tucked away where I didn’t initially see it.

2) The “obvious” MSI download for the latest BIOS version is wrong – elsewhere you’re told not to use it. One has to get a special program from one of their forums (I believe) and set up a “boot disk” that they don’t make clear has to be a DOS boot disk.

3) Setting up the BIOS for AHCI wasn’t too bad, but it was hidden away in my AMI menus without good explanation.

4) I didn’t have to update the SDD firmware. Using the free software Crystal Disk Info gives the current firmware ID to avoid going through that process.

5) I had to use W7 “Computer Management” format the hard drive and to get the drive recognized by my computer when running from the HDD System.

6) Installing W7 was a real pain
a. I had purchased “upgrade” disks for W7-HP that was already on the machine – They won’t install unless there’s already an OS on the disk.

b. I had to disconnect the two HDD’s in order to be able to install W7 to the SDD

c. Installing XP to the SSD didn’t work to be able to upgrade – it crashed the computer BSD

d. I finally succeeded by using a full copy of W7-Pro that I had for another purpose – I never figured out how to use my “upgrade” disks or how to get a full installer without buying a new copy of W7 even though I was really doing an upgrade.

Once I’d navigated these pitfalls the actual installation went easily and well. The results of the new SSD C: drive were as satisfying as the articles say.

 

[silicondoc]

[citation][nom]yannigr[/nom]It could be a so much better and more interesting article. Unfortunately it is not. Half job=nothing. It is just another "There is NO AMD, there is ONLY Intel" article. You could just take a today's Intel system and underclock it. Less trouble, same almost useless results. When we are talking about different eras and different systems we try at least to have different systems.[/citation]

AMD had really really SUCK hard drive controllers in their southbridges, even the 710SB sucks, and only 880G + brought them out of suckville...

I suspect they tried a few AMD dustbricks from the shelves, and even if they got SSD response it was so below standard that they decided not to show the humiliating truth.

Count your lucky stars.

 

[Guest]

If AHCI didn't appear until mid 2007 or later (which I think is the case) then a 2005 or 2006 system would not have a controller that supports it. It would seem that if your system is not 2008 or newer, then SSD is not likely an option for you. Even in the article, a motherboard that is 2008 vintage is used for the 2005 and 2006 systems. Please let me know if I am missing something here?

 

[q4quality]

It would have been nice if you guys did the test using Windows XP, as this is an article about using OLDER systems and what effect putting an SDD in it would have. As I understand it XP does not support TRIM, but if there was a work-around (3rd party TRIM software) maybe that would be enough.

Without showing the effect of using windows XP, this article should be qualified with MUST UPGRADE to WINDOWs before buying a new SDD component.. or something like that.

 

[q4quality]

... to WINDOWs 7 before buying a new SDD ...

 

[Potato13]

Would it be okay for someone with a Pentium 4 515 and 2 GB RAM to get an SSD? My computer is usable right now but it is very slow.

 

[Guest]

I have no idea why people think SSD's are too expensive. I got a 64GB one last christmas for a little over $100 and used it in my build along with an HDD for using as a hybrid. I had all HDD before, and I have to say it was completely worth the extra money. So much faster and better in every way. My old comp was about 5 years old when I upgraded too, to me it felt extremely state of the art, but for not a lot of $$. I had two core comp and upgraded to a 6 core with 8gb ram and a decent graphics card I already had from a birthday present a few months earlier and was able to build my comp for about $650. It's a dream now.

 

[truromeo4juliet]

Too bad this article doesn't account the slowdown mechanical drives suffer from after X number of operating hours. Read/Write head breakdown, bit rot, and other issues that plague mechanical drives cause their R/W performance at the time of a needed upgrade to be well worth the money in an SSD, or even a new mechanical HDD. Somewhat disappointed, Tom's...

 

[kukz]

my CPU has the following configurationP4 (DualCore) , 4 gb DDR2 ram, 2.65 GHz , win XP OS. Will it be compatible if i keep SSD along with my existing 500gb HDD