"2.5-inch SSDs run on the Serial ATA interface, which was designed for hard drives (and launched way back in 2000)"
I remember that in 2004/2005 I could still buy a new laptop with an IDE hard drive, and SATA drives were pretty new at the time and had a higher price tag than IDE. But either way, you forgot to mention that there are 3 types of SATA and that the Sata 3 is what an average user would need to unleash a full potential of a modern SSD.
I would have to say that everything is pretty much spot on for most users. However, low capacity M.2 SSDs (like those w/ similar specs to the 960 EVO) used as a boot drive w/ 2.5" SSD(s) to make up the rest of your storage (assuming you don't need more than 1 or 2TB), I feel is the best for cost if you want raging speeds for your OS. Price points for SSDs for over 500GB, IMO, are showing some pretty bad returns in terms of performance to volume to cost ratios.
However, I completely love M.2 SSDs since it cuts out so much when you're talking about cable management. Love this in mini-ITX builds the most.
Optane is not limited to just Intel processors. Optane Memory is a speciality product that is part of a system. You can use it with AMD's cache software, or use it just as a regular SSD."
You're right. I thought both 900P series and the earlier cache drives were Intel platform limited. I verified it with Intel website and 900P drives are not chipset/platform dependent. I stand corrected.
There are some details where I concur and other where I disagree.
1. Low end SSD is much faster than HDD, but even faster SSD is a matter of seriously diminishing returns at much higher cost.
2. Don't even consider buying a drive that has less than 256GB of storage.
I wouldn't be that strict in general. Much better to analyze one's needs and decide from that. I have a 120 GB system SSD, and the programs I'd like to have on SSD but can't fit in there won't make it on a 256 GB (or even 500 GB) SSD either. For me the only reason to pick 256 over 120 is that there's almost no added cost.
3. Form factors.
Do consider that the downsides of M.2 are typically higher prices and less cooling compared to 2.5".
4. Actual cost.
In the "sweet spot" at 250 - 500 GB you'll get (at least) eight times more storage if you buy HDD instead.
I'm not sure whether to put my PNY 120gb as primary and put swap on a spinner after reading this article. Good info and I'll figure it out once this blond moment slides past. Say hi to the 'heeland kuouws' next time wandering Scotland.
I notice a huge difference from a fresh reboot (over using a midrange HDD) but after a day of use? Not so much, I never reboot my systems unless necessary. Some people think "why hybernate if boot is so fast with an SSD?" and they're missing the bigger picture, that the point is most things I do, are running from main memory cache not the SSD at all. Reboot and you have to reload that. Of course this also means you must have ample main memory, which I'll always prefer because its write cycle lifespan is practically infinite compared to an SSD. Oh, and I don't see much need for an SSD over 250GB since I'm not a gamer, don't need rapid game level load times. Anything else that takes up a lot of space has its needs more than met by a HDD, even over a GbE lan connection. Buying a 1TB+ SDD seems silly to me, who really needs that many games stored on an SSD unless they're just pirating them all and that's how they can throw so much money at the SSD size for them all?
One problem with SSDs that I haven't seen covered. When one goes south, there's really no way to recover the data. I learned that the hard way. My HDD have puked once or twice and I simply download some OSS and after a bit all is right with the world.