- Status
gnesterenko
Distinguished
- Dec 23, 2008
- 150
- 0
- 18,680
[citation][nom]milktea[/nom]When Hard Rectangular Drive (HRD) becomes mainstream, hopefully it would drive down the SSD prices.[/citation]
lol... call me when this happens - I'll be skiing the slopes of hell
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
lol... call me when this happens - I'll be skiing the slopes of hell
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
Rather than making them cheaper, they are just making them faster and keeping the same price points for the size. Not the end of the world....if you really want it, save up and buy one instead of just complaining about being poor. Right now, SSDs are not meant to be in everyones computers.
[citation][nom]KCK[/nom][/citation]
Random access time does matter. It's what makes HDDs feel 'slow' when they take several seconds to read a few hundred (or god help you, a few thousand) 4KB files when you load an app. For one big file it doesn't matter, but even modern NCQ can't keep up when your per-read latency is 10ms and you're after a few thousand of the buggers.
Areal density and RAID 0 can vastly improve streaming reads, but are rather less effective at reducing access times (and they're known to not really give the greatest improvements in load times, an Anand bench even had a RAID 0 array of Seagates loading HL2 slower than the single drive). Sure, you can put 4 drives in a RAID 0 array for some nice benchmark numbers, but even cheap current generation SSDs are still going to eat it for breakfast for random reads.
Do you really want to double/triple/quadruple the failure rate of the most infamously failure-prone device in a desktop, for that?
Random access time does matter. It's what makes HDDs feel 'slow' when they take several seconds to read a few hundred (or god help you, a few thousand) 4KB files when you load an app. For one big file it doesn't matter, but even modern NCQ can't keep up when your per-read latency is 10ms and you're after a few thousand of the buggers.
Areal density and RAID 0 can vastly improve streaming reads, but are rather less effective at reducing access times (and they're known to not really give the greatest improvements in load times, an Anand bench even had a RAID 0 array of Seagates loading HL2 slower than the single drive). Sure, you can put 4 drives in a RAID 0 array for some nice benchmark numbers, but even cheap current generation SSDs are still going to eat it for breakfast for random reads.
Do you really want to double/triple/quadruple the failure rate of the most infamously failure-prone device in a desktop, for that?
drwho1
Distinguished
- Jan 10, 2010
- 1,272
- 0
- 19,310
[citation][nom]jonahkirk[/nom]To drwho1have you ever used an ssd? Sure, we'd all like them to be cheeper, but its one of the best performance increases you can add. Do you upgrade your gpu or cpu occasionally? Or are you still waiting to replace your once awesome P4 and ATI 9800?[/citation]
I recently upgraded to an i5 cpu 4GBram I got a 500GB boot drive 6 2TB hard drives, 1 1TB hard drive.
on my boot drive (beside the obvious) I also run all my games from it (reason why I need a 500 GB boot drive) the green drives are fine to backup my movies (and the playback fine) on green drives, but I wouldn't want to run games or programs from them.
I recently upgraded to an i5 cpu 4GBram I got a 500GB boot drive 6 2TB hard drives, 1 1TB hard drive.
on my boot drive (beside the obvious) I also run all my games from it (reason why I need a 500 GB boot drive) the green drives are fine to backup my movies (and the playback fine) on green drives, but I wouldn't want to run games or programs from them.
Of course SSDs are better at that than a raptor or regular HDD, but to be fair most benchmarks make absolutely silly comparsions. They compare random access from a 120GB SSD (0.1ms) to a 500GB HDD (or something like that - 12ms), when they should only compare the 120GB around the sweet spot of the HDD. Still SSDs win by years, however I don't think that access times within a folder (that isn't fragmented) is that bad or that load times of a sata raid-0 are that much worse. The transfer rates are only slightly better and cheap SSDs are sometimes even worse. So the only big gain is random access, which might save you a few seconds at 10 times the cost.
If one has the money to afford SSDs fine, if money is tight then a raid-0 should be good enough and the slight performance gain isn't really worth it (for home users).
There are many old benchmarks floating around, so you have to read them carefully or again they do silly comparsions that no one an afford like 4 ssd raid vs 4 raptor raid instead of comparing a single SSD to a raptor to a 7200xraid-0 (they cost roughly the same).
Well, that's why I included a backup drive into the math, that can be removed or turned off and it would still be cheaper than a 120 GB SSD. Then again I never had issues with unreliable HDDs. I had one die on me, but it was way over the guranteed usage time and I could still retrieve most of the files.
All I'm saying is that I'm not sure if a 60GB SSD is worth the same as a 1TB 7200 rpm raid-0 or if a 120GB SSD is the same as a 1TB raid+backup+a game. Just from a cost/performance POV. I would rather get a better graphics card for the money that I could save instead of just having slightly better responsiveness. But yeah SSDs look very tempting if you can ignore the price tag.^^
hellwig
Distinguished
- May 29, 2008
- 1,743
- 0
- 19,860
Why do people say an SSD is a good upgrade for people? Unless you're running an overclocked i7-980 with 12GB of memory and dual-480's at 8000x4000, there's always room for improvement in the CPU/GPU setup. To waste any money on an SSD when your CPU and GPU still need to be upgraded is ridiculous.
And for people who do business work, browse the internet, moderate gaming: SSDs are completely wasted on you. That Celeron processor with on-board graphics isn't going to benefit from an SSD (and neither is a Core i5 with a Radeon 5770). Again, if there's room for improvement to your CPU or GPU, that's where the money should go.
SSD has application in critical data scenarios. Databases, web hosting, scientific data processing, these things can benefit from SSDs. Games that cache data to memory and even video trans-coding are more dependent on processing power than data access times.
Most home users will not see much of a benefit. Maybe Windows boots 10-seconds faster, is that worth a few hundred bucks to you?
And to those saying SSD capacities work just fine for boot and application drives, you need more apps. I have over 160GB of games installed through Steam, not counting ones I uninstalled or games I own separately. Add in the 40-50GB of Windows and other apps, and I'm running out of space for "affordable" SSD drives.
And for people who do business work, browse the internet, moderate gaming: SSDs are completely wasted on you. That Celeron processor with on-board graphics isn't going to benefit from an SSD (and neither is a Core i5 with a Radeon 5770). Again, if there's room for improvement to your CPU or GPU, that's where the money should go.
SSD has application in critical data scenarios. Databases, web hosting, scientific data processing, these things can benefit from SSDs. Games that cache data to memory and even video trans-coding are more dependent on processing power than data access times.
Most home users will not see much of a benefit. Maybe Windows boots 10-seconds faster, is that worth a few hundred bucks to you?
And to those saying SSD capacities work just fine for boot and application drives, you need more apps. I have over 160GB of games installed through Steam, not counting ones I uninstalled or games I own separately. Add in the 40-50GB of Windows and other apps, and I'm running out of space for "affordable" SSD drives.
Ogdin
Distinguished
- Jun 14, 2007
- 284
- 0
- 18,780
[citation][nom]hellwig[/nom]Why do people say an SSD is a good upgrade for people? Unless you're running an overclocked i7-980 with 12GB of memory and dual-480's at 8000x4000, there's always room for improvement in the CPU/GPU setup. To waste any money on an SSD when your CPU and GPU still need to be upgraded is ridiculous. And for people who do business work, browse the internet, moderate gaming: SSDs are completely wasted on you. That Celeron processor with on-board graphics isn't going to benefit from an SSD (and neither is a Core i5 with a Radeon 5770). Again, if there's room for improvement to your CPU or GPU, that's where the money should go.SSD has application in critical data scenarios. Databases, web hosting, scientific data processing, these things can benefit from SSDs. Games that cache data to memory and even video trans-coding are more dependent on processing power than data access times. Most home users will not see much of a benefit. Maybe Windows boots 10-seconds faster, is that worth a few hundred bucks to you?And to those saying SSD capacities work just fine for boot and application drives, you need more apps. I have over 160GB of games installed through Steam, not counting ones I uninstalled or games I own separately. Add in the 40-50GB of Windows and other apps, and I'm running out of space for "affordable" SSD drives.[/citation]
Because a ssd is good upgrade for people. Will the avg person notice a huge leap in performance going from a overclocked $170 cpu to a overclocked i7-980....nope,4 gigs of ram to 12 gigs.....nope,dual 480 over a single card....nope. But you can add a ssd to damn near any computer and Joe Average will be blown away by how fast the system responds.
Because a ssd is good upgrade for people. Will the avg person notice a huge leap in performance going from a overclocked $170 cpu to a overclocked i7-980....nope,4 gigs of ram to 12 gigs.....nope,dual 480 over a single card....nope. But you can add a ssd to damn near any computer and Joe Average will be blown away by how fast the system responds.
belardo
Splendid
- Nov 23, 2008
- 3,540
- 2
- 22,795
[citation][nom]hellwig[/nom]Why do people say an SSD is a good upgrade for people? To waste any money on an SSD when your CPU and GPU still need to be upgraded is ridiculous. And for people who do business work, browse the internet, moderate gaming: SSDs are completely wasted on you. That Celeron processor with on-board graphics isn't going to benefit from an SSD (and neither is a Core i5 with a Radeon 5770).[/citation]
Obviously, you've never used an computer with an SSD before. They will eventually replace ALL HDs. They are faster, no noise, less heat, no moving part and they will only get faster. Hard drives are as fast as they'll ever get.
SSDs are very popular with notebooks and they DO help. And yeah - when going to a meeting - you want to turn on your computer and get to work, especially in meetings and presentations. Waiting 2-5 minutes for your notebook to boot is a long long time. An SSD cuts boot up time down to 15~30 seconds total.
NOW, if Windows wasn't such a bloated OS, then it wouldnt make much difference. A Modern AmigaOS can boot up in a few seconds after POST. Its a much smaller OS.
I've setup hybrid systems with the Intel 80GB drives to boot and run apps, then a 1TB drive to store data and games. That's about $300. Much cheaper than a $600~$1000 256GB SSD Drive.
Obviously, you've never used an computer with an SSD before. They will eventually replace ALL HDs. They are faster, no noise, less heat, no moving part and they will only get faster. Hard drives are as fast as they'll ever get.
SSDs are very popular with notebooks and they DO help. And yeah - when going to a meeting - you want to turn on your computer and get to work, especially in meetings and presentations. Waiting 2-5 minutes for your notebook to boot is a long long time. An SSD cuts boot up time down to 15~30 seconds total.
NOW, if Windows wasn't such a bloated OS, then it wouldnt make much difference. A Modern AmigaOS can boot up in a few seconds after POST. Its a much smaller OS.
I've setup hybrid systems with the Intel 80GB drives to boot and run apps, then a 1TB drive to store data and games. That's about $300. Much cheaper than a $600~$1000 256GB SSD Drive.
vic20
Distinguished
- Jul 11, 2006
- 443
- 0
- 18,790
[citation][nom]Ogdin[/nom]Because a ssd is good upgrade for people. Will the avg person notice a huge leap in performance going from a overclocked $170 cpu to a overclocked i7-980....nope,4 gigs of ram to 12 gigs.....nope,dual 480 over a single card....nope. But you can add a ssd to damn near any computer and Joe Average will be blown away by how fast the system responds.[/citation]
I agree. I switched from 3 x 500GB RAID 0 WD Blacks to a single Patriot Inferno SSD and my system is quicker to boot, and loads games (and levels/maps/save points in games) MUCH quicker, installs Windows updates in mere seconds, applies permission changes to thousands of files in seconds, installs everything much faster and thumbnails folders with thousands of pictures in moments.
Things will only get better too. My buddy has 3 Infernos in RAID 0 and his machine is insane. There isn't a webpage that takes over a second to load and almost everything loads virtually in an instant. It can start a modern game almost as fast as a cartridge based nintendo. It makes mine feel like a dinosaur in comparison. If they eventually get a single SSD that fast....
But there are some huge issues too. Joe Average does not know how to deal with more than 1 partition. Even copy and paste is a still mystery to many people. They open word and hit save. Thats all they know. When C: is full, they are totally screwed. So until SSDs are 256GB+ and cheap they will remain a product for people that can manage where there data is.
Also, SSDs are flash. They can die instantly, just like SD cards and flash drives. They don't slow down or make funny noises to warn you and data recovery from a dead drive may be impossible. Something else that doesn't mix well with Joe Average who has a hard time just trying to figure out how to burn something or copy stuff to a USB drive for backup.
I agree. I switched from 3 x 500GB RAID 0 WD Blacks to a single Patriot Inferno SSD and my system is quicker to boot, and loads games (and levels/maps/save points in games) MUCH quicker, installs Windows updates in mere seconds, applies permission changes to thousands of files in seconds, installs everything much faster and thumbnails folders with thousands of pictures in moments.
Things will only get better too. My buddy has 3 Infernos in RAID 0 and his machine is insane. There isn't a webpage that takes over a second to load and almost everything loads virtually in an instant. It can start a modern game almost as fast as a cartridge based nintendo. It makes mine feel like a dinosaur in comparison. If they eventually get a single SSD that fast....
But there are some huge issues too. Joe Average does not know how to deal with more than 1 partition. Even copy and paste is a still mystery to many people. They open word and hit save. Thats all they know. When C: is full, they are totally screwed. So until SSDs are 256GB+ and cheap they will remain a product for people that can manage where there data is.
Also, SSDs are flash. They can die instantly, just like SD cards and flash drives. They don't slow down or make funny noises to warn you and data recovery from a dead drive may be impossible. Something else that doesn't mix well with Joe Average who has a hard time just trying to figure out how to burn something or copy stuff to a USB drive for backup.
hmmm... these guys are really dragging their feet at making ssds accessbile. i think it boils down to need and budget. i'm using a 64gb corsair nova (indilix) 64gb. it was around 250$ or so a few month ago. it just dropped to somwhere 165$ or so. it is enough for me as i use it for programming and i'm only using 30gb or so by moving the swap, temp files, hibernations etc. this is comprised on visual studio 2008, vs 2010, msdn, win7 pro and some other tools. i think if someone knows what he's doing he could get around with 40gigs or so for boot drive. it makes quite a bit of difference but not something that one can't live without. booting is snappier, program starts are snappier but if you have lots of ram windows7 caches what it can anyway.
it think ssds are the future as i do not see hdds going much forward in speed. right now it's worth to have something like ssd for boot + hdd for storage. i don't think it's worth to spend more than 100eur on a ssd, regrardless of size. i believe it makes more sense to put nand into hdds to act like a buffer, like that 2,5 inch hybrid hdd from seagate does (would be nice to have more than 4gigs though). i think it's more lekely to see the hybrid aproach more and than seing 250gb ssd beeing afordable.
my guesses: before 2011 ends, 100-120gb ssd will be something like 150$. before 2012 ends we will have 250gb for same price. in first half of 2011 i think we will see a doubling of size for the same money... not sure about it but there are some things in the piepline
it think ssds are the future as i do not see hdds going much forward in speed. right now it's worth to have something like ssd for boot + hdd for storage. i don't think it's worth to spend more than 100eur on a ssd, regrardless of size. i believe it makes more sense to put nand into hdds to act like a buffer, like that 2,5 inch hybrid hdd from seagate does (would be nice to have more than 4gigs though). i think it's more lekely to see the hybrid aproach more and than seing 250gb ssd beeing afordable.
my guesses: before 2011 ends, 100-120gb ssd will be something like 150$. before 2012 ends we will have 250gb for same price. in first half of 2011 i think we will see a doubling of size for the same money... not sure about it but there are some things in the piepline
hellwig
Distinguished
- May 29, 2008
- 1,743
- 0
- 19,860
[citation][nom]Ogdin[/nom]Because a ssd is good upgrade for people. Will the avg person notice a huge leap in performance going from a overclocked $170 cpu to a overclocked i7-980....nope,4 gigs of ram to 12 gigs.....nope,dual 480 over a single card....nope. But you can add a ssd to damn near any computer and Joe Average will be blown away by how fast the system responds.[/citation]
Am I the only person who reads the Tom's System Builder Marathons? If I recall, they stopped using SSDs because the performance per dollar was NOT enough to justify spending on an SSD over a faster processor or more/better GPUs.
No, stepping up from a i7-920 to a i7-980 may not improve your performance, but stepping up from a i5-750 to an i7-920 (and going from P55 to X58) certainly will boost performance. No, going from dual-460's to dual-480's won't be an improvement, but going from one 460 to two 460's certainly will, and Tom's has the damn tests to prove it.
[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]... And yeah - when going to a meeting - you want to turn on your computer and get to work, especially in meetings and presentations. Waiting 2-5 minutes for your notebook to boot is a long long time. An SSD cuts boot up time down to 15~30 seconds total.[/citation]
You're using your computer wrong. Try hibernating or suspending if you have to run off to a meeting. And my desktop running Windows 7 does NOT take 2-5 minutes to boot, and I'm running 4-year old components. Any laptop built within the SSD era should boot Win7 from an HDD in under a minute, easy.
[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]I've setup hybrid systems with the Intel 80GB drives to boot and run apps, then a 1TB drive to store data and games. That's about $300. Much cheaper than a $600~$1000 256GB SSD Drive.[/citation]
Why the hell would you put your games on a traditional HDD? That's the most assinine thing I've ever heard from an SSD supporter. I barely notice the load times for Windows, Office, or any of the other applications I load. I DO notice the load times for my games. To suggest that I put those games on a slow HDD just completely invalidates your argument. Seriously, you can't stand the 5-10 seconds it takes Firefox to load, but waiting 60-seconds to load the next level of your favorite game is more than acceptable?
Trust me, if I could get a 256GB SSD for my games I would, but the cost is WAY TOO MUCH right now. I only boot my home computer once a day, and I've adjusted myself to hitting the power button then taking off my shoes or something, the computer is ready to go before I am. However, once I'm sitting at my computer, the amount of time it takes the games to load is annoying, but not enough that I'm compelled to spend hundreds of dollars to make it a few seconds faster.
Am I the only person who reads the Tom's System Builder Marathons? If I recall, they stopped using SSDs because the performance per dollar was NOT enough to justify spending on an SSD over a faster processor or more/better GPUs.
No, stepping up from a i7-920 to a i7-980 may not improve your performance, but stepping up from a i5-750 to an i7-920 (and going from P55 to X58) certainly will boost performance. No, going from dual-460's to dual-480's won't be an improvement, but going from one 460 to two 460's certainly will, and Tom's has the damn tests to prove it.
[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]... And yeah - when going to a meeting - you want to turn on your computer and get to work, especially in meetings and presentations. Waiting 2-5 minutes for your notebook to boot is a long long time. An SSD cuts boot up time down to 15~30 seconds total.[/citation]
You're using your computer wrong. Try hibernating or suspending if you have to run off to a meeting. And my desktop running Windows 7 does NOT take 2-5 minutes to boot, and I'm running 4-year old components. Any laptop built within the SSD era should boot Win7 from an HDD in under a minute, easy.
[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]I've setup hybrid systems with the Intel 80GB drives to boot and run apps, then a 1TB drive to store data and games. That's about $300. Much cheaper than a $600~$1000 256GB SSD Drive.[/citation]
Why the hell would you put your games on a traditional HDD? That's the most assinine thing I've ever heard from an SSD supporter. I barely notice the load times for Windows, Office, or any of the other applications I load. I DO notice the load times for my games. To suggest that I put those games on a slow HDD just completely invalidates your argument. Seriously, you can't stand the 5-10 seconds it takes Firefox to load, but waiting 60-seconds to load the next level of your favorite game is more than acceptable?
Trust me, if I could get a 256GB SSD for my games I would, but the cost is WAY TOO MUCH right now. I only boot my home computer once a day, and I've adjusted myself to hitting the power button then taking off my shoes or something, the computer is ready to go before I am. However, once I'm sitting at my computer, the amount of time it takes the games to load is annoying, but not enough that I'm compelled to spend hundreds of dollars to make it a few seconds faster.
belardo
Splendid
- Nov 23, 2008
- 3,540
- 2
- 22,795
[citation][nom]hellwig[/nomYou're using your computer wrong. Try hibernating or suspending if you have to run off to a meeting. And my desktop running Windows 7 does NOT take 2-5 minutes to boot, and I'm running 4-year old components. Any laptop built within the SSD era should boot Win7 from an HDD in under a minute, easy.[/citation]
Sorry, but different people have different computers. I was being GENERAL about taking 2~5 minutes for a typical XP-Vista-Win7 notebook. Vista, usually being the slowest. On my ThinkPad, XP would take about a minute+ to boot (DCP / 1GB / 60GB HD), going to Win7, boot time is easily faster. Both would kick Vista in boot times.
I do put my notebook in sleep mode... but if your notebook is ASLEEP for a few days, the battery can and WILL run down. Which a total discharged Li-On is not a good thing. On clients that have ThinkPADs, I have upgraded them to SDD & Win7... boot times is 30~50seconds, depending on the computers. The one that takes 50sec, used to be almost 3min with its HDD.
Because I do *WORK* on my computer more than play games... and *I* don't own an SSD personally, yet. If a person spends $200 for 64~80GB SSD, thats not much space for gaming. On my 1TB desktop, my Game Partition is 200GB. My boot Partition is 50GB.
So for many people, a hybrid setup works... again, its about $600~1000 for 256GB!
In 2-3 years from now, a 1TB SSD could be down to $300 or so. Its going to take a while. Meanwhile, todays 2TB drives are hitting $100.
You rip me... then it turns out you don't own a HDD for your games anyway.
Different users will have different requirements.
Sorry, but different people have different computers. I was being GENERAL about taking 2~5 minutes for a typical XP-Vista-Win7 notebook. Vista, usually being the slowest. On my ThinkPad, XP would take about a minute+ to boot (DCP / 1GB / 60GB HD), going to Win7, boot time is easily faster. Both would kick Vista in boot times.
I do put my notebook in sleep mode... but if your notebook is ASLEEP for a few days, the battery can and WILL run down. Which a total discharged Li-On is not a good thing. On clients that have ThinkPADs, I have upgraded them to SDD & Win7... boot times is 30~50seconds, depending on the computers. The one that takes 50sec, used to be almost 3min with its HDD.
Because I do *WORK* on my computer more than play games... and *I* don't own an SSD personally, yet. If a person spends $200 for 64~80GB SSD, thats not much space for gaming. On my 1TB desktop, my Game Partition is 200GB. My boot Partition is 50GB.
So for many people, a hybrid setup works... again, its about $600~1000 for 256GB!
In 2-3 years from now, a 1TB SSD could be down to $300 or so. Its going to take a while. Meanwhile, todays 2TB drives are hitting $100.
You rip me... then it turns out you don't own a HDD for your games anyway.
Different users will have different requirements.
SSD performance kicks the butt out of HDD. I used to run 2 10,000 RPM Raptors in Raid 0 for my gaming drive. I replaced that with a single Intel 80GB X25 and my load times were cut to 1/4 of what they were (8 second loads to 2 second loads). This is on a Corei7 965 Extreme with 12GB so it wasn't CPU/memory hobbled. It was all I/O improvement.
And for those of you who want to Raid your SSD's... you lose TRIM support if you do. This means you will see performance degradation over time as the drive is used.
And for those of you who want to Raid your SSD's... you lose TRIM support if you do. This means you will see performance degradation over time as the drive is used.
Desktops are almost universally considerably faster than laptops, for considerably less price - even old desktops fit this category. For the average user, who doesn't know how to optimize the machine, a laptop (particularly when configured for business or manufacturing) can take a ridiculous amount of time to boot. For many users a SSD would seriously enhance productivity by cutting down loading time.
Those who are against purchasing an SSD probably haven't used them 
Prices for SSDs are high and yet you don't HAVE to buy the highest storage model; you can simply go for a 30 GB or 50/60 GB SSD to make your OS snappy and dump the rest of your files (yes possibly including games, and no it's not asinine) on a normal disk like f.e. a WD Blue 1 TB.
Having 2 disks work in tandem (not raid!) 1 for the OS and 2 for games will always yield some performance improvement because the normal disk can load the game files in dedicated fashion instead of having to swap back and forth for Windows files.
And here's an idea: games you often play you put on the SSD and the rest on your HDD and swap it around as you see fit. It doesn't have to be such a black and white either/or scenario if you just use your brain.
Finally, if you're on a budget at a given point in time and you just want to have a nice speed upgrade for your system, you don't want to go mainboard + cpu + memory because that'll cost ya. An SSD upgrade will prove to be a much better option in that specific scenario.
Prices for SSDs are high and yet you don't HAVE to buy the highest storage model; you can simply go for a 30 GB or 50/60 GB SSD to make your OS snappy and dump the rest of your files (yes possibly including games, and no it's not asinine) on a normal disk like f.e. a WD Blue 1 TB.
Having 2 disks work in tandem (not raid!) 1 for the OS and 2 for games will always yield some performance improvement because the normal disk can load the game files in dedicated fashion instead of having to swap back and forth for Windows files.
And here's an idea: games you often play you put on the SSD and the rest on your HDD and swap it around as you see fit. It doesn't have to be such a black and white either/or scenario if you just use your brain.
Finally, if you're on a budget at a given point in time and you just want to have a nice speed upgrade for your system, you don't want to go mainboard + cpu + memory because that'll cost ya. An SSD upgrade will prove to be a much better option in that specific scenario.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Question Recently my PC has started to randomly restart/turn off ?- Started by dreskyyy
- Replies: 8
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram