not interested. if i get a 512GB SSD for $70 ~ $90 then ill get it. I can wait the few extra seconds to load OS. Same goes for Game loading but in multiplayer thats useless because map rotation are on a timer making sure everybody spawns the same time. 95MB/s - 85MB/s is enough for me.
I don't get it. the 510 drives has really good linear read & write transfer speeds(450/300), but crap read & write I/O (20K/4K)?
The G3 has good(SATA II-like) linear read @ write speeds(250/170MB), but good read I/O & crap write I/O (50K/4K).
[citation][nom]danwat1234[/nom]I don't get it. the 510 drives has really good linear read & write transfer speeds(450/300), but crap read & write I/O (20K/4K)?The G3 has good(SATA II-like) linear read @ write speeds(250/170MB), but good read I/O & crap write I/O (50K/4K).[/citation]
It's all the controller and the interface.
But I think this is wrong, the G3 was supposed to have 50k(4KB)read and 40k(4KB)write. I wish they would switch the G3 to sata III, that would set this thing apart from any other SSD in any situation assuming this would be just as fast as the 510 series sequentially.
A lot of the folks that say that SSDs aren't worth it until they become as cheap as HDDs are probably the same schmucks that said that they wouldn't be getting a high-speed internet connection until it was $20 a month.
If you haven't experienced a SSD, you might want to go use one.
And no, SSDs won't make your system benchmark any faster, but if all you use your computer for is watching frame rates, benchmarking and overclocking, then don't get an SSD.
But for those of us who use our computers to "do things" and get "work" done, SSDs are a great way to save time, and enjoy our computer that much more.
And I don't know that you're going to be seeing adequate SSDs anywhere near the $100 mark, I don't know... ever. They are going to continue to need to expand (thanks, Microsoft and Adobe) and the parts of them aren't particularly cheap. The truth of computing seems to always be that the prices stay pretty much the same, the numbers just keep getting bigger. Some noob named Moore said something about that.
+1 to henry, I'd just like to say that maybe just maybe Intel might want to at least integrate Sata 3 into their motherboards so people can experience it without taking away the already low level of PCI-e lanes. I mean they've been designing Sata 3 SSDs for how long now how hard could it be to implement some of that research into mobos? -end rant
[citation][nom]henryvalz[/nom]A lot of the folks that say that SSDs aren't worth it until they become as cheap as HDDs are probably the same schmucks that said that they wouldn't be getting a high-speed internet connection until it was $20 a month.[/citation]
I don't get it either, I mean I just shelled out over 2 grand for my system build....what is a couple hundred more to eliminate it's primary bottleneck? Sure it won't make a difference in games, but I guess I'm crazy for using my PC for things other than just video games!
Anybody that can't respect the value SSD's bring aren't true PC enthusiasts. Or they just like watching that cute Windows 7 start up logo while their slow PC loads
If SSD are the future, then prices will drop. Its bound for that. If a 500GB HDD came cheap within a few years. I know SSD will become cheap. Taking for example that intel 120GB cost $279 thats $2.33 per GB for SATA 3, which is reasonable compare to others at the same around 128GB capacity.
Reports say SDD is falling at $.50 per GB from $2.33 per GB price point starting 2011 and slowing down to about $.15 per GB. So, I guess in about three to four years we can see decent affordability for mainstream users. So by 2015 a 500GB SSD will probably cost around $165.
My HDD does 95MB/s, my vista takes about right about 950MB of data unto the RAM on bootup. My Harddrive transfer that data to RAM at 95MB/s so theoretically I wait 10 seconds after post BIOS boot (which is true). The rest the RAM speed (feeding to CPU) takes care for me on desktop boot up and my sub programs are small take up on RAM. (I also have stricter RAM timings at a higher speed with 11.5ns latency to CPU)
HDD is good enough for 2 more years until my main program load on RAM are build larger than 2GB mark. Incase of anything ill just RAID my Harddrive if my programs loads grows lager than 3GB of RAM.
I don't get it. The capacity is about the last thing you need from a SSD. 80-120GB is just enough for most people. How many games/programs do you have installed simultaneously?
You won't know the difference until you try it! I got a 80GB G2 Intel for my laptop and I simply HAD TO buy another SSD (64GB Vertex 2) for my desktop as well, I just couldn't stand the sluggish HDD anymore.
[citation][nom]kcorp2003[/nom]not interested. if i get a 512GB SSD for $70 ~ $90 then ill get it. I can wait the few extra seconds to load OS. Same goes for Game loading but in multiplayer thats useless because map rotation are on a timer making sure everybody spawns the same time. 95MB/s - 85MB/s is enough for me.[/citation]
With game loading the access times are at least as important as the throughput and thats where the SSD's really destroys the HDD's, few games that read linear data other than the occasional movies. Easy to see the difference with SSD especially when more and more games read the data as you move around in the all bigger game worlds.
What do I care if they make a 24 Gbps SSD? It's still way too expensive. As already stated, less speed would still be fine if we could get reasonable prices.
The best thing about SSDs is latency. Having, imho, 150mb/s read and 80mb/s write would be just enough, if they were able to get a decent latency and a much better price.
Intel aren't stupid, they might well be planning to go to Light Peak interface with their next line of chipsets (as someone @thg already said a while ago), so that they have an interface which is suitable to ever-increasing SSD speeds. I'm not sure SATA 3.0 has a lot of life left in it if SSDs get quicker at the current rate.