OCZ, Indilinx Firmware Makes SSDs Faster

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Does this random read/write performance justify costing 18 times more?[/citation]
Yes.

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Simply yes/no answer will do.[/citation]
No it won't.
 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Does this random read/write performance justify costing 18 times more?Simply yes/no answer will do.[/citation]
Have you stopped beating your wife yet? A simple yes or no answer will do.

Asking loaded questions is fun isnt it? But this question is not so easily answered. A 250gb drive is good for data storage, but SSD drives are not designed for simply data storage. They provide extremely high performence, with albeit smaller storage capacities that are designed to run the OS. Since the OS does not need that much storage space, they are the perfect drive for the job. A 256gb SSD drive for the OS is just not practical, especially at that price. A 60gb drive would offer most users more then enough space, and it is only 4 times more expensive than a traditional drive while offering WAY MORE than 4 times the "random read/write performance". And yes, to some people, that is worth it.
 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Anyone who thinks they are value for money must be a Mac user, they are used to getting ass-shafted for overpriced goods.[/citation]
No need to be jealous because you cant afford one. If your really good this year, maybe mommy will buy you one for Christmas.
 
I can afford one, they are just not value for money, I have more sense than money.

Random read/write is no magic bullet for anyone, yes loading Windows in 20 seconds instead of 37 seconds is pretty good, loading an Excel spreadsheet in quarter of a second instead of 1 second is pretty good too. But small fractions like this will have no real impact on users. I am all for saving time but this isn't huge. The big sequential file transfers that take minutes or hours to transfer will see the biggest time savings for the user.

So this "value" you mention, is paying 18 times the cost open a spreadsheet in quarter a second instead of 1 second.

If you are prepared to spend £540 on a 250Gb SSD, why not spend £120 each on 5 x 60Gb SSD in RAID-5. Yes it is £60 more, but you get the same capacity on 4 drives, a spare drive for parity, and 4 times the performance. You would be pushing 800Mb/s peak. And you still get the holy "random IO".

That is value for money.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Click to expand...

By the way, you are a fuckwit.



 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]So this "value" you mention, is paying 18 times the cost open a spreadsheet in quarter a second instead of 1 second.If you are prepared to spend £540 on a 250Gb SSD, why not spend £120 each on 5 x 60Gb SSD in RAID-5. Yes it is £60 more, but you get the same capacity on 4 drives, a spare drive for parity, and 4 times the performance. You would be pushing 800Mb/s peak. And you still get the holy "random IO".That is value for money.[/citation]

If you actually read my post you will see that I say no one should ever use a 256gb ssd drive and suggest that most users will be fine with 60gb. The price of the 60gb drive is only about 4 times more than the 250gb drive and about 6 times more expensive than an 80gb traditional hard drive, not 18 times. I personally an running 2x30gb Vertex drives in raid0. And since I worked out a deal with my neighbor, I helped him pick out the parts to his new machine and he bought one of my drives. So I managed to get both for a measly $130 of my own money, $.47/gb is cheap enough for me.

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]By the way, you are a fuckwit.[/citation]
Didnt I say that loaded questions are fun? You purposely picked the most expensive SSD drive available to help make your point that it is 18times as expensive. I respond with a similarly loaded question and that's your reply? You disappoint me.
 
I actually picked a drive based on capacity vs capacity, in this case 250Gb, and this wasn't even the most expensive 250Gb SSD available. Your setup is misaligned for comparison purposes, sizes are differant, other users dont have helpful neighbours with cash lying around to buy drives for them either.

Factor down the size of the hard drives to compare price isn't easy, most HDDs aren't even sold brand new below 80Gb anymore, but I can buy a 40GB from a local store for around £13. If I buy 4 of them it is £52. RAID5 them and get the same capacity and speed as a 120GB SSD, but not the same random IO. The cheapest 120Gb SSD I have seen is around £195, nearly 4 times the cost for the random IO, but without drive failure parity protection.

The 18 times cost is just a single 250Gb HDD vs a 250Gb SSD.

I would love to be able to stick a fast SSD setup in my machine, but cost is just too damn high. They need to be between half and a quarter of what they are or general public will never pick them up.
 
Also, 60Gb is not enough for the C drive. Once you install Windows, Office, a few games you are pushing capacity. When I loaded up the Virtual XP on my Windows 7 the XP part swallowed 36GB of my HDD.

A C drive should be at least 160Gb, 250Gb for comfort.
 
[citation][nom]bildo123[/nom]Which is why I'm not going to by one for at the very least another year. Might as well watch the price drop and features rise.[/citation]

I hope so, I think a RAID5 setup of 5 x 60Gb drives would be nice, but instead of around £600 at current price I would go for it if the prices dropped below £300.
 
[citation][nom]blackened144[/nom]No need to be jealous because you cant afford one. If your really good this year, maybe mommy will buy you one for Christmas.[/citation]

guess blackend started their period today.

 
Fact is back_by_demand that your an idiot who refuses to listen to anyone that has ACTUALLY USED THE PRODUCT. Try a SSD as an OS disk and then come back and talk as an educated individual. Oh and BTW you can setup the vXP drive to by on a separate data HD.
 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]I actually picked a drive based on capacity vs capacity, in this case 250Gb, and this wasn't even the most expensive 250Gb SSD available. Your setup is misaligned for comparison purposes, sizes are differant, other users dont have helpful neighbours with cash lying around to buy drives for them either.Factor down the size of the hard drives to compare price isn't easy, most HDDs aren't even sold brand new below 80Gb anymore, but I can buy a 40GB from a local store for around £13. If I buy 4 of them it is £52. RAID5 them and get the same capacity and speed as a 120GB SSD, but not the same random IO. The cheapest 120Gb SSD I have seen is around £195, nearly 4 times the cost for the random IO, but without drive failure parity protection.The 18 times cost is just a single 250Gb HDD vs a 250Gb SSD.I would love to be able to stick a fast SSD setup in my machine, but cost is just too damn high. They need to be between half and a quarter of what they are or general public will never pick them up.[/citation]
I understand the reason of pitting the 250vs250 but my point was that its not a fair comparison. Right now the largest ssd drive you can get is 256, since the companies coming out with 512gb models dont sell them yet.. So I meant that any 256gb drive will be the most expensive drives available, not necessarily that the brand/model you chose was the most expensive available... My point is that you cant compare ssd as just 250vs256 because its apples and oranges... Like comparing a Phenom II X2 3.1Ghz against an i7 965 at 3.2Ghz.. Yes, they are almost clock for clock the same, but that doesn't make a comparison between the 2 necessarily fair.. I definitely agree with you that the best thing to do in any case would be to pair up smaller SSD drives in a raid array for even more performence, which is why I bought 2 30gb drives instead of the 60gb drive..
 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Also, 60Gb is not enough for the C drive. Once you install Windows, Office, a few games you are pushing capacity. When I loaded up the Virtual XP on my Windows 7 the XP part swallowed 36GB of my HDD.A C drive should be at least 160Gb, 250Gb for comfort.[/citation]
It depends on what you are doing with it.. I have no use for Office or Virtual XP at home.. I have Windows7 and a few games installed and I still have over 25g free..
 
[citation][nom]duckmanx88[/nom]guess blackend started their period today.[/citation]
Isnt it nice when people can discuss things with without throwing out ad hominem attacks and just argue the facts? I guess you will never know..
 
Ah, flamewars over a moot point. Internet Superheroes.

Props to OCZ for leading the way with some of the new changes. It might not seem like it now, but the competition will only benefit the consumer further down the line.

OCZ, give Intel a run for their money!
 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Also, 60Gb is not enough for the C drive. Once you install Windows, Office, a few games you are pushing capacity. [/citation]
Install games on another partition :)

Regarding the price, remember that SSDs are relatively new technology and thus will keep their price tag for some time. Look at 2TB HDDs, their $/GB is poor compared to most other HDDs, although not as bad as SSDs.
 
OCZ seems to be the top quality pusher of ssd's thus far. Most of the reviews i've read get great overall results, their prices arn't nearly as high as intel's and add this news of new firmware to the top of the pile and I'm finally starting to seriously consider ssd's as a permanent solution for an os drive.
 
Isn't the point of having an SSD for fast access to your content? If I install Virtual XP and games to another hard drive, won't they run slower? Games I can probably deal with as it's just loading times, but Virtual XP is an operating system, albeit a virtual one.

My current setup consists of a single 160Gb HDD, with a secondary 250Gb HDD, 2 x 500Gb HDD's and a NAS drive with 2TB. My main HDD has a standard setup with my software loaded of around 110Gb. I use CS3, Office and about 15 other video, audio and image programs installed.

Bully for all those who have a slim installation, and I am not dissing the technology of SSDs. The price is too high for most people. Mass production will reduce costs, reduced costs will increase uptake. It just seems as if the SSD companies are doing themselves a dis-service, they can afford to take a hit in the short term and sales will come rolling in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom