I have a 128GB OCZ vertex 4. Been using for for the past year or so and so far its working perfectly. I only use it for the operating system and program files though. Games and such I install on a regular HDD since from what I undersrstand the more you write on an SSD the faster it dies. I'm quite happy with my speed
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, SSDs have limited life cycles in terms of read write.
Those are 1 million write cycles for TLC, 2 million for MLC and 10 million for SLC
Now do the math, say you've "just" got a 128GB-capacity TLC-SSD. 1 million times 128GB = 128 000 000GB which equals 128 Petabyte. Try writing as much on your SSD. You will probably die, or your SSDs controller will cave in, before you've written 128 Petabyte.
Heck the oldest of my three SSDs has 12000 hrs of operation and I've written a mere 3 Terabytes on it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Reviews across the board won't help you find the perfect SSD - since there's no long term experiences with those SSDs in reviews (See Sandforce controllers, a lot of these won't make you happy in the long term)
You can also ignore the theoretical speed of the SSD and the practical speed in at least the widest terms - you won't notice a difference between a PC with an SSD and a theoretically faster SSD - it all comes down to reaction times and SSDs are similarly blazing fast.
Samsung would definitely be the best choice, since the return rates are as low as 0,2% - next best manufacturers would be Intel, Crucial and Plextor with return rates around 1%
As for the other manufacturers, most of them use either sandforce (crap) or OEM their controllers with bad firmware implementation. As for OCZ they still can't seem to get their SSDs right.
And yes, I know, there's going to be some people coming around saying "my whatevermanufacturers SSD has a sandforce and is alright"
Samsung Evo
Crucial M500
Plextor M5
Those are the way to go. Pick whatever is cheapest.
Comment has been collapsed.
Defragging an SSD can do more harm than good, since it does a whole bunch of unnecessary writes to the disk, using up some of the limited number of write cycles. There are no moving heads or spinning platters on an SSD, so there is no need for the data to be in sequential sectors, meaning that there is no benefit in defragging an SSD.
Edit: my post is now a bit redundant since you added more info to yours. Summary: I agree!
Comment has been collapsed.
I do a lot of audio/video editing, so a bit of a memory whore. Does increased size have any detrimental effects to performance? Price isn't really an issue to me, as long as the quality measures up.
Comment has been collapsed.
Personally I would go for a smaller (not below 256 due to performances of the smaller ones) one and install the games/apps I'm using on that one, then I would buy a good quality HDD (3-4TB) and put the audio/videofiles I'm working on that HDD.
Biggest reason for that is that if something goes wrong with a ssd then you lose everything, but with a HDD you could possibly still save some of the stuff. Also I wouldnt want to store my work on a SSD only.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's actually the opposite. 128GB models have less performance because they are usually "halved" 256GB models. Usually 512GB has a little edge over the 256GB. For 512+GB there's a plateau.
If you want to really squeeze your money, you could go for a RAID 0 setup of two smaller disks (like 2x256 or 2x512). It would double the chance of malfunction, but you can set backups up.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is interesting, I didn't know that before. So anything above 512 is comparable?
Comment has been collapsed.
Altough a Raid0 is pretty much useless with SSDs, since you strain them more, depending on the mainboard you have no AHCI support whatsoever and while you increase the sequential read/write performance, you simultaneously decrease every other value and especially the access times, which are the most interesting part in an SSD.
Most of the daily usage doesn't even benefit from high sequential read/write because the biggest part is rather small data, which benefits from the 4K/64thread speeds. Thus raid 0 with SSDs = no good
As for speed regarding the size, it's pretty much the same: 4K/64 Thread is what counts and 128 or smaller models aren't significantly slower in daily usage - what counts is the speed you feel, not the speed in some benchmarks. And all current models, be it 128GB or 1TB, are pretty similar there
If you wanna go for 1TB that's fine, but be sure that you can use the space given. Unless you are like me and some other silent-freaks out there, you probably still got some hard drives -> that's where data goes. For all the programs, games and stuff, you can use the SSD. For Data that requires a lot of read/write, like in some cases of video editing or working with VST-Plugins during bigger projects in music production, it can make sense to put the data on the SSD.
Comment has been collapsed.
What, though, about failure rates on SSDs that have sudden loss of power? I recently read an article where multiple models were tested, from multiple manufacturers, and not one of them escaped with all data intact / working without a format. This is what freaks me out the most about thinking about stepping over to an SSD as a system disk. And it definitely makes me not want to store any data on it, especially something as important as files from music / video editing / VSTs, etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sudden loss of power is bad for every SSD.
Buy a good power supply with all the current protections, make it efficient (also means: not too big for the hardware you're using) and preferably multi rail. I've had two short circuits here last year, my SSDs survived without a scratch.
Can you link the article? I'd be interested in reading that :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll have to Google-fu it for ya later tonight. And what does a good PSU have to do with the sudden power drop? Even if you're protected from surges / spikes / noise or other crap that can happen, the power is still poof, gone, which is what causes the damage to the data. Only thing I can see having any use is a good small UPS unit (which I'd basically buy alongside an SSD to be on the safe side, allowing a graceful shutdown if power drops, as those are also getting quite affordable / cheap).
Comment has been collapsed.
OSP and OCP at least help not destroyng the SSD on the physical side, means shortwiring (for the lack of a better word) it. Also a good hold-up time might help the SSD not going down.
As I said, I've experienced some power outages / short circuits at home and all my SSDs are still fine. What happened once though was, that i put my laptop into standby mode and after wanting to wake it up again, it told me it couldn't find a partition table - that scared the crap out of me but it was (surprisingly) fine after an hour.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yay, I forgot to Google-fu for ya and only did so just nao, first result was the right one, BOPZANGI! :D
Anyway, yeah surely what you say about OSP + OCP + slight delaying of power loss instead of hardcore BOOM, GONE will help mitigate risk but still, it makes my balls retract thinking about the risk, after reading that article.. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Meh, it's not worth it to me, for just some faster load times of assets. It wouldn't really cause higher actual performance in games, for example. Gonna be buying an i5 soon with new mobo, will probably be getting a 250GB Velociraptor to run system / games off of - they're not all that pricey anymore. That'll give somewhat better load times also compared to other drives, and better enough swap-file speed to also improve streaming of assets in games that use stuff like that, like GTA games. Good enough for me, and still a good reliable ol' HDD.
In the future, when I got some cash to burn, I'll get an SSD with a UPS, and run system / games off that, backing up my system drive with an image I write away to my (then old) Velociraptor, or better yet my 2TB Seagate 7200.14.
Comment has been collapsed.
A top-spec Velociraptor can't compare with a budget SSD when it comes to read/write rates. I'd recommend at least using an SSD for video work. You'll also want one if you're recording your gaming sessions in HD. up to 2,000% faster I/O is nothing to laugh about.
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't have any personal experience to share, but this recent article over at RPS will probably help (also some good info in the comments).
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm in with the Samsung 840 Pro SSDs 128 GB and 2 Samsung 840 SSD 500GB with 2 WD RED 3TB data graves in my system. My experience so far is, that those drives are really worth their money. The News Samsung 840 EVO is better on the paper, but I love my current setup, starting games and working with videos never was that awesome.
Normally you can't go wrong with the usual top10 listing like Crucials M4 or Intels SSDs. Samsung is rather in outsider in this list, since it use as only SSD the TLC technology. Some will say stay away from this TLC, but some websites explained the difference between MLC, SLC and TLC and mentioned, that even in a 24 hours running system with heavy write cycles these TLC SSDs would run around 8-10 years before the guaranteed writecycles per memory cell are reached and even this is not given that the cell will die than.
The main advantage of Samsung is, they have their own controller, so they implement it the best possible way and do not dependon 3rd party controllers and firmware.
Soo you have a wide variety to choose, my recommendation are the Samsung 840 series, Standard, Pro and EVO.
Comment has been collapsed.
Get a Samsung EVO, but why the hell 1TB? You don't need to use it for music / video but applications and games (yes games are applications too get off my back) for better loading times. I doubt anyone has near this many programs and games to install that are constantly used so it would get even close to 1TB.
Comment has been collapsed.
I suspect he thinks there's a filter and he's bypassing it, like a coont.
Comment has been collapsed.
yep 2x64gb in raid 0 gives you a 128gb disc dont be a dick use google instead...
Comment has been collapsed.
For the last year I've been using a Samsung 840 240GB. The migration was super easy, I didn't even reinstall Windows (which I'd still recommend if you are not lazy :)).
I keep O.S. + programs + games on the SSD and all the media + a 1:1 backup of C: on the old 1TB HDD.
The only issue so far is that any PC I use without a SSD on it feels painfully slow.
EDIT: back then I decided to buy Samsung because, while performance-wise and overall all the brands are very close, Samsung seemed to be more complete software-wise (easy migration and optimization tool) and to have a little less negative feedbacks compared to the others.
Comment has been collapsed.
Have you considered a hybrid drive? Several TB of storage with a couple GB of SSD cache to speed everything up. Probably not quite as fast but cost-to-size-to-speed probably gives the best value.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some great responses so far, but I'm a bit confused at the sentiment against the storage size. Beyond pricing, is there any reason to get a smaller drive over a larger one? I understand that you "only need" to put your OS/applications on it-- but why not some audio/video as well? Or is it simply that most people don't wish to spend? I don't really see a 1TB being unreasonable pricewise, especially if it performs exactly the same (or better) than a smaller size.
Comment has been collapsed.
The only reason to get a smaller drive is price. That, and paranoia over having your drive fail and losing more data with a larger drive, but this is easily mitigated with frequent backups and by ignoring the uninformed people that tell you that SSDs all die within a couple years.
Comment has been collapsed.
What about sudden loss of power? Tests show that not one model of SSD (regardless of manufacturer) can endure it properly, damage ranging from large lost chunks of data, to requiring a format.
Comment has been collapsed.
Interesting article -- thanks for the link. It further goes to show why all important data should be backed up regularly.
Comment has been collapsed.
Video and audio are streamed content. Other than that, they are just files that take big space, so that's where the advice comes from.
if its a desktop, i definitely would get a smaller one for os&apps, and spend the rest on other hardware. If it's a notebook with only one drive space available, then get whatever size you will need.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is no difference between having audio / video files in your HDD and SDD. When you want to open a video, you just click it and you have it loaded in less than 2 seconds, so the difference wont be more than that... It's not worth it
Comment has been collapsed.
Suggest NOT getting a large SSD, rather a small 64-128GB SDD and using it as cache on a standard or black edition larger 1-2TB HDD. There's many reasons for this. First shorter life span, over time SSD will die a lot quicker than HDD - as cache it doesn't matter (just disable or replace and continue), however if it was the main drive, then reinstalling the entire OS, etc. Free disk space prolongs it's life however as it can automatically swap over it using it (leave about 45% empty is ideal, cache drives only require 64GB so ~120GB is recommended).
To use as cache, ensure your motherboard supports "Intel Rapid Storage Technology" - install the latest software for it. Check the instructions online to setting up SSD cache on your main drive using "Intel Smart Response Technology" that you will find under the Rapid Storage.
As you run your PC and access files, it will then automatically move the most commonly used (such as Windows and your fav game) to the SDD drive to speed up. You get the best of both worlds without the restrictions or worries.
If you do get the 1TB SSD instead, then some offer very easy to use cloning tools to clone your main HDD to the new drive. Either keep the old HDD as backup or reformat for an additional storage. Still recommend leaving some disk space free on the SDD so ensure it's a lot larger than required. You should also do things such as lock down the size of paging file (rather than disable as some recommend), disable Windows indexing, never Defrag, etc - to prolong the life on the SSD. You should get at least 3-5 years before noticing the size of the drive decreasing. Note some SSD will say for example 120GB, when they are really 128GB in size (8GB which is hidden/unusable to prolong life without actually reducing free disk space) - the latest models are quite good at this.
Comment has been collapsed.
The whole read-write limit of flash memory is wildly misconstrued. For the average PC user an SSD is not likely to fail due to memory cell degredation until long after it has become obsolete. Like 5GB per day for 20 years, or 20GB per day for 5 years. It's only really an issue in enterprise/industrial applications (like server arrays) where the disk is constantly being written to all day long.
Comment has been collapsed.
Fair enough - I personally just didn't want to take a chance. I use it a lot and haven't had any issues myself by following the above steps, just going by what others told. I heard some brands (mostly the fastest performance) can tend to fail a hell of a lot and others are more stable. The later models however are probably way better now.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't go for huge SSD, since I only use it as a main drive for OS and applications. Everything else is stored on HDDs. But if you have the money and don't care about spending it, then go ahead.
They can take quite a beating before breaking, because no moving parts so you don't have to worry about damage is shipping or anything (DoA is different)
You'll notice the speed on the first run. As an example Photoshop opens in minute or so on HDD, but few seconds max on SSD.
Once you go SSD, you don't go back.
Comment has been collapsed.
At $600 for 1TB, You're probably better off going with a SSD + HDD combination. Get an 80GB-240GB solid state drive to place your important, frequently used files and operating system on and everything else on a large, 2TB Western Digital Black hard drive.
(Kingston makes great SSDs at this size from what I've seen, NewEgg currently is having a special that ends tomorrow where you can get a 120GB SSD for $80, and similarly, WD Black 2TBs are only about $150-$160ish at the same site, too)
More than double the space for around a third of the price, and western digital blacks are probably the fastest and most reliable hdds out there.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, as you said, they're just probably the fastest drives - which means, they aren't. For instance, seagate Cheetah and constallation drives have the edge over WD Blacks. Wd blacks are also hellishly loud and not even the most realiable choice in HDDs - but the 5yr warranty is nice to have, plus WD's support ain't bad.
Then again, Hard drives are all loud and pretty much slow. Synthetically measures speeds aren't worth much, since you won't encounter them in real life utilization. Sure, 7200rpm has the edge over 5400rpm but that's pretty much it. If you were to sit down in front of 3 PCs, each with one WD blue, WD black and seagate Barracuda 7200.14, I'd bet you $10 you couldn't tell me which drive is in which PC just from using it under normal circumstances.
As for Kingston SSDs, where did you get the "fact" from they are making good SSDs? Theyre using crappy sandforce controllers with crappy firmware, resulting in failure rates on par with failure rates of OCZ SSDs (Hovering around 4%) - which simply put, is unacceptable. The $80 SSD you're talking about is the V300, which is one of the worst choices when it comes down to an SSD (OCZ Octane and OCZ Agility 3/4 would be worse though). The HyperX would be more preferable than this one and even the "high end" model can't match Samsung's low end models in terms of reliability. So why go with Kingston?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm around computers alot and have helped recommend parts to people I know (online and offline) building rigs and haven't seen anything by Seagate contest WD Blacks in terms of speed or reliability (especially ones from a few years ago, when many Seagate HDD lines had issues), though I have not seen any Cheetahs at all. As far as Kingstons, mine is doing quite fine being used for OS purposes as mentioned above and I haven't seen much awful in terms of reviews for them. Even on sites like Amazon, a site where people tend to post 1-star reviews just because their product happened to be faulty (somewhat justified, but still), they are predominantly given 5-stars. I see no reason not to recommend them at the moment for the price.
Out of curiosity, what kind of SSD would you rather recommend?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, your's is OK, that's a given at a return rate of around 4% - means that 96% of SSDs are actually working quite well - still, 4% is, in my opinion, awful.
As posted above, I'd reccomend Samsung (above all, return rates are about 0,2%), Crucial or Plextor, depending on the price. Rarely Plextor though, since it's mostly the more expensive option and not particularly better than other SSDs, Crucial does a good job because of self-made controllers and firmware, (unless you have a C4 with a 0009 Firmware, but that's an old problem). Also Samsung has their own controllers, Chips and Firmwares in the SSD - means the product you buy is 100% Samsung, making it pretty much a "whole" product. As mentioned above, most SSDs cave in because or rather badly written firmware and the utilization of OEM-products, which they just can't seem to get right. Kingston, as far as I know, I tried to look it up but didn't find the source again, at least uses their own flash cells, but still the awful sandforce controller - get your google on there, you'll find much more problems with SF than with any other controller. Good thing LSI aquired Sandforce last year, I hope they can make something out of it. So, Samsung it is. Highest chances of having a long-term reliable product.
As for HDDs, don't get me wrong, I'm glad I bought an AAEX about 2 years ago (like 2 days before the thai flood that made HDD prices explode) and got a good deal on it - 40€ on a 750GB Black drive wasn't bad (employee discount though) and that made my choice up, since the Black wasn't more expensive or cheaper than HDDs of equal size but came with a 5yr warranty. Since I use it as an external Hard Drive, the noise level is tolerable for an hour (but not for daily use) when transferring data. Transfer rates of current Black models are negligible over other hard drives (especially when it is the only hard drive in your PC - at least if you had two of them while transferring loads of data daily you might be able to determine a bottleneck), means they're not significantly faster or worth the premium (and noise levels..ew) over other drives.
I'd just buy WD blue ones and be fine with it (I'm also not a fan of seagate, but that's a rather trivial preference)
As for Raptors: Have you ever heard one of these things? Your ears will bleed. The transfer rates aren't even that good, at least not so good that'd I'd pay that premium (you can buy a good 256GB ssd instead of a 1TB Raptor drive, which I'd prefer, especially regarding that most people sure wouldn't benefit of a 1TB drive that's faster than their data graves) for a raptor.
I didn't find a review of the current model, but of the one before that, still not EOL:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5729/western-digital-velociraptor-1tb-wd1000dhtz-review
Bummer the comparisons by anandtech are a tad unfair, using loads of supposedly fast drives (XT) and SSD and loads of green drives. No standard drives like a EZEX or 7200.14....
I would've liked some reviews of the WD10EZEX in here, but there's only benchmarks by private persons. http://forums.ncix.com/forums/?mode=showthread&forum=103&threadid=2544397&pagenumber=1&msgcount=5&subpage=1&product_id=74462
As for the 7200.14, same thing here, no "pro" reviews, bu a lot of benches you can google. Speed hover between 150 - 210 read and 120 - 160 write (sequential, ofc) - EZEX is slower because it's a single platter.
Comment has been collapsed.
I got a 2 TB 7200.14 and the difference is negligible. What about a good ol' Velociraptor, though?
Comment has been collapsed.
im think about getting an ssd too lol, i like the look of the samsung 840 evo 250gb along with my current 1tb hdd anyone recomend that ssd?
Comment has been collapsed.
If you pick up a 1TB SSD, you'll love it after the first boot-up. Your jaw will drop. You'll pick it back up, but you won't bother next time it drops. Which will happen when you load your first program after booting. 1 minute boot times get cut to 4-8 seconds.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm another person following this topic - I think it's going to be my number one buy for BFriday. If anyone happens to see the perfect deal for a quality drive somewhere, feel free to post it - I'd certainly appreciate it, as others would too. =D
Sidenote, anyone with a huuuuge ITunes Library made the switch to SSD? I'm wondering if it will speed up the horrendously annoying lag (My App/Library files would be on SSD, but hundreds of gigs of actual music on another drive).
Comment has been collapsed.
11 Comments - Last post 5 minutes ago by Mohamed74
47,140 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by JMM72
8 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by szacsoka
0 Comments - Created 1 hour ago by pb1
16,403 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by MLD
31 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by NoctuaVentus
20 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by OneManArmyStar
284 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by Hawkingmeister
486 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by meneldur
125 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by Lifedreamer
144 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by wigglenose
56 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by hieeeen
40 Comments - Last post 20 minutes ago by ToatsMcGoats
31 Comments - Last post 54 minutes ago by Shurraxxo
Finally getting around to picking one of these up, it's really my only bottle-neck. As it's Black Friday/cyber Monday season, seems there's no excuse for putting it off any longer. I'm leaning towards a 1TB Samsung, but honestly only have experience with HDDs. I'm naturally checking reviews across the board, just wondering if anyone here has any experience, wisdom, or horror stories to share on brands or models.
Comment has been collapsed.