On my mobo in AHCI there is a setting in the bios which sets the time delay for disk and CD player detection. Do you have a setting like that in your bios?
I think it depends on what your doing if the HD is a bottleneck or not. I could live off a 2000rpm drive, and still be confident that its not bottlenecking my system. Obviously when i start a program it would take around 4 times as longer, so i guess my HD would be a bottleneck for ~2 mins max every day, but for the other 23 hours and 58 minutes I would be better served overclocking 1 extra bclock.
30 seconds for boot-up time is about right for me. Vista and a WD640 AAKS took at least a minute or more.
But then again who boots their computer? Use stand-by!
I do.....When I go to bed, put it on standby, I wake up the thing is on?! Its got a mind of its own...
As a proud new owner of a 160GB Intel G2, I have to say I wasn't overly blown away either as much as people made them out to be. I'm happy with it, but not "1st Gen P4 to Athlon 64" blown away.
I hear a lot of people not overly impressed due to the fact they came from WD Blacks, Raptors, and SCSI disks... which already shows they had some pretty good gear to begin with.
So yeah, I think chalk up another thing to the hype machine for me. It's good, just not chocolate covered sliced bread with morphine filling.
As a proud new owner of a 160GB Intel G2, I have to say I wasn't overly blown away either as much as people made them out to be. I'm happy with it, but not "1st Gen P4 to Athlon 64" blown away.
I think there are so many variables in the "performance" equation which causes some people to state the increase. Since I assume a lot of us posting in this thread are probably "enthusiasts", we probably don't see such a dramatic increase. I hear a lot of people not overly impressed due to the fact they came from WD Blacks, Raptors, and SCSI disks... which already shows they had some pretty good gear to begin with.
I will say that the positive comments in this thread are spot-on. Multi-tasking is insanely faster, and the computer overall feels a lot more snappy. Startup and shutdown for me (coming from a 1TB WD Black) isn't much of a difference. (4 second difference) Virus scanning is hard to judge since obviously my old hard drive was a 1TB, and the one is 160GB... so of course it's going to be a lot faster. Gaming is nicer (Dragon Age Origins map loading is much faster, probably cut in half), but nowhere "instant".
So yeah, I think chalk up another thing to the hype machine for me. It's good, just not chocolate covered sliced bread with morphine filling.
I hear a lot of people not overly impressed due to the fact they came from WD Blacks, Raptors, and SCSI disks... which already shows they had some pretty good gear to begin with.
I know this is a pretty old article but it proves my point that SSDs bootup time people measure is totally different what others go by. If you measure the whole time from pressing the power button to the finished windows desktop the time is a little longer than only 15 to 20 seconds.
http://hothardware.com/Articles/Windows-7-Disk-Performance-Analyzed/?page=5
Maybe they are wrong but 30 seconds seems about right for the Intel G2 160 GB if you include the full bootup time.
I don't know of anything that can bootup windows in 8 to 15 seconds.
...$250 or whatever for 80gb is not a good deal.....I dont care if its instant bootup and load times.
...but that doesnt make it a good value for price/performance heh.
Why in the heck do people put so much emphasis on boot up times? ...
Why in the heck do people put so much emphasis on boot up times? My PCs start up slow regardless what's in them because of the AV stuff connected.