Is an SSD really that much better than a HDD/SSD

[tweakboy]

What a useless thread with so many responds.

 

[Makaveli]

What a useless thread with so many responds.

You are the last person on here that should be complaining about someone creating a useless thread tweakboy

 

[Makaveli]

Why you have to actually wait for anything from the MS Office suite to load is absolutely beyond me. The PC I built for my office is a year old $250 build with an old IDE hard drive I had laying around, and nothing from the MS Office suite takes any more than a split second to pop up.

This I have to comment on. If you are just talking about launching the office apps maybe but when you directly click on say an excel file with 10,000+ rows and it has to open excel and the file right after you will see a huge difference same things goes for large Access databases. This is something I do on a regular basis and its noticeable.

 

[VirtualLarry]

What finally pushed me over the edge, was finding out that Malwarebytes scans, and Windows Updates, run an order of magnitude (well, almost) faster on an SSD.

Although I do those tasks rarely, generally-speaking, I can't use the machine until they are finished, so I value the speed an SSD brings to those tasks.

I just ordered five SSDs the last few weeks, all OCZ. (Well, technically I bought a sixth SanDisk, but I returned it to a B&M.) Prices are really coming down.

Edit: Three Vertex Plus R2 120GB (~$65 shipped each), and two Agility 2 90GB (~$56 shipped each).

 

[Makaveli]

which OCZ models?

 

[lakedude]

I'm deciding between two laptops-one has a 32GB/500GB hybrid + graphics and the other has a 128GB with no graphics. (they are sealed up so changing the drives aren't an option) From what I've read the advantages of an SSD are app loading and startup.

But if my use of the laptop is mainly using Office and Web browsing (so fairly consistent use) then I gather that the hybrid drive should give me the advantages of the SSD?

Are there any other advantages of the SSD that would be worth forgoing the graphics card (so i can do a bit of gaming)?

Is 128GB total space going to be enough? What does "no graphics" mean? Some of the newer integrated graphic are decent these days.

If we assume you can not modify the laptop, and we assume you give up decent graphics, well that is a deal breaker in my book.

If we were talking desktops you could add a graphics card and add a storage drive in addition to your SSD but such is not the case with laptops.

 

[moonbogg]

Did I just do a virus scan in 20 seconds? Wait, I did. Is that normal? Would that have happened if I had a HDD instead of my 830? The problem for me is that i've had an SSD for a year and 8 months and forgot what it was like to have a HDD.

 

[Cerb]

If we assume you can not modify the laptop, and we assume you give up decent graphics, well that is a deal breaker in my book.

Especially since any notebook can have its drive replaced, later on. Notebook video cards are not so easy to replace or upgrade, even ifthe IGP-only laptop were to include space and cooling for an optional GPU (it may or may not).

 

[exdeath]

Now, on my notebook, I wouldn't even dare try anything like that, because it's got some POS Toshiba HDD in it (was a spare sitting around for good reason!), that makes me want to smash it to pieces any time any program does random access.

I should mention that my well documented hatred for HDDs manifested primarily from notebooks which are popular where I work...

Maybe that will shine some light on my severe loathing hatred of anything mechanical WRT computers.

While I'm addicted to SSDs, I do breath a small sigh of relief when I occasionally get to work with a high end desktop or server that has 15k SAS drives. At least I know it won't take 2 hours to rebuild at 10 KB/sec to 10 MB/sec...

 

[Cerb]

I should mention that my well documented hatred for HDDs manifested primarily from notebooks which are popular where I work...

Many are indistinguishable from good 3.5" drives, until you reach the sequential speed limits. I've been fond of WD's Scorpio Blue series since the 80GB/platter ones. But this POS...I think my 1st-gen 250GB/platter WD Caviar Green could run circles around it. It's new enough to support 3Gbps, and NCQ is on, but it's still painful. As it stands, it's a race between the timing of the next deep sale on a 128GB M4 or 830*, and my rising frustration level (buy a full-price 64GB 830, because I can stand it no longer).

* I saw the Toger Direct deal, but I have to pay sales tax, so it was only $2.xx cheaper than Newegg.

 

[IntelUser2000]

OP[/B]]But wouldn't a cached SSD provide the faster startup, program loading, waking up? And installing things and transferring files would be things you would only do occasionally so the SSD wouldn't affect general useage?

Ranking from slowest to fastest:
-HDD
-Cached HDD
-SSD

Of course the pure SSD setup is faster than the SSD-cached HDD, but the latter is faster than the non-cached one. For the type of usage you are talking about, like office and web applications, the cached solution might be good enough for you.

I was speed-obsessed before I got the X25-M SSD on my Core 2 system. The thing is, I got disappointed. It didn't seem like my computer became faster. It felt like every other computer with an HDD became slower instead. Although I swear by my SSD, I feel caching technologies like Smart Response might have been fine.

plus the more you use it the slower it gets.

Hard drives do that too. And its worse, because you have to wait for 2-3 hours to defrag(or worse, reinstall!) versus taking only a minute or so do run a TRIM function.

 

[Sunburn74]

Like I said before the benefits are really simple for me:
1) game level loads are extremely fast. I watched a youtube video of skyrim and was shocked how long the level loads were going from the room to outside. With my ssd, there was essentially zero delay. The hdd was like a 20-30 second delay each time you made that transition
2) random read performance. no more hangs and lags when you accidently click a file. Scans and searches take seconds instead of hours. Background processes do not cause slowdown and you can essentially accumulate as many as you want.
3) reboots for troubleshooting are crazy fast
4) all apps launch faster

All this leads to a better user experience which is the reason we're shelling out for cpus and gpus and case fans and etc. Except dollar for dollar, you get the most benefit getting the ssd rather than sticking that extra 100 bucks in your cpu and getting acouple extra threads out of it or something.

 

[exdeath]

All this leads to a better user experience which is the reason we're shelling out for cpus and gpus and case fans and etc. Except dollar for dollar, you get the most benefit getting the ssd rather than sticking that extra 100 bucks in your cpu and getting a couple extra threads out of it or something.

All of which will just be idle while the HDD access light is lit up completely SOLID and you have an hour glass and a "Not Responding..." window.

 

[exdeath]

Many are indistinguishable from good 3.5" drives, until you reach the sequential speed limits. I've been fond of WD's Scorpio Blue series since the 80GB/platter ones. But this POS...I think my 1st-gen 250GB/platter WD Caviar Green could run circles around it. It's new enough to support 3Gbps, and NCQ is on, but it's still painful. As it stands, it's a race between the timing of the next deep sale on a 128GB M4 or 830*, and my rising frustration level (buy a full-price 64GB 830, because I can stand it no longer).

* I saw the Toger Direct deal, but I have to pay sales tax, so it was only $2.xx cheaper than Newegg.

Didn't take me long... I have a Chronos Deluxe 240 GB in my single core Celeron Acer with SATA II...

If I'm ever assigned a work laptop I've sworn to immediately install an SSD out of my own pocket and send the OEM provided HDD back with the tech in a garbage bag. Maybe throw in some cassettes, VHS, and some floppy disks and CDs with it so they get the picture...

 

[pignick]

Sad, only post related to the OP.
Posting specific model number will help A LOT.

Well there's been some helpful discussion here on the ssd vs. hdd. I didn't post the model numbers in the original post as I thought that the ssd vs hdd was the main issue for me. However, any feedback regarding the two models would be really helpful too.

HP Envy 4
i5-3317u 8GB ram radeon hd 7670m 2GB 500GB HDD+32GB mSATA
HP Spectre XT 13
i5 3317u 4GB ram integrated graphics 128GB SSD

I don't mind either in terms of portability and price is exactly the same.
I'm a first year uni science student and this is probably going to be my laptop for another 3 years or so.

My thinking was that if the cached SSD gave me similar performance for my needs then I would go for the Envy 4 for the slightly better graphics.
My biggest issue with the Spectre is the integrated graphics as I would like to do some gaming on it (maybe Skyrim) and I don't mind low graphics detail as long as it's not choppy. Anyone had experience with regard to this?

Thanks heaps

 

[yottabit]

Well there's been some helpful discussion here on the ssd vs. hdd. I didn't post the model numbers in the original post as I thought that the ssd vs hdd was the main issue for me. However, any feedback regarding the two models would be really helpful too.

HP Envy 4
i5-3317u 8GB ram radeon hd 7670m 2GB 500GB HDD+32GB mSATA
HP Spectre XT 13
i5 3317u 4GB ram integrated graphics 128GB SSD

I don't mind either in terms of portability and price is exactly the same.
I'm a first year uni science student and this is probably going to be my laptop for another 3 years or so.

My thinking was that if the cached SSD gave me similar performance for my needs then I would go for the Envy 4 for the slightly better graphics.
My biggest issue with the Spectre is the integrated graphics as I would like to do some gaming on it (maybe Skyrim) and I don't mind low graphics detail as long as it's not choppy. Anyone had experience with regard to this?

Thanks heaps

The GPU in the Envy 4 is a good bit faster than the HD4000 integrated, but it seems like it's a full 100% faster in some cases

I think go the Envy 4 for the longevity route, at least having an SSD cache is better than nothing

You may also want to look at a Laptop with a more powerful GPU though, if you are interested in games I'm guessing in 3-4 years the 7670m is going to be reaaaally struggling

If you could find a laptop with a more powerful GPU, even if it has no SSD, that's something you could upgrade later

In 2008 I bought a Dell Studio 1535 that had a Core 2 Duo + Radeon 3450 and that worked well for me for about 3 years

EDIT: By the way, I pulled those results from notebookcheck.net- it's really the only way I know of to compare notebook GPU performance, with all the different variatons on GPUs they have! It's really confusing, because some notebooks now are bundled with discrete GPUs that are practically no better than the integrated graphics. You also need to read a review on the specific laptop, because sometimes manufacturers gimp the GPU by pairing it with slow memory. Like GDDR3 instead of GDDR5, so you end having a powerful GPU chip that can't do what it's supposed to.

 

[bryanW1995]

Now let me give YOu an idea of a normal persons HDD experience. Boot time 30 seconds, maybe 45, everything is ready to work within another 20 seconds after the Os loads. SSD is gimmick and too expensive, plus the more you use it the slower it gets. Total HDD time is stil under a minute, and you get MUCh more space and dont need to worry about all your programs and things installing to different folders/drives.

Wow. You have managed to put me on Tweakboy's side (sort of). While your description of a hard drive boot sequence is much more accurate than his, I have to say that I agree with his overall assessment that an SSD is much more desirable in his particular usage scenario, and most others as well. It's not a gimmick, and it's not too expensive unless you're on a true budget system or your time is nearly worthless. My personal experience with my personal rig was "WOW", and gradually over time I got to the point that my work rig bugged me because it was too slow. I've since taken my old ssd from my home rig up to work and now get to enjoy ssd goodness at both locations. When I go to rigs (including my spare i7 920 @ 3.8) without ssd's, they seem broken.

 

[Sunburn74]

Well there's been some helpful discussion here on the ssd vs. hdd. I didn't post the model numbers in the original post as I thought that the ssd vs hdd was the main issue for me. However, any feedback regarding the two models would be really helpful too.

HP Envy 4
i5-3317u 8GB ram radeon hd 7670m 2GB 500GB HDD+32GB mSATA
HP Spectre XT 13
i5 3317u 4GB ram integrated graphics 128GB SSD

I don't mind either in terms of portability and price is exactly the same.
I'm a first year uni science student and this is probably going to be my laptop for another 3 years or so.

My thinking was that if the cached SSD gave me similar performance for my needs then I would go for the Envy 4 for the slightly better graphics.
My biggest issue with the Spectre is the integrated graphics as I would like to do some gaming on it (maybe Skyrim) and I don't mind low graphics detail as long as it's not choppy. Anyone had experience with regard to this?

Thanks heaps

I didn't know the envy 4 comes with dedicated graphics. are you sure about that?

 

[justaguy168]

Okay, lets assume you are considering a SSD for OS and apps and HDD for user data. How do you segregate OS/app/data ?

Obviously you can have the user library point to a D drive for your resume, work files, pictures, music, etc. But everytime you install a utility or a piece of software there are settings and temp files in directories such as \Users\username\AppData\Local\vendorname\appname (for Win 7) etc. These cause the size of the SSD to grow and become unpredictable.

Is there a way to control software installs so that you can keep the used portion of your SSD to a reasonable amount and the variable portion of the applications on the HDD?

 

[Cerb]

Well that makes a bit harder. The 32GB mSATA SSD should be replaceable/upgradeable, so you can have 2 drives, and while not monumentally better, the the AMD HD 7670M is better than Intel HD 4000. It would be an easy choice for gaming if it were a higher series of Radeon, but that one is mostly good for when Intel drivers aren't up to snuff. So, on the bright side, for making the choice, I think you can safely ignore the GPU in making the decision.

SRT caching will help, but it still won't alleviate big random access slowdowns. OTOH, you can readily buy mSATA SSDs, so if you decide you want a single large non-SRT SSD there, later on, you'll be able to do that. The Spectre, from what I can see, has only mSATA, and so is going to offer less flexibility down the road than 2.5" 7mm SATA + mSATA that the Envy 4 gives.

So, if you are going to keep it for several years, the Envy would give you an upgrade path to OS/app SSD and storage HDD, though it has no option for sufficiently large (60GB) SSD out of the box.

 

[Emulex]

Okay, lets assume you are considering a SSD for OS and apps and HDD for user data. How do you segregate OS/app/data ?

Obviously you can have the user library point to a D drive for your resume, work files, pictures, music, etc. But everytime you install a utility or a piece of software there are settings and temp files in directories such as \Users\username\AppData\Local\vendorname\appname (for Win 7) etc. These cause the size of the SSD to grow and become unpredictable.

Is there a way to control software installs so that you can keep the used portion of your SSD to a reasonable amount and the variable portion of the applications on the HDD?

you do realize that windows in corporate environment network shares hold all the user data? you can use mount points with physical or network drives as well.

 

[cantholdanymore]

HP Envy 4
i5-3317u 8GB ram radeon hd 7670m 2GB 500GB HDD+32GB mSATA
HP Spectre XT 13
i5 3317u 4GB ram integrated graphics 128GB SSD

Ok from HP website it uses intel smart response technology. Sorry I can help because I never use it before. Just google that term but it should be better than HDD only

 

[justaguy168]

you do realize that windows in corporate environment network shares hold all the user data? you can use mount points with physical or network drives as well.

Sorry, still not understanding your solution. Aren't mount points for entire volumes? Moving all user data to another drive (network or local) is precisely my question.

 

[Cerb]

Obviously you can have the user library point to a D drive for your resume, work files, pictures, music, etc. But everytime you install a utility or a piece of software there are settings and temp files in directories such as \Users\username\AppData\Local\vendorname\appname (for Win 7) etc. These cause the size of the SSD to grow and become unpredictable.

Unpredictable, maybe, but still small enough to not need to really care (how many users have Appdata directories totalling more than 10GB? Mine's 6.3GB, FI), and it's just the sort of files you want on the SSD, for performance.

 

[cytg111]

I'm deciding between two laptops-one has a 32GB/500GB hybrid + graphics and the other has a 128GB with no graphics. (they are sealed up so changing the drives aren't an option)
From what I've read the advantages of an SSD are app loading and startup. But if my use of the laptop is mainly using Office and Web browsing (so fairly consistent use) then I gather that the hybrid drive should give me the advantages of the SSD? Are there any other advantages of the SSD that would be worth forgoing the graphics card (so i can do a bit of gaming)?
Cheers

- Depends .. how much are you going to miss the missing GB's ? .. if not very much, the choice is crystal clear.