Should I upgrade my ssd?

[perdomot]

Been running a 64GB Crucial C300 as a boot drive for a while now and was looking at some of the OCZ ssd are looking very tempting at $80 after rebate. Getting about 330 MB/s reads and I'm wondering how much better the OCZ would do on a daily use basis with its 500 MB/s reads? Think its worth the money?

 

[Herald85]

In my opinion the difference from HDD to SSD is WOW!
The difference from decent SSD to better SSD is .. meh.

I'm still rocking a Corsair P64 in my main rig. One G2 80GB in my laptop and one in my HTPC. Once I need more space I will upgrade.

 

[bryanW1995]

The crucial will read about 330 MB/s faster since the OCZ drive will probably be doa. Or, even worse, you'll get everything loaded onto the OCZ drive before it fails.

Plus, Herald85 was right, you won't even notice an upgrade at all. However, you would benefit enormously from getting a mobo with SRT on it (right now that is z68 only, though in the future I think they're planning to put it on everything).

 

[fuzzymath10]

For the majority of SSD owners, the only upgrade that is worth performing from one SSD to another is capacity, unless you have any first-gen SSD other than that from Intel.

 

[E6700]

your crucial drive is better than those ocz garbage.

 

[kbp]

get another 64 crucial and RAID-0 them. you just doubled you size and will gain speed. thats your best "bang for your buck"

 

[greenhawk]

Getting about 330 MB/s reads and I'm wondering how much better the OCZ would do on a daily use basis with its 500 MB/s reads?

in day to day, not noticable. Only point of upgrading from a early SSD is if you have one of those that had the stuttering issue.

Only point upgrading from a gen 2 or similar is for space. Gen 3 only really brings larger sizes and sata3.

Even file transfers will not see a huge increase with a higher read as the data has to go somewhere. Assuming you can use it, 300MB/s vs 500MB/s will about halve the read times, but even at 100MB file size (way more than most programs will bother with) is 0.3 secs vs 0.2 secs. Good luck seeing that in day to day usage.

 

[MagickMan]

No real difference. Even if there was a difference, don't buy OCZ.

 

[Old Hippie]

your crucial drive is better than those ocz garbage.

Easily. :thumbsup:

 

[perdomot]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I have heard about the issues with OCZ but thought it had been fixed with the latest firmware. I kinda like the idea of a raid 0 array so I might look into that. My maid downer is the pitiful write speeds but since I use my drive as a boot OS drive, its not an issue.

 

[zuffy]

I went from the C300 256GB to the m4 256GB for my laptop. Only real difference was the hibernation. It's quicker to go into hiberation and resuming from hibernation.

 

[jacktesterson]

No.

I went from an Expensive Intel SSD to a cheaper (but more size) Kingston V200 in my notebook and notice no real world difference.

 

[bryanW1995]

I probably notice a very small difference going from my x25m g2 in my desktop to my wife's 320 series in her laptop, but they are both so incredibly fast compared to my office computer, spare home computer, and non-ssd laptops that they both seem perfect to me. Maybe after using them for a few years the slight differences will become more pronounced for me, but right now i agree with adam_the_giant that getting the largest ssd you can for your money is the key.

 

[allthatisman]

Just to add to the concensus, I went from a 128gb WD SiliconEdge BLue to an Intel 320 160gb and noticed no difference at all. According to the AT SSD bench, the Intel drive is superior in just about every benchmark, especially 4k read and writes (I'm stuck withe SATA 3 on my G73 fyi), but I'd be hard pressed to see one thing that the Intel drive loads even a second faster...

 

[readymix]

saved me some greenery right here.