SSD on Older Hardware

[Teetu]

I want to upgrade my system and nowadays it seems the most dramatic improvement is going with a SSD. My only concern is if my hardware is a bit outdated and if I would be better off upgrading the mobo/cpu. I have a DFI nf4 with a Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (2.4 ghz) and recently upgraded to Win 7. I'm interested in the new 40GB Kingston SSD that's going to be selling for around a hundred bucks.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I want to upgrade my system and nowadays it seems the most dramatic improvement is going with a SSD. My only concern is if my hardware is a bit outdated and if I would be better off upgrading the mobo/cpu. I have a DFI nf4 with a Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (2.4 ghz) and recently upgraded to Win 7. I'm interested in the new 40GB Kingston SSD that's going to be selling for around a hundred bucks.

What are you (or planning on) using your PC for? That makes a difference. Gaming vs non-gaming usage would change things. Also, how much RAM do you have?

For regular email/office/internet type usage, I think a 2.4GHz dual core is plenty fast. So if you are planning on keeping this for a while, I would add RAM to at least 2Gig, if not 4gig, and then add a SSD. RAM and the new SSD would really help, IMHO. 4gig RAM and an SSD would be like having a new PC, especially if you have an older 4-5 year HD.

 

[zuffy]

I was running the Intel X25-M G1 in an IBM Pentium 4 3.06GHz with 2GB RAM in XP. The bootup process was about 30-40% faster. Launching applications like Lotus Notes was almost instant. Also, I have the same machine but with a VelociRaptor drive and 4GB RAM running Windows 7 Enterprise. It's very useable and quite fast. Only slow when an application demands a fast CPU. General usage is very good and comparable to a dual core system.

 

[Teetu]

What are you (or planning on) using your PC for? That makes a difference. Gaming vs non-gaming usage would change things. Also, how much RAM do you have?

For regular email/office/internet type usage, I think a 2.4GHz dual core is plenty fast. So if you are planning on keeping this for a while, I would add RAM to at least 2Gig, if not 4gig, and then add a SSD. RAM and the new SSD would really help, IMHO. 4gig RAM and an SSD would be like having a new PC, especially if you have an older 4-5 year HD.

I use to game a lot but nowadays 90% of my time is regular usage (web/office). I have 2GB of ram which isn't spectacular, but will it really hamper SSD performance? Does it make sense to upgrade the SSD now, then in a year or two upgrade the mobo/proc/ram.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I use to game a lot but nowadays 90% of my time is regular usage (web/office). I have 2GB of ram which isn't spectacular, but will it really hamper SSD performance? Does it make sense to upgrade the SSD now, then in a year or two upgrade the mobo/proc/ram.

I would think any decent SSD should last several years, which means you could use it on your future CPU upgrade. So I'd say go for it, if you have the $$.

 

[taltamir]

I honestly wouldn't get the kingstone 40GB... or any of the kingston intel based drives (they lag in support for firmware updates, and cost more). The 40GB is much slower than the 80 and 160gb versions.

For a basic 100$ upgrade I would recommend an athlon II X4, for about 100$. drop it into existing system IF YOUR MOBO SUPPORTS IT (look it up on their website).

If you have more to spend, then whether to get an SSD or a CPU upgrade depends on what you do with your system.

Also, have no less than 4GB of ram.

 

[dawza]

Web and office apps are not going to run appreciably faster with a CPU upgrade, and you can easily check to see if you are memory-limited (probably not). I would go with a good SSD, although I do agree than the Kingston might not be the best choice for the aforementioned reasons. I would be inclined to wait for a good deal on a 30GB Vertex or Agility.

Even on a 1.66GHz core solo T1300 MODT system, a Vertex shines for day-to-day use.

 

[rivethead]

I honestly wouldn't get the kingstone 40GB... or any of the kingston intel based drives (they lag in support for firmware updates, and cost more). The 40GB is much slower than the 80 and 160gb versions.

This statement is confusing to me. Isn't the Kingston SSDNow 40GB drive the ONLY Kingston Intel-based drive?

In addition, the SSDNow 40GB hasn't even been released yet, so I how can you say they lag in support for firmware updates?

And at $85 after rebate, I don't think they cost more than other SSDs (maybe you meant on a $/GB basis....that could be true, I haven't done the math).

 

[taltamir]

This statement is confusing to me. Isn't the Kingston SSDNow 40GB drive the ONLY Kingston Intel-based drive?

In addition, the SSDNow 40GB hasn't even been released yet, so I how can you say they lag in support for firmware updates?

And at $85 after rebate, I don't think they cost more than other SSDs (maybe you meant on a $/GB basis....that could be true, I haven't done the math).

kingston has been selling rebranded intel SSDs since a while ago (more than a year), they have a version of almost every intel SSD. including the gen1 units.
And they lag in firmware updates. and the new intel SSD tool does not support them. and they cost more.

the 40GB kingston is unique, but it is only 5 chanells, which is a problem (all the other intel SSDs are 10 channels), that means it needs custom firmware and has a crippled potential. It has been tested to be much slower than other intels, if you need to skimp, get a vertex.