SSD vs. HDD for new system O/S drive - are SSDs equal to HDD in reliability?

[nine9s]

I am going to put together a new PC when Nvidia releases the Kepler chips and Intel release Ivy Bridge. I am wondering about SSD vs. HDD for my O/S drive. I do not mind paying the price of SSD. My only concern is bugs and problems.

I value stability of system highly. Even if they were free, I would not want a SDD if there is a fair chance (even 1 to 2%) it will have occasionally hiccups like blue screens, can't access, errors, shows incorrect size all of a sudden, or any of the problem that I have read occasionally happen to SSDs (or is that just incorrect rumor.)

And yes I know that HDDs are not completely 100% reliable, nothing is but their problems are mainly mechanical vs. firmware/software bugs in SSDs - that is what I am worried about with SSDs. Basically, my expectations would be to have a drive that would very rarely, if ever, have any noticeable problem and if one did happen it would be an extreme fluke versus a systematic problem that is inherent in the product per se (which is the impression I get about SSDs in general.)

Based on my outlook above, is there a safe route for me to go SSD? Any brands/models that are ~100% reliable?

 

[kbp]

Intel - Samsung - Crucial - are probably the most used around here. I would definitely be using for your boot drive.
I have had zero error/problems with my Intel's both in a RAID system and a laptop since conception. You will be well served with an SSD in your system and will probably never look back.

Just picked up a new Asus G53 laptop for grandson. Came with a 7200 spinner so I added a Corsair M4 128 SSD in the second drive bay for the boot drive.

 

[nine9s]

Thanks.

Some questions please (sorry for so many, but these seem important ones to help me choose wisely):

1) what specific models?

2) Do you put all installed program/applications/games onto a HDD and just have O/S on the SSD? Is that the recommended set-up for a system or do you install programs on it too?

3) Do you put page files on it or on HDD drive?

4) About every 9 to 12 months, I reinstall my O/S versus trying to clean-up registry etc. Is that okay to do on SSD? Will it still last 3 to 4 years, if that is done 4 or 5 times?


5) What size should I get? My O/S drive use: My O/S partition usually uses about 27 GB and grows to 35 to 38 GB by time I reinstall O/S each time. That includes about 4 GB of page file and about 2 or 3+ GB in programs , so if those are not on the SSD, then 20 to 30 GB is about how much space I will use for just O/S drive.

 

[Jman13]

Intel 520, Crucial M4 or Samsung 830. The Crucial will be the slowest of the 3, but it is still a very, very fast drive, and will cost you the least. All three should be extremely solid as far as reliability go. All three makers have failure rates significantly lower than that of HDDs.

 

[philipma1957]

Thanks.

Some questions please (sorry for so many, but these seem important ones to help me choose wisely):

1) what specific models?

2) Do you put all installed program/applications/games onto a HDD and just have O/S on the SSD? Is that the recommended set-up for a system or do you install programs on it too?

3) Do you put page files on it or on HDD drive?

4) About every 9 to 12 months, I reinstall my O/S versus trying to clean-up registry etc. Is that okay to do on SSD? Will it still last 3 to 4 years, if that is done 4 or 5 times?


5) What size should I get? My O/S drive use: My O/S partition usually uses about 27 GB and grows to 35 to 38 GB by time I reinstall O/S each time. That includes about 4 GB of page file and about 2 or 3+ GB in programs , so if those are not on the SSD, then 20 to 30 GB is about how much space I will use for just O/S drive.

Size 180gb and 240gb run fastest. I have an intel 520 180gb for my pc build .



I have samsung 512gb series in raid0 total of a 1tb ssd for my mac build.

the 180gb is faster the the 1tb raid0 for all but long clones.

all the ones below are pretty good.

________________________________________________________________________
If you can afford a 180gb intel series 520 buy it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820167115

___________________________________________________________________________
if you can afford a crucial m4 256gb buy it.


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820148449

on sale for 305 use this code HARDOCPX321D
______________________________________________________________________________

if you can afford a samsung series 830 256gb buy it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820147164
________________________________________________________________________________
last but not least a mushkin 240gb buy it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820226226 ________________________________________________________________________

A lot of people try to get by with a small 60 gb or 64gb, but the 180 to 256gb sizes are the fastest.


you could settle for a

120gb ADATA

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820211588 115 after rebate.

 

[nine9s]

All three makers have failure rates significantly lower than that of HDDs.

I am confused on failure rate versus bugs. To me failure means hardware problem, whereas most of the problems with SSD seem to be software/firmware related.

When you state failure rate is signifcantly lower than with HDD, do you mean even problems like blue-screens, data not read or minor hiccups rarely happen too? Or do you just mean complete failure where you need a new drive and those "software/firmware" problems do happen every now and then with SSDs?

 

[nine9s]

Size 180gb and 240gb run fastest. I have an intel 520 180gb for my pc build .

Thanks for all the suggestions.

 

[nine9s]

I turn off my PC every night. Is that a problem for SSDs?

 

[Jman13]

I am confused on failure rate versus bugs. To me failure means hardware problem, whereas most of the problems with SSD seem to be software/firmware related.

When you state failure rate is signifcantly lower than with HDD, do you mean even problems like blue-screens, data not read or minor hiccups rarely happen too? Or do you just mean complete failure where you need a new drive and those "software/firmware" problems do happen every now and then with SSDs?

Not entirely sure, to be honest...I'm going on reported 'failure' rate.

FWIW, I have not had a single blue screen or lock with my M4 128GB. Just silky smooth, extremely fast performance.

 

[nine9s]

What is difference between:

http://www.directron.com/mz7pc256nam.html

and

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...&SID=u00000687

Same models but actual unit numbers are different.

Directron is near me and I will be buying all other components there for pick-up, so I would rather buy from it. Is the Directron's an older unit of the same model? Or it it same unit but just without the notebook kit that the Newegg one states it has?

And besides speed, what are negatives of the 128k model? Because of less space, will it not last as long since less space means more times written to a cell than if more space to spread the TRIMM around more? Or for 3 or 4 years, will it not make a difference if using ~30GB?

 

[groberts101]

I would add this. No hardware will be 100% failure free regardless of what you may consider the term "failure" to encompass. This is why we back up our most important data.

Now, even IF you did have a "failure"?.. the amount of potential time savings in 1 years time of using an SSD compared to even the fastest HDD.. will leave you far ahead of the game for overall time saved even after the time has been spent to recover from that failure.

Use an SSD for two weeks and then try to reboot to another HDD based OS to see what happens to your perspective. Very likely that you'll never go back to a spinner for an OS volume unless your employer forces you to.

 

[nine9s]

I would add this. No hardware will be 100% failure free regardless of what you may consider the term "failure" to encompass. This is why we back up our most important data.

I am not worried about failure much - I do back ups a lot. My main concern is various errors, blue screens, various errors - nagging problems like that. I have little patience for stuff like that.

 

[groberts101]

I am not worried about failure much - I do back ups a lot. My main concern is errors, blue screens, etc. - nagging problems like that.

Then with that being said.. most currently available drives will be fine these days due to matured controller firmware and hardware drivers.

I would probably stick with larger brands and keep in mind that Sandforce controllers are still a bit behind in the curve despite their more recent resolutions from various sources. Good luck on the hunt.

 

[slpnshot]

What is difference between:

http://www.directron.com/mz7pc256nam.html

and

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...&SID=u00000687

Same models but actual unit numbers are different.

Directron is near me and I will be buying all other components there for pick-up, so I would rather buy from it. Is the Directron's an older unit of the same model? Or it it same unit but just without the notebook kit that the Newegg one states it has?

The WW model(newegg) is a bare drive where you pretty much just get the drive and some software support(the samsung magic) with it. The AM(directrom) has a laptop mounting set for those that need the cables, power cable, etc. Same drive, just with extra components for those that need it.

 

[slpnshot]

Oh darn, I don't remember if I have a sata 3 cable. I hope a spare came with my mobo...

 

[nine9s]

Thanks. This helped me a lot. Does Intel have the Sandforce controllers?

 

[exdeath]

SSD or go home. HDDs belong in the bin of history with VHS, 8 track, etc.

Don't understand why anyone would build a PC capable of trillions of operations per second then slave it to a primary data storage device that can barely do 10 operations per second.

 

[slpnshot]

Price?

 

[exdeath]

Price?

An abacus is cheaper than a Core i5/i7 but I don't see people cutting corners there...

People here spend $1000+ on their PC but they cry if they have to spend more than $50 for the storage device, the slowest part of the PC. I honestly don't get it.

Even OEM vendors have been doing it for years; the HDD performance is the first thing to suffer in the $500 systems. It defies logic that the first thing you would cripple to meet a price point is the part that is already bottlenecking everything else by a factor of 10,000. Quantum Bigfoot, nuff said...

 

[nine9s]

Should I put games and applications on the SSD or put them on a HDD?

What about my document folder etc.? Do you configure those folders onto a data HDD?

 

[exdeath]

Get the biggest SSD you are willing to pay for and put everything on it. The only reason you should be putting anything on a HDD is you aren't willing or able to pay for enough SSD capacity.

 

[bryanW1995]

Thanks. This helped me a lot. Does Intel have the Sandforce controllers?

Intel 520 series uses a Sandforce controller. They've actually brought some solid credibility to sandforce b/c intel is so uber-sensitive to reliability/testing of anything with their name on it. Currently the brand new intel 520 is much cheaper per gb than the older intel 510 series.

Based upon your stated desire of VERY HIGH reliability, I'd suggest samsung 830 or intel 510 series. Crucial m4 is also very good with a strong reliability track record if you are price sensitive, if you're not then I'd probably lean towards the samsung 830 at directron that you can get with all of your other components.

And dont get exdeath started. Once he begins talking about abacuses, the invention of the wheel and cave painting references aren't far behind...

 

[bryanW1995]

Get the biggest SSD you are willing to pay for and put everything on it. The only reason you should be putting anything on a HDD is you aren't willing or able to pay for enough SSD capacity.

With an intel z68 or newer IVB mobo, you will also have the option of using part of the ssd to accelerate your data drive and using the rest as your OS drive. I'll throw up a link here to a thread about doing this in a minute. It's a bit of a pita, but if you don't have enough space on your ssd or money to buy a bigger quality ssd then it's a solid option.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2172381

edit: It takes 5 min or so to rebuild the array if the computer isn't properly shut down, so you do want to ensure that you're done with stability testing/oc before you setup SRT.

 

[Anteaus]

Things to note:

1. SSDs of any meaningful size are very expensive. If you can't afford enough SSD to put all of the software you plan to use daily on it, then I'd just pass and buy a good HDD. Don't let people tell you that HDDs are dead just because they have an extra 6-7 hundred dollars to drop on a SSD. A WD Black series HDD is still a good choice. Considering most software loads itself completely into memory for use, an SSD will dramatically decrease load times but it doesn't actually help with overall performance. Is spending 3-5 hundred dollars worth not waiting that extra 10-30 seconds? That's you're call.

2. Reliability aside, SSDs have roughly the same write performance as a HDD and have the disadvantage of actually having a reduced lifespace relative to the amount of data you write to it. In order to not send your SSD to an early grave, you should have a HDD in your system that you'll use for temp files, swap (if you want one) and virtually all downloads and storage. Newer SSDs aren't so vulnerable, but it's just the nature of the tech

3. Ignore the cool factor. No doubt that SSDs are very nice to have, but they simply aren't necessary to have a solid system. They are very necessary if you need to see high benchmarks to feel good about yourself, but in the end it's a personal thing.

 

[philipma1957]

Get the biggest SSD you are willing to pay for and put everything on it. The only reason you should be putting anything on a HDD is you aren't willing or able to pay for enough SSD capacity.

Things to note:

1. SSDs of any meaningful size are very expensive. If you can't afford enough SSD to put all of the software you plan to use daily on it, then I'd just pass and buy a good HDD. Don't let people tell you that HDDs are dead just because they have an extra 6-7 hundred dollars to drop on a SSD. A WD Black series HDD is still a good choice. Considering most software loads itself completely into memory for use, an SSD will dramatically decrease load times but it doesn't actually help with overall performance. Is spending 3-5 hundred dollars worth not waiting that extra 10-30 seconds? That's you're call.

2. Reliability aside, SSDs have roughly the same write performance as a HDD and have the disadvantage of actually having a reduced lifespace relative to the amount of data you write to it. In order to not send your SSD to an early grave, you should have a HDD in your system that you'll use for temp files, swap (if you want one) and virtually all downloads and storage. Newer SSDs aren't so vulnerable, but it's just the nature of the tech

3. Ignore the cool factor. No doubt that SSDs are very nice to have, but they simply aren't necessary to have a solid system. They are very necessary if you need to see high benchmarks to feel good about yourself, but in the end it's a personal thing.

If you place yourself in the middle of these opinons above like I did you buy a pretty big ssd for most everything except recorded tv video music.

this means 1 big ssd a 180gb to 256gb and 2tb of hdd .(either a 2tb or 2 1tb )


with external backups