Still don't think I need an SSD

[2is]

i've tried SSD, several of them over the past 4 years and i'm currently using a wd black mechanical drive as my primary OS/boot drive

i went back to mechanical because the constant need to watch where certain things install, cache is dropped, and the myriad of tweaks to perform in windows in order to reduce writes to the thing

yea, my boot time is a little slower but i can live with it

Depending on the size you may need to install certain things on a different drive, its as easy as changing a C to a D though. Then other tweaks you mentioned are only necessary in your head. There is absolutely nongood reason to reduce the writes.

 

[formulav8]

In my experience the laptops shows the most difference. There's still differences in overall performance with desktops but much more so with the average laptop imo.

Even a lowly Atom Netbook shows a big improvement in about every way.

Laptops I think 'needs' an ssd if anything would ever truly be 'needed'. But definitely consider an SSD for your lappy as it will definitely wake up, even with a very slow cpu like an Atom in it.

 

[billyb0b]

Can you boot windows before the window logo completes on a wd black? Can you launch an app and use it immediately right after your windows desktop shows up?
.

my complete boot up time appears to increased to about 30-45 sec longer than with using a sata III 120gb ssd

i can launch apps with only a few seconds longer than the ssd

the wd black has 64mb cache which helps... also running a corei7-990x and 24gb ddr3-1600.... the slowest part of the system is the hd. but again, it's my personal preference. the few xtra seconds to boot and launch stuff is negligible to me

 

[PingviN]

Laptops I think 'needs' an ssd if anything would ever truly be 'needed'. But definitely consider an SSD for your lappy as it will definitely wake up, even with a very slow cpu like an Atom in it.

This. Even running a slow CPU with an SSD makes a massive difference in user experience. Everything loads faster and feels snappier. It's a really cheap upgrade, but the results are very noticeable.

 

[etrigan420]

Can you boot windows before the window logo completes on a wd black? Can you launch an app and use it immediately right after your windows desktop shows up?

Nope.

But I reboot my computer once a week (maybe), so that is an entirely moot point for my usage.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Since I store my data on my server with an array of spindle drives anyway, I don't really need the space on my workstation, so I find a SSD is well worth it and the price is not even that much more than a spindle drive, if you don't care about space. (obviously per GB it's more expensive). I find it makes the world of a difference. Especially in Linux, which is already faster than windows. I'm so used to opening something and having it come up right away that I get frustrated at work when I have to wait for things to open. The worse is startup lag, where everything is always super slow for the first 5-10 minutes after booting windows. Though from what I understand this is not as bad in windows 7. Did not really use it much to notice.

What sucks though is the introduction of UEFI Bios. All the boot time you save by having a SSD is neglected by the slow boot time of UEFI. Takes about 30 secs to boot my computer, 20 of that is pre OS.

 

[Zap]

I'm still running my trusty 600GB x2 Raptors in RAID 0, with no apparent desire to upgrade to SSDs at all.
...
So my point is, with the easy availability of large amounts of RAM (which is far faster than any SSD) and the increased efficiency of SuperFetch in Windows 7 and 8, why go to VelociRaptors at all? Especially when 5400RPM hard drive capacity is so cheap, that you never have to worry about running out of space.

Fixed.

Obviously you found some value with having faster storage, otherwise you wouldn't have splurged on some VelociRaptors.

SSDs just takes what you've already done to the next level, for a price.

and the myriad of tweaks to perform in windows in order to reduce writes to the thing

Why would you need to do that? Unless you had a use case which hammered the drive, normal desktop usage patterns should not wear out an SSD for quite a number of years. With the prices dropping over the long term and performance going up, by the time you actually wear out an SSD, you can probably buy a faster one with twice the capacity for half the price.

Also, there is one thing you can do which will probably extend the life and performance of the SSD more effectively than all the tweaks you can think of. Don't use up all the capacity. Basically create a partition smaller than the capacity of your SSD, leaving at least 20% unpartitioned. Voila! Instant reduced write amplification as well as more consistent performance.

I felt more of a "perceived" loss of speed going from 2 raided 75GB Raptors to the WD Black than a "perceived" gain going from the Black to the Pro. :\

Now go back to the Black and see what you perceive.

It is like driving on the highway. If you increase speed by 10MPH you may not notice too much difference after a while, but then reduce speed by 10MPH and suddenly you feel as if you are crawling.

Seconds yes, but minutes? Time for a defrag? Or are you running a virus scan after each bootup? I run my virus scans at 3 am while I'm asleep. Or maybe it's time to clean out your Startup folder or something.

No need to ever do a defrag with an SSD.

If your system is already clean and the real-time virus protection scans all new files going into your system, why do you ever have to re-scan for viruses?

With an SSD you actually don't notice much impact from extra crapware that starts up with Windows.

What sucks though is the introduction of UEFI Bios. All the boot time you save by having a SSD is neglected by the slow boot time of UEFI. Takes about 30 secs to boot my computer, 20 of that is pre OS.

I don't think it has to do with UEFI, but with platform and whether the motherboard manufacturer optimized their implementation for boot times.

For instance, all X58 chipset motherboards I've used have had extremely long POST times.

Current 7-series chipset motherboards seem to POST much more quickly. In fact I have an MSI B75 motherboard that POSTs super quick, and is "Starting Windows" probably 2-3 seconds after pressing the power button. It uses UEFI with full graphics and mouse support.

 

[sandorski]

Just got my first with my new build 2ish months ago. Boots really fast, Wordpad(not much of an intensive App to open, but noticeably faster) opens instantaneously, Windows is always as fast as i click the mouse button.

That said, most of those tasks may be slower on a Mechanical drive, but they are reasonably quick anyway. So I certainly notice the speed there, but it hasn't really revolutionized my computing experience. If I had a couple tb and all my Games/Apps on an SSD, that would be so freakin awesome I would probably be Opening/Closing things haphazardly just because it gave me a rush.

 

[Eug]

Now go back to the Black and see what you perceive.

It is like driving on the highway. If you increase speed by 10MPH you may not notice too much difference after a while, but then reduce speed by 10MPH and suddenly you feel as if you are crawling.

I use SSD machines and platter drive machines side by side every day and it's fine.

My main desktops are platter, and my main laptops are SSD.

No need to ever do a defrag with an SSD.

No you do not. A nice bonus. But I don't defrag my hard drives often either, so not a big bother.

If your system is already clean and the real-time virus protection scans all new files going into your system, why do you ever have to re-scan for viruses?

Nonetheless, some people have it set up that way.

With an SSD you actually don't notice much impact from extra crapware that starts up with Windows.

I sometimes notice a substantial hit from extra crapware on some SSD-endowed machines, which is why I erase it. Worse though are compatibility issues.

 

[ronbo613]

I have an SSD in my workstation, along with a number of WD RE4 mechanical drives for storage. The SSD is a big time saver when it comes to working with programs like Photoshop and video editing software. I don't care how fast it boots, I have an SSD to make my computer work quicker, and it does that well.
I have another computer with a 7200rpm boot drive, when I work on it, it takes me noticeably longer to do similar tasks than the rig with the SSD.
Bottom line; if you don't feel the need for an SSD, don't buy one. It's not the end of the world.

 

[jimbob200521]

We all know it basically comes down to personal choice; the OP isn't going to be convinced to go SSD no matter what people say or benchmarks anyone posts because he keeps rationalizing keeping his drives over getting an SSD (unless of course he just wanted to have a discussion then by all means, ignore my last comment) so I'm going to ramble anyway.

The simple facts are SSD access times are practically instant compared to a mechanical drive which helps provide the snappiness feeling along with excellent transfer/burst speeds.

Mechanical drives, especially 300gb 10k Raptors in RAID, are going to be a damn fast setup, certainly nothing to sneeze at, and for the most part will be more than adequate for most peoples setups.

However, do most people need 600gb for a boot drive? No (unless you're storing files other than programs on it in which case...why?). So there's all that "extra" space just sitting there doing nothing but burning power while an SSD of 128gb or 256gb or 512gb or whatever would be quicker, waste less space, consume less power, and produce less heat.

To sum it up, like many others have said, if you don't feel like you need one, don't get it. Simple as that. If you're chicken to get 2 SSD's and RAID them, then bauk bauk bauk, good sir.

 

[Eug]

However, do most people need 600gb for a boot drive? No (unless you're storing files other than programs on it in which case...why?). So there's all that "extra" space just sitting there doing nothing but burning power while an SSD of 128gb or 256gb or 512gb or whatever would be quicker, waste less space, consume less power, and produce less heat.

People get big boot drives not necessarily because they need the space, but because they are dirt cheap.

A 512 GB SSD is roughly 6X the price of a 1 TB hard drive, and 8X the price of a 500 GB hard drive.

I only need 250 GB on this desktop, but I don't feel like spending another $200 on this machine. It's just not necessary. Maybe when I can get a 250 GB for $125, I'll do it.

On my other desktop, I need more than 500 GB though, but if there is space for two drives, I'll get 256 GB + 1 TB.

 

[lilrayray69]

I think the fact is you don't need it. I recently got a 120gb 840 Pro and while it's definitely fast, it doesn't really change much in regards to daily computer use. The biggest difference I've seen is how fast Win7 installed and how quick it boots. But how often are you going to be installing Win7? Sure you boot up all the time, but is say 10-20 seconds that big of a deal for booting up to you?

Because of the cost I only have a 120gb, so I don't store any videos or games on it, so with most things I do on the PC the SSD doesn't really effect it. Now if you do use a lot of heavy programs that suffer from long load times and can afford a large capacity SSD, sure you'll see an improvement in your daily use.

In short, you don't NEED one. I only got one because my old HDD was failing so it was time to upgrade anyways. When it comes time that you feel you need to upgrade, the considering an SSD is definitely a good option. But with current pricing I'd probably rather allocate more budget towards a GPU or RAM than a high capacity SSD.

It's really just a matter of how you use your PC.

 

[jimbob200521]

People get big boot drives not necessarily because they need the space, but because they are dirt cheap.

A 512 GB SSD is roughly 6X the price of a 1 TB hard drive, and 8X the price of a 500 GB hard drive.

I only need 250 GB on this desktop, but I don't feel like spending another $200 on this machine. It's just not necessary. Maybe when I can get a 250 GB for $125, I'll do it.

On my other desktop, I need more than 500 GB though, but if there is space for two drives, I'll get 256 GB + 1 TB.

Yikes, what do you need more than 500gb on a boot drive for

 

[Carfax83]

I've been reading these comments, and it seems like most people still haven't gotten my argument completely.

My argument was never about SSD vs Hard drive.

It was about SSD vs RAID Hard drives PLUS a large amount of memory. With at least 8GB (but preferably more) and Windows x64, you get the benefits of a large system cache where data is partially (or even completely) stored in memory for lightning fast access.

And like I said, memory is orders of magnitude faster than any SSD..

I recently benchmarked my hard drive and this was the score I got:

Not bad eh? I know it doesn't compare to a high end SSD, but look at the buffered read access to get an indication of what I was talking about. And I never have to worry about space..

Eventually though I will definitely have to try SSD, if even just to satisfy my curiosity. But don't for a second think that my rig is crippled in performance by running mechanical drives.

 

[Zap]

No you do not. A nice bonus. But I don't defrag my hard drives often either, so not a big bother.

Let me make this a bit more clear. Defrag does essentially NOTHING to speed up an SSD. You may as well hit the ESC key ten times in a row, thinking it will somehow make a difference. Defrag works by putting chunks of fragmented files together. On a HDD the file system indicates where the chunks are. On an SSD, it does not. Defrag may think a file is fragmented on an SSD, but in reality it may or may not be. The actual locations are hidden by the SSD controller (not for nefarious reasons, good technical reasons).

Thus, when I say "defrag does nothing for an SSD" I am not being flippant, nor am I indicating that an SSD is so fast that you won't notice. AFAIK it really does nothing!

Fine print: Yes it can be "proven" that in some edge cases defrag can make a measurable difference on an SSD, but in normal usage that will never, never, never be noticeable. Unlike defragging a HDD that was very fragmented, which can be immediately noticeable.

We all know it basically comes down to personal choice; the OP isn't going to be convinced to go SSD no matter what...

Yet he made the choice for two VelociRaptors in RAID.

Check out any hot deals threads on VelociRaptors in the past couple years, and you will find lots of thread crapping on how worthless they are because if you really want performance you go with SSD. If you really want value, you go with 5400RPM/7200RPM HDDs.

I think the fact is you don't need it.

It is indeed a luxury item, albeit one that makes a measurable difference and is not just eye candy fluff.

If SSDs cost exactly the same $/GB as HDDs, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. :whiste: IMO it is the sticker shock that causes people to evaluate whether they want (not need) it.

 

[Carfax83]

IMO it is the sticker shock that causes people to evaluate whether they want (not need) it.

It wasn't the sticker shock in my case. I have a high end rig with SLI plus a PhysX card, 27 inch monitor (used to have a 30 incher but it broke on me), plus a whole bunch of other stuff so I'm not really a penny pincher type of guy.

It's about getting value for your money. Ask yourself, what does an SSD bring to the table?

Like one poster said, an SSD on a laptop makes a HUGE difference. One can easily justify the added price of an SSD for a laptop.

One can also easily justify the price of an SSD for a desktop machine with a slow processor, low to moderate amount of memory and a single mechanical hard drive.

But to justify the added price of an SSD over a high end RAID set up isn't quite so easy, especially when said RAID set up comes with a large amount of memory and a fast processor.

 

[Hellhammer]

One can also easily justify the price of an SSD for a desktop machine with a slow processor, low to moderate amount of memory and a single mechanical hard drive.

But to justify the added price of an SSD over a high end RAID set up isn't quite so easy, especially when said RAID set up comes with a large amount of memory and a fast processor.

Remember that a high-end RAID setup, tons of memory and a fast CPU are not exactly cheap either. A good SSD is ~$100 nowadays as 128GB is completely fine as a boot drive. That doesn't even get you a single VelociRaptor. Here's some comparison:

2x WD VelociRaptor 600GB - $360
G.Skill RipJawsX 4x8GB DDR3-1333 - $230
Total: $590

Samsung SSD 840 120GB - $110
WD Blue 1TB 7200rpm - $70
Corsair 2x8GB DDR3-1333 - $105
Total: $285

For less than half the price, you can get an SSD+HD setup with roughly (1.12TB vs 1.2TB) the same amount of storage and still have a decent amount of RAM.

If you're building a rig now, I don't see any reason why one should opt for VelociRaptors instead of an SSD+HD setup. However, it's understandable that you don't see the need if you already have the VRs as you they were probably bought before SSD prices became reasonable.

 

[smakme7757]

SSD access time is so much faster than any mechanical drive it's just not worth putting the numbers down on paper. 1 or 2 ms vs 8 or 10ms. That is a lifetime when it comes to tranferring data from storage to main memory.

Raw data throughput on a single modern SSD is between 200 and 550MB/s which kills a single raptor.

Even if you have 3 raptors in RAID-0 a single SSD will make your PC exprience so much better than those raptors. No, you won't get the same data throughput, but add 3x SSD in RAID-0 and kiss goodbye to those Raptors.

 

[Eug]

Let me make this a bit more clear. Defrag does essentially NOTHING to speed up an SSD. You may as well hit the ESC key ten times in a row, thinking it will somehow make a difference. Defrag works by putting chunks of fragmented files together. On a HDD the file system indicates where the chunks are. On an SSD, it does not. Defrag may think a file is fragmented on an SSD, but in reality it may or may not be. The actual locations are hidden by the SSD controller (not for nefarious reasons, good technical reasons).

Thus, when I say "defrag does nothing for an SSD" I am not being flippant, nor am I indicating that an SSD is so fast that you won't notice. AFAIK it really does nothing!

Fine print: Yes it can be "proven" that in some edge cases defrag can make a measurable difference on an SSD, but in normal usage that will never, never, never be noticeable. Unlike defragging a HDD that was very fragmented, which can be immediately noticeable.

Ah, I guess you didn't understand the original post. The post was about defragging hard drives to keep them running smoothly, not defragging SSDs.

The context was someone saying it takes minutes for the desktop in Windows to load with a platter drive, and I said there was probably something wrong if it takes that long, like having a fragmented drive, too much crapware, having too much stuff in the Startup folder, running viral scans at bootup, etc. Another problem is having insufficient RAM.

AFAIK, nobody here suggested defragging SSDs. Or at least, I didn't.

SSD access time is so much faster than any mechanical drive it's just not worth putting the numbers down on paper. 1 or 2 ms vs 8 or 10ms. That is a lifetime when it comes to tranferring data from storage to main memory.

Raw data throughput on a single modern SSD is between 200 and 550MB/s which kills a single raptor.

I have 4 active machines for myself in this house, plus another for my wife, and another for guests. (I have a Mac laptop and Mac desktop and a Windows laptop and Windows desktop that I use.) Four of the 6 machines have SSD, so I'm well aware of the speed differences. On my MacBook Pro with 4 GB RAM and SSD, Office opens in a few seconds. On my AMD triple-core Athlon II X3 desktop with 8 GB RAM and 7200 rpm platter drive, it takes a few seconds more. Actually, my Windows laptop with SSD feels significantly more sluggish than my Windows desktop without SSD, because the CPU in the Windows laptop is so slow.

 

[Maximilian]

Well i suppose if you dont feel you need one thats a good thing, money saved!

Myself on the other hand ive had so many moments when my main rig is unresponsive and i look at the hdd activity light to see that its solid blue and im like "oh for f**k sakes!!"

I need an SSD badly

 

[smakme7757]

I have 4 active machines for myself in this house, plus another for my wife, and another for a guest, so I'm well aware of the speed differences. (I have a Mac laptop and Mac desktop and a Windows laptop and Windows desktop that I use.) Four of the 6 machines have SSD. On my MacBook Pro with 4 GB RAM and SSD, Office opens in a few seconds. On my AMD triple-core Athlon II X3 desktop with 8 GB RAM and 7200 rpm platter drive, it takes a few seconds more. Actually, my Windows laptop with SSD feels significantly more sluggish than my Windows desktop without SSD, because the CPU in the Windows laptop is so slow.

I was just replying to the original poster, so i don't know what you have to do with SSDs, but thats nice you have lots of them lol :S

 

[Eug]

Interestingly, I've recently gone the other direction in a way. I've begun moving all my data files to a Gigabit-connected NAS. The NAS's main storage for video files is a single 5400 rpm low power 4 TB drive, and the main storage for data files is a single 7200 rpm regular power 3 TB drive (but not a superfast drive and no RAID).

The benefit is that SSDs will become easier to accomodate here at home, so that I will only need 120-250 GB boot drives, perfect for SSD. It also makes data backups easier. All is backed up daily to second NAS hidden in a closet on the other side of the house, as well as locally to a platter drive attached to the first NAS.

However, this is even slower than a regular local platter drive for storage, since the NAS adds latency, and because the NAS maxes out at around 110 MB/s over Gigabit (which isn't bad for Gigabit). But hey, it's good enough.

I'd prefer a 10-GigE connection with say eight 960 GB SSDs running in RAID6, but that would cost more than all my computers combined.

 

[MrX8503]

Nope.

But I reboot my computer once a week (maybe), so that is an entirely moot point for my usage.

So you don't use apps either? I guess if you're fine with waiting I can't argue with that.

 

[Eug]

Caching is a wonderful thing.

On my 8 GB Windows box with platter drive, Office loads in about 10 seconds for the first load. After the first load, it loads in about 2 seconds.

Photoshop takes about 13 seconds the first time around, and then 3 seconds for each load after that.

Internet Explorer and Firefox take a couple of seconds each even on the first launch.

Remote Desktop launches almost instantaneously.

However, if these apps all took 10-15 seconds to load every single time, I'd probably be singing a different tune.

WinDVD 11 takes a bit longer on first load, but I rarely use it. It's about 5 seconds on second launch though.

---

That reminds me: This is another reason to get rid of as much crapware as possible. Deleting crapware or at least not having the computer running it (eg. by removing it from the Startup folder) will decrease memory usage, leaving more memory available for caching of apps you actually use.

And if you're only rebooting a few times a month, most of the apps you use are likely going to be cached if you have enough memory, unless those apps all have huge memory footprints.