HDDs vs SSDs

source : https://beyond.oo-software.com/en/hdds-vs-ssds-why-defragmentation-is-still-crucial-for-you/

 

It's quite intresting to see that SSD will eventually find a place in practically all systems sooner or later, Mine has SSD as the Operating system, I use Intel 520 Series 180GB Mainly because the rest are crap! to put it bluntly, Also I've never really seen the need for Home Computers to have 1TB HDD because quite franky your wasting space that you'll NEVER! NEVER! USE!, unless you install everything out there just for the sake of it.


Edit: As a quick piece of advice if your going to upgrade to SSD, Stay clear from Sand Force driver SSD, for now anyway, until they get rid of the bugs, Stick with Cherryville, like with Intel.

 

DVD+R,

I have two 2 TB HDs in my main computer. The second HD holds the backups. The first HD has 28 OS and a data partition with downloads, music, video, personal files, etc. I don't have many apps installed (and only a few games) but I'm making good use of my large HDs. HDs are cheap and big ones are the best value if you can fill them.

 

I totally agree with Brian. HDDs are so cheap these days and SSDs are so damn expensive. This is the only thing that's enough for me to stick to HDD in days to come.

 

The major advantage of SSD's are size/formfactor and speed. You can shove these little things just about everywhere.

 

DVD+R,

That Intel 520 Series looks interesting. I note the different read/write speeds with SATA2 and SATA3 but is this really noticeable to the user? How do they perform with a WinXP OS?

 

Not really!

One of the four I own is Intel 520 Series.

 

SSDs have come down massively in price within the last 12 months - but it may be worthwhile to wait even longer to see what happens.

I picked up a cheap Kingspec SSD USB drive from eBay, and it's legit according to Crystal DiskMark. Makes quite a difference for booting up with WinPE/BartPE type discs or other rescue discs. It's not recognised on all devices though.

 

aladdin,

Although I have Win7, I mainly use WinXP. My motherboard doesn't support SATA 3. I'd appreciate your advice on which SSD (if any) I should be considering with this computer.

 

Hi Brain,

The SSDs make such a tremendous difference in boot time, it is really worth the price. Both the SATA 2 and SATA 3 are quite fast and one hardly notices the difference. And, SATA 3 drives are backward compatible to SATA 2 controller in the motherboard.

Price are about same for SATA 2 and SATA 3 drive, so it is better to buy SATA 3 as in future you can use it with computers with SATA 3. I buy mine from USA, and all brands are almost same. Usually, one can pick up 120GB for about $100 with free shipping in USA. I own six of them, all different brands. I mostly buy from Newegg.com or TigerDirect.com.

I don't know about Australia. Check this out.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...STMATCH&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Description=120gb ssd

Sandisk 120GB (111GB formatted) SATA 2 for $80

And,

OCZ Vertex 120 GB (111GB formatted) SATA 3 for $100

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...STMATCH&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Description=128gb ssd

AData 128 GB (119GB formatted) SATA 3 for $100

Best regards,

 

Tempted to get one but i think i'll keep my HDD a few years more.
Even though HDD's have "moving" parts i still feel they are more bullet proof than SSD's.

 

aladdin,

Many thanks for that useful information.

 

If a pc with HDD falls on the ground you are at risk of losing your data and work. If SSD pc falls no worry as SSD will work fine. Not so bullet proof.

 

The three major areas I feel that SSD's need improvements in are:

1- Internal garbage collection management and trim functionality.

2- Internal free-space consolidation and management.

3- Lifespan, MLC NAND with 2800 p/e cycles is now being sold! And the advertisements are worded to make this look like an awesome feature. This is a far cry from enterprise duty of 100,000+ SLC NAND.

1 & 2 will happen as a natural evolution of the technology.
3 is happening because of marketing pressure.

 

DVD+R,

The Intel 520 uses a SandForce Controller. What does the Cherryville refer to?

 

its intel's version of the firmware for the sandforce in the 520

 

zfactor, thanks.

On another tack I checked with Dell regarding SATA 3 motherboards. They kept saying, "Yes, we do have SATA 3.0 Gb/sec". Apparently their motherboards are all SATA 2 but they feign ignorance.

 

When SSDs first came out they had a very high rate of dying, due to the controller. But they were replaced under warranty. Most of the venders used the SandForce Controller and tweaked it with propriety software. One of my very first SSD was dead on arrival, the OCZ Solid 3.

Today all the SSDs sold are very solid and very rarely have the earlier problem. The problem with SandForce controller are ironed out and one can buy any brand with confidence that the will not fail. It is better to buy the SATA 3, as most of the SATA 2 are old and had some problem with them.

As far as the life of SSDs is concerned, I am using them for more than a year now, and they still show 100% health.

Just buy any brand, as they have now come long way and they are all solid. The SSDs basically have two components, the memory part (each one holds - 8GB) and the controller. Buy the cheapest reputable brand available.

Remember, only two or four companies make memory and only two companies make the controller. So, SSDs like cars are assembled by different venders and not produced.

Best regards,

 

Dear Brain,

Again Dell assembles their PCs and laptops. I usually assemble my own PCs, so much fun and so much cheaper. Of course, laptops are another story.

Best regards,

 

Hi Brian, may I draw your Attention to this article here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5508/i...y-to-sandforce this is what prompted me to the 520 Series

continued here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5508/...cherryville-brings-reliability-to-sandforce/2

 

DVD+R,

Thanks. Interesting links.

 

hi brian, salaam KOR!

i must say i disagree with KOR with regards to perceivable difference in speed for sata 2/3 controllers. i own intel and OCZ SSD's running on the latest AMD sata 3 chipsets and i do notice the difference from when i used to run them on sata 2.

but it is more noticable with the OCZ than with the intel SSD, maybe because intel drives have a generally higher IOPS than any other. so while sata 2 probably makes no difference to SSD's with high IOPS, it makes a hell of a difference with SSD's with high sequential read speeds (eg, OCZ vertex 4). but again this is only a factor if you do alot of large file transfers from 1 SSD to another SSD like me.

 

tree,

Interesting. I understand your point about SSD to SSD transfer.

At present I have two big HDs. When I create a backup image I get a write speed of about 30 MB/sec with compression and 95 MB/sec without compression. So compression is the bottleneck. I wonder if imaging an SSD will be faster if compression is the bottleneck?

 

the reason compression is the bottleneck is because the compression is happening on a spinning platter so in essence compression is not the bottle neck but rather its your hard drives which are the bottle neck because that is where the compression is happening.

from my experience this is the order of fastest performance to slowest performance (imaging);

SSD to SSD > stupidly fast
SSD to HDD > very fast
HDD to SSD > slightly faster than HDD to HDD
HDD to HDD > your current performance

 

Great. I'll let you know my results. I just ordered the Intel 520 Series 120 GB SSD.