Are SSD's for the impatient?

3

3DChipset

Gawd
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
670
I've been trying to look for articles which show loading games, apps, etc... in seconds. Basically are their radical improvements in load times that justify dropping $500.00 plus on a 160GB SSD? When 1 terabyte HD's going for $90.00. I'm having a hard time justifying the huge price increase for programs to load a little quicker.

So for all you SSD owners, after spending time with your SSD, are you really seeing huge speed increases that a normal HD wouldn't just be sufficient? waiting 20 seconds more isn't that big of deal to me for something to load. Any of you had second thoughts about putting the money toward something else on the PC?
 
In my experience it wasn't a specific huge speed increase in any one particular loading process that convinced me, it's the fact that EVERYTHING loads faster. Everything from Windows startup, browsing within the file system is snappier, moving files is instant, etc etc. In general, you do a lot less waiting and that is a very good thing in terms of overall user experience.

On the flip side, it depends on your needs, if you are running out of space it clearly makes more sense to buy a 1tb. But if you're fine on space and can afford it....why not?
 
Thanks Neb, It's one thing you don't find in articles is the "user experience" ... Thanks for your thoughts.

I'm wondering... Is web surfing any faster due to the cached files on the SSD vs HD? Or it's very minimal in web browsing?
 
Last edited:
Everyone should be impatient. Wasting 20 seconds for loads amounts of many hours of time wasted per year.

The beauty of productivity is immeasurable.
 
3DChipset said:
Thanks Neb, It's one thing you don't find in articles is the "user experience" ... Thanks for your thoughts.

I'm wondering... Is web surfing any faster due to the cached files on the SSD vs HD? Or it's very minimal in web browsing?
Click to expand...

Normal browsing, no. Huge image gallery sites where it's loading a good chunk of small files, do notice a small difference, though it's tough to tell if it's actually faster or just my imagination.

For a frame of reference I upgraded from a cheetah 15k.6 to an intel x25-m.
 
Interesting.... What about loading games? Is it tremoundously quick? I'm thinking of trying out the 80Gb X-25m version. Not sure if I can swallow the $550.00 for the 160GB version. But from what I read you need like 25% space free to maximize the SSD drive. Otherwise you can bogg down the performance of the drive?
 
Anyone got any rough figures on how much faster World of Warcraft loads? I'm thinking of both the load screen, and also ingame waiting for textures to hurry up and load in places like prime-time Dalaran.
 
Games will load faster, but it will NOT be instantaneous. You're at most going to save 5-10 seconds, and that's a best case scenario. This is from limited testing with my Torqx with UT3, COD4, and Mass Effect. Even the problem with slow streaming textures of the UT3 engine was still present.
 
Last edited:
I think the way to go is a small boot SSD for windows and HD for everything else.
 
I'll reiterate an Intel X25-M upgrade I did in August:

[LYL]Homer;1034541664 said:
I got a Gen1 last week because I couldn't wait on a system build. I'll be getting a Gen2 drive when they are back in stock for my boss's laptop. (As an experiment I imaged it and she was so impressed with it we're getting it instead of a whole new laptop). After my one week experience with them I'd say get whatever you can afford to get into the SSD game.

Edit: old laptop drive is a 7200rpm Seagate Momentus, 2gb, XP Pro, Dell Inspiron 6400 (about 28 months old)

........................................HDD......SSD
boot time to login screen....1:02......0:26
full boot to desktop*.......... 2:06......0:55

* from power on, login, and then sync with MyDocs on our server
Click to expand...

I have since put a Gen2 X25-M in my personal system. I also agree with the overall experience just being better with an SSD.
 
You can create a junction point on your program files folder to redirect games to a different hd. So you install a new game and run it off your SSD until you finish playing it or don't play it as often, then you throw it on to a different drive, create a junction point linking that folder with the now empty folder in program files. Windows doesn't know any difference.

Junction Link Magic, tool to create and delete junction points:
http://www.rekenwonder.com/linkmagic.htm

I'm generally not too worried about bootup times since I have a raid card and as such it takes forever to boot ;)
 
With an SSD your bootup times should be halved compared to a standard HDD. I suppose the same would hold true of level loading in games. I'll know more once I get home and install my new x-25m.
 
The "Instant" gratification of launching programs.

Boot, Firefox and Photochop load time cut more than half.

Go to sleep and wake up is almost instant compare to HD take a few seconds.

SSD is the most noticeable upgrade of all the system. Higher CPU speed and multiple cores will not launch the programs like an instant like the SSD.
 
After I bought 1 Intel 80GB X25-M.. I got the upgrade bug because the speed increase was significant enough to make me realize the my Q6600@ 3ghz and P35 platform was potentially a new bottleneck. I went to an i7 920.. and then to a second X25-M for RAID0 performance.. which is where I think the SSD's really shine. I now have 4 80GB X25-M's in RAID0 and Im in need of a controller card to handle the extra speed. I have yet to see a significant real world improvement going from 2 to 4 SSD's (may be due to ICH10R limitations).. but really a 2 drive RAID0 was fast enough for me.

I have not used a single drive as a boot drive in 9 years, and I came off from 2 Seagate7200.10 RAID0, but I can say that installing games is 2 to 3 times faster than my previous array. It;s kind of hard to explain but with a platter drive it always seemed like after performing a request.. (any request.. booting up, opening applications, closing applications, task manager, end task.. everyday usage ect) that once the operation left the sight of view, there was still a few seconds of background processes lingering before true completion of that request... this gave the system a sluggish feel.. like a "waiting" sense. And this was with EVERYTHING.

Not so any more. Now there is just no more data access bottleneck it feels.. Once Windows desktop background can be seen.. all programs are ready for the next request.. run a game.. the game opens immediately.. then continues to spoil you throughout the rest of your gaming session.. I can't compare but in Boarderlands I have not waited longer than 4 seconds for the next "map/section" to load. Alt-Tabbing out of a game is instant, and shutting the game down is instant as well.

There really is nothing else like it.. would recommend it 1000 times. 2 drive(or more) RAID0 is my recommendation.. it's the sweet spot. (more performance now, more maintenance later)

3DChipset said:
Any of you had second thoughts about putting the money toward something else on the PC?
Click to expand...

Yeah, Im running a GTX260 right now, when Nvidia releases their DX11 GPUs I will probably be selling 2 of my SSD's and picking up the best DX11 card.
 
Last edited:
Here are some of my tests I did to prove to myself all this is worth investing into:
I know many will object on the programs used, but sorry I had that available when I first started with the idea, and didn't have the nerves to redo setups again.
SSD in Vista was not in AHCI, and some oddball results in W7 might be contributed to x86 vs. x64.
Also all test were done a few times with hard reboots in between.
I'll try and explain the rest as the need arises. :)

App. install times:
installs.jpg


App. loading times:
loading.jpg
 
I am / was in a similar quandry. Not so much for the expense, but the limited room. My "User" folder is over 120GB, mainly in photos. I did purchase one x-25, planning on a second for RAID-0, however not having the TRIM would mean (If I read correctly) eventually a very pricy 150GB C: drive. The Samsung 256GB was a consideration, however it does not seem all that popular because of its controller.
 
In your case - what I did (and it's easy to do in Win 7) is moved certain profile folders to my secondary regular old hard drive. For me I moves Pictures, Music, and Documents, and Downloads there.

Noetic said:
I am / was in a similar quandry. Not so much for the expense, but the limited room. My "User" folder is over 120GB, mainly in photos. I did purchase one x-25, planning on a second for RAID-0, however not having the TRIM would mean (If I read correctly) eventually a very pricy 150GB C: drive. The Samsung 256GB was a consideration, however it does not seem all that popular because of its controller.
Click to expand...
 
MixManSC,

Thank you for the response.

Having the photos on the SSD would be an asset, and one of the reasons for having the drive in the first place. <sigh>

Curious, the (quite large) music directory is already on a separate drive. Itunes is an absolute slug in launching and running. Has this pig been pepped up with SSDs?
 
I bought the Intel G2 80 gig drive and it has been one of the speed defining upgrades for me. Like going from dial up to broadband, from a graphics card to a 3D accelerator (yes both example are from back in the day, but that is how I feel).

The boot times are drastically less, but most of the time is the BIOS load up anyways. I don't turn off my computer anymore since I can sleep it. Its instant on, no longer waiting for a the drive to spin up. A benefit that I did not think of. Of course I cycle the computer a couple of times a month if needed.

For example ALT-TAB ing is instant. No judder, no lag, just done. Sure the computer is idling about the same waiting for input from me, but everything is instant. I am running on a Q6600 and ATI 48xx card. Not cutting edge. The drive is worth it.
 
XS Janus said:
Here are some of my tests I did to prove to myself all this is worth investing into:
I know many will object on the programs used, but sorry I had that available when I first started with the idea, and didn't have the nerves to redo setups again.
SSD in Vista was not in AHCI, and some oddball results in W7 might be contributed to x86 vs. x64.
Also all test were done a few times with hard reboots in between.
I'll try and explain the rest as the need arises. :)
Click to expand...
Thanks for your user feedback. This is what I've been wondering with the SSD's vs Normal HD's... Thanks again and to all that are contributing to this thread. User feedback is the best feedback you can possibly get.
 
Yeah, and dual/quad cores are for the impatient as well. If you are truly patient, you better be using a pentium mmx at most.
 
Liver said:
I bought the Intel G2 80 gig drive and it has been one of the speed defining upgrades for me. Like going from dial up to broadband, from a graphics card to a 3D accelerator (yes both example are from back in the day, but that is how I feel).

The boot times are drastically less, but most of the time is the BIOS load up anyways. ...

For example ALT-TAB ing is instant. No judder, no lag, just done. Sure the computer is idling about the same waiting for input from me, but everything is instant. I am running on a Q6600 and ATI 48xx card. Not cutting edge. The drive is worth it.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I'm not cutting edge either (e5200, 6GB DDR 800, x1950xtx) but my 60GB Agility was a fantastic upgrade. Tabbing in and out. Etc. I clocked my boot time the other day - 20 sec from cold boot to Windows-loading screen, 42 sec from that to an open Firefox window.

Today my PC booted up faster than my work laptop (Lenovo T60) booted to the windows XP password login.
 
the.ronin said:
I was going to read this thread but it took way too long.
Click to expand...

then why even post about it? You were too lazy to read the thread, but put forth the effort to type a complaint about how long the thread was?
 
YellowSnow said:
Pretty sure that was humor.

Yep, I even laughed. :)
Click to expand...

:D

In all seriousness, it's so worth it - IF you can find a decent deal. I am perfectly fine with 60GB for OS and all my programs without feeling constrained - and I'm still at 30GB+ free space. I paid $241 before $10 MIR. Newegg has the exact same one for less than $200 right now on special. Even for what I paid, the overall zippiness that's been described here and many other threads makes it worthwhile - at least to me.

Only drawback in my own experience is getting into the "must ... make it ... faster" trap - I'm finding myself spending an inordinate amount of time eaking out that last MB or read, :D
 
j3ff86 said:
Yeah, and dual/quad cores are for the impatient as well. If you are truly patient, you better be using a pentium mmx at most.
Click to expand...

This is the way I viewed it. People are willing to shell out hundreds of dollars to boost their CPU/MOBO/video card, which will make things a bit more snappy, but not a ton. Upgrading to a good SSD make a HUGE difference.

(I actually don't have an SSD yet...but I will within the next two months :) I am going based n everything I hear on these forums.)
 
My Intel X25-Ms have been the most worthwhile upgrade in years. It's literally night and day between this and my older 7200 drives. As was mentioned, individual app load times might be marginally faster if you used a stopwatch, but using it as a system drive makes everything much more responsive. Things just happen a lot faster. You get used to it, and then when you use a computer with a traditional hard drive, it's almost painful.

I've got SSDs in all my PCs and laptops now. Totally, absolutely worth it.
 
alan.p said:
Anyone got any rough figures on how much faster World of Warcraft loads? I'm thinking of both the load screen, and also ingame waiting for textures to hurry up and load in places like prime-time Dalaran.
Click to expand...
with mine in raid 0, there aren't any real loading times.
I'm also using on FIOS 25/25.
 
I tell people that my SSD was the most noticeable performance increase I have had in a computer in years.

In my opinion, it is like going from 256MB of ram to 1GB of ram back in the XP days.
 
I just got 80GB x25M.

My thoughts?

Sure things are a bit speedier, but the lack of space is annoying. I'm going back to HD's.

Remember, the speeds are mere seconds.

If you're the type of person who always have to think about money, bills food rent etc etc. HD will suffice.

But if you live a comfortable life where your parents pay for everything or you have a real career, and have money for your hobby, go raid 2 160GB x25's.
 
I'm convinced SSDs are a good thing. I'm not convinced I need to pay X25-M G2 prices. I think the sub $200 price point will be my sweet spot and I won't feel bad about being closer to $100. Fast enough to see a difference and probably be more consistent with maintaining boot image backups, but not enough money to equal my Proc/Mobo/DDR3 cash outlay.

Not very hardcore, but I'm a speed whore on a Microcenter special budget ;)
 
Resq said:
I'm convinced SSDs are a good thing. I'm not convinced I need to pay X25-M G2 prices. I think the sub $200 price point will be my sweet spot and I won't feel bad about being closer to $100. Fast enough to see a difference and probably be more consistent with maintaining boot image backups, but not enough money to equal my Proc/Mobo/DDR3 cash outlay.

Not very hardcore, but I'm a speed whore on a Microcenter special budget ;)
Click to expand...

30GB Vertex is a great deal. It's enough room for your OS and programs like Firefox and Office, which both benefit immensely for the speed increase, and it supports TRIM if you're running Windows 7. If you want to keep a low budget, look here.
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227393
 
Is it worth it? Depends.
If you're my mom who only ever use Safari and Mail, then no.
If you're me who multitask like a mofo, then abso-fucking-lutely.
 
A huge downside to the drive you linked is no TRIM support. There is no reason to get a drive without it. Unless you're ok with the drive slowing down as you write more data to it. It'll get very noticeable, and even act like the old JMicron disk with stuttering and such. The only way to get around it with the drive you're looking at is to use a program to completely wipe all data and force it to a blank state. The big problem with that is that you have to re-image your system, and that everytime you do that, you're wasting write cycles. Remember, those are very much limited on today's SSDs, more so on cheap MLCs.
 
It looks like most of you that own SSD's are using it primarily for your Boot OS. Any of you have your games on your SSD's? I guess I'm trying to see if jumping to an SSD for my intent purposes will notice that much of anything.

My typical computing is this:

AIM, iTunes, Adobe Photoshop x64, IE, COD4 or COD5, MS Access, CuteFTP. I usually have maybe 4 to 5 apps running at most. So with that said, would a SSD really benefit me? My PC is a 3.8GHz i920, 6GB ram, with a 1TB Cavair Black drive.... I'm thinking of trying the 80Gb SSD, because the 160GB is just seriously way over priced. But not sure if the "everyday computing" will net me the gains most of you multi-taskers on here notice....
 
A SSD will make a big difference, even for your needs. Windows itself is so much faster. It's as big a difference as when going to 2GB RAM to 4GB. As for games themselves, yes, they'll load faster, but there will still be waiting. You'll go from, say, 30 seconds to 20 seconds for the initial load. Loading between levels or stages shows about the same increase. This is from my own testing from when I first got my drive. I used COD:WAW, COD4, UT3, Mass Effect, and World in Conflict. But, if you can swing for a SSD, go for it. They make a world of difference in everyday usage of your computer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top