SSD vs. HDD

Red Falcon said:
For those who want to boot Windows faster, I highly doubt they will see a difference.
Click to expand...

I know I did... I went from a 320GB Hitachi, which took roughly a minute on my old q6600 rig. I switched it to a raid 0 of 750gb seagates for a while, maybe 40 seconds was the best I saw. I put in a Vertex 2 50gb and it was from post to loaded in just over 20 seconds. The current system I'm running has 2 vertex le 120gb drives in raid 0 and it goes from post to loaded in between 15 seconds and 25 seconds (depends how long the ASUS bios takes to "locate" the ssd array during post).

I did notice someone mention rebooting the system and using sleep. I used to sleep my old system on the mechanical drives because of simplicity of coming back up to a running system. With the SSD though, I could just shut down all the same and be back up and running in a little bit more time then sleeping. I used to leave my system up 24/7 though, and it did do around 8-9 months on win7 without any updates installed and no shutdowns. With my new system, I shut down every time I get off, as 15-25 seconds from pressing the power button to running is enough for me to justify no power wasted when I'm not using it. (This has more to do with running a server using around 200-300w average on 12 drives, so having another computer pulling 250w idle wasnt something i wanted to add to my electric bill)

I like SSDs, I love space of mechanical though. I use an SSD in my desktop and my laptop, and I plan to make the system drive of my server an SSD as well (mainly because when I replace the Vertex LE drives, I'll have 2 spare drives). But in all honesty, it does depend on usage. If I leave my system running all day with the same apps open, no need to really read the drive much, it doesnt have much benefit. When I'm starting the system, loading apps for the first time, loading maps for games, it makes a huge difference. Given, that isnt to say the extra 10-20 seconds to load a map will be the end of the world ... but we do live in a "I want it now" world, and most of us do want it to go as quickly as possible.

On a side note, my laptops battery life went from roughly 2 hours to around 3 going from the 7200rpm drive it came with to the ssd. Older ASUS ROG laptop that had a 500gb 7200rpm installed in it.
 
Personal anecdote: I gave away/installed my old 80gb Intel G2 SSD to a buddies old ass Pentium D system. After a fresh install of win 7, in just daily desktop usage, that computer now feels as fast as the core i7 920 system it came out of.

A SSD is the single biggest performance upgrade you can make for a computer these days beside a high-end graphics card for games. I can't stand to use a computer without one anymore. Once you get used to the speed, it will drive you crazy actually having to wait on a damn window to open.
 
J Macker said:
QFT. I'm using 2x 1TB spinpoint F4's in a Raid 0, and I have fast load times, fast file transfer times, and I don't have to worry about filling up my C:
2x 1TB spinpoint F4's = $120 for 2TB of awesome sauce.

Screw the ssd market for now. Drop the price on the 240GB models & I'll reconsider.
I've got an Agility 2 60GB that I had as my C: for about a year and got sick of the small size. Moved it to my HTPC and went to Raid 0. HTPC is nice and responsive, and my primary comp has plenty of space on c:

sustained reads of 300+ MB/sec and sustained writes of 180+ MB/sec is damn good enough with 2TB.
Click to expand...

Yea but I bet your access times are way worse.
 
Question...

Is there a good benchmark util that will show/compare IOPS? Comparing my sequential reads/writes between SSD and HDD in CrystalDiskMark...

SSD -> Read 77.52 MB/s Write 48.86 MB/s
HDD -> Read 63.27 MB/s Write 62.95 MB/s

I realize the main benefit of SSD is going to be IOPS, especially after throwing full-disk encryption on top...
 
that 60GB SSD just seems slow on the windows boot + logon portion of the beginning of the video
 
Here's a thought: read some reviews and watch some videos on SSDs, then decide if you need one, or not if it is overkill. ZOMG logic!


Pardon me for saying this, but there are about 100+ threads with the title "SSD vs HDD" or "just got a SSD, don't see a difference".
Stop making these threads, there are too many of them as it is and one more isn't helping anyone or anything.
[H]ard|Forum search function, use it!
Click to expand...
Exactly.

SSDs aren't for everyone and aren't the best resolution in some situations.

But to suggest an SSD wouldn't be the best single upgrade for a normal desktop user is absolutely ludicrous.

Although I do think that there are some peoples' brains that don't work fast enough to even notice it, the vast majority of average users have no problem seeing the speed advantages of an SSD.

I LOL'd when I saw this thread because I didn't even think it was a matter for discussion anymore.....and ya know.....it isn't. :)
 
DisrupTer911 said:
that 60GB SSD just seems slow on the windows boot + logon portion of the beginning of the video
Click to expand...
That's because you've been spoiled by technawluhgee. Everything is expected to be more instantaneous and faster and responsive than what you are used to, and then when you get used to that, the cycle loops. Then, everything in real life is expected likewise. You. Are. Spoiled.
 
Personally I did what the OP is asking about, several times. Cloning a current system on an HDD to an SSD. A system with hundreds of apps installed, and sometimes years of use (win XP). I was blown away by the difference.

I've been making small C partitions for OS and apps (excluding games) for years, so it was an easy transition, and I don't see the hassle in selecting where you install things, if you can't be bothered, maybe you shouldn't install the application at all.

My system's boot time is not really improved however, as loading all my controllers and hard drives takes forever (ICH10R, then Marvell SATA3, then JMicron eSATA, then IBM M1015, 18 drives total).

I'm not sure what some mean by booting "office", but opening big office files or my huge pst (outlook) file is tremendously faster on the SSD than on a hard drive.

SSDs have been very expensive for a long time, and when I jumped in two years ago it was still costly, but now it's quite a bit better and I don't see any reason not to jump. Even if you're not sure it will really be faster, one thing is for sure, it won't be slower !

farscapesg1 said:
Depends on the usage :) I have an HP 2440p at work and our manager bought us 80 GB Intel M drives. The problem is that we have to run Bitlocker with Windows 7, or Pointsec with Windows XP (whole disk encryption). After everything is said and done, the SSD saves me 10 seconds on bootup over the 250 GB WD Scorpio Black drive.
Click to expand...

As an aside, isn't FDE (full disk encryption) killing the SSDs ? The write amplification should be very significant.
 
Aesma said:
As an aside, isn't FDE (full disk encryption) killing the SSDs ? The write amplification should be very significant.
Click to expand...

Yeah... that was part of my point in posting. These threads come up and everyone posts "OMG... WTF... Best upgrade EVAR!!!" For a lot of uses, yes it is a good upgrade. For others... not so much.

In my case FDE definitely kills a lot of the benefits of an SSD. I found upgrading my laptop from 2 to 4 GB RAM gave me more of a performance increase than going from HDD to SSD.... not to mention the SSD was only 1/3 the size of my HDD. Considering I like to have my music and movies on my laptop when travelling, the cut in storage capacity is too much for the minor benefits I would get just from increased IOPS.

As for a home system, I could see myself buying one. I'm thinking about getting one for my wife's home laptop that never goes anywhere. She uses Photoshop and some other apps on it that would probably notice the increased speeds. If I can find a decent drive for a good price around Black Friday, I'll probably pick one up for her for Christmas...
 
farscapesg1 said:
Yeah... that was part of my point in posting. These threads come up and everyone posts "OMG... WTF... Best upgrade EVAR!!!" For a lot of uses, yes it is a good upgrade. For others... not so much.
Click to expand...

I was talking literally about killing them. ie, not just the performance but the durability too. Every time you write (a new file, or a change in an existing file), the SSD will have to write not just what is needed but a quite bigger chunk. That's already happening in every SSD due to page size, but encryption will add to this (depending on the encryption algorithm). Furthermore, there is no way to compress in the slightest encrypted data, which by design should be as random as possible. So, there goes the gains in longevity compression gives (in Marvell and Sandforce controllers). Add to that, there is no trim or garbage collection either with a fully encrypted drive. And it is full of data, which is bad too.
 
I had my windows os on a sata 2 harddrive, used to take 2 mins and 15 seconds to boot, lot of stuff to startup, cloned the disk and copied to a new sata 2 ssd, boot time to being able to start any program and everything loaded is now 23 seconds.
 
My friend uses SSDs and he says my HDD system might be actually faster. I told him I ran a top rated 3rd party defragmenter (diskeeper) and it makes all the difference in the world compared to using the onboard or the freebies I've tried over the years.

I was surprised because all the talk is that SSDs are so much better and so forth. I've recently discovered that a defragmenter has even been developed for SSDs as they apparently do benefit from periodic optimization.

I'm glad I've waited. This reminds me of when CDs first came out and how they were not supposed to skip like records did. Well we found out different didn't we?

I think minus a good defragmenter the SSD probably does (or should over time) have a significant advantage.


Here's a link to SSD Fragmentation White Paper in case anyone is interested. Will this tilt the advantage back over to SSD? I guess only time will tell.
 
farscapesg1 said:
Yeah... that was part of my point in posting. These threads come up and everyone posts "OMG... WTF... Best upgrade EVAR!!!" For a lot of uses, yes it is a good upgrade. For others... not so much.

In my case FDE definitely kills a lot of the benefits of an SSD. I found upgrading my laptop from 2 to 4 GB RAM gave me more of a performance increase than going from HDD to SSD.... not to mention the SSD was only 1/3 the size of my HDD. Considering I like to have my music and movies on my laptop when travelling, the cut in storage capacity is too much for the minor benefits I would get just from increased IOPS.

As for a home system, I could see myself buying one. I'm thinking about getting one for my wife's home laptop that never goes anywhere. She uses Photoshop and some other apps on it that would probably notice the increased speeds. If I can find a decent drive for a good price around Black Friday, I'll probably pick one up for her for Christmas...
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that you probably shouldn't take people's opinions who use the word "EVAR" in all caps too seriously. Fact is, the upgrade to an SSD for many like myself is the biggest speed boost we've seen for a decade+. Makes sense you'd see feedback like you do here. Note I said many and not all.
 
Last edited:
db2431 said:
I had my windows os on a sata 2 harddrive, used to take 2 mins and 15 seconds to boot, lot of stuff to startup, cloned the disk and copied to a new sata 2 ssd, boot time to being able to start any program and everything loaded is now 23 seconds.
Click to expand...

You people must have a lot of shit on your computers to take that long to boot or have pathetically slow HDDs.

I still maintain that the difference between a GOOD HDD and an SSD isn't nearly as massive as people are talking about (its there, but if someone was building a new computer it would be one of the later things I'd be suggesting upgrading). The difference between a shit HDD and an SSD is huuuuuge.
 
Tudz said:
You people must have a lot of shit on your computers to take that long to boot or have pathetically slow HDDs.

I still maintain that the difference between a GOOD HDD and an SSD isn't nearly as massive as people are talking about (its there, but if someone was building a new computer it would be one of the later things I'd be suggesting upgrading). The difference between a shit HDD and an SSD is huuuuuge.
Click to expand...

there is a huge difference between an m4 ssd and the best 15k rpm sas drive you can buy.
 
Last edited:
DK 2010 had HyperFast avaliable.

You can buy the Home Versions w/wo HyperFast as shown here.

I use the 2010 Pro Premier with HF on my SSD RAID0 array but I really can't tell you if it makes any difference.

EDIT.......I'd like to add that the DK company is pretty "tight" with their programs' security measures against hacking and probably treat their program sales in the same manner.

IMHO, I would imagine they would want a confirmation that the program was purchased thru a legit source before selling an add-on.
 
Last edited:
I've never had an interest in an SSD. With a HDD, load times are fast enough. Sleep mode makes starting the computer fast enough. SSDs don't really benefit you within applications, gaming, and web surfing, where speed is most important. Of course, I'm running a real desktop PC, not some girly laptop.
 
Stone Cold said:
I've never had an interest in an SSD. With a HDD, load times are fast enough. Sleep mode makes starting the computer fast enough. SSDs don't really benefit you within applications, gaming, and web surfing, where speed is most important. Of course, I'm running a real desktop PC, not some girly laptop.
Click to expand...
I hope you don't call yourself a computer enthusist. LOL!

There's probably some SSD girly laptops here that would humble your mechanical desktop.

Some don't care and SSDs aren't for all situations but girly laptop trolls are to be avoided at all times. :)
 
In terms of everyday desktop usage, it's one of the only truly meaningful upgrades you can make. You don't tend to feel like a processor makes accessing files and startup any faster, but the SSD absolutely will.
 
for daily use, there is no slowdown, no interruptions no delay opening, closing, and so on its just a free flow of computer use which for me creates a peace of mind and allows me to be at peace and not wanting to kill the screen or the CPU or something else because it slows me down writing on it.

its a world of difference and once you have it you cant go back.
 
Tudz said:
You people must have a lot of shit on your computers to take that long to boot or have pathetically slow HDDs.
Click to expand...
That or...
  • A lot of unnecessary checkmarked things in the Startup and Services tab (with "Hide all Microsoft services" checked)
  • Fragmented drives; there is no defragment schedule in place that is actually effective (be it the defragmentation software itself or the schedule)
  • Anti-virus software (doesn't matter what you use)
  • Insufficient RAM for optimal performance (relative to OS)
  • Using older harddrives
  • Low-end prebuilt/OEM vs custom built vs high-end prebuilt/OEM; particularly how the quality of the motherboard and its chipset is impacted
  • Lots of unnecessary crap on the system; includes the things programs like CCleaner would take care of
I listed these in order of greatest and most impacting reasons, and these items are from my experience (real world and localhost).
 
Last edited:
What are your thoughts? Have any of you gone from HDD to SSD on your systems, leaving everything else the same, and noticed a real bump in performance?[/QUOTE]

Yes ridiculously so, it is worth doing ASAP
 
I put SSDs in my desktop and laptop. I used them for the OS and wondered why I didn't see massive improvements in speed. Then I realized I had to move my games and most used apps to the SSDs, too. After that, the speed boost was amazing.
 
Old Hippie said:
DK 2010 had HyperFast avaliable.

You can buy the Home Versions w/wo HyperFast as shown here.

I use the 2010 Pro Premier with HF on my SSD RAID0 array but I really can't tell you if it makes any difference.

EDIT.......I'd like to add that the DK company is pretty "tight" with their programs' security measures against hacking and probably treat their program sales in the same manner.

IMHO, I would imagine they would want a confirmation that the program was purchased thru a legit source before selling an add-on.
Click to expand...

http://communities.intel.com/thread/4539

have a look at this, 1 of their own people said it does nothing on intel ssd, so why buy it?

also, when you buy the 2010 ver., does Hyperfast c/w the software? Or is it a separate download on a separate file? Because this is rare, usually software is embedded together, I don't like "add-on"
 
Happy Hopping said:
http://www.itworldcanada.com/news/ssds-harder-to-manage-than-many-think-kroll-ontrack-says/143800

this link speaks out against SSD, claiming that you guys are hyping out SSD, it's not that great
Click to expand...

if you don't want an ssd because they are overprovisioned and hard to recover data from, please by all means, continue living in the stone age. just don't try and spread bs to bring everyone else down with you. there is no reason anyone should skip an ssd due to data recovery. have a backup and this isn't an issue for any drive, ssd or hard drives.
 
People with HDD = virgins
People with SSD = not virgins

Stop talking and start doing.
 
[LYL]Homer;1037706112 said:
People with HDD = virgins
People with SSD = not virgins

Stop talking and start doing.
Click to expand...
What about people who have a hybrid HDD+SSD Seagate Momentus XT and have never had full on SSD? :D
 
I would put that in the same class as hard drive since that is basically a hard drive with builtin readyboost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top