$80 for 16gb more?

What is the primary use for your computer?

I recommend a setup as follows for gaming:

WD raptor drive as primary boot drive.
SSD or gaming.
Caviar Green for storage.

You can't gauge the prices of SSD by a per GB basis as you can a traditional hard drive. Don't be surprised if you're paying an extra $80 for an additional 16GB when it comes to SSD.
 
its for everyday use and gaming, just about done building my new computer, was gonna toss in a SSD for a faster overall OS

id like to put the main OS on a SSD with possibly a 2nd SSD for the games i play the most

right now im using 7200rpm 1tb drive for main
 
What do you prefer, having more space on your SSD or the speed of the SSD? If performance is important, the Intel has the lead. You could either buy the 80GB or the X25-V 40GB value drive.

If you feel getting more stuff on the SSD is more important than the differences between individual SSDs; then the cheaper Indilinx-based SSDs like Kingston are a decent alternative. I would personally stick to the Intels, though. Aside from performance, it may also be more reliable. I did hear quite a few stories about OCZ-Indilinx drives dying without cause, for example. Those could be issues with the firmware.

Whatever you choose, do combine the SSD with Windows 7 when possible, and make sure to do a fresh install on the SSD for optimal performance.
 
i got Win7 and i think im gonna go with Intel, i have my X4 965 sitting in a box over here and just waiting on the new Asus Crosshair IV's and im all set :D

i just checked, with my current system right now, with a few games i rarely play(Counter Strike Source, Team Fortress 2, and the original Dawn of War series loaded, all 3 expansion packs), im pushing 82gb used on my 1tb drive

i could definately cut out about 20gb easily from my system right now and go with the 80gb intel

i have Aliens Vs Predator, BFBC2, MW2, L4D2 and Torchlight as the games i play the most right now

how bad would it be if i popped in a 256gb SSD when the prices go way down as a 'gaming' drive?? whats the performance between SSDs not in raid?

id have a 1TB and 320GB Sata drives as data storage, but for performance and games, id want SSD
 
also, the intel has a read speed of 250mb/s and has a write speed of only 70mb/s

whereas the Kingston has 200mb/s read and 110mb/s write

hmmmm, wonder if these go up any with Sata 6.0 ???
 
The intel has lower sequential write speed; but higher random write speed.

Sequential speeds are important when copying large files (1MB and up). Random speeds are most important on your system disk for things like booting and launching applications.

So the speeds you compare are not ideal - the real important stats are the Random I/O stats. Try look at some benchmark reviews on the web, or google on images containing "AS SSD intel" and replace intel by indilinx or kingston to compare. :)

SATA 6Gbps will only be useful if you pair it with a controller that can make use of the additional bandwidth. So far, the only SATA 6Gbps SSD manages to reach 350MB/s read barely, and about 200MB/s write. But as i said the random speeds are the most important here.
 
sub.mesa said:
The intel has lower sequential write speed; but higher random write speed.

Sequential speeds are important when copying large files (1MB and up). Random speeds are most important on your system disk for things like booting and launching applications.

So the speeds you compare are not ideal - the real important stats are the Random I/O stats. Try look at some benchmark reviews on the web, or google on images containing "AS SSD intel" and replace intel by indilinx or kingston to compare. :)

SATA 6Gbps will only be useful if you pair it with a controller that can make use of the additional bandwidth. So far, the only SATA 6Gbps SSD manages to reach 350MB/s read barely, and about 200MB/s write. But as i said the random speeds are the most important here.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better found something that may be worth reading if your looking to pickup an ssd drive

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3656/corsairs-force-ssd-reviewed-sf1200-is-very-good/4
 
sub.mesa said:
If you feel getting more stuff on the SSD is more important than the differences between individual SSDs; then the cheaper Indilinx-based SSDs like Kingston are a decent alternative. I would personally stick to the Intels, though. Aside from performance, it may also be more reliable. I did hear quite a few stories about OCZ-Indilinx drives dying without cause, for example. Those could be issues with the firmware.
Click to expand...

I use both. I've had an OCZ-Indilinx die shortly after a firmware update, but Intel's initial TRIM enabled firmware bricked drives also.

Bottom line is, use stable firmware from any SSD manufacturer if you want to be safe. Let others be guinea pigs.
 
i just want something thats going to work, this is my new system build after 4 years from my last build and i dont want this one leaving a sour taste in my mouth, the last one had some major BIOS issues and what not, RMA'd 2 boards, wasnt a pretty site

but this one im hoping everything plugs in, loads up and goes from the get go :D i know, wishful thinking, but at least with a SSD, Win7 will load fast and let me know if there are any issues right away, heres praying for no BSODs!!!
 
wow, the write speeds in that review for every other drive were incredibly crappy!!! how often would someone need to use random writing? it that an OS thing like the guy said in the review?
 
It's the most important spec unless you need to transfer huge files. The random read and writes are what make you system "snappy" because the OS can access all those small but crucial files quickly.

The random speeds are the real performance boost compared to a platter drive where the head has to thrash around to find the interspersed pieces of data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top