• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Recommendations for OS vs Data SSD drives?

M

markm75

Gawd
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
892
Greetings all.. about to jump into the SSD realm with my Prepar3D flight rig, which runs on an Asus Px79 board.

I have available a few sata III ports either one of the two on the mainboard, or using the pciex1 card that i have in there (four port style).
I'm trying to decrease load times on my P3D loading.. unsure if just changing the P3D drive alone is enough (i have the sim on a separate drive and os on the other)..
So i may start out and just change the OS..

Was hoping for something in the middle maybe a 700GB or so size, but it seems to be either go with 500GB or 1TB (1TB is more the realm for the P3D replacement drive).. 500GB might just make it.
So given an OS changeover here.. any recommendations on models that are more reliable and the fastest without being a "Pro" version.

I'm assuming all drives now come with Garbage collection, but only Pro's have TRIM? But Trim maybe not being a requirement but a bonus..

I spotted a $159 samsung 850 Evo thats 500GB (465 usable, might be just enough for me) for the OS.. TLC nand..
Then there is a $135 Sandisk that may be too slow from reading reviews.. and is 512GB..
Up from there is a Sandisk Ultra II, but many said there are issues with them going bad.. (1TB)..

Seems to suggest the other choice though 1TB is a samsung 850 evo there as well and its $289..

**edit there is a Cruicial 1TB that has MLC for around $365 shipped, about $75 more than the $289 Evo 1TB, not sure if worth the extra or not.

So if these are both valid OS or even P3D data choices its roughly $159 for 465GB usable and $289 for 960ish usable on the other one..

Anyone have any experience with either of these.. any other choices out there i might have missed that fall in the middle as far as size goes?

Thanks in advance
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
OS Drive will give you faster bootup and snappier response overall, but it won't do much for P3D You'll see a little bit due to caching, but not much overall for P3D

Moving P3D onto an SSD will increase just P3D access times.

Nearly every drive has TRIM now. The biggest difference in price right now will be MLC vs TLC, and somewhat lesser than that will be the controller type. Even that, for consumer use, makes very little difference. If you were using it for a heavily updated database maybe, or just care about synthetic benchmark numbers.
 
Also of note, if your given the choice between one bigger SSD, or several smaller ones - if everything else is equal (cost per GB, availability and installation space, etc) - larger SSDs tend to perform better than smaller SSDs, and the more free space you can rtain on the drive the faster it will perform. The controllers have more NAND to work with for things like wear leveling and TRIM.
 
Brian_B said:
Also of note, if your given the choice between one bigger SSD, or several smaller ones - if everything else is equal (cost per GB, availability and installation space, etc) - larger SSDs tend to perform better than smaller SSDs, and the more free space you can rtain on the drive the faster it will perform. The controllers have more NAND to work with for things like wear leveling and TRIM.
Click to expand...

Thanks.. Yea I figured for p3d I'd start with that drive. Question I'm wondering is for the OS if on 24-7 if there is value in spending an extra $100 for the pro, less failures etc
 
don't get less than 500GB drives if you care about performance. 256GB drives take a substantial hit in performance. Just check out reviews at tweaktown, anandtech, and the likes for best performance. Learn what you actually need. Steady state, 4K QD1, Seq, Mix Load, latency, or whatever. Figure out what you do and what you need and look at reviews for that. I need latency, mix, 4K QD1, and steady state personally so high end/these new NVMe drives meet my needs. Others aren't really affected by those so any decent SSD works but if your stuck between the rock and a hard place a high end SSD can make a difference.

EDIT: forgot to mention consistency...that is also a crucial metric in SSDs but not everyone is affected by that. I have no idea if that affects me because I have no way to tell...at least nto easily. Just watching graphs and how my programs over the years respond to various SSDs and how they function I learned the above are important to me. ust wanted to add that consistency metric because that can affect some tasks and OP can greatly improve that.
 
SomeGuy133 said:
don't get less than 500GB drives if you care about performance. 256GB drives take a substantial hit in performance. Just check out reviews at tweaktown, anandtech, and the likes for best performance. Learn what you actually need. Steady state, 4K QD1, Seq, Mix Load, latency, or whatever. Figure out what you do and what you need and look at reviews for that. I need latency, mix, 4K QD1, and steady state personally so high end/these new NVMe drives meet my needs. Others aren't really affected by those so any decent SSD works but if your stuck between the rock and a hard place a high end SSD can make a difference.

EDIT: forgot to mention consistency...that is also a crucial metric in SSDs but not everyone is affected by that. I have no idea if that affects me because I have no way to tell...at least nto easily. Just watching graphs and how my programs over the years respond to various SSDs and how they function I learned the above are important to me. ust wanted to add that consistency metric because that can affect some tasks and OP can greatly improve that.
Click to expand...

Maybe in benchmarks, but I don't see anyone really being able to tell the difference in real-world usage unless you're doing something extremely unusual.
 
kumquat said:
Maybe in benchmarks, but I don't see anyone really being able to tell the difference in real-world usage unless you're doing something extremely unusual.
Click to expand...

dont have time ATM to elaborate but everyone has sifferent work loads and certain work loads show big gains because the speed is already low. Mix loads can be as slow as 100MBps and with a good SSD they can be 150-200MBps or something like that. Going off my head. Don't hagve time to re post a review of this for like the 5th time on this forum. Go look at steady state and mix load. Good drives vs cheap drives show massive differences and you are dealing with low 100sMBps vs half GBps speeds. There are very tangible gains there. Plus if you do mix and steady at once the hit is greater (I assume They should compound).
 
SomeGuy133 said:
dont have time ATM to elaborate but everyone has sifferent work loads and certain work loads show big gains because the speed is already low. Mix loads can be as slow as 100MBps and with a good SSD they can be 150-200MBps or something like that. Going off my head. Don't hagve time to re post a review of this for like the 5th time on this forum. Go look at steady state and mix load. Good drives vs cheap drives show massive differences and you are dealing with low 100sMBps vs half GBps speeds. There are very tangible gains there. Plus if you do mix and steady at once the hit is greater (I assume They should compound).
Click to expand...

In a desktop environment for 99% of people steady-state doesn't mean anything.

It's not a database, it's not hosting 5 VMs, it's a desktop system he uses for a flight rig... he's not doing continual mixed read/writes on his OS.

A 256GB EVO would be plenty for his OS drive. It's only $17 more than a 128, so a 256 is fine and still affordable.
 
SomeGuy133 said:
dont have time ATM to elaborate but everyone has sifferent work loads and certain work loads show big gains because the speed is already low. Mix loads can be as slow as 100MBps and with a good SSD they can be 150-200MBps or something like that. Going off my head. Don't hagve time to re post a review of this for like the 5th time on this forum. Go look at steady state and mix load. Good drives vs cheap drives show massive differences and you are dealing with low 100sMBps vs half GBps speeds. There are very tangible gains there. Plus if you do mix and steady at once the hit is greater (I assume They should compound).
Click to expand...

... Well, exactly. There's no way the difference would even be perceptible for the vast, vast majority of computer users.
 
ToddW2 said:
In a desktop environment for 99% of people steady-state doesn't mean anything.

It's not a database, it's not hosting 5 VMs, it's a desktop system he uses for a flight rig... he's not doing continual mixed read/writes on his OS.

A 256GB EVO would be plenty for his OS drive. It's only $17 more than a 128, so a 256 is fine and still affordable.
Click to expand...

kumquat said:
... Well, exactly. There's no way the difference would even be perceptible for the vast, vast majority of computer users.
Click to expand...



Also thats the same mantra that was being spewed a couple years ago and got me to buy an 840 SSD and threw that POS out in 6 months as that thing hanged and froze like the biggest POS ever (it was worse then a HDD in certain cases). I went and bought an Extreme Pro and my system stopped hanging from the SSD being thrashed. It was a nightmare at times. Mix loads and steady state can murder a drive if you use them hence why i mention them. Lets not educate people because hell this imaginary 99% logical fallacy we always throw around justifies us in being lazy with spreading knowledge.

The difference in performance from a 500GB drive to a 250GB drive is VERY TANGIBLE. I can not stress that enough. The cost is very minimal to get the bigger drive and well worth the investment. Also OP is very important if you care about consistency. An SSD 100% full has terrible performance due to garbage collection and other issues. This has been shown in every single review from anandtech. Maxing out an SSD causes serious consistency issues. Another reason to not buy an SSD that barely fits" But I honestly don't care about using facts at this point anymore because its evident that no one even gives a shit on this forum about facts so meh.


SomeGuy133 said:
don't get less than 500GB drives if you care about performance. 256GB drives take a substantial hit in performance. Just check out reviews at tweaktown, anandtech, and the likes for best performance. Learn what you actually need. Steady state, 4K QD1, Seq, Mix Load, latency, or whatever. Figure out what you do and what you need and look at reviews for that. I need latency, mix, 4K QD1, and steady state personally so high end/these new NVMe drives meet my needs. Others aren't really affected by those so any decent SSD works but if your stuck between the rock and a hard place a high end SSD can make a difference.

EDIT: forgot to mention consistency...that is also a crucial metric in SSDs but not everyone is affected by that. I have no idea if that affects me because I have no way to tell...at least nto easily. Just watching graphs and how my programs over the years respond to various SSDs and how they function I learned the above are important to me. ust wanted to add that consistency metric because that can affect some tasks and OP can greatly improve that.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SomeGuy133 said:
Lets not educate people because hell this imaginary 99% logical fallacy we always throw around justifies us in being lazy with spreading knowledge.

The difference in performance from a 500GB drive to a 250GB drive is VERY TANGIBLE.
Click to expand...
Those lines look ridiculous next to each other. Some SSD models gain significant performance above 256GB. Others don't.

Also, your claim basically states that any 500GB model beats any smaller model. THAT is misinformation.

Deciding which product to buy on a single spec is foolish.
 
An example from the past was the Crucial M500 vs the M550 (I'm not recommending buying those drives today). The M500 achieved low cost at the time by using 128Gb NAND for all of its lineup, including the 120GB and 240GB versions - that 120GB version had only one NAND, meaning it lacked the parallelism that makes multi-NAND SSDs so fast, and it was one of the slowest SSDs of its time. The M550 fixed this by using 64Gb NAND for the 128GB and 256GB versions, while the 512GB and 1TB versions used 128Gb NAND.

Today, Crucial isn't doing 128GB SSDs in its new BX200 value line, and uses 128Gb NAND in all of its BX200 and MX200 SSDs.

Samsung uses 86 Gb NAND for most of its 850 Pro line except the 2TB which gets 128 Gb NAND; the 850 EVO line, including the 128GB version, all uses 128 Gb NAND.
 
HammerSandwich said:
Those lines look ridiculous next to each other. Some SSD models gain significant performance above 256GB. Others don't.

Also, your claim basically states that any 500GB model beats any smaller model. THAT is misinformation.

Deciding which product to buy on a single spec is foolish.
Click to expand...

Please go find me an example of an SSD that does not do that besides the one mentioned below. From every SSD I have seen (ones that are worth buying) The 500GB model is faster than the 250GB model. This is True for BX line, MX line, Extreme Pro, 840/850 PRO, EVO series, 950 PRO, Intel 750, and others. The m550 was the only exception from this list. Maybe some other crap SSD brand doesnt have that issue but all the well know and popular SSDs have that issue. Misinformation how? That shows a pattern and its based on how they are made as evil sofa said.

BTW nice addition of information i never stated BTW. Where in this black red forum have I ever advocated buying something off of a single spec and nothing else? Wow. Nice.
 
Last edited:
SomeGuy, let's go back to post #13. What you quoted - what you label a "fallacy" - matches my position: good SSDs perform similarly for typical desktop users, even in the 250GB class.

You seem to hold a different position based on your poor experience with a Samsung 840 - a drive that is known to have serious consistency problems. The 840 makes a poor baseline to start from.

SomeGuy133 said:
Please go find me an example of an SSD that does not do that besides the one mentioned below. From every SSD I have seen (ones that are worth buying) The 500GB model is faster than the 250GB model. This is True for BX line, MX line, Extreme Pro, 840/850 PRO, EVO series, 950 PRO, Intel 750, and others.
Click to expand...
I took a quick look at SSD 2015 in Anandtech's Bench, which should satisfy you based on your reference to their reviews. I excluded the 850 EVO, because the differing descriptions for the 250 & 500 suggest there may be other differences. I also omitted the 750 & 950 Pro, because they are not representative of mainstream SSDs with mature technology (& pricing in the OP's range).

The MX200 supports your position.

IMO, the differences between 250GB & 500GB drives in the BX100, Extreme Pro, & 840/850 Pro do NOT. A few tests show small differences (usually 10-20%), but the majority of results are much closer. Trying to look at the big picture & not to cherry pick among the many tests, I believe your claim is wrong.

This indicates buyers should make sure they choose a good SSD model with the capacity they require. Obviously, a larger drive is warranted for those who need the space, but 250GB will work fine otherwise.

Which is really just a wordy way to restate what we started with...

SomeGuy133 said:
BTW nice addition of information i never stated BTW. Where in this black red forum have I ever advocated buying something off of a single spec and nothing else? Wow. Nice.
Click to expand...
Did I misread "don't get less than 500GB drives if you care about performance" in post 6? You do not say nothing else matters, so I apologize for that. But your line definitely suggests that all 256GB SSDs are slow. And that just ain't so. (And before you complain about how absurd that example is, well, that's exactly the point.)
 
I would disagree in regards to the BX line but I have to agree with you on the PRO and Extreme Pro. The difference is not as large as i recall so i am definitely mistaken on those two cards. The difference is not as large. Though one does exist.

The reason the 950 PRO ones have such a large difference is because they are not SATA capped like these drives and the differences are more apparent.

Tweak town graphs are helpful on seeing there is a common pattern between 256GB and 500GB drives but you are correct on the higher tire SATA drives. They do not show it as drastically but it is still there but definitely not as bad.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/6471/sandisk-extreme-pro-240gb-ssd-review/index5.html
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/6470/sandisk-extreme-pro-480gb-ssd-review/index5.html

you can see many of the drives of the smaller size are slower but some show minimal drop-age like the Extreme Pro but i guess thats why you pay good money for a good SSD :D. I think that warrants an argument in advocating higher end SSDs if your getting a smaller drive (250GB or less)

The major issue with 250GB drives is their consistency is dramatically worse when filled and garbage collection gets hit much much faster compared to larger drives so even moderate work loads can hit that wall and when that wall is hit it can be brutal on performance. Thats why I don't recommend 250GB drives if you plan on filling it and using it for anything substantial. That even means downloading, playing a game, and AV hitting you at once. If you do all 3 at once a 250GB drive will hit that steady state and consistency wall very hard.

I hit terrible performance at times even on my Extreme Pro thats 480GB because i mutli task too much. I am on the PC all the time so MBAM/AV are going to run at some point when i am on and heaven forbid they go off while I download a game, run some other background program and transfer files or when acronis backs up. I do the said above a lot and it gets painful even on the Extreme Pro. I can actually see Steam stop downloading a game and letting my SSD catch up because all the stuff I am doing at once is loading the SSD. I see steam bursting at 15MBps on and off and seeing disk activity at 50-90MBps constant but download is not constant. It is annoying and system performance is tanking in the process. But again I am doing like 3-7 things on the SSD at once so...whatever.

my point in post 13 is that every person should be fully informed on what an SSD can and can not do. Its strengths and weaknesses. Thats exactly what i did in post 6. It is on the OP to figure out if steady state or consistency or mix work loads is an issue for him. For me it is a major issue but I have no idea what that flight sim needs or does. I am simply telling him what an SSD can and cant do and its strengths and weaknesses. He must figure out what his needs are and what is important. I can't answer that because i have no idea what that program does. For all I knwo it runs 100% in RAM or it may cache the bloody hell out of the SSD.
 
Last edited:
I recently upgrades to SSD drives in my two main computers (desktop and laptop). For the laptop I added a PNY CS2111 XLR8 480GB and in the desktop I have a PNY CS2111 XLR8 240GB for the OS and a few apps I forget to install to the second drive along with a Mushkin Reactor 1TB for most of the applications such as Steam games and Photoshop. For whatever reason my laptop boots into Windows in 3 seconds or so. The desktop takes a bit longer, but I have a RAID01 disk array so BIOS bootup is longer.

Here is a quick ATTO benchmark of the three:

Flickr Link

Yeah, the 240GB drive does write slower than the other two, but for an OS drive and it topping out at over 300MB/s I kind of doubt I'm missing out on much for my Desktop having a smaller drive for the OS.
 
Scottw said:
Yeah, the 240GB drive does write slower than the other two, but for an OS drive and it topping out at over 300MB/s I kind of doubt I'm missing out on much for my Desktop having a smaller drive for the OS.
Click to expand...

Yes. Unless you spend a lot of time waiting for I/O on truly huge blocks of data, the differences you see on speed benchmarks are going to be imperceptible to the user provided you have a halfway decent SSD. Despite angry rantings from benchmark cowboys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top