SSD or standard HDD?

C

coder_t2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
1,166
Hey guys, my 160GB OS drive seems like it is on it's last legs. Would you recommend getting a 60GB SSD or just picking up a 7200rpm 500GB or 1TB HDD? I have seen deals for SSDs for about $60. And the HDD go for $40 and $60 respectively. I didn't know if the SSD would help with the lag that happens sometimes when loading up the TV Guide or switching channels that happens sometimes with WMC. Although, I am sure a modern mechanical hard drive will still outperform by 6 year old hard drive by a decent margin.

I currently have a 2TB secondary drive that currently handles all my space needs.

In a nutshell, with SSD prices dropping, do you think the performance benefits will be worth it for an HTPC?

Thanks.
 
Get a small SSD for your OS and a large drive for media. Your experience will be much better IMO.
 
On my HTPC's I use HDD's, reason being that I use the Hibernate function on all my machines, where the RAM is still powered. It takes about 5 seconds for the computer to get from Standby to XBMC loaded even w/ only 1gb of ram on my Zotac ION Box.

I also use Logitech Harmony Remotes and have it set to turn on my Zotac HTPC first, get it going, then I have it turn my TV next, and Let that warm up, and by the time the TV is up and going, so is the HTPC.
 
Yea, I use sleep on my HTPC. Boot times aren't what I am concerned about. Just overall usage. Sometimes I can tell the HDD chugs when pulling up the guide. I am assuming the guide is stored on the OS disc, so I am thinking an SSD would help. Mainly I don't need the extra space currently, so it seems like a good fit. My only hesitation is the reliability of these drives.
 
I actually just went from a 80gb boot hdd to a 60gb ssd on my htpc, it has a 2tb storage drive. What I have noticed is the guide is perfectly smooth, before some times the guide would get choppy or lag while scrolling through it. That and I don't hear my old slow 80gb any more. I would do it.
 
I can see a difference on MCE Guide w/ an SSD. I mainly use XBMC, but its so light and lean I can hardly tell the difference.
 
Yep got the SSD and I can definitely tell the difference. Was definitely worth it.
 
I'd go with the SSD. It was a night and day difference for me, but I went from an 80gb SATA drive that was new back when SATA was first introduced, so it was old and slow (but never went out on me). Boot times are much faster which is good, but what I really cared about was how much more responsive the interface is for me. I'm using MediaPortal with StreamedMP and a TON of hi-res artwork. It was tolerable browsing with the hard drive, but with the SSD, it's ridiculously snappy and silky smooth.
 
I disagree very strongly on the "day and night" hyperbole that seems to go on all over tech sites about SSDs, and thats coming from multiple SSD upgrades including one on my HTPC. I've always thought "well maybe i'll finally be able to tell".. nope.

that said, prices on those OS-sized SSD good for HTPCS have come down to the point where its hard to pass up..
 
Activate: AMD said:
I disagree very strongly on the "day and night" hyperbole that seems to go on all over tech sites about SSDs, and thats coming from multiple SSD upgrades including one on my HTPC. I've always thought "well maybe i'll finally be able to tell".. nope.

that said, prices on those OS-sized SSD good for HTPCS have come down to the point where its hard to pass up..
Click to expand...

If you can't tell the difference something is wrong (with you or the ssd). Pretty obvious when you try to open two applications at once and both are instant on ssd (should be, if it isn't then something is wrong with the ssd or install) and takes 6 seconds to open on hdd. (instant as in fully loaded, not just a blank window appearing and loading).
 
munkle said:
If you can't tell the difference something is wrong (with you or the ssd). Pretty obvious when you try to open two applications at once and both are instant on ssd (should be, if it isn't then something is wrong with the ssd or install) and takes 6 seconds to open on hdd. (instant as in fully loaded, not just a blank window appearing and loading).
Click to expand...
my bad.. finally able to tell != worth it. Yea, i can tell. In daily usage I've seen negligible actual benefit to justify a 2, 3 or 4x purchase cost (strictly upfront cost.. let alone the $/gb) . I think people see the benches, spend the cash and then tell themselves "OMG my desktop is so much snappier and the guide is like SOOO SMOOTH" because if they didn't notice it'd be a waste. I'd like to see a blind study on normal users, because not a single person has commented on any improvements that resulted after adding an SSD to my HTPC

but like I said, I'd probably just do it anyway because you can get a respectable SSD for under 80$ that will be all the OS drive you need. OP says he doesn't need the space and it fits in his budget, so he might as well do it.. the caveats don't apply
 
Basically if you're using Windows, an SSD will provide a noticeable boost in response. If you're using an OS that isn't retarded about how it handles data, and actually caches frequently accessed info in RAM where it belongs, then the benefit is reduced significantly. An expensive way to partially work around a gaping flaw in your OS.
 
dustNbone said:
Basically if you're using Windows, an SSD will provide a noticeable boost in response. If you're using an OS that isn't retarded about how it handles data, and actually caches frequently accessed info in RAM where it belongs, then the benefit is reduced significantly. An expensive way to partially work around a gaping flaw in your OS.
Click to expand...

Windows implemented this a while ago and everyone complained "WHEREZ MY RAMZ!!???!!" or "VISTA USES A BAGILLION GIGABYTES OF RAM!!!!".

Here's my pc, the only things running are folding, and firefox. It's using the rest of my 16gb as a cache.
 
If adding a SSD magically makes your guide run smoother then you either don't have enough RAM or you have a bloated guide data file(over sized due to not clearing old data). The only time the SSD drive should make a difference when comes to the guide is when you first load into memory.

AS per the OP, are performance benefits will be worth it for an HTPC, that's a matter of personal opinion, maybe your happy w/ how fast things from the HDD or you have a fast HDD and though SSD will be faster you don't feel it's worth the price/GB, or you not happy w/ how slow you HDD is or you have a really slow HDD and the SSD is night and day faster that you go WOW it's worth every extra penny. In a nutshell the over all experience will improve since you made no mention of needing additional storage space I think you should just go w/ the SSD, also it would be wiser at this time to stick w/ one of the SSDs w/ more reliable controllers(Intel, Crucial, Samsung).
 
If you plan on using WMC and have a WHS box, TV archiving is awesome. I've never seen a day with more than 40-60GB of recorded data, so a ~100GB drive should do the trick. Allows you to make a much quieter and smaller unit.
 
lovemyram4x4 said:
If adding a SSD magically makes your guide run smoother then you either don't have enough RAM or you have a bloated guide data file(over sized due to not clearing old data). The only time the SSD drive should make a difference when comes to the guide is when you first load into memory.
Click to expand...
Cause its going to load 600 channels for 2 weeks into memory..... :rolleyes: (It could do that but it doesn't)
 
An SSD in my HTPC made a night and day difference. I also had the guide jitters, slow boot up to media center main screen, and slow resume from hibernation. After the SSD, everything is very quick. Boot up to the media center main screen time went down by 3/4. The guide was smooth as silk. Channel changing was smoother. Movies and recorded shows seem to load quicker (i say seem because they are stored on a spindle hard drive). Resume from hibernation time differences were drastically faster, as in it resumes instantaneously now.
 
It also makes no noise and is small, so in a thin HTPC client (small footprint, demands for noise reduction, all storage HDD streamed from a NAS), it is superior.
 
Activate: AMD said:
let alone the $/gb
Click to expand...
When you buy RAM do you calculate cost per GB?

NO I don't think so.

I've said it a thousand times and I will continue to keep saying it. With SSD you are buying performance Not storage space.

1 SSD for all OS/APPS for $90-185. And 1 2TB or 3TB for $60-110. That config will suit just about most people perfectly well and is blazin quick. For guys that want more space for games, throw them on a 1TB 7200 for now.
 
The choice the OP has is $40 for a HDD or $60 for a SSD. There is not enough difference in price to matter.

While I don't believe that a SSD will be any better than the HDD (except perhaps resuming from hibernation), I would pay the premium for the SSD.
 
I have 2 HTPC's, in one room I have an i3/h55 combo using a platter drive and the living room uses a zacate in a mini-itx box with a 96gb Kingston ssd. My media storage is all on a WHS box so storage isn't a concern in either HTPC. When comparing the 2 HTPC's I have got to be honest, I don't notice a huge difference in loading times. The only noticeable difference is the HTPC's boot time is around 12 sec to desktop where the other takes maybe 15 sec. To me that isn't that big of deal since when running, the difference is negligible. I do love my zacate with SSD for one reason though, I have the Asus Deluxe Fusion board with passive cooling in an Antec isk 300-65w case which uses a dc adapter similar to a pico psu. With no moving parts other than the 1 small case fan that I leave on low I actually never put that HTPC to sleep since at idle it takes less power than one of those basic spiral fluorescent light bulbs (CFL). For that reason I like the SSD just since the entire HTPC is extremely efficient and it's ready at all times. Once the other is woke though, I truly don't see a huge difference to justify the $85 after rebate price I paid for the SSD. The sale on that SSD is the only reason I went that route since it was under $1 per GB and I had to buy a 2.5" drive anyway for my HTPC since my isk 300 only accepts 2.5" drives. If I had to do it again and already had a drive that would fit I wouldn't buy a SSD, but since I had to buy 1 anyway I guess it was worth the extra $30-40.

I guess there is a possibility that my results aren't that great since my SSD is only sata 2 and can't take advantage of my sata 3 on the MB. I also did purchase the kingston v100 which is probably the most inferior of the SSD's so that may be the reason for my results not being up to par with some others claims with their results, I do like its efficiency though
 
CorNut said:
I have 2 HTPC's, in one room I have an i3/h55 combo using a platter drive and the living room uses a zacate in a mini-itx box with a 96gb Kingston ssd. My media storage is all on a WHS box so storage isn't a concern in either HTPC. When comparing the 2 HTPC's I have got to be honest, I don't notice a huge difference in loading times. The only noticeable difference is the HTPC's boot time is around 12 sec to desktop where the other takes maybe 15 sec.
Click to expand...

So in a nutshell you put an SSD in a system with a CPU that is some 4-5x slower than the system with an HDD, and now the overall system feel between the two is similar.
 
rive22 said:
So in a nutshell you put an SSD in a system with a CPU that is some 4-5x slower than the system with an HDD, and now the overall system feel between the two is similar.
Click to expand...

thanks for the roundabout insult. I guess I should point out that another PC I put together for a friend was a 1090t 6 core with SSD and it didn't seem to load programs all that much faster than the i3 either, that better? I was trying to use 2 similar PC's used for the same exact thing. Regardless of your "4-5x slower" comment on the zacate, the zacate is capable of opening explorer just as fast as the i3. It isn't like those HTPC's are running hardcore programs, and neither gets very taxed when opening a browser or media center. Decoding or something sure, then comparing the 2 would be another story. I have a Vertex 3 120 that isn't in a PC yet, I have a 990fx board with sata3 and all that jazz, I'm not opposed to a SSD, but for an HTPC I don't see it being very important as long as you don't let your OS drive get cluttered
 
Last edited:
SSD made a huge difference for me with WMC. Mediabrowser library with thumbs loads instantly compared to 30+ seconds before (I have about 400 blurays).

I tried to save money and sold off the SSD to go back to a normal hard drive, but a week later broke down again and bought another one.

Simply put, it made my HTPC stop feeling like a COMPUTER and made it feel like a home theater device. No lag, no noise, no chugging, and everything just worked - instantly. 100% worth it.
 
I would strongly recommend a 120GB SSD over a 60MB, even if its one of first gen ones. A 60MB fills up very quickly after all windows updates. A 120 will give you some head room and enough space to install a few of your most used programs or games on.
 
I don't think a 120 is necessary. 40 or 60 is fine. Install Windows 7, turn off System Restore, and delete the hibernation page. You should have plenty of room to install the miniscule amount of programs and store thumbnails and other graphics.

A 120 is an SSD is overkill unless you are using your HTPC as a computer more often, like to play PC games.
 
SSD for boot and regular HDDs for storage here. That way I can boot quickly and be up and ready to use in no time. And I see no lag with HDD. Those seeing lag may be experiencing bottle-necking elsewhere or have slower drives.
 
definitely use a boot drive whether it is SSD or not, otherwise your htpc will lag like crazy. I bet a lot of these people who say the SSD is night/day difference (it is faster, don't get me wrong, but it's a little blown out of proportion) after adding it use the SSD as a boot drive where before I bet a lot of them had their OS as well on that drive they now use for storage (not all of them, but a lot of them) so no wonder it was slow, but they would have seen a huge increase in performance regardless of what HD they used when adding a dedicated OS drive but they just strictly credit the SSD for the improvement not realizing their previous setup was why it was slow. SSD's have benefits and I prefer to have one since I needed to buy a 2.5" drive anyway, no moving parts, less power, less heat, and it boots a good 20-30% faster than a magnetic drive. If you have a good HDD to use strictly as a boot drive already then I just don't see it worth the $1+/gig. In your post though, I just re-read it and you are saying your OS drive is dying which is why it's slow and you have to buy a new drive anyway regardless of what you choose, so I'd go with SSD. A 60ish GB is great for an HTPC. I've seen kingston's 32gb on sale for under $40 after rebate and even that would be great if you're just installing w7 if you can find that on sale for that price somewhere and you're short on cash. I'd recommend a 60ish GB still in case w8 has more features that might be worth upgrading to where the 32 may not cut it.
 
Last edited:
The 60GB is a perfect size in my opinion. It has about 22GB free after all windows updates. I turned off Hybrid Sleep and Hibernation, so I am not worried that taking up space. The computer wakes and sleeps 3-4 times a day probably, so kind of worried hibernation would wear out the drive fast, which is why it is off.
 
CorNut said:
thanks for the roundabout insult. I guess I should point out that another PC I put together for a friend was a 1090t 6 core with SSD and it didn't seem to load programs all that much faster than the i3 either, that better? I was trying to use 2 similar PC's used for the same exact thing. Regardless of your "4-5x slower" comment on the zacate, the zacate is capable of opening explorer just as fast as the i3. It isn't like those HTPC's are running hardcore programs, and neither gets very taxed when opening a browser or media center. Decoding or something sure, then comparing the 2 would be another story. I have a Vertex 3 120 that isn't in a PC yet, I have a 990fx board with sata3 and all that jazz, I'm not opposed to a SSD, but for an HTPC I don't see it being very important as long as you don't let your OS drive get cluttered
Click to expand...


I agree with you on SSD not being that important on a HTPC unless you want the absolute best performance. I read threads on [H] with people putting 2500K's in their HTPC, would I do the same if I had the cash to burn, probably. However, if budget is one of the top concerns I would leave it out and just use a quiet 2.5" drive that its practically inaudible from 10ft away. About the MediaBrowser taking 30+ seconds to load thumbnails, I cannot speak for that. but my ION XBMC with 40GB 5400rpm loads over a thousand movies in far less time, and the drive cost me $19.99 on ebay.
 
MrSmegzabush said:
About the MediaBrowser taking 30+ seconds to load thumbnails, I cannot speak for that. but my ION XBMC with 40GB 5400rpm loads over a thousand movies in far less time, and the drive cost me $19.99 on ebay.
Click to expand...

That's precisely why I've stayed out of this SSD vs HDD battle as the front end / media app plays a very large role on how well it reads libraries. For me the difference between a dual Raid1 OS collection and that of an SSD was minimal to non-existent.
 
kac77 said:
That's precisely why I've stayed out of this SSD vs HDD battle as the front end / media app plays a very large role on how well it reads libraries. For me the difference between a dual Raid1 OS collection and that of an SSD was minimal to non-existent.
Click to expand...

Don't forget network speeds also play a role in this too. I switched out my router and saw my movie collection loaded noticeably faster without an SSD.

I've never fully understood this whole argument. If you've got a media server/ NAS that holds regular HDDs but you put the SSD into your HTPC then how exactly is the SSD loading up movies faster if you still have to query the server? Switching my 10/100 router to a gigabyte router with cat 6 cables resulted in faster loading without having to install an SSD. With an SSD, there wasn't all that much of a noticeable difference. At least a big of enough difference to continue using it in my HTPC over a desktop system.

Meh.
 
I've also been evaluating an SSD for my HTPC - I have issues with my music library chugging when it is loading up in WMC with all of the thumbnails. If I go with a 60 or 80GB SSD and I store the music on a different drive, will the thumbnails still get cached on the SSD or do they only reside with the music folders?
 
Having just been in this dilemma, I opted for the SSD. I don't game on my HTPC, so really the benefit to me was reduced noise and heat. For me, this was well worth the additional cost. I do enjoy the quicker bootup, and XBMC chugs through the database a little snappier, too.
 
rive22 said:
When you buy RAM do you calculate cost per GB?

NO I don't think so.
Click to expand...
What a completely irrelevant statement
CrimandEvil said:
Don't forget network speeds also play a role in this too. I switched out my router and saw my movie collection loaded noticeably faster without an SSD.

I've never fully understood this whole argument. If you've got a media server/ NAS that holds regular HDDs but you put the SSD into your HTPC then how exactly is the SSD loading up movies faster if you still have to query the server? Switching my 10/100 router to a gigabyte router with cat 6 cables resulted in faster loading without having to install an SSD. With an SSD, there wasn't all that much of a noticeable difference. At least a big of enough difference to continue using it in my HTPC over a desktop system.

Meh.
Click to expand...
Thumbnails are ususally cached locally, so the argument is that the SSD is able to load up those local elements faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top