SSD Question (general)

Domingo

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
22,644
So I've been thinking of getting a SSD and always read about what you should and shouldn't bother to put on it.
Right now I have a WD Black filled with about 350GB of goodies. Maybe 50GB of that is made of MP3s, movies, pictures, etc. that I can shove elsewhere but a good chunk of it is games and programs I have to have.
What are people typically doing as far as game and productivity installs to actually see a benefit?
I was thinking of maybe a 250GB or 300GB drive, so I clearly can't hold everything.
 
Music and videos do not benefit from being on an SSD from a performance standpoint unless you are editing them.
 
I got a 120 GB for OS and application. I use an 1 TB for data, movies, music, pictures. etc. I have a 300 GB raptor for games.
 
Get a bigger SSD / uninstall games when you're done with them. I doubt your non-game programs take up more than 50GB.
 
Just put the stuff you are using on the SSD, and either uninstall or use symbolic links to move the rest to the HDD. Store documents/audio/video on the HDD.
 
I too have similar questions and existing storage needs as the OP. I'm looking to speed up my boot time

ganesh21 said:
I got a 120 GB for OS and application. I use an 1 TB for data, movies, music, pictures. etc. I have a 300 GB raptor for games.
Click to expand...
HOW do you use the raptor for games? Doesn't the game have to be on the same drive as the OS? Aren't the games and Windows going to be using some system files found on the OS's drive?

use symbolic links to move the rest to the HDD
Click to expand...
What are "symbolic" links?

I think all I'm going to be willing to purchase right now is a 120 GB. I will remove a bunch of stuff (programs/utilities) from my HDD to get it below 120 GB before I clone it....but I know there's a bunch of stuff that I'm going to want to keep and use every once in while....what about that stuff? Is it possible to run programs from another HDD other than the one with the OS on it?
 
Games don't have to be on the same drive as the OS. I think that's some myth that rose out of Vista's early release info. Or maybe it actually required it. But in 7, at least, you can put them anywhere.
 
Samury said:
Games don't have to be on the same drive as the OS. I think that's some myth that rose out of Vista's early release info. Or maybe it actually required it. But in 7, at least, you can put them anywhere.
Click to expand...

What about Steam and Origin games?...and just to be clear: You are saying that I can load my games onto a secondary HDD and play them from that HDD?...I would boot into Windows, then double click an icon that executes/runs a game on another HDD? Wouldn't the games (or any programs) need to then access information from both the HDD and the SSD and, if so, wouldn't that slow things down and negate the speed of the SSD?

Sorry...I'm having troubs wrapping my brain around this potential next "investment". I'm not going to do it if the size of the SDD is going to make me trim off a ton of my toys.
 
I just bought a 60GB SSD for OS and BF3, I keep everything else on mechanical drives :).
 
CaptNasty said:
What about Steam and Origin games?...and just to be clear: You are saying that I can load my games onto a secondary HDD and play them from that HDD?...I would boot into Windows, then double click an icon that executes/runs a game on another HDD? Wouldn't the games (or any programs) need to then access information from both the HDD and the SSD and, if so, wouldn't that slow things down and negate the speed of the SSD?

Sorry...I'm having troubs wrapping my brain around this potential next "investment". I'm not going to do it if the size of the SDD is going to make me trim off a ton of my toys.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can install the games on a different drive, and while they will be slower than if they were on the SSD, they will not be any slower than the same game on a normal HDD on a computer without a SSD. The most common practice is to put the most used games and applications on the SSD along with the OS, and then put the rest on the second drive - this lets the games you play the most benefit from the SSD's speed, while not affecting the others.

You can also use symbolic links, which are similar to (but different than) shortcuts, to move stuff to a different location but have the OS still think it is in the original location.
 
I really want to jump on this train, but I'm wondering if I might not just hang-on until the 500GB models come down in price. I love the speed, but I've kinda gotten lazy with my file management...especially with about 95% of my games coming from Steam.
Generally I recall Intel models being considered among the best. Is that still true? What are some other good ones? I've been a lifelong WD owner, so this is new to me.
 
I just ordered and expect to build, a new rig, which will use a Crucial M4 256 SSD for C:\

my current rig is only using 100G on C:\ anyway ( which currently is a raid 0 stripe of WD's spinning drives ), so I wasn't worried about too much stuff, but the 256 size gives me extra room, which is best for SSD's as I understand anyway. I only have 2-3 games max installed at any given time anyway.

the Crucial M4's are equally highly rated.

this will be my first SSD build, so Im pretty stoked.
 
I found this: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2069761 and this: www.com and these may help answer your question about what's the best to use.

But, of course, I still have questions.

I'm sold on the speed...I also need to figure out which one to get.

My specs are in my sig
This is the Sata info for my board:

Intel® P67(B3) chipset :
2 x SATA 6Gb/s port(s), gray
4 x SATA 3Gb/s port(s), blue
Support Raid 0, 1, 5, 10
Marvell® PCIe 9120 controller : *2
2 x SATA 6Gb/s port(s), navy blue
JMicron® JMB362 controller : *2
1 x eSATA 3Gb/s port(s), red
1 x Power eSATA 3Gb/s port(s), green

I know the 6Gb/s ports would be fastest if the SSD supports it...but which one should I use: the Intel P67 or Marvell?
 
Last edited:
Intel 6Gbps > Intel 3 Gbps > everything else

So use the Intel 6 Gbps ports first for any 6 Gbps capable devices and the Intel 3 Gbps ports for everything else.
 
Right now all I have are Intel 3Gbps ports on my mobo.
How much of a real-world difference is there?
 
Not much.

About being lazy with one's install/files, I understand it, but it's a bad idea for a lot of reasons, including SSD use but also backup management, for example. Everything that doesn't change much and doesn't need speed should be separated from what does.

As for games, a lot of them won't see a difference between a good hard drive and an SSD, or a small difference, so I wouldn't put them on the SSD as a priority, but only if you're experiencing slowdowns.

It's almost 2012 guys, you MUST have an SSD now, there is no excuse, some of us have been using them for 5 years !
 
Domingo said:
Right now all I have are Intel 3Gbps ports on my mobo.
How much of a real-world difference is there?
Click to expand...

Benchmarking numbers aside, there are significant differences. Random 4K performance isn't going to be worse, but you are giving up a significant performance advantage elsewhere.

But still, if you're buying a new drive now and only have a SATA II motherboard/laptop, consider getting a SATA III capable drive anyway. A 64GB Samsung 830 on an Intel SATA III port is as fast as two X25-M 80GB drives in RAID0.
 
Domingo said:
Right now all I have are Intel 3Gbps ports on my mobo.
How much of a real-world difference is there?
Click to expand...

For normal use - probably none. If you do a lot of large reads or writes (probably unlikely on a SSD) then you'll see improved throughput, but in the realm of random reads and writes (where SSDs shine) the SATA II port is not going to be limiting you. I went from a SATA II X-25M to a SATA III Crucial M4, and haven't noticed any day to day difference. Benchmarks yes, loading programs, no.
 
With regards to games and SSD's... You can use a program called steam mover to move over all the games installed on your SSD that you don't want there anymore. You can quickly and easily move them over to your HDD. This program also works with many other applications, not just steam games.

What I do is install all of my games to my C: drive (my SSD). Then, when I get bored of them, I move them over to my secondary HDD. For games that I absolutely love and play the most (basically just CS:S) I keep them on my SSD. Then, the load time for that game is seemingly instantaneous.

Another neat thing you can do with steam mover is check whether installing to an SSD actually provides any benefit while playing the game. Just install the game to the SSD first, play it, and then move it over to your HDD. Play it and check if there are any differences in load times and whatnot. If not... I'd probably just leave it installed on the HDD. :)


Here's a little news article on lifehacker about the program. http://lifehacker.com/5626931/steam...ations-to-free-up-space-on-your-primary-drive
 
I like the idea of the Steam mover program! Probably 75% of my games are Steam-based, so that's pretty handy. Time to keep my eyes open for some deals. I want to go as big as I can within reason.
 
so..completed new build in sig below.. first ssd I've used.. lovin it! loaded windows in like 10 mins..

DisableDeleteNotify returned 0, I installed the Intel AHCI drivers, and bios is set to AHCI.. so.. guess I can trust that TRIM is running?

whats the simplest way to validate its using SATAIII ?

I mean its plugged into the correct header, Im using s SATA III cable, etc.

HDTune.. or is there even a more simple way to validate?
 
thanks for the tip..

seems Im getting my SATAIII !

writes avg 250 MB/s
Reads avg between 400-500 MB/s

Crucial M4 256
 
I saw the comment about AHCI above. Is that necessary when running an SSD? I just rebuilt my system with a Crucial M4 256GB for the OS. The previous build a pair of WD 640GB drives in RAID 0 as the OS drive with a 1TB storage drive. My plan was to make the SSD drive my OS drive, the RAID setup my other programs/games/files drive and the 1TB for back ups etc. This required running the hard drives in RAID instead of IDE or AHCI.

Any issues I will face because of this? I don't plan to undo it now but could make a change when I move to Ivy Bridge later this year.
 
if it works, then no.. but my understanding is performance is better with AHCI, and.. if I wanted TRIM to work, it needed to be AHCI
 
You really want to be running in AHCI mode if you can, as opposed to IDE mode. It can make a significant performance difference in some cases. However, if you are running the controller in RAID mode (is that what you are doing?) that may be the same as AHCI. RAID mode is normally a superset of AHCI. You can check it by looking to see if NCQ is enabled (you can see that in HDTune on the info page) - if it is you are good to go.
 
XBarbarian said:
if it works, then no.. but my understanding is performance is better with AHCI, and.. if I wanted TRIM to work, it needed to be AHCI
Click to expand...

IIRC, on intel chipsets, TRIM will work if you are in Raid mode as long the SSD is not a member of a Raid array.
 
Thanks for the info. I also checked out CptnNsty's link to the SSD postings in Anandtech's Forums and they said the same thing:

If you are running RAID, any SSD in the actual RAID array will not get Trim commands, so they will be at the mercy of the drive's built-in garbage collection. Some drives are better than others at doing this. If you are running a RAID array on an Intel chipset (ICH10R for example) and you are using the latest Intel Rapid Storage Technology drivers (RST version 9.6.x) then any SSD on the controller but NOT part of the actual RAID array will get Trim commands. If you aren't actually running a RAID array, then there's probably no need to install Intel RST.

My motherboard uses the ICH10R and I installed the latest Intel Matrix Manager driver which had RST. So, I should be good to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top