• 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.

SSD vs. HDD

I agree that Windows boots much faster off an SSD, and I guess in general apps load faster too. I've installed SSDs for a few people, and they were all impressed with the boot speed. I, however, do not have one, nor do I really want one that badly. First off my boot drive is a Cheetah 15k.5, so it's a pretty fast hard drive, not directly comparable to any 7200 rpm sata drive. I don't think that's really why though, it's more about usage pattern. I don't use Windows unless I need to, mainly to play a few games that don't run properly under WINE. This happens maybe a couple of times a week, other than that I run Ubuntu, and my computer only turns off during power outages or hardware changes. Basically, I boot my computer a few times a week at the most, and Ubuntu boots in around 20 seconds, Windows around 30 I'd say. Once booted, any applications I load (Firefox, LibreOffice, XBMC, etc) are only loaded from the disc once, since I have 4GB of RAM and the base system only seems to consume around 500MB. They remain cached in RAM even if I close them, opening say LIbreOffice again later in the day doesn't even involve HD access, maybe loading configurations and writing a log entry or something, but basically the load is instant. This is how things go for me 95% of the time I use my computer. I suppose my boot times and initial app load times would be faster with an SSD or 2, but beyond that the gains are minimal. I realize that Windows isn't nearly so efficient about the way it handles this type of caching, but for most peoples usage it should be pretty capable of keeping most of what they will need in RAM, especially on 4GB machines. Games are another story for sure, huge data sets (in the GBs) that need use of as much RAM as they can get their hands on, fast drives can be useful here. Not always though, I find it hit and miss on games, some actually seem to be more CPU heavy than disk heavy during map loads, decompressing and calculating and whatnot I guess. Others really pick up when on a quick drive, like FSX with a bunch of scenery addons. But anyway, I just find it hard to recommend spending the money on an SSD for people who boot their computer once a day or less, and don't play demanding games. I think there is more to be gained from optimal software configuration, and dare I say avoiding Windows :)
 
It's a lot faster, but it's not "you open something and it opens instantly" faster. My games still take time to load and what not. I'm coming from a WD Caviar Black.
 
What screen resolution am I using when? Screen resolution I use depends on what I'm doing. I use a CRT that's capable of whatever it's told to do, so in games I choose the one that meets my needs in terms of resolution vs frame rate, movies to match a multiple of the source rate, and on the desktop well I'm pretty fond of 1920x1200x96hz. Why do you ask? :)

Dustin
 
dustNbone said:
What screen resolution am I using when? Screen resolution I use depends on what I'm doing. I use a CRT that's capable of whatever it's told to do, so in games I choose the one that meets my needs in terms of resolution vs frame rate, movies to match a multiple of the source rate, and on the desktop well I'm pretty fond of 1920x1200x96hz. Why do you ask? :)

Dustin
Click to expand...
 
Oh yeah, I noticed that too. It was not really intended to be an essay, just some ranting that got out of hand. I do that sometimes.
 
Makaveli@BETA said:
Its hard to believe because its BS.

Windows wouldn't load that fast even on a ramdisc.

Fastest boot i've even seen in windows 7 is in the 10-15sec range with a really fast SSD.

I think MS would literally have to re-engineer the boot process for windows to boot in 3 seconds.
Click to expand...

I just got a SSD and I somewhat regret it. It took 34 sec. to boot up, versus anywhere from 55 sec. to 2 min. on a hard drive.

Now, I bought the Intel G3 300Gb, so I like to know how on earth does other get that 13 sec. deal? As I have nothing else on the SSD besides the OS
 
Happy Hopping said:
I just got a SSD and I somewhat regret it. It took 34 sec. to boot up, versus anywhere from 55 sec. to 2 min. on a hard drive.

Now, I bought the Intel G3 300Gb, so I like to know how on earth does other get that 13 sec. deal? As I have nothing else on the SSD besides the OS
Click to expand...

If you are using Windows, and unless you turn off LITERALLY every single background service and startup app/program/item, you won't get anywhere near that bootup time.

In fact, Windows just doesn't work that way, the OS architecture wasn't designed to be loaded that quickly, I don't even think it's possible.

The fastest times I've heard of have been in the 15-20 second range, 13 seconds is bullshit.

If you want an OS to boot that quickly, you are going to have to steer away from Windows and start looking at UNIX or Linux OSes, not including OS X.


However, I'm not sure why you regretted getting a SSD. You went from 55sec-2min to 33 seconds, I'd say that's a hell of an improvement from just switching out the hardware and no software/firmware tweaks. ;)
 
Red Falcon said:
If you are using Windows, and unless you turn off LITERALLY every single background service and startup app/program/item, you won't get anywhere near that bootup time.

In fact, Windows just doesn't work that way, the OS architecture wasn't designed to be loaded that quickly, I don't even think it's possible.

The fastest times I've heard of have been in the 15-20 second range, 13 seconds is bullshit.

If you want an OS to boot that quickly, you are going to have to steer away from Windows and start looking at UNIX or Linux OSes, not including OS X.


However, I'm not sure why you regretted getting a SSD. You went from 55sec-2min to 33 seconds, I'd say that's a hell of an improvement from just switching out the hardware and no software/firmware tweaks. ;)
Click to expand...
On XP with everything stripped and disabled, I can hardboot from power button click to XP desktop in less than 5 seconds. X-D

Of course, it also means XP is pretty useless.. unless you're using it as a thinclient. :\
 
Red Falcon said:
If you are using Windows, and unless you turn off LITERALLY every single background service and startup app/program/item, you won't get anywhere near that bootup time.

In fact, Windows just doesn't work that way, the OS architecture wasn't designed to be loaded that quickly, I don't even think it's possible.

The fastest times I've heard of have been in the 15-20 second range, 13 seconds is bullshit.

If you want an OS to boot that quickly, you are going to have to steer away from Windows and start looking at UNIX or Linux OSes, not including OS X.


However, I'm not sure why you regretted getting a SSD. You went from 55sec-2min to 33 seconds, I'd say that's a hell of an improvement from just switching out the hardware and no software/firmware tweaks. ;)
Click to expand...

that youtube video (link above) seems to be 13 sec. though, it's possible that video owner turn off all the service to amuse us at youtube.
 
Happy Hopping said:
that youtube video (link above) seems to be 13 sec. though, it's possible that video owner turn off all the service to amuse us at youtube.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but youtube tech posters are about as credible as the tabloids.
Unless it's someone you know or a professional company with a reputation, chances are it's bullshit.

I can use any editing software to make the appearance of my machine boot in under 5 seconds, so don't believe everything you see on youtube. ;)
 
Cerulean said:
On XP with everything stripped and disabled, I can hardboot from power button click to XP desktop in less than 5 seconds. X-D

Of course, it also means XP is pretty useless.. unless you're using it as a thinclient. :\
Click to expand...

Yeah... a 10 year old OS is not such a good idea for a SSD. ;)

Cool that you got it to work, but aside from the benchmark and achievement, not much point imho.
 
Who cares about boot up times anyway, with a decent sized SSD I'd care more about resume time from hibernate, and SSDs can get that under 5s.
 
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...

The difference between a SSD and any single HDD is far more vast than the difference between most HDDs of any kind imo....

Now, if you just use your system for web browsing and gaming you might be underwhelmed with a SSD... Or even if you use some "heavy"apps but only load then once a day. If you've got oodles of RAM and you always keep everything open and you never really push the limits of your system memory I could see how a SSD wouldn't blow you away.

If you do load random apps at different times of the day tho, and/or do some heavy multi-tasking, or you work with large files you can temporarily move unto the SSD while you're working on them.... Then a SSD will make a huge difference.

The geek in many of us also appreciates the way it smooths a lot of random things out (icon loading at bootup, small improvements in things as mundane as opening a new browser window, etc), but I can see how many would overlook those things. There's no other kind of upgrade you can do to a relatively modern system (4GB+ RAM multi-core etc) that will give you the same kind of across the board feel & improvement tho.

I wouldn't run a system without one if I had a choice right now. Some of the newer drives even help significantly with Bitlocked encrypted installs. I got my 80GB desktop drive and swore I wouldn't get another one until prices dropped, ended up getting a 40GB drive for the netbook 6 months later.

Right now I'm itching to upgrade the desktop drive so I can re-use it on a laptop I'll be buying soon, but I'm trying hard to skip this generation and/or wait for further price drops. 120GB for the same amount I paid for 80GB isn't bad, but that was around two years ago, I expected better by now.
 
Last edited:
Red Falcon said:
Yeah... a 10 year old OS is not such a good idea for a SSD. ;)

Cool that you got it to work, but aside from the benchmark and achievement, not much point imho.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know, it's like saying I can hardboot to MS DOS 3.11 in less than a second. :D
 
As far as I'm concerned the BIOS is the true limiting factor when speaking about boot times.

Windows itself has always loaded very fast on my machines (note that I do remove a lot of components, processes, services etc.)

Like on my laptop and its almost instant BIOS... I can load XP in 19 seconds (from pressing the power button), yet it's a bloody 5400rpm HDD with 80mb/s/18ms. Application loading etc is slow on it though, and I really wish high capacity SSDs were more affordable so I could replace it :)

On the other hand my desktop takes 34secs with a SSD, thanks to the not too snappy bios (I've tried tweaking it but there doesn't to be much you can do about it) of the MSI P67-GD65 board.
 
I have been debating on getting an SSD for a while. I have never used more than 1 hard drive in a computer build so I am not sure how this work. Do they run in raid or do we just install the windows on the ssd and use the other hard drive as storage?
 
lilxskull said:
I have been debating on getting an SSD for a while. I have never used more than 1 hard drive in a computer build so I am not sure how this work. Do they run in raid or do we just install the windows on the ssd and use the other hard drive as storage?
Click to expand...

Normally you install the OS and commonly used applications/games on the SSD and then put the rest on the second hard drive. You wouldn't be able to RAID an SSD and a normal hard drive (not real RAID anyway, I guess you could do JBOD if you really wanted to).
 
I didn't really notice a difference at first, but now when I use a computer without a SSD it feels so slow and sluggish.
 
Forceman said:
Normally you install the OS and commonly used applications/games on the SSD and then put the rest on the second hard drive. You wouldn't be able to RAID an SSD and a normal hard drive (not real RAID anyway, I guess you could do JBOD if you really wanted to).
Click to expand...

This is how the new Z68 chipset allows you to use an SSD to cache a spinning disk. It essentially creates a bastardized type of raid array allowing you to read and if you choose to write to the faster SSD while the updates to the spinner occur in the background. I have my son's set to the safe mode right now so I think it only reads, but I'm not sure about that yet. It is a raid though, but specific to the SRT on Z68 boards.
 
It is a raid though, but specific to the SRT on Z68 boards.
Click to expand...
Not reallly but you can call it what you want. :)

What does Smart Response Technology do? It takes a page from enterprise storage architecture and lets you use a small SSD as a full read/write cache for a hard drive or RAID array.
Click to expand...
It's another SSD caching scheme that must have the RAID mode enabled for the software to work.
 
fullvietFX said:
I didn't really notice a difference at first, but now when I use a computer without a SSD it feels so slow and sluggish.
Click to expand...

SSD vs 5400rpm 2.5" hdd is like a veyron vs walking in mud lol
I won't go back now. and I need to upgrade my laptop to a 120GB ssd
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top