The Countdown To A Revolution In SSDs Has Begun

schizrade said:
This is something I cannot seem to pound into peoples skulls.
Click to expand...

Windows install, titanfall, bf4, 128gb ssd full.

I run a 128 for OS and apps and a 256 for Steam / origin. It's really not enough. If you don't want games on the ssd then a single 128 is a viable option and you can drop steam on a 1tb.
 
Should also note SSD mfgs have been pushing speed, even though for most uses, we have long past any noticeable gains from one SSD to the next, I would be fine with a 250-300MB/s 1TB+ drives, rather than getting a new gen SSD of the same size but now 650MB/s for the same price as the last, its the random I/O that has the biggest impact, unless you have special use cases, which is what prosumer and server grade SSDs are for. In other words, I would rather speed take a back seat for now and them push for size.
 
We all want the same thing...

An M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 SSD (NVMe). The first memory manufacturer to put this out at a reasonable price (under $1/GB) is going to make a lot of money.

If it's Intel, then so be it.
 
Kardonxt said:
Windows install, titanfall, bf4, 128gb ssd full.

I run a 128 for OS and apps and a 256 for Steam / origin. It's really not enough. If you don't want games on the ssd then a single 128 is a viable option and you can drop steam on a 1tb.
Click to expand...

+1 Almost filled up on my 250gb ssd with OS + games and I have a 2tb hard drive for everything else.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041504049 said:
I don't understand why anyone would need an SSD that large.

Small fast drive for boot and games, mass storage on slower spinning media.

Using huge terabyte sized flash based drives to store static data is just a waste.

My recent builds all just have one small SSD in them, with all the storage on the NAS in the basement.

128GB would be enough, if not for the fact that I dual boot, Windows and Linux, so I have a 256GB drive, which I split half and half.

I probably shouldn't split half an half though, as windows always uses many times more storage space for the same thing.

I could probably get away giving Linux 60GB and the rest to Windows. In fact, I could get away with 15GB for Linux, if not for the Windows 7 virtual machine image I store under it :p
Click to expand...



Wait what?

If I'm going to spend the money on an SSD + a spinning disk why not pony up the extra $$ to get the large SSD? Once the SSD space has run out you end up putting apps on the spinning disk, which begins to defeat the purpose of the whole structure.

Mixing may have been the way to go when SSD's were small and expensive. You're better off knowing that the flash speed is there for all apps rather than some (in this day and age).

If you have an array of spinning disks (as I do) you can always use one of the older / smaller capacity SSDs for caching on RST. Otherwise, the mix-mash makes little sense.
 
As the owner of a 120GB SSD, I can say with 100% certainty that buying a small SSD like 128 or even 256GB is absolutely retarded.
 
They are going to store your information in our brains.

The first patch will corrupt the OS and make it behave erratically.

Nobody will notice.
 
9 days is too long for my attention span, need to make this quicker.
 
Kardonxt said:
Windows install, titanfall, bf4, 128gb ssd full.

I run a 128 for OS and apps and a 256 for Steam / origin. It's really not enough. If you don't want games on the ssd then a single 128 is a viable option and you can drop steam on a 1tb.
Click to expand...

My 128GB Windows 7 partition is sufficient for my gaming needs, but - granted - I'm an adult now, and I don't have the time for games I used to, so I only have a few installed at a time. Right now those are CS GO, Red Orchestra 2 and Civlization V.

Admittedly what works to my benefit here is that my Windows 7 install is for games only, so that 128GB is used only by OS, drivers, utilities and games. No other software or data is installed.

My linux boot is where I do everything else, and Linux is MUCH better at disk use than Windows.

If I did everything in Windows, I'd probably be space constrained too by a 128GB drive, but a 256GB drive would be all I would need. All mass storage would be on my 48TB NAS server :p

I mean I rarely - if ever - find myself going back and forth between games. I play one game and one game only until I finish it (if single player), and then there is no reason to have it installed anymore. Multiplayer games and games with good replay value stay installed a little longer, but more than 3-4 games at the same time has never been something I've done.
 
dandragonrage said:
As the owner of a 120GB SSD, I can say with 100% certainty that buying a small SSD like 128 or even 256GB is absolutely retarded.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you use your space, but on my work Win7 laptop (only one I can check right now) I have used 60GB between all of my work applications and documents.

Offload my documents and I'm probably down to ~50GB.

Now if this were my home machine, I'd put a boatload of RAM on it and disable the swap file. I'd also get rid of the hibernation file. I have no need for hibernation.

Now we are down to ~36GB used by OS and installed programs. (and I have quite a bunch of installed enterprise software and statistical analysis tools)

That would leave ~90GB for games, if I had a 128GB drive and if I played games on my work laptop.

I could easily fit 3-4 modern titles in that space, and really, who needs more than that at the same time.

If it were a 256GB drive I'd have 220 GB free for games, which really seems quite over the top excessive.

All my data and files would be on a separate spinning disk, with no reduction in real use performance.

Either you use your space very inefficiently, or you are suffering from some sort of irrational disk space anxiety.
 
Zara, you are the only one saying 128GB is enough, so if it is enough for you, that's fine. But you're standing alone here.
 
dandragonrage said:
Zara, you are the only one saying 128GB is enough, so if it is enough for you, that's fine. But you're standing alone here.
Click to expand...
Nah, count me in that too.

It really depends who your audience is as well. For most people on [H], 128GB probably isn't enough.

If you have a laptop shared by multiple people, 128GB may or may not be enough -- just watch out.

If you have a laptop used by only one person and is your average consumer, then yes, 128GB is enough. Most people will go out to Best Buy to buy a large USB flash drive or external harddrive anyway (and it is portable storage not dependent on a very specific computer).

Power user? 128GB might not be enough, and I'm not talking your office power user but rather an engineer power user (ex. does SolidWorks Simulations).

250-256GB might be the end all capacity for just about everyone except for [H] members.
 
dandragonrage said:
Zara, you are the only one saying 128GB is enough, so if it is enough for you, that's fine. But you're standing alone here.
Click to expand...

If you want to sum up my thoughts accurately, I think (looking at all my posts) my take is that a 128GB + hard disks (either local or NAS for data storage) would be tight but usable in Windows, but total overkill in Linux.

256GB + hard disks (either local or NAS for data storage) would be total overkill in either, unless you have a need for 220+GB of games :p

I'm guessing many of you have large quantities of RAM (16+GB) and use the standard swap file and hibernation file settings, making you think you need more storage than you do.

You can easily save 2X your RAM by disabling these. Just make sure you have enough RAM that you'd never run out, or you might find yourself hard locking when you do :p

Amusing fact: When I first set up my current server, in order to do some configuration and testing, I installed Windows 7 on it, before installing ESXi. The 96GB of RAM caused the creation of 192GB of hiberfil.sys + pagefile.sys, and instant low disk space warnings on the 256GB drive I was installing on. Had me really confused until I figured out what was going on :p
 
Wirth'sLaw said:
Wait what?

If I'm going to spend the money on an SSD + a spinning disk why not pony up the extra $$ to get the large SSD? Once the SSD space has run out you end up putting apps on the spinning disk, which begins to defeat the purpose of the whole structure.

Mixing may have been the way to go when SSD's were small and expensive. You're better off knowing that the flash speed is there for all apps rather than some (in this day and age).

If you have an array of spinning disks (as I do) you can always use one of the older / smaller capacity SSDs for caching on RST. Otherwise, the mix-mash makes little sense.
Click to expand...

Hm, because 128G ($50) + 3TB drive on sale ($90) won't even get you a 512G ssd ?

I'm using a $35 128G Silicon Image with a 2TB drive and the combined price is probably around the same price as a 240G ssd. Caching for the win! How well does it work? Ask me in a week (going to be mdraid+bcache+lvm)
 
Once you have a large SSD, there's no going back. I keep about 20 games installed that I honestly do go back and play regularly.
I have a normal 2TB Western Digital Black drive around for image back-ups and backing up old (or important) files but I'd absolutely love a system that had 2 large SSD's instead. Especially if you deal with large files like videos for editing or even just huge images like tradeshow-booth creatives. It makes all the difference in the world.
 
If they cut price and $ per GB in half again, it would be enough to get the mass market to buy more of them and then they would have all the money they need to make worthwhile revolutions in SSD's.:D

I want to see 1TB SSD's for less than $200.

Also, why won't any manufacturer make a 3.5" form factor SSD? It's still a widely used form factor for desktops. With current NAND densities they could easily shove multiple circuit boards full of chips and make 4TB or larger. I'm sure there will be people willing to pay $500 for SSD's of that size.
 
Free soda and fries with every purchase! Super-size you SSD for only $199.99 more! :p
 
Zarathustra[H];1041504049 said:
I don't understand why anyone would need an SSD that large.

Small fast drive for boot and games, mass storage on slower spinning media.

Using huge terabyte sized flash based drives to store static data is just a waste.

My recent builds all just have one small SSD in them, with all the storage on the NAS in the basement.

128GB would be enough, if not for the fact that I dual boot, Windows and Linux, so I have a 256GB drive, which I split half and half.

I probably shouldn't split half an half though, as windows always uses many times more storage space for the same thing.

I could probably get away giving Linux 60GB and the rest to Windows. In fact, I could get away with 15GB for Linux, if not for the Windows 7 virtual machine image I store under it :p
Click to expand...

Do you play video games or do graphical editing??? Some of these damn games take up huge amounts of GB's....BF3/4, ArmA 2/3, Elite Dangerous, etc....I have a 256 GB SSD and it is almost full all the time with nothing but games on it. I have another 256 GB SSD drive with photo and video on it for editing and it is always completely full.
A large drive is a must if you are a gamer, that is unless you only play one game.
 
The timer here is stuck at 09:09:41:18... lol
 
Zarathustra[H];1041504241 said:
If you want to sum up my thoughts accurately, I think (looking at all my posts) my take is that a 128GB + hard disks (either local or NAS for data storage) would be tight but usable in Windows, but total overkill in Linux.

256GB + hard disks (either local or NAS for data storage) would be total overkill in either, unless you have a need for 220+GB of games :p
Click to expand...

I have the 120GB SSD, a 2TB HDD, a 4TB HDD and 4x3TB HDDs in RAID-10 (equivalent) and I'm still unhappy with the 120GB SSD. I could easily fill it with games, and I could easily fill a 256GB with games as well. I end up using the 2TB for most of my games but it's easy to notice the longer load times. I also dual-boot (actually my Windows install has been broken for a couple weeks because Microsoft updates these days keep breaking stuff) and that is also on my 2TB HDD. Compiling software from HDDs is terrible.
 
dandragonrage said:
I have the 120GB SSD, a 2TB HDD, a 4TB HDD and 4x3TB HDDs in RAID-10 (equivalent) and I'm still unhappy with the 120GB SSD. I could easily fill it with games, and I could easily fill a 256GB with games as well. I end up using the 2TB for most of my games but it's easy to notice the longer load times. I also dual-boot (actually my Windows install has been broken for a couple weeks because Microsoft updates these days keep breaking stuff) and that is also on my 2TB HDD. Compiling software from HDDs is terrible.
Click to expand...

Yikes. Yeah, dual booting off of a single 120GB SSD is going to be VERY tight. I did that for years with my first SSD I got in 2010 when 120GB would run you $300, and that was a constant fight against filling up the drive.
 
Fire488 said:
Do you play video games or do graphical editing??? Some of these damn games take up huge amounts of GB's....BF3/4, ArmA 2/3, Elite Dangerous, etc....I have a 256 GB SSD and it is almost full all the time with nothing but games on it. I have another 256 GB SSD drive with photo and video on it for editing and it is always completely full.
A large drive is a must if you are a gamer, that is unless you only play one game.
Click to expand...

I have three games installed now. (CS GO, Red Orchestra 2 and Civilization V), I tend to finish one or a handful of games before moving on to the next. Have never felt the need to have more than 4 installed at any given time. These three are my base I keep coming back to. Other games get installed, finished (or not if I don't like them) and removed again.

I also do photo editing.

My workflow involves dumping my 16G memory card to my SSD. Processing all the images, and then once done, dumping them to my archive on my NAS.

All this fits perfectly fine on my single 256GB SSD, with 128GB partitioned to Windows and 128GB to linux.

I never come even close to filling it.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041504058 said:
Umm.. I got my first 120GB OCZ Agility at a firesale bargain for ~$300 in early 2010. been on SSD's for 5 years now.

I don't know how many years it takes to start calling things "all these years", but 5 doesn't seem like a bad starting point :p
Click to expand...

5 years isn't really all that long, consider that most users here have probably had multicore CPUs longer then that and yet relatively little software actually makes use of them.

I mean, yeah I understand that to someone in their 20's 5 years ago is considered ancient times, but the truth is it isn't. :D
 
As for the whole discussion above that basically boils down to "how big a drive do you really need" I will say, no matter what size drives are offered they will never be big enough as people will install and. download enough to fill whatever drive they have and of course as drives get larger so will game installs, simply because they can.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
5 years isn't really all that long, consider that most users here have probably had multicore CPUs longer then that and yet relatively little software actually makes use of them.

I mean, yeah I understand that to someone in their 20's 5 years ago is considered ancient times, but the truth is it isn't. :D
Click to expand...

Well, fair enough. Yes. 2010 feels like yesterday. Heck sitting in Fenway Park during the World Series win in 86 years in 2004 feels like yesterday.

But 5 years is plural 5 years :p
 
Zarathustra[H];1041504049 said:
I don't understand why anyone would need an SSD that large.

Small fast drive for boot and games, mass storage on slower spinning media.

Using huge terabyte sized flash based drives to store static data is just a waste.

My recent builds all just have one small SSD in them, with all the storage on the NAS in the basement.

128GB would be enough, if not for the fact that I dual boot, Windows and Linux, so I have a 256GB drive, which I split half and half.

I probably shouldn't split half an half though, as windows always uses many times more storage space for the same thing.

I could probably get away giving Linux 60GB and the rest to Windows. In fact, I could get away with 15GB for Linux, if not for the Windows 7 virtual machine image I store under it :p
Click to expand...

Small boot drive SSDs was only the first step that we took due to the high price. I have already moved 2 of my computers over to pure SSD systems where the storage drives are 500 GB SSDs. I fully hope and intend for all computers to get completely rid of mechanical drives. Even storage drives hold things like games and such that can benefit from SSDs. Actually all my important files are always stored on the extra storage drive. We need to see the price of high capacity drives come down to achieve this. On top of that many people have laptops or smaller devices that only house a single drive be it 2.5" or m2. These people also want large drives.
 
I'm waiting somewhat impatiently for the 512GB BX100 to fall below $150, at which point I'll jump. I'm uncomfortable in terms of available space on my 160GB drive, but not enough to drop that kind of cash.
 
rudy said:
Small boot drive SSDs was only the first step that we took due to the high price. I have already moved 2 of my computers over to pure SSD systems where the storage drives are 500 GB SSDs. I fully hope and intend for all computers to get completely rid of mechanical drives. Even storage drives hold things like games and such that can benefit from SSDs. Actually all my important files are always stored on the extra storage drive. We need to see the price of high capacity drives come down to achieve this. On top of that many people have laptops or smaller devices that only house a single drive be it 2.5" or m2. These people also want large drives.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe price is the main sticking point right now, another article just posted on [H] this afternoon points out that only about 1/3 of new PC sold today even have an SSD, this despite the price per GB dropping like a rock over the last couple years.
 
dandragonrage said:
Zara, you are the only one saying 128GB is enough, so if it is enough for you, that's fine. But you're standing alone here.
Click to expand...
For my use case, 128GB is fine. Over half my SSDs are 128GB. I find that honestly, even that amount is more than I need. Hell, my main gaming rig has a 256GB SSD, and 125GB free.
 
All depends on the person. Many games being 20-50GB without mods etc can eat up a 128 or 256 drive in no time, not including OS and other programs. My laptop I use for work (no games etc) came with a 128GB, blew through that in no time, went with a 256 and now that is at the limit. This is all word/excel/photos, the kind of stuff I WANT on the SSD, for searching a viewing reasons. If I was not worried about space like I am now, I could come close to filling up a 500GB drive on that laptop without really trying, as it is I keep allot of stuff just on the server and no personal games/programs.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
Also, why won't any manufacturer make a 3.5" form factor SSD? It's still a widely used form factor for desktops. With current NAND densities they could easily shove multiple circuit boards full of chips and make 4TB or larger. I'm sure there will be people willing to pay $500 for SSD's of that size.
Click to expand...

Cost...the more form factors there are, the more it costs for R&D, supplies, manufacturing (multiple tooling/lines/runs and labor), inventory carrying costs, transportation & distribution, and support. Simplification is a sound way to decrease costs and overhead in just about all those areas.

Besides, there is already a 4TB 2.5" SSD available; and we should see that capacity doubled soon. Certainly not bargain-priced, but neither were SSD's that were thousands of dollars for mere MEGAbytes of capacity (from approx. 20 years ago).
 
Robstar said:
Hm, because 128G ($50) + 3TB drive on sale ($90) won't even get you a 512G ssd ?

I'm using a $35 128G Silicon Image with a 2TB drive and the combined price is probably around the same price as a 240G ssd. Caching for the win! How well does it work? Ask me in a week (going to be mdraid+bcache+lvm)
Click to expand...



Caching was a good spot for me when SSDs were too expensive and I already had the spinning disks. I honestly didn't expect much, but I have been pleasantly surprised. Once the system has been used enough to get the cache going it's real pleasant experience.

A 512GB SSD for 140 bucks... nope.

For a little over 200 bucks... yes

(http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-2-5-I...F8&qid=1427228180&sr=8-2&keywords=samsung+evo)


Obviously it's personal opinion here, as many of the posts here go to either side. Workload and timing is the key to the choice made. There's not a wrong answer, and I always try to pick people's brains because I'm curious.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top