SSD HDDs

Russell S said:
Why do you say that? I have an ageing laptop that I want to speed up with a SSD. Are the SATA 3 drives more reliable?
Click to expand...

Nope but they are the latest tech so you get almost double the r/w speeds which for the average person isn't going to mean much but for certain programs it is a huge difference.

I just said buy sata 3 purely because you don't want to upgrade or use it for something and find yourself limited to a sata 2 drive when you have a sata 3 port available. So just make sure you buy sata 3 and don't buy old sata 2 stock. For your use sata 2 or 3 won't make much difference unless you use corel, photoshop etc.

For everyday basic use, games etc the r/w speeds make no difference but it is the programs i mentioned when exporting, importing etc that you will see the difference.
 
In my honest opinion SSDs are hyped up as it is.

Realistically, you getting about 5/12ms extra with speed it takes to run and boot and yet most SSDs are out the budget range of the average Joe costs as much as a TB barracuda lolz.

And when SSDs fail, you can forget about retrieving that data back. No one here caters for that.

If I was someone, concerned (and I am) about data, and or, not fussed with a few seconds of speed, I would opt using a regular disk drive. Their prices are reasonable and offer much more space.

I actually did a simple test running two machine side by side containing the same specs booting off a normal disk drive and an SSD, the SSD was only a fraction much quicker and really made no difference. Wait till they increase the capacity and prices come down.
 
Burzum said:
And when SSDs fail, you can forget about retrieving that data back. No one here caters for that.
Click to expand...

Data recovery is most certainly catered for in terms of SSD, but the success rate is much lower and pricing is many times more expensive.

Burzum said:
I actually did a simple test running two machine side by side containing the same specs booting off a normal disk drive and an SSD, the SSD was only a fraction much quicker and really made no difference.
Click to expand...

You testing mechanism is flawed. I recently upgraded a machine which ran off a 2TB 3.5" 5,900 RPM drive, it used to boot into Win 7 and, with Skype loaded and signed in, it was 2min 11sec.

Installing a 60GB cache SSD into that machine (leaving the 2TB in, just adding a cache drive) brought the boot time down to 1min 5 sec, exactly half, after 2 restarts so the cache could learn what was needed.

So that's twice as quick boot time, just installing a cache drive. Pure SSD would be even quicker.
 
Dolby - just buy a big one. Regardless of what size you buy you'll regret not buying a bigger one.

Burzum said:
the SSD was only a fraction much quicker and really made no difference.
Click to expand...
Never. It makes a massive difference. Its pretty much guaranteed to halve the boot time if not more. You're doing something very wrong...
 
I'm thinking of a 90GB ... I don't do much on it.

So Windows, MS Office, mail, browser etc will be on it - and maybe Photoshop Elements, Picassa and a few other small programs. 90GB should be enough?

I have 6TB storage on my HP for movies, movies etc
 
Dolby said:
I'm thinking of a 90GB ... I don't do much on it.

So Windows, MS Office, mail, browser etc will be on it - and maybe Photoshop Elements, Picassa and a few other small programs. 90GB should be enough?

I have 6TB storage on my HP for movies, movies etc
Click to expand...

90 should be fine. There's hardly any price difference to the 120GB ones though.
 
SouthBit said:
Data recovery is most certainly catered for in terms of SSD, but the success rate is much lower and pricing is many times more expensive.



You testing mechanism is flawed. I recently upgraded a machine which ran off a 2TB 3.5" 5,900 RPM drive, it used to boot into Win 7 and, with Skype loaded and signed in, it was 2min 11sec.

Installing a 60GB cache SSD into that machine (leaving the 2TB in, just adding a cache drive) brought the boot time down to 1min 5 sec, exactly half, after 2 restarts so the cache could learn what was needed.

So that's twice as quick boot time, just installing a cache drive. Pure SSD would be even quicker.
Click to expand...

That's because you were using a 5,900 RPM drive... Not a 7200 RPM. Test that first before coming at someone with irrelevant data.

There's not much of a difference.



HavocXphere said:
Never. It makes a massive difference. Its pretty much guaranteed to halve the boot time if not more. You're doing something very wrong...
Click to expand...

That's so incredibly fantastic!!!

OMG.... I think I need some champagne to celebrate.
 
Burzum said:
That's because you were using a 5,900 RPM drive... Not a 7200 RPM. Test that first before coming at someone with irrelevant data.

There's not much of a difference.

That's so incredibly fantastic!!!

OMG.... I think I need some champagne to celebrate.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant data? I own a data recovery company, I live and breath hard drives, I think I know what I'm talking about. Irrelevant data? Do you know anything at all? Platter density is so much more of a factor than RPM these days, hence the reason Seagate just stopped making 7,200RPM 2.5" drives.

My word, grow up. Go to a forum that entertains childish idiots like yourself.
 
NAG - Wesley said:
Add ADATA and Transcend to that list, especially in the case of Transcend's SSD720 family. Very fast drives, those.



The 335 series is on sale everywhere I look, although Intel's a popular brand so they get snapped up quickly.
Click to expand...

I have the 128GB 720 series and its amazing.

Upgraded from a IDE drive :P You can imagine the difference ;)

Well that and an i7, gtx680 and 32gb ram.

Otherwise blazing fast :)
 
SouthBit said:
My word, grow up. Go to a forum that entertains childish idiots like yourself.
Click to expand...

My what strong language.

Quite frankly, all you uttered in this thread is a lot of bull****. lolz, But then again that "data company" of yours you feel you need to advertise a little.

If you have such a big mouth about it, then prove it. Show us some sources and testimonies. Otherwise shut up you have no idea what you on about kid.
 
SouthBit said:
Data recovery is most certainly catered for in terms of SSD, but the success rate is much lower and pricing is many times more expensive.



You testing mechanism is flawed. I recently upgraded a machine which ran off a 2TB 3.5" 5,900 RPM drive, it used to boot into Win 7 and, with Skype loaded and signed in, it was 2min 11sec.

Installing a 60GB cache SSD into that machine (leaving the 2TB in, just adding a cache drive) brought the boot time down to 1min 5 sec, exactly half, after 2 restarts so the cache could learn what was needed.

So that's twice as quick boot time, just installing a cache drive. Pure SSD would be even quicker.
Click to expand...

+1 As for recovering data off a ssd it becomes more complicated than a normal spinner, it's not impossible but there aint any guarantees either. You gonna need surface mount desoldering tools and hoping for the best to reconstruct the data.
 
Burzum said:
I've probably used more SSDs then fingers on your hands son.

You probably have only one and now you trying to make the world of it.

How pathetic.
Click to expand...

Not that I need defend to myself but I have been using SSDs for years.

My last laptop I swapped out one of the hard drives for an SSD the day I got it.
 
Burzum said:
That's so amazingly significant.
Click to expand...

Cold Boot

Results:
HDD: 70s
SSD: 41s

Restart and Warm Boot

Results:
HDD: 77s
SSD: 53s

Software Load Tests

Load AutoCAD Mechanical 2012 up to when the Exchange window pops up.

Results:
HDD: 49s
SSD: 14s

Load 3D Studio Max 2012 up to when the welcome window pops up.

Results:
HDD: 50s
SSD: 15s
Click to expand...
Because we all work on 386's right? Who needs more speed out of their PC's?

Go on now, it is 10PM. Time for you to go to bed, it is school tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X