Help a SSD noob

After a month of posting and reading around the forum I've finally decided to get the Dell XPS 15. Anyway right now i am debating if i should get myself an SSD. Dell offers an Samsung 256gb SSD. I have some questions and would really appreciate all help-
1. How much of a general performance difference does a SSD offer, apart from boot time i mean. I multitask a lot, will it help?
2. What model does Dell offer(i think most probably 470 series)?
3. How good is the Samsung SSD. The upgrade is a 500USD upgrade. Getting an SSD aftermarket and installing it myself isn't an option because I am buying in India and SSDs here are not cheap. A 256gb Samsung SSD costs over 700USD out here. But Dell offers the upgrade at the same price they offer it in the US so it is much cheaper from Dell. How does the Samsung SSD compares to newer SATA 3 SSDs out there.
4. If i do get the SSD, how do i create a new partition as it'll come with only a single partition. On an HDD i used to Defrag it and then create a partition but i understand that Defragging a SSD can cause a loss of performance. Will i have to install windows again?
5. I read that SSD performance deteriorates with time and i need to use a function called TRIM, can you please elaborate what is this. Is this enabled by default or do i need to do it myself.
6. Anything else about SSDs that i should know about, any other ways that it is different than a HDD.
Thnx. I know there are a lot of questions but I really need some advice from the pros

 

Way too many questions.

1. In general SSDs you will notice much more snappyness when opening programs, rebooting, shutting down etc. You will notice that the programs will start faster when multitasking. You can see this video from "niithegoat" where he opens up lots of programs to get some sort of idea.
YouTube - Macbook Pro 15" 2011 - boot up opening applications - i7 2.3Ghz, 8GB RAM, Vertex 3 SATA III

2. Samsung 470.

3. It is a very good SATA 2 SSD. It is faster than Intel X25-M and is just about as stable and reliable as Intel SSDs. You can see a comparison chart here: http://forum.notebookreview.com/solid-state-drives-ssds-flash-storage/564939-comparison-chart-ssds.html
It is a lot slower than the new generation SATA 3 drives (Vertex 3, Crucial M4, Intel 510). All of these drives are new and there are very limited experience with them, so nobody knows about reliability etc yet. There are many reviews out there where you can see their awesome speeds. Vertex 3 240 GB cost the same as the Samsung drive, Intel about $100 more, dont know about M4. If you want to "gamble" and want faster speed than Samsung, you can buy one of these.

5. If you delete files on your SSD, the blocks can remain in the state "used", and for everytime you need to use that block, it will have to read the block, delete the data on it and rewrite on it. This will degrade the performance of the drive and it will get slower. TRIM is a function within Windows 7 that goes over the blocks and identify them so that the garbage collection can delete the data on them when you and the operating system deletes a file so that when you need to write stuff on the SSD it will not have to go throught the whole process of read, delete and rewrite.

6. You could go through this guide when setting up the computer for the first time The SSD Optimization Guide | The SSD Review

 

Since the other questions were answered, I'll expand on these 2.

4) You can create a partition just the way you would on any regular hard drive, through management utilities. The only major difference from a HDD is that you should not run defrag utilities at all, otherwise just use it as a regular HDD.

5) TRIM is automatically handled with the proper OS and SSD that support it. This would be Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 R2, Linux 2.6.33, OpenSolaris, and FreeBSD 8.2. There are manual TRIM utilities available as well.

 

Thanks guys, that pretty much cleared all my doubts.
+1 rep for both of you.
Another thing what is the average life of a SSD. And even if i use TRIM is their deterioration of performance with time

 

Just out of curiosity since you posted a lot of OS that do support trim. Do you know if Windows Home Server 2011 will? i mean is based on Server 2008 so i would assume so, but not 100% sure.

 

I just pulled a list off the 'net. I would assume so too, but I couldn't tell you for sure.

Edit - Actually, as an update, Server 2008 doesn't, while Server 2008 R2 specifically does... so I guess it depends on which of the 2 it was actually based off of, and/or whether or not they added support.

 

1) General performance difference?

Considering that you don't specify what you'll be using your system for... I'll try to cover all the bases:


Not much.

Not compared to a properly setup 7200 RPM (WD Scorpio Black 750GB, Seagate XT Hybrid 500GB, Hitachi 7K500 500GB...) HDD; one that has been optimally partititoned and defragged.

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...-hitachi-7k500-benchmark-setup-specifics.html


Certainly not $500 worth (no matter how much you try to convince yourself).


On the other hand, multitasking:

Have you opted for a true quad core cpu?

Have you maximimized the RAM in your new system (8GB is 'my' current minimum (since 2007) along with Win7x64 Ultimate - next system purchase will be 16GB minimum)?

If you have all the above in order (quad core + 8GB+ RAM) then an SSD will not be a 'must have' item - unless you're dealing with multiple, large PDF's, databases, vm's, etc. (with multiple vm's; you'll benefit more from more RAM than from a faster storage system). If you have 16GB+ RAM, then an SSD will only make a marginal performance increase in real-world multitasking (unless you're opening and closing your programs all the time vs. just leaving the programs open).



Another point to keep in mind with SSD's: if you need to use all 256GB of space (~238GB 'actual' in Windows for the Samsung 470 256GB model) then don't expect the performance to be the same as when you were only using 50% or less of the capacity.

Also, keep in mind how many TB's (terabytes) you write to the system (raw image processing/video editing...) - no current SSD I have tested can sustain any performance increase over a 7200 RPM HDD and still provide an overall performance increase with the limited capacity they offer (taking into account time to move/copy finished work to other storage solutions).

The new SSD's (Intel 510 Series - 250GB model) are rated for 15TB of 'lifetime' writes. In my usage scenario (high volume, high resolution raw image editing) this would equate to about 1 or 2 months of use before I should expect the drive to 'die' and/or be replaced. (I wrote over 3TB of data to a SandForce based Patriot Inferno in ~2 weeks in 'limited testing' and saw the performance plummet below HDD levels).



Am I suggesting with all of the above that you shouldn't get an SSD?

The answer to that question will be found in your truthful assessment of how you will use your system.


If you need to use the whole capacity of the SSD (no matter what that capacity is...);
if you are 'heavily' writing to the drive constantly (and don't forget that it is not only what 'you' write - it is also what the O/S needs to write too...);
if the $500 you're willing to spend on an SSD is not better put towards: a better CPU, RAM or GPU;
if you can use the smaller capacity but will need to be constantly moving/copying files off the 'puny' SSD;

Then, no - an SSD is not in your best interest.


On the other hand:

If you will be using less than ~50-60% of the capacity;
if you have a mostly 'read' and a low/normal 'write' usage scenario;
if you value 'snap' more than any true performance (i.e. 'productivity') gains;
if you are constantly moving your system (while powered on) and the possiblity of a HDD physical/mechanical error is high;
if you have maxxed out (for your usage patterns) all the other options on your system (including; monitor resolution/quality, cpu/gpu, RAM and expansion/docking station options;
if you have $500 burning a hole in your pocket/wallet;

Then, yes - an SSD will give you the 'next' step in the computing experience.


I don't know if this is what you wanted to hear - but this is what I've found out the hard way (time (20+months) & $$$$) - hope you get want you need from it.



A couple of additional notes:

Two more recent (SSD) clients of mine:

1) Needed something more durable (SSD! Her HDD had just died) and hopefully something that also speeded up her 18 month old system. Suggested a 128GB SSD and client agreed for ~$200. 2 months later (very light usage pattern, less than 70% filled and only 0.6 TB's written to drive) client is still not 'sold' on SSD's as a 'performance' improvement. Very happy with the durability though. Still wishing she had her $200 back (overall) - even though she understood that she barely paid more than $100 over a 'good', replacement HDD.

2) Experienced client with workstation class machine. Moved from a single HDD to a dual SSD based system - was very impressed with bootup/shutdown (as we all are...) times, but after 4 weeks still could not see any productivity benefits from his HDD setup (though he notices and still appreciates the 'snap' the system has - it hasn't made him any more productive - but impresses his clients with how fast the system is usable from a 'cold' boot. Each of his 120GB SSD's are less than 40% filled, 0.4 and 0.2 TB written.


Again: not trying to convince either way: just trying to give an unbiased opinion of the state of storage sub-systems and how they affect performance (snap vs. an actual increase in productivity).

If you frequently startup and shutdown your system in different locations each day, then an SSD has an immediate 'usabilty' edge just from that point - if you simply use it for hours at a time (same with each program you launch - instead of repeatedly closing/opening it each time) then the main benefits of an SSD become less clear.

Curious to hear about your actual usage model and the specific configuration of your new XPS too.

 

I am gonna opt for the 2630qm and 8 gigs of ram. And if i dont get the ssd I might opt for the 2720qm. I store a lot of multimedia(movies,songs etc) on my computer, but if i do get the SSD I'd be willing to move all that stuff onto a external hard drive. I am a bit concerned about the life of an SSD. Will it last me 4 yrs.

 

Did anyone tell you that you're absolutely terrifying? Lol, I guess I'm just going to have to wait, until the prices drop to ridiculous levels (maybe $1.20 per GB?) until I go ahead and buy a high-capacity SSD (150GB+).

Mr. Mysterious

 

General performance difference? SSDs are much faster. For example: they load applications about 3 times faster than a fast hard drive. In multi tasking scenario's the differences become bigger.

This review shows more examples:
http://www.laptopmag.com/review/storage/intel-ssd-320.aspx

Another review shows more examples. Also consider the Seagate Momentus XT. It combines SSD and hard drive.

Ps. don't be fooled by Tiller's long post. A Samsung 470 SSD will beat any 7200rpm in any metric possible except price.

 

Hey! Can we tone down 'absolutely terrifying' to 'brutally realistic'?

150GB is not 'high-capacity' enough when all areas of a storage subsystem are important. I think that in 2nd Quarter 2011, 500GB is barely passing (for me at least). That is why I bought sight/benchmarks unseen the 750GB Scorpio Black (and still don't have time to properly install/use it).

When/if SSD's not only compete for $/GB AND they compete in total capacity offered will they be the 'default' option.

For an $1,100 600GB SSD I could have a dedicated system to simply convert my raw files (and I don't care how long it would take...) along with my other, main 'work' systems with 14TB of online storage. Not only will I experience greater 'snap' - I will also be more productive too - compared to a single system running the 600GB SSD...

See:
Intel 320 Series GEN3 600GB 2.5IN SSD SATA2 Solid State Disk Flash Drive OEM: SSDSA2CW600G310 at BEST PRICE

OH, sorry! More scaring above?

Not my intention - just the cold hard facts.

 

Yes no problem. Even if you're a very heavy user that writes 50GB per day every day it should last >5 years.

http://www.storagereview.com/demystifying_ssd_endurance

 

You still are not giving your usage model. I'll assume here that it is fairly 'light' and/or 'moderate'.

With the two options for the cpu - I would only be considering the 2720qm. Especially if you are using VM's and/or need fast AES encryption options or possibly even the Intel My WiFi technology (all built in to the 2720qm and not into the 2630qm).

See:
Intel® Core? i7-2630QM Processor (6M Cache, 2.00 GHz)with SPEC Code(s)SR02Y

See:
Intel® Core? i7-2720QM Processor (6M Cache, 2.20 GHz)with SPEC Code(s)SR00W, SR014



With the multimedia (i.e. 'highly compressed data') - don't even consider a SandForce based SSD - not if real performance is your criteria.

Don't think that having and lugging around an external is 'easy' - it may be for you, but think long and hard of where you might want to use your new system (possibly in one hand - if space is really tight... or, needing to setup on a table/desktop to have it fully operational).

As for the longetivity (caution: guesses ahead), sure, it'll even last longer than 4 yrs with your (assumed) light/moderate usage scenario.

The question is: will it last as long as your need for continually greater capacity (probably not, considering that media files just keep getting bigger, not smaller).

So, how much of an upgrade ($$$) is it to the 2720qm?



Another possible angle:

How much more than $500 plus the cost of a Scorpio Black 750 + your time (to clone the SSD to the HDD) can you sell this SSD in your country for?

This way, not only can you see first hand what 'benefits' an SSD will offer you directly - but you may even make some money on this too (just be sure to order the XPS with the better cpu too).

Hope I have been some help.

Good luck.

 

Thanks for the help. Honestly, though helpful, tillers post was absolutely terrifying. Now I think I am gonna go ahead and get one. Just one last question, In the 256gb SSD should I only fill 50-70% of total capacity to get good performance ??

 

Naw, nothing to be scared about (its only money).

Just like a HDD, an SSD is sensitive (performance-wise) to how much data it is storing. A HDD slows down because it is being forced to use the slowest part of the (physical) disk platters (the 'inner' tracks).

An SSD slows down because it has to do much, much more work to not only write the new data down, but to effectively juggle what it is writing with where it is writing it too. Along with taking into consideration things like 'how many times has this cell being written to, already' and 'how can I most effectively re-arrange the data (constantly, with each new write request) so that all cells are written to evenly'.

The exact % is not a science - but simply based on my observation with widely different (controllers/brands) of SSD's. Except for the new models available now (along with the Samsung 470 you're considering) - which I haven't tested myself - they have all slowed down dramatically (in heavy use) from 50% to 70% filled. How dramatically? Below HDD levels. Ouch.

If you're opting for an SSD for 'snap' then to enjoy that 'snap' as long as possible I still wouldn't recommend filling it much over 50% - but that's just me (I can percieve very small differences in 'feel', I've been told). YMMV.

 

Your SSD will not get slower, even when you fill it to 80%.

It's traditional hard drives that get slower as they fill up.

 

Both of you are giving the exact opposite answers and I am getting more confused whether I should get the SSD or not.
Yeah that selling option is a good one but I don't think I'd be able to sell the SSD at a good price cause there is no market for a 256gb ssd where I live, and thus the price of a used one will not be too high. There are no 256gb SSDs available right now out here, they're only available on eBay. I don't think I'd get a good price on the SSD even if I am willing to find a buyer. A new one costs 780$ on eBay and even if I were selling at 600$ no one would buy it and those looking for a 256gb SSD would prefer to get a new one.
The upgrade to 2720qm is a hefty 250$ here, so I figured why not spend double of that to get an SSD and hence I started this thread after about am hour of research as I had absolutely no plans to go for an SSD. The only thing I knew about SSDs before.
To give an idea of my usage- I currently have a 250gb HDD in my laptop but that is not my primary machine, my primaryachone is my desktop which has 500gb of storage. At this tome both my laptop and desktop storage is full, but that is bcoz I have been lazy and it has almost been a month since I transferred my files from HDD to my external hard drive. I usually have 50% of space occupied on my desktop and somewhere between 20-30% on my laptop. But the XPS will be my primary machine and I'll be taking it to college. What I'd usually do is I download music and movies onto my HDD and then transfer them to the external drive. The only stuff on my laptop/ desktop hdds is the games and applications installed, and a few songs that I listen to frequently, my main collection is on my external hard drive. My external hard drives are the reason I have never really felt the need to replace my desktop amd laptop hdds. I currently have a 1.5 tb external HDD, half of which is filled. All of that 750gb of data was once on my pc or laptop before getting transferred onto the External. This 750gigs of data is a collection of around 3yrs.

 

I won't say you need to buy an SSD. I say consider the SSD option, the HDD and the Seagate Momentus XT.

The SSD has distinct performance benefits over HDDs. Just read the reviews I showed you on Laptopmag, Notebookreview and Hardwareheaven. There's no arguing with the hard numbers. Did you read them?

Is it worth $500? That's a question we can not answer for you.
Will it increase your productivity? it depends.

And an SSD doesn't get significantly slower when you fill it to 80% with your usage.

Tillerofthearth is an extreme user that writes terabytes of data to his SSD in a short time frame. His situation is very different to your situation.

 

Yeah, depends on how you use it - an SSD will be a 'buy' or an 'avoid' item.

$250 to jump to the 2720qm... hmmm.... for college use... - no, not worth it. Unless you're studying anything that is compute intensive.

With an SSD and college use - yes, I could see that being worth considering for the durabilty aspect vs. a HDD. But nowhere close to $500 worth (like insurance, if you don't use it (make a claim) - you've wasted it (it=$$$)). For that kind of money, you can get a ThinkPAD class machine and have same day service. But, I understand - you still won't have an SSD.

With a single external HDD with many, many files on it being the only copy/version in existence - I would seriously consider a second external as a backup. Right now you have nothing if any one of your 3 HDD's goes.

$500 less the cost of another external or two (as a true backup solution) is what I would be putting towards your college studies and/or towards your next system in around 3 yrs time. Unless your external data is all (easily) reproducible; then (assuming 'throw away' data) I would put all $500 towards studies/next system.

Good luck.

 

Some more hard numbers. This is a benchmark I ran on a Patriot Inferno SSD 120GB, the first screenshot is of the drive less than 50% full. The second screenshot is of the drive at 95% full after 55GB was written to it in a matter of minutes. Notice the lack of performance drop.

 

I think it is very interesting and useful to have people with opposite views on a forum. Good to have you here tilleroftheearth. I appriciate your input on all SSD discussions although you sometime come very strong on the whole "HDDs are much better" agenda

Anyhow to you OP. I do pretty much only light or medium usage with my X25-M G2 SSD. Occasionally gaming, surfing the web, watching movies etc. I rarely use photoshop, almost never transfer big files that can utilize the whole Read/Write speeds SSD have. But i see a BIG difference between this SSD and the 7200 RPM HDDs i had before. It is so much more fluent. Hard to explain it. I will never ever ever ever ever ever go back to HDDs if that helps you

 

This is a zero filled test and zero filled test has special meaning on SF based drive.

 

Point stays the same: similar performance at 50% full and 95%.

And yes we all know the problem Sandforce drives have with incompressible data.

 

It is not just about incompressible data. If you really want to test the difference between 50% fill to 90% fill. Try with something like 30% compressible data(that is the typical compression ratio for a typical installation). Using 0 fill on SF simply means NOTHING.

 

I disagree, it says something. Also the fact that 4K performance stayed the same says something.

But we're getting off topic. Let's focus on helping the OP with his questions.

 

Phil,

I know you're wanting to stay on topic, but I really want to ask about your benches.

If you

• Allocated 1% to 2% more (File set A) to go to 96-97%
• Deleted the fluff that took you from 47-95%
• Filled it back to 95% (File set B)
• Created 1% to 2% more (File set C)
• Deleted the files from A, B, and C.

And now run a bench. Same results?

What I'm getting at is if you go through a full cycle of allocation, does the drive degrade on any bench? This would somewhat mirror tiller's usage.

 

Even that is not going to show the true picture. What affects the performance are what kind of holes are left(i.e. fragmentation, not about the file system but the internal NAND addressable space). And even one can repeat that 0 fill on a SF drive is still not a good test because it doesn't need to scramble around for the actual NAND space. Why I suggest try a 20-30% compressable data set.

As for whether this is off topic, I believe the OP asked if he should fill it to more than X %.

 

I can't tell you because I no longer have that drive in my possession.

The only SSD I have right now is a the one in my Macbook Air and I'd rather not go through all the work.

In the SSD thread there are some benchmarks done by Davepermen of his Intel SSDs not showing lower performance when >90% full.

To answer the question the OP asked "In the 256gb SSD should I only fill 50-70% of total capacity to get good performance ??"

It will be fast even when it's 80~90% full.

 

Ok so the SSD performance will be good even if it is 80-90% full. Either way i dont think more than 50% will be filed at a time cause I'll keep transferring data to the external HDD. For those who think filling it up will affect performance- I'll fill up the ssd to 80-90% before I transfer data to external ssd. So after the data has been reduced will performance be restored back to normal??
I checked out Philips's review comparing the SSDs and the Momentus XT with a a general 7200rpm HDD, and i am impressed and i think getting an SSD will be worth the price. I also haggled with Dell and was able to reduce to price by 400$ thus making the SSD a practically free upgrade. So at 1700USD i am getting the following system :-
PROCESSOR- Intel® Core™ i7-2630QM processor 2.00 GHz with Turbo Boost 2.0 up to 2.90 GHz
OPERATING SYSTEM-Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium 64bit
DISPLAY 15.6" (39.6cm) FHD (1920x1080) B+RGLED display with TrueLife™
MEMORY- 8GB Dual-channel 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM (2 x 4G)
HARD DRIVE- 256GB Solid State Hard Drive
OPTICAL DRIVE- Tray Load Fixed Blu-ray BD-ROM / DVD + /-RW Combo Drive edit
VIDEO CARD- 2GB NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 540M graphics with Optimus
BATTERIES- 6 Cell Primary Battery
WIRELESS NETWORK CARD- Intel® Centrino® Advanced-N 6230 with Bluetooth v3.0+HS
KEYBOARD- Dell™ Backlit Keyboard (English)

 

Sounds like a good configuration, but unless you're dead-set on Dell, I'd recommend Sager, which has a good system and great reliability. Plus, the resellers' customer service is good.

You can get a much better GPU (460M, 485M, 6970M vs 540M or 555M, unless you need optimus specifically) and a similar size SSD for much cheaper.

Just a thought.

Mr. Mysterious

 

Yes it will.

While performance stays virtually the same when it's 90% full, there is a benefit to not keeping your SSD always at 90% full. When you're SSD is 90% full, there's only a small space left to be used. When you're using your computer the SSD will be overwriting the same NANDs over and over again. So over time it's better to keep your SSD at lower levels of capacity.

 

Hardly. I have a Samsung 470 64GB in my X120e, and at one point when I had several large video files on it, it was around 75% full. Having transferred those files to an external HDD, I'm a hair under 50% full right now. I can say that I've noticed absolutely no performance difference between when I installed my drive (with around 25-30% used after programs installed), when I peaked at 75% full, and my current state. Boot time is just as fast, programs launch just as quickly.

For what it's worth, I've had similar experiences with my X25-M 80GB SSD in my T500. I can quite confidently say that for these two SSDs at least, there's very minimal to no performance degradation at 50-80% fill capacity.

 

Another example. This is the SSD in a Macbook Air. It uses a Toshiba controller.

Performance at 50% full (30/60GB).

Disk Test 238.72
Sequential 155.80
Uncached Write 220.95 135.66 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 281.63 159.35 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 67.73 19.82 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 353.04 177.44 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 510.30
Uncached Write 297.90 31.54 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 506.90 162.28 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 1149.03 8.14 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 610.29 113.24 MB/sec [256K blocks]

Performance at 90% full (54/60GB)

Disk Test 227.10
Sequential 147.59
Uncached Write 192.75 118.34 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 265.00 149.94 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 66.32 19.41 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 326.68 164.19 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 492.30
Uncached Write 297.96 31.54 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 508.35 162.74 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 1085.81 7.69 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 531.66 98.65 MB/sec [256K blocks]

Conclusion: This SSD has less than 5% performance degradation at 90% full. With that degradation it's still much faster than any HDD.

 

So no performance difference with increased capacity at all. That is good to hear.

Even i would have loved the Sager if only they had been available in India. But even then the NP5160 with a similar configuration and a 300gb G3 SSD it costs 1700$. Pretty much the same. Also Dell service is undoubtedly the best in India. I have owned 2 Dells and an Hp, my dad even has the thinkpad. Dell easily beats Lenovo and HP on all aspects.

 

Just an update worth noting:

When I'm suggesting that a drive's performance dives when it reaches greater than 50% filled, I'm assuming my work pattern on it (just because it's full - doesn't mean I slow down - on the contrary; it is filling up because I am producing so much more new content...).

What everyone else is talking about here is simply filling the drive to greater than ~70% and benchmarking (this is a four letter word to me!) to 'prove' it is the same (performance). Worse - even with real world 'proof' - it is still (only) using the drive at slightly above 'idle' levels of performance (compared to how I push storage subsystems).

Nothing wrong with that - but I'm not interested in 'light'/'idle' usage levels of pushing the storage subsystem - I'm interested in sustained performance at the edges of the drives performance envelope.

Karant-rex, that is a good config, I agree.

To make your system more balanced I would still have included the more fully spec'd cpu instead of the SSD though. You have to wonder why they are giving it (SSD) for effectively 'free'? In my opinion - that could be indicating its true value?

Glad we were all able to (indirectly) get you further savings on your new system and an even better understanding of SSD's.

Wishing you all the best in college!

 

What everyone else is doing is answering the OP's question. He asked if performance will go down as he fills up the drive.

What you're doing is discussing your specific problems with SSDs that are unique to your workload. They have nothing to do with his situation.

Next time try to give advice for the OP's situation.

Well said.

 

Ohhhh right! I forgot you were in India! My bad. Enjoy your new Dell It's still a great machine, and hope you can make a decision about the SSD soon.

Mr. Mysterious

 

Yeah I am gonna get the SSD, especially cause of the the great deal, and the improved performance of course. Thanks for all your help guys.

 

I think this is really the key point. Tilleroftheearth approaches this from a work standpoint. There's nothing wrong with that (I think Abbidderman also approaches it from that angle, although he disagrees with Tilleroftheearth), but the fact of the matter is that I would guess that 80% or more of the people here don't care about an SSD from a work perspective; they're buying a SSD precisely because it is a "toy", and they want to enhance their "toy". In that respect, the forum here is more like a "hot rodder's" community than anything else; we talk about upgrades that enhance our enjoyment of our machines, not necessarily upgrades that make our machines substantially better (better in this case meaning capable of doing more work).

I'm not trying to pick on you, Tilleroftheearth, but just trying to point out that most of the people that ask for advice on SSDs here don't really care about doing work on their machines; they just want their machines to "feel better" so they can have more fun with them. And I think that's something they often miss when they read your posts; they think that the fact that you see no gains (to your productivity, but they miss that part) "scares" them into thinking that they won't feel any improvement at all (especially with your comment about SSDs being reduced to performance below HDD levels... which I can understand given your workflow, but for the uses of 98% of the people here won't happen... unless the SSD is defective, at which point there are obviously other issues involved).

So I guess in a sense what I'm trying to say is that it's sort of like you saying you shouldn't buy a sports car... because it gets worse gas mileage and can't haul as much cargo as a pickup. The thing is, all a lot of people hear from your arguments is the "don't get a sports car, get a pickup". For someone that just wants to have fun driving around town, as opposed to doing "work", you can see how it kind of misses the point.

 

Treat the readers as mature, intelligent person(I don't think they would be 'scared') and provide information(opionion associated is fine but please make it clear as opinion rather than universal facts). Let them decide.

As mentioned tiller's experience is just as valid as others who said 'I would never go back to HDD again'.

 

From this thread here (edited version, note the original version quoted in tilleroftheearth's post immediately below it:

and here:

I probably wasn't entirely clear in my post either, I admit. My point was more on the level that for those of us that know tilleroftheearth, we can more easily understand where his experience is coming from. And even he admits that a SSD has more "snap" and response... it's just that "snap" and response are useless to him in terms of actually getting work done. However, a lot of the time, that's exactly what the people that post here are looking for, and tilleroftheearth's posts aren't always clear as to exactly where he's coming from.

I'm not saying that tilleroftheearth's views aren't valid; they are, especially in terms of using SSDs for professional level photography and photo-editing. The problem is that the fact that his views of SSDs are based around this paradigm isn't always easily evident. It's like asking a Concorde pilot whether a 747 is slow. His answer would be that it's incredibly slow. Now, if you don't realize that the Concorde is (well, was) an airliner that travels at almost twice the speed of sound, and that the 747 is only slow in comparison to that, you miss a lot.

 

I was not commenting about his posts(or anyone's post) but a general suggestions that whoever post something make it clear about what is fact and what is not and the background for the opinion part, instead of just telling someone to 'shutup, we know your points already'.

EDIT:
BTW, I found tiller's posts to be quite clear about why he thought SSD is not worth the money

 

I can definitely say that an SSD was a huge improvement for me.

I consider my PC usage to be light-moderate and even now I don't ever want to go back to a HDD.

Firstly, most of my daily usage involves some Microsoft office programs, Visual Studio, 1 VM running XP, some gaming (MW2, WC3). Everything feels like it loads much quicker for starters and everything within applications feels much more responsive.

Also a major thing for me is with a HDD, it seems to get periods where it feels as if it needs to grind for a few seconds. For example:

• Opening 2 applications simultaneously
• When you first boot and your startup items are still loading into the system tray etc. but you open a few more applications
• When you open a folder with a lot of files and it takes a while to load the thumbnails
• Compiling code and doing just about anything else

Getting rid of small annoyances like these is just a bonus on top of the fast application loading times.

 

Thanks Judicator for pointing out the problems with Tilleroftheearth's posts.

I'll do it as well:

• He claims SSDs aren't really faster than HDDs, which is not true.
  
• He claims SSD will get slower when filled above 70%, which is also not true.
  
• In this thread he failed to mention that he writes 30 terabytes of incompressible data within weeks to his SSD (or some extreme amount like that), which is the only reason SSDs don't really work in his unique situation.

As a result of this two other readers said they were literally terrified of buying an SSD.

If Tilleroftheearth wants to continue posting statements like this he will have to clearly mention that they're only valid for extreme workload like his.

This thread will be closed now.

@ Karant-rex, I hope you will enjoy your new laptop. If you have any more questions please start a new thread.