Is ssd worth the price or will it drop

I always here people talking about load times with ssd being amazing but I don't think normal hdd take long as it is, I just like the no moving parts idea, but I am wondering if they are worth the investment, or if I should wait till they drop in price, or will they.

 

Everything in this marced will at one point drop (price). But the thing is, then there is new things going on. I personally hate waiting. So, I bought a SSD before the summer. And it was totally worth it if you ask me...
I got so much better batterylife on my Qosmio, my windows boot-up in 8 seconds. My GPU runs cooler. (Haven't checked my CPU tempratures).
I bought a 120GB for my system, and I have enough with place also. I have still 32GB free space left.
And I have 4 Games (FUEL, GTA IV, QoS, Kane And Lynch) and bunch of applications etc etc.
I have about 8GB with music, and 600+ with pictures.
Rest is on my External HDD anyway, cause I swap between two lappies. I have the second slot empty on my Qosmio as well. Beside this, I also bought a SSD for my ThinkPad which I mainly use at School. And I get about 3+ hours of battery life. No Fan kick (sometimes it did before), compleatly quite.

 

I think an SSD is worth it now, and I think an SSD will be worth it even more when as prices continue to drop. Which they will.

In absolute terms, the load times on an SSD indeed aren't going to be much faster than that load times on an HDD. On a clean Windows install you might go from 40 to 30 seconds. Opening Firefox might go from 5 to 2 seconds. 10 seconds and 3 seconds difference, but as a percentage, that's some 25 and 60 percent.

Some people don't find these figures worthwhile. I like having my Firefox open 3 seconds faster, and I'll pay a premium for it.

But for me, the bigger deal is the lack of noise. I would pay a premium for a device that performs exactly like a typical notebook HDD and makes no noise. An SSD makes no noise and gives me a performance boost. So it's a no brainer. Some people could care less.

I can't stand listening to HDD seek anymore.

Anyway, my point was that people value these things differently, and ultimately it's up to you to decide whether it's worthwhile.

 

I would agree with this. With as much as SSDs have been relentlessly hyped, I expected it to be lightening fast, but it's not. There's a definite uptick in performance, particularly with slower apps like iTunes or Photoshop, but it's not the second coming as has been advertised.

As for the noise, it depends on the machine. I went with a SSD for my X200 because it's so thin any platter based drive I put in it, I tried four, was noisy. In my R60 all the drives were quiet, but they all sat behind the roll cage, which I think dampens the noise. The noise was the main reason I went with the SSD for the Woodpad and for me it was worth it.

 

If you DO decide to get an SSD, make sure your computer has SATA II. I put a 256 G Crucial in my T115D not knowing it was just SATA. While it is faster, it is no where :08 boot up time. It's more like :55 which ain't bad. Yes, it is quieter, runs cooler and is way more rugged. I'd do it again.

 

wow, some honest input for once.
After reading about how amazing and totally worthwhile SSDs were... I decided to take the plunge.

While my initial impressions were good... even though I had a 256gb SSD, I found myself becoming really annoyed by the capacity limitation.
I ran a few tests to compare my Samsung PM800 256gb and Hitachi 7k500 500gb.

Battery life - absolutely no difference
Boot up - SSD = 38 seconds vs. HDD = 48 seconds
Opening Photoshop - SSD = 9 seconds vs HDD = 16 seconds
Opening internet browsers and word documents - difference was hardly measurable

Sold my SSD last week and haven't looked back. At least I won't until SSD prices and capacity are at current HDD levels. One thing that SSD has ruined for me is I notice the vibration and noise from an HDD more easily now.

 

Yeah the SSD market will really take off once they start hitting the 500gb+ regions commonly... right now the choice you make in HDD vs SSD is capacity vs speed (prices aside). There are a lot of people who want large capacity SSD's at somewhat comparable pricing (see: 2x more than an equiv capacity HDD) for all the benefits of both worlds but that isn't going to be realistic for a while.

I'd just go with a 7k500... HDD's have come a long way while SSD's are still evolving.

 

There are a lot of posts on this. Having SATA II over SATA I makes absolutely no difference in real life. The SSDs just aren't fast enough yet. What the testers found was that since computers spend nearly all seeks as random vs sequential, the throughput doesn't exceed SATA I.

It's all about bang for the buck and what you do with a computer. Plus how much a person wants to pay for performance. Some people will pay $300 to upgrade a processor by .2 GHz but think SSDs are too expensive.

 

^^^ soooooo true.

im about to get an SSD myself... I have a 320GB Momentus 7200.4,

if an SSD can improve and give me snappier performance on Outlook, browsing, itunes.
I' m looking at the Kingston 128GB for $250 in newegg

 

I'm surprised no one has mentioned reduced temperatures yet.

Most HDDs don't get all that hot, anyway, but just saying. It's nice to see a drive that's advertised to withstand up to 70C while not generating any of the aforementioned temperature.

 

I guess it's a good thing to try, but might not be worth it if you need a lot of storage

 

I wonder this, if having SATA II over SATA I makes no difference in real life, why doesn't my computer boot up in :08 or even :15. I did a fresh install of W 7 64 bit and boot, used the correct firmware and boot time went from 1:38 to :55, quiet an improvement. Why don't I get that blink of an eye boot time and shut down time?

 

Seriously, get one. It's the most valuable upgrade you can buy.

Thats weird.
My boot time went from 40 seconds to less than 20s now.
The whole thing is really faast!
for the storage, I have 1.5 terabyte of external storage laying around my computer.. I have no problem!
With 160gb, I have enough games for 3 large games (10gb/each) all the software, drivers and essentials I want!

 

Yes, they still have many limitation, chiefly of which is price. Even though it has dropped substantially since their introduction, they're still maintain a prohibitively expensive price per GB (8-10 times that of HD) when compared to conventional HD.

For the moments, they offer their most efficient advantage when configured in a hybrids system with larger HD storage devices containing the bulk of data storage and the SSDs as the primary OS/program device.

 

I still think they're too expensive for the majority of people to really consider, especially if you want a good one, like the Intel. Not to mention the capacity can be a turn off.

Is it true you don't nab any battery life out of it? I thought you'd get a little bit.

 

I didn't gain a minute of extra battery life with the SSD
Though there was noticeable improvements, I really couldn't justify the pricetag for a few extra seconds

 

You may or you may not. It's not really a selling point except maybe you get finished sooner?

 

even then, it'd only be a savings of a minute or two after a few hours.
- save 10-40 seconds on bootup
- save 5-10 seconds on shut down or hibernation
- save a couple seconds here and there when opening apps

I think anandtech or tom's hardware did a comparison of an HDD and SSD in battery life and it was pretty much a wash. Although, in some cases, the SSD actually got worse battery life.

 

1) Solid state drives are worth the cost.

2) The price of solid state drives will drop.

 

A great question though, primarilly you have to decide if you want to be an early addopter and what premium you want to pay to be one.

SSD's will improve the system over ANY hdd. This primarily is in load times but also if you tend to do work on large stored data files. As an example digital photography where you are working with large RAW files. That 100%-200% speed increase can really up your productivity. Another example is in a server meant to off load data files, increased access and stream speed is a real plus.

For casual use, it can be of little importance. Yes your program opens faster the first time. but as you close and open your browser while the system is running the program in cached in memory from the HDD and usually opens extremely fast. If you are at a LAN party and want to be sure the next level is loaded and ready to go before the guy next to you, the SSD could be invaluable though.

You have to decide in the end what you want and need, and then what you are willing to pay for it! Since I boot the system maybe once a day, and programs are usually cached all day once running, it isn't worth it to me yet. Every one has different agendas, uses and values though so it is hard to say to someone, it is a MUST HAVE or the cost isn't yet worth it!

 

Its healthy to see honest viewpoints from both sides of the fence. In buying an ssd, the user really needs to take a close look at exactly what they want to make sure that it is right for them. For example, I use a program called Acrobat Pro and compile 6000 page reports on a regular basis which include photos, audio and video. On my work computer which is actually a better CPU with a typical hard drive, this program is incredibly slow opening up the report to work on. Sometimes, I end up rebooting thinking that it clogged the bottleneck (pun intended but true). On my ssd, it has never taken more than 5 seconds to start and load and doing things such as redacting are incredibly fast.

My Timeline boasts an 8 hour battery life and I found out with the original battery that with bt off and the power mode at power saver, it was bang on. Now, with the ssd, I get around 10 hours and there is absolutely no fan use whatsoever. I sometimes wonder whether the fan is broke eheh. The simple truth is that the system has absolutely no heat and I do play alot of video through it.

Price and size are a huge consideration but we see many now whipping in a OCZ 30Gb for less than a hundred bucks for the OS and programs and then switching out their useless DVD for the hard drive once they scoop a bracket from Ebay.

There are always going to be both sides of the fence to consider in any purchase and I guess I have been pretty lucky. I have set up no less than 35 people with SSDs for their personal systems and all seem to have had the same reaction which was that of extreme content with their purchase.

 

Another vote in favor of SSDs--I really like them. The high price and lower capacity means they aren't for everyone, but if you're ok with that I can't imagine regretting having one.

 

My SSD is a bit faster here and there, but I just don't get it when people say it's a night and day difference. The main benefit for me is the silent operation. I could probably use 20 more GB, but if I had it, I'd want another 20GB. I got enough room for the OS, my Mp3s and a few movies. That's really all I need.

 

If you have the money to spare, buy it. If you don't have the money and need to skip lunch for a year to buy one, then don't.

I won't buy one till they reach 320GB at $1 = 1GB.

 

I throw away way more than 300 worth of crap a year that I did not use or decided I did not need or recycled that much worth of stuff to others as I again did not use it.

And I am not rich in the money sense at all.

And I finally got an SSD that looks like a keeper. Why would anyone not want one? I bet many who about the price seem to find a way to figure out how to get that $500 per oz stuff each month. In fact I personally know more than a few folks who cannot AFFORD this or that, but seem to be able to AFFORD the reefer or beer.

So really, like many things, it is simply a choice.

And hey, if I could get back 1/10 of what I spent foolishly, I could buy us ALL an SSD, and a nice big one at that

 

If I would have a laptop which I would take with me every day I would definitly opt for a SSD. I don't trust moving plain hard drives, considering all the shocks your laptop endures on the way. (Or am I mistaken and can SSD's also lose information due to schocks?).

However if I would want performance for the smallest price in a gamingdekstop i'd rather buy a 10k rpm hard drive for less money than a ssd with less space and get a better gpu with the money I save.

In my current situation I have a louzy 160g 5400rpm hard drive, and since I use my laptop as a dekstop replacement, i'm planning on upgrading it with a 7200rpm 320gb hard drive. I'm sure it will be more than fast enough for me. The amount of money i'd save from not chosing a SSD would then be invested in a new gpu (ati hd4650) for my acer. But I guess that's just a budget friendly -gamer view.

 

If you travel a lot with your laptop on, any SSD would be much more durable than a mechanical HDD.

 

I have had mechanical hard drives in laptops for more than 10 years, am very often on the road and have never had any problem with shocks.

Who actually lost data of an internal laptop hard drive because of shocks?

As far as I know the head is locked when the laptop is switched off so that minimizes the risk anyway. When my laptop is on I have G shock protection.

I have similar experience. My 7K500 is a bit slower than the Intel G2 I had previously but the difference for my usage is small.

 

Gee wait a thousand years but it will be at least 5...

yup , i move around quite a lot too and with hp protect smart on , so far i have lost no data or anything.. Getting an SSD is not a matter of reliability but a matter of speed for most ppl.

 

For me was the overall computing experience - the computer is waiting for me versus the other way around. Maybe it's because my home computer is a recent model with decent specs and our work computers are old and minimal spec'd machines. Quiet and efficient operation, yes and overall speed boost is nice also. Space really was not an issue - have operated for years with an 80 GB hard drives and back-ups to DVD or portable hard drives.
It boils down to what do you want to use the computer for and how do you value your time on the machine. For me the price was very much worth it.

 

I've owned a dozen or so laptops and never had a HDD fail (knock on wood)
I accidentally knocked my Acer 6920 off a table and other than a broken screen, everything still worked.

 

I was a bit surprised about how much a hard drive can take when I dropped my external 2.5" WD drive, it fell from like 1m height on our hard floor (made of tiles) and not only did the plastic casing still look like new, it still worked perfectly. And I seriously doubt any harddrive will ever get such a strong shock in a plain laptop if you don't let it fall.

So I guess my worries about a normal hard drive to be way more prone to failing (due to shocks) compared to ssd is incorrect?

 

I dropped a Samsung NC10 netbook from a table on a stone floor. Everything worked including the hard drive. It may have been different if it was turned on.

 

Will they drop in price - of course.

What did a 12GB HDD cost 10 years ago???

Are they worth it - yes - impact proof, and fast

 

While SSDs have some advantages over traditional HDs, they are far from perfect. Most notibly is there price. My two 500 GB Hitachi HDs cost less than $140. If I had bought the same amount of storage in an SSD (provided it was possible), it would have cost around $3,000!

In addition, SSDs may be blazingly fast out of the gate, they still trail HDDs in writing speeds. Some being slower than a 5400 rpm HD. So if your interest is music or video, an SSD would NOT be the best choice.

You should also keep in mind that a computer is only as fast as it's slowest link: One with an older IDE or PATA connection would likely see little improvement in speed, espcially when compared to one which utilizes an updated SATA connection.

 

If the SSD is slower than a HDD then its a junk product not worth buying.

And all good ones are much faster.

 

Write speed of the Intel is not that fantastic. Both these 5400rpm drives outperform it here with installing Vista.



Source: http://www.notebookcheck.net/SSD-versus-HDD-in-comparison.18750.0.html

 

What does that tell me??

 

Thats a typical example of picking one piece to show a ppint rather than looking at the entire picture. The overall result has the Intel and Patriot blowing away the competition as shown in the PCMark Vantage Tests.

Lets say that Intel has capped its write speeds for a second. Even with this they have still pretty much become the basemark of all ssd benchmark testing.

 

The overall picture is that the main advantage of SSDs lies in random access, not sequential speeds. If you were doing sequential transfers only, you would be fine to stick with a good HDD.

 

Write speed of the Intel is not that fantastic. Both 5400rpm drives outperformed it with installing Vista.

 

Specifically sequential write speed, that is.

 

Well installing Vista shouldn't be affected that much by a lower sequential write speed.

Btw that was Intel G1. It's likely G2 does a bit better.

 

I guess if you're installing Vista from a DVD the limiting factor should be the read speed on the DVD anyway. I'm not really sure about the specifics of OS installation, but I wonder what's behind the benchmark results.

 

Judging by the large differences between the drives there was no DVD drive being the bottleneck.

 

Yeah, that would seem to be the case.
It's possible that drivers play a big role, and the Intel drive performs poorly on the stock drivers during the installation of the original OS.
I still think sequential write speed would have to play a big role here as well, though.

 

Driver issue seems more likely as the Intel G1 has a higher sequential write speed than the Samsung HM500LI.

Transfer Performance and Diagram : Intel's X25-M Solid State Drive Reviewed
Charts, benchmarks 2009 2.5? Mobile Hard Drive Charts, h2benchw 3.12: Avg Write Throughput

Here's how the drives performed on installing OS X.


The Vertex has better write performance than Intel and it shows.

Sequential write speed of the Toshiba and Intel should be close to one another.

That's because we were discussing write performance.

 

Hmm. The Vertex is quite fast in both installations, but the Vista install seems to be a lot less SSD-friendly than the OSX install.
This may be related also.

 

I think all the advantages and disadvantages have been well covered on the 5 pages so far.

So what it all translates into is your opinion. Is a SSD worth it?

Id say if you have to ask the question than that probably means no, as if you were willing to spend enough for the performance boost and other benefits you would have done it without asking.

If your on the fence about it and trying to get talked into it one way or the other. I think you will find that since both sides of the fence have a valid argument that nobody can really tell you what to do, and if you do let somebody talk you into it now, your more likely to regret it when the price does drop.

That was the second part of the question, will prices go down? Yes of course, but the more important question is when and how much?

I have a feeling that the best time for those of us on the fence to buy in is going to be near year end. Intel is going to have the larger capacity drive come out and a smaller micron process (that reduces cost) this can lead to price cuts on the Intel drives, and that should also cause price cuts across the board with the competition between brands to keep some market share.

Mind you that due to demand and supply the price will probably be super inflated when they first come out, so your going to have to wait for that to level out.

This year end should be "reasonable" cost, much better than now but still not cheap or standard like HDD's are now. That will probably take at least 5 years to happen.

Im waiting for now, I dont have a lot to gain with a SSD I dont mind waiting a few seconds for stuff to load and that money can go to a lot of things that would benefit me a lot more than the SSD.

 

Agreed. I know I'm going to put an SSD into my current computer at one point or another, but I'm waiting until I see a big sale or price drops on an SSD with a decent controller (Intel or SandForce).