SSD really worth it?

I'm going for an Asus N550jv for my next laptop. I can get a 750 or 1000gb 7500rpm spinning HD, or i'd be willing to go up a couple hundred to a fast 250 SSD. I dont think i'll need 750 or 1000gb of storage, so that isn't that much of a concern. But, is an SSD really worth that money to upgrade?

 

Yes, it is, a SSD is the kind of upgrade you don't miss until its gone, but it does make a world of difference in overall responsiveness of the system and how snappy it feels. Once you go SSD, you can never go back.

 

Yeah, even SSD with average read/write speed will amaze you compared to HDD. It's a one way traffic

 

Makes sense. One last question:

250GB Samsung 840 Series Solid State Drive (Up to Sequential Read 540MB/s - Write 250MB/s Serial-ATA III

240GB Corsair Neutron Series GTX Solid State Drive (Up to Sequential Read 550MB/s - Write 470MB/s Serial-ATA III

The corsair is more expensive than the Samsung and much faster writing, but I heard Samsung is the gold standard with SSDs. Which would you go for?

 

The new 250GB Samsung 840 EVO writes faster than both, and is barely more expensive than the basic 250GB 840. Take that.

 

Agree with what's been posted above. SSD makes a noticable difference, and also easy enough to buy and install yourself should you so desire. It is typically cheaper to buy the SSD yourself from somewhere like newegg.com, and install yourself. Provided you have install media (or can clone the original HDD).

FYI you can also install a 2nd HDD in the Asus with a caddy such as this Asus N550 N550JV HDD Caddy - though at the expense of your optical drive

 

It's a yes and no, depending on the circumstance since your question's "SSD really worth it? "

 

IMO the ssd is a great upgrade, but the loss of capacity is a huge letdown. I switched from 750 hdd raid 0 to 128gb ssd raid 0. At first the speed difference was huge, but soon after i found myself deleting programs and games, time after time, wich is a huge pain.

 

I have only limited experience with SSD’s (1) and there are those here at NBR that have been using them for years. While I wholeheartedly agree with the general consensus on this thread that SSD’s offer a huge improvement over HDD performance, I think there is a little more to be considered in the “value” equation.

As mentioned, space is a major consideration, but what seems to have been overlooked is the calculation of “space” on a “system” drive. When you have a 250GB spinner, you format the drive and end up with about 232GB of space. You then deduct about 10% of the available drive space as usable to allow room on the drive for windows to defrag. So your 250GB drive now has about 209GB of real usable system space. Now compare this to a SSD.

Your new 250GB SSD formats to the same 232GB as the spinner. You run the Samsung Magician Software and it Over-Provisions (OP) to 10% of your drive leaving you with the same 209GB of usable space as the HDD. The problem is, the generally recommended OP is 20% to 30% of drive space depending on who you ask. So, lets’ say you decide that you’ll use the conservative 20% and increase the OP on your SSD to 20%, leaving you with about 186GB of your “250GB” drive. Finished right…. not quite.

Now consider that to allow for optimum performance and Trim operations it is also recommended that you not exceed 50% of your available drive capacity with actual data. So if you use this method, designed to maintain SSD performance while increasing durability (i.e. longevity), you end with about 186GB/2= 93GB .

Therefore, in the value proposition of a 250GB SSD, you really need to consider if 93GBs of usable system space is sufficient. If not, then you likely need a 500GB class drive. There is some additional hidden OP on some SSDs that can also be considered in the equation, but as a “generalization” these deductions in usable space are what is never mentioned in the marketing.

Again, I’m a green bean when it comes to SSD’s, and I’m sure you can fudge some of these numbers a small amount with minimal impact. But based on my research, reading at Anandtech, advice here at NBR, and posts by experienced SSD users, this seems to be the real cost of SSD usage within the generally accepted practices for sustained SSD performance and durability. If I’m wrong, I’m sure I’ll get blistered here shortly. Just another opportunity to learn! But in some cases this is also why more RAM, a MLC based drive, or larger SSD drive “may” be a valid consideration in the “value” proposition.

Best of luck in your in decision process,

Dave

 

Amazon.com: Crucial M500 480GB SATA 2.5-Inch 7mm (with 9.5mm adapter) Internal Solid State Drive CT480M500SSD1: Computers & Accessories

..works for me so far.

 

Saben i bougth the ssds, they went for over 300 usd.

 

The higher write speed of the EVO is the effect of new caching behavior. The real sustainable write throughput is the same as the regular 840.

This function isn't very useful since you can always cache with RAM anyway, especially on a notebook with a built-in UPS (the battery). It also increases write amplification which can be bad on a TLC SSD.

 

How does cache increase write amplification? It shouldn't affect it at all.

 

It does because the drive uses the TLC as SLC first to increase throughput, read the data back later, and then write it as true TLC to save space, resulting in 4X write amplification.

TLC wear endurance is still "too much" according to Samsung.

 

Of course you pick EVO ahead of 840. That is a no brainer.
Samsung 840 EVO 750GB SSD Review - Real world tests | Myce.com

 

What about EVO compared to 840 pro?

 

I went for a 256GB Sandisk Ultra+, which is faster and cheaper than its Samsung equivalent, and its been a dream.

On my XPS, there an MSATA slot, so I used an MSATA to SATA loom, popped the original 1TB HDD back in there where the DVD drive went (which I haven't missed) rebuilt my OS onto the SSD, and never looked back.

So sooooo much faster

256GB Sandisk Ultra+

- 6 GB/s

- 520 MB/s Read

- 445 MB/s Write



And a 3 year warranty on top, for $260NZD. Thats versus the Samsung 250GB 840, which $316NZD, reads the same, but only writes at 240 MB/s.

Decision was a no-brainer

 

Achieved with compression, or real NAND throughput?

 

Considering that it uses a Sandforce controller, it's likely compression magic tricks.

AnandTech | SanDisk Ultra Plus SSD Review (256GB)

 

I hate block devices that do compression on their own.

Is it possible to get rid of it on a SandForce?

 

Nope. Compression is done by the controller and is integral to how it works. Getting rid of compression in a Sandforce controller would be like getting rid of SSE in an Intel processor.

 

In a typical home use environment I don't think an SSD is worth it.

Let me provide an example. At home I use my laptop (Dell Vostro V131 with a 7200RPM HDD) for Word/Excel, email, web browsing, music/video consumption, and occasionally some minor photo work in Picasa. The caching built into Windows 7/8 is so good that my regular applications start very fast and run fast on the HDD. Boot time in Win 8 is fantastic, and it sleeps/wakes up very quickly.

In contrast, my work computer is a workhorse (W530 with an SSD), and for these basic tasks I don't feel like there is a big difference between them.

 

It is hard to judge "worth", 64gb is cheap and have enough space for home machines. If you have old machine with limited ddr2 ram, page file on ssd is nice to have.