What is the general opinion on SSD's

capacity goes to ssd? lol how do you figure

500gb vs what size ssd?

I just had to buy another 1TB hdd the other day because I ran out of space again, if your a video editor and a movie/anime fan you need tons of storage space. After I got the G50V that had dual hdd's I said to myself I could never live without a dual hdd laptop ever again because I needed the space.

Capacity is a measurement of the amount of data the drive can hold, I am not sure what kind of strange angle your trying to approach at.

 

Refer to my earlier post, for 1.8" HDD max size is 160GB, for SSD it's 256GB.

There are 1TB 2.5" SSDs but they are rare due to high cost, not technological limitations like HDD density (which is currently maxed at 500GB for 2.5".

In the space of a 3.5" HDD you can fit 4x 2.5" drives. Max for 3.5" is 2TB or 4x 500GB 2.5" HDD, but if a 2.5" SSD can hold 1TB, then a 3.5" SSD can hold 4TB.

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/accessories/0,39101000,49300581,00.htm

Again, capacity on all sizes goes to SSDs. For the same physical volume, the data density of SSDs is much higher than HDD hence it will always be able to have more capacity than a HDD of any size. Right now cost is the limiting factor.

 

yeah but you forgot to mention those reallly large ssd's are the "bad ones' that run slower than a hdd and cost you more than your car.

you really cant say that just because a SSD can be found larger than a hdd that it has better capacity its a twisted point $99 for 500gb or $9000 for 1TB, common nobody is going to consider that an apples to apples comparison.

give me a link to a 1TB 2.5" SSD that i can buy.

if you cant buy it then your argument was totally invalid about capacity from the go, its like saying a rocket car is faster than a corvette or something, sur eit is but you cant walk up to a military facility and buy a jet engine off of them.

and its the same argument your making, if cost was no factor you could build a rocket or buy a jet or something and put it on your car lol, but the idea is so crazy and the cost so high that your not comparing the same two things anymore

conclusion hdd wins in capacity for the CONSUMER MARKET (you know the one we are in....) and totally destroys ssd in price per gb of storage.

the only 1tb 2.5" I could find on google was the nitro and you cant buy it, and they said maybe in a year it will be out a an "undisclosed price"

 

The point is capacity can be higher in SSDs. And no, these larger SSDs are not "bad ones" aka Jmicron controller. Most of them are enterprise quality and hence better than the mainstream Intel, Samsung, Vertex. There are other companies such as Mtron, Memoright, etc. The products are there so we can compare them. While most consumers wouldn't purchase them, companies who require higher reliability and capacity do.

edit: Totally agree with you. SSDs aren't quite cheap enough for consumer market, most people will not spend hundreds or thousands of dollars when they can get a 500GB HDD for $50. But still, comparing technologies SSD is superior period. It might take a few more years before they are adopted by the mainstream but the options are out there if you are willing to spend the money.

 

but we are talking reality here dbz guy, not theory. If you cant buy the damn thing it doesn't count for jack.

I would bet an arm & leg that there are 1TB 2.5" HDD's out there under wraps but you cant buy them. So back to the original statment.

Price, Capacity, Speed, mechanical hdd's win 2 out of 3 in the REAL WORLD, not in fantasy land where you have the obtaining power of some drug lord and unlimited amounts of money.

 

While it's not consumer level, it's still real world. Many mainstream companies release products that cost thousands of dollars and there are people who pay for it. Due to the limitations of SATA/300, SSDs are moving to PCIe, which has a lot higher bandwidth. For example, OCZ has a 1TB SSD for sale for $3000. You can buy that and it won't cost an arm or leg. There are bigger and better models from other companies too. So don't think that just because it doesn't fit most consumers that these products are only for fantasy or theory.

 

If you cant buy it, it doesnt count. Again

So right now for laptops a 500gb hdd for $99 (or cheaper) is higher capacity for less money as the 1TB for an "undisclosed price" is not an option thus not valid.

I dont think anybody here, not even other SSD owners would argue that HDD > SSD in capacity.

Almost 2 years ago was the 3d hard drive thing that held like 100TB, it exsist but since you cant buy it, its not like I am gonna go around saying "prototype 3d hard drive has more storage than regular hdds'

 

I just gave you the price and you can purchase it. Just search Google to find a store that has it, there are lots.

 

1TB 2.5" SSD link please.

Besides anybody buying for capacity wouldnt buy the SSD, I dont even think Bill Gates himself would buy an SSD instead of HDD is capacity was his goal.

Thats the point, its common sense.

Would you buy a SSD instead of a HDD if you need lots of storage space not speed? So Capacity HDD Wins as if you wanted capacity you would get a HDD.

If I have to change the terms,

HDD > SSD in Capacity per $$$ by an EXTREMELY LARGE margin.


But if I was you I would be saying go pay 2 million dollars for the 100TB 3d hard drive prototyple as it has the most capacity.

 

Well, mostly true. But SSD's can easily surpass HDDs in storage. The only thing is cost right now. This is a big thing, but the only thing. Hdd's can't just get their storage up 2x, 4x times. SSD could, right now. So SSDs DO have an advantage there.

They have a huge price disadvantage, making the point in reality rather mood.


Still, i don't think ssd's are useful for data-STORAGE. they are useful for data that is in use. os data, application data, current user data. there is NO gain of having an ssd storing huge gigabyte big movies. so for you, a big nas with a gb lan + a rather big ssd (256gb samsung?) would be the best thing.

that way, your temporal data could be on the ssd, would be veeery fast.

but you're a special case.

in my case, i have about all of my movie data on the home-server, which is sort of an uber-intelligent nas. from there i can watch the stuff with up to 100MB/s, and have 4.5tb of storage. for all the rest (all of my user data, all my music, music productions, programming work, etc), i have 0 issues on 128gb, and close to 0 on 64gb. except for video data (and games and virtual machines) it should work well.

we have edited some dvd raw material lately (some dvd production from a holiday trip of a friend), it was fun to do on the quadcore with ssd raid .



all in all, cost is still an issue. but i'd say, it's worth it.

 

http://www.provantage.com/ocz-technology-oczssdpcie-1zdrv1t~7OCZT0F6.htm

Your questions aren't really relevant and obviously loaded. No person would choose SSD if they didn't need performance and only needed capacity.

However, if I needed speed and capacity and had the budget, then why wouldn't I choose a SSD. It is a realistic and feasible option.

 

A Hava & my Server are my next 2 projects.

My server is probably going to have 8 1.5TB 3.5" disks on it. Would get 2TB but they cost too much per gb.

 

now, yes. still, it may be worth it. capacity is not everything (mostly overrated, except maybe in your case ).

for two million, i should get 100TB in ssds, and still have enough left for other fun stuff

at least the ssd's by itself would be around 320000$ only that with 256gb samsungs. and i bet i would get a better price from samsung when buying, uhm.. 400 of them? then again, would need quite some NAS system for 400 disks

 

what's a Hava? I'm thinking of 2TB disks right now for my next home server (as i move out of my parents house finally). but cost is an issue (as one doesn't gain much out of it..).

 

On my netbook with hdd with SD card cache, XP boost under 20 seconds, outlook, words, internet explorer 8..etc all start starts instantly.

 

Place Shift Device

Basically a box with about 4 video/audio inputs on it and a gigabit ethernet out port.

It streams any video input you give it to your entire network in HD quality/resolution and its one of the very very few "capture devices" that records full HD (many others that cost more only stream HD but record SD)

I recomended this product to several forum members asking for a way to play there console games on there laptop screen.

But it also does much more than that, and infact thats just a secondary function of the unit, the main purpose of the unit is to "place shift" your TV to you. You hook your cable/satilite TV tuner box to it and you can watch it not only in a different room but a different part of the world as not only does it stream to your home network it streams over the internet to you also (not HD though) it has a IR blaster to send your remote comands to the tuner box so you control it via software from affar.

I have wanted one for a while, to both record console gameplay and have all my consoles connected directly to my PC but now also because I have fiber optic tv service with every single station and I watch it a whole 10 minutes a month in my bedroom, so I want to hook my bedroom reciever up to the Hava so I can watch my TV service from my laptop(s) anywhere/anytime I want.

As for home server, thats what I want to build. Probably wont go all out and get all 8 or 10 HDD's at one time, just enough to hold my current data that way incase tech gets better and larger drives come out or prices go down I can get those instead.

I plan to take all my HDDs in my PC now out also and put a VR in there to speed things up.

I plan to have "shadow copies" of everything except the computer backup image so I need 2x the storage space than what I actually will be able to use, as the whole point of the home server to me is to protect my data, not really just to serve it.

 

jup. mostly my setup, too. what's VR?

i now remember Hava, have read about it once. I have no use for such funny things, don't use tv myself anymore anyways (and don't have a console at home, all in the club for multiplayer fun ).

it would be the perfect time to put a good fast ssd into your pc

just an info on how fast ssd's can be (and i don't yet have the fastest ones): on vista, there never is a logon screen anymore at all (as i have autologon, of course...). i just see 3 times the loading bar, then the vista startup orb animation, and while the animation goes, you can hear in the background i'm allready logged in and all is starting

so all in all, i wait around 7 seconds on the bios/raid, and then i'm up online in around 15-20 sec or so, haven't measured exactly.

have fun with the home server btw i love mine.

 

VR is probably Video Recorder

 

ah, yeah, read it the wrong way. thought he takes out all hdd's and put a vr in instead so i thought, what could a vr be as a hdd replacement

 

VR - Western Digital Velociraptor HDD

yes not as fast as a SSD, but money is a concern for me (infact a very big one im broke) but still much faster than my current HDD's and also I need space, its 300gb and I really plan to use it for gaming, video rendering, and my OS. (and all my tons of media will be on the server networked)

Video work is all one big constant file so the seek of a SSD wont do me any good, and games while they will boot faster on a SSD I have no issues with how long it takes now, so being faster is just a bonus, and seems like any game that takes long to load is also using mostly large continous files so the VR will be pretty close to the SSD for me.

Boot of the OS is no matter to me, my desktop is always on so it boots one time a year or so.

I was very happy with the VR when I put it in my bosses computer that I built. I even thought the VR was too expensive per gb, but its gone down in price now and after comparing it to a SSD it seems cheap now

 

LOL... I didn't read your post with the sentence which contains the word VR. Opps.

 

yup it's cheap, but much worse than an ssd in daily usage.

still if money matters, ssd's are not way to go. they're still worth it. but only really in the one-fits-all-solution: to not buy a new system.

anyone who wants to buy a new system to enhance performance can give me the money for it's system, and i buy him an ssd instead

 

If you're cheap, buy lots of ram and velocirapter. Set the ram as "program and file cache" and it'll almost be the same as intel SSD.

 

no, not even close to "almost the same". i have those options. (i don't have an intel yet, mine are "slower").

 

How did you cache your programs and data? Technically, if you cache your programs and data properly to the ram, the throughput should be at least 20x-200xfaster than the fastest SSD. 250MB/s vs 5GB/s -50GB/s (depending on what kind and the speed of particular memory module) both with virtually 0 access time.

 

Like i said the SSD will do almost nothing for me on my desktop.

The few programs I use on a regular basis take no time to load, photoshop is the only one with load time.

video rendering the VR and SSD would be the same, currently my cpu is just fast enough to cause HDD limits, but the VR is fast enough to fix that, but the CPU is too slow to use the speed of the SSD.

gaming, the ssd will load it faster but not incredibly so, most games now days load in the background while your playing, the "load time" online is usually mostly server connect times and stuff, even if you load in 10x faster you have to wait for your enemies & team mates to load in also so you didnt gain anything getting there first.

Watching movies/videos SSD wont be better, browsing the net SSD wont be better.

This is not some hardheaded case of denial, i have evaluated what I do on my desktop and know that I do almost nothing that would require the strengths of a SSD, but I do require storage for sure.

On my laptop, a SSD would be more welcome, if for anything just for boot time but thats not a big deal. When you can get a good 200gb ssd for $200 thats when I think I will be saving to get one.

 

the question is: how do you load the cache? and how do you chose what's in the cache? my ssd is like a big preloaded cache of 128gb.

the actual troughput haven't mattered much as i've learned lately. latency is the biggest thing. ram is better, there, but doesn't really make much difference. but the moment you hit something not in cache, you lose again.

two ways i've tested: a static cache, a.k.a. ramdisk. the filling of the ramdisk slowed down the boot process on one ramdisk, the after-login got much slower on another one (due to much hdd access while i wanted to start some other stuff).

the other is a dynamic cache, a.k.a. in vista's case superfetch. superfetch works well, and is enhancing the boot process actually quite a bit. (loads from disk while a driver is initialising).

but the biggest thing for me is that the ssd enhances ALL accesses. caches always had the moment where they don't have that in cache what i want, and then it slows down. thanks to the ssd, i never have "slowdowns".

 

SSD's will be worth it when the price drops. By next year I think they will be worth it.

 

Yeah the fact is that if someone buys an SSD they value speed over all other aspects. If speed is not your main concern you should probably stick with an old spinner.

 

speed, and silence, and trust that you can drop it and it won't fail.

those three together, yes, they make an old spinner not worth much anymore..


but of course, i started with a best case:

i had a 4200rpm 100gb hdd that had 30ms latency, and had 5min to boot vista, 1min to start firefox. in that case (in a 12" tablet), paying 200$ for moving to an ssd was not much money.

the result after the move: 30-40sec boot time, 2sec firefox boot time. made the tablet MUCH more usable

so it really depends on your system as well, if it's worthwile. on the desktop, it ment a bit of a speed gain (made the quadcore itself more worthwhile), but on the tablet it really ment having it finally usable.

the fun thing was, the tablet was faster than my quadcore with a raid0 of hdds so yes, it was then worth it on the desktop, too.


but the biggest gain imho is really the silence. never having moments where the system gets slow AND the hdd makes loud noise while reading random data/writing random data again. it's like a cellphone now, just silent.

 

Want a layman's opinion? I love my system with the SSD's - quiet, and noticably faster. I say this, again, from a layman's standards - I don't have measured time trials, or any other "solid" mechanics to back up my claims to "faster", only that the system feels much more crisp and responsive with the SSD's than my older gaming rig, with similar specs but a reasonably fast HDD.

Oh, and one of my engineering coworkers who is a computer guy happened into my cubicle the other day, needing a file I had on my plaptop, so I pulled it out, set it on the desk and hit the power button. A few seconds later, my coworker's eyes get wide. "It's already booted?? Holy cow!!"

So, yeah. Pricey, but noticably faster.

 

yeah i used to have my 7811 connected to a 22" monitor and never turned it off so i didn't see the benefits of fast boots however now i keep it in the leaving room and have to put it away every day so the dog is home alone with it just sitting out. it IS extremely nice not to have to wait for your desktop and everythng to load before you can do anything. just turn it on and its ready to go when you want to click on something

I suppose subconciously that may have contributed to the change in my computing habits even...

 

exactly....money is not a concern with me when it comes to my computers. If I want something I will buy it. i want faster. and ssd will give me that bump in speed.

 

Mormegil: boot time are just a good way to compare systems "real" performances. simple, everyone can do it.

still, standby is great and all but having faster boot time means it same gains in all other situations where you start something on your system. no matter what.

 

yeah i know i was just refering to a benefit i now take advantage of having SSD

 

exactly, gotta love the ssds, i just sold 256gb samsung ssd for $700 on ebay.
its resell value is awesome, cant speak of the same thing on its performance though.
out of the 3 top flash makers in teh world, samsung/toshiba/sandisk,
samsung is the only idiot who is going after mainstream consumer market.

 

you, sir, are the only one who ever didn't like an ssd he got. then again, you're the one called "noonedell" who just uses dell. so you're just weird anyways.

samsung is no idiot going after the mainstream market. actually all except you are very happy that they do. even those that don't buy ssd's at all, as even they know more concurency means faster price drops.

have fun with your hdd.

 

You must be joking. Tom's has lost a lot of credibility over the past few years for posting skewed benchmarks which favor certain hardware brands.

 

Not to mention that was a fairly dated article as far as SSD's go

 

My two Samsungs in my Thinkpad T400 are performing pretty good.

 

Go ssd. the prices wont drop for a while.

 

Prices of SSDs are continually dropping... most actually have poor resell value. You could have bought a Samsung 64GB SLC a year ago for $400+ and now it's $200 or less.