What would you choose, SSD or HDD?

If price and battery life were NOT an issue, would you pick a Samsung PB22-J 256 GB SSD or a Seagate 500 GB 7200 RPM HDD? Both are from Dell for a Studio XPS 1645 and need to last around 4-5 years. Activities include: gaming, videos, movies, Web, work. Also, you have a desire to be future-proof.

Basically what I'm debating about is whether or not it's worth it to sacrifice 1/2 of my 500 GB disc space to get an SSD.

 

From a personal experience, the first few months of buying a laptop, you'll be infatuated with the design, looks, functionality, big GB, etc. but after that, it's your data that's much more important than anything else!

SSD has no mechanical parts like HDD so your data is relatively much safer. For most users, especially business, data security is a great concern so that comes first on my list.

 

I'm actually vouching for the hard drive. Samsung SSDs are quickly losing ground to the Indilinx and Intel powered drives.
Go for an OCZ Vertex/Agility or Intel X25-M if you can.

 

I voted for the hard drive, for the same reasons as tehsuigi. At first i loved the big GB numbers on my laptop, but now i'm switching to SSD as soon as i can figure out which ones.

 

IMO if you're going for an SSD, don't pick it for mass storage. Get a smaller sized SSD for things which need fast access(OS and major applications) and put most of your storage on a bigger HDD(external or internal).

I agree that an OCZ or Intel SSD might be better value than a Samsung one.

 

Out of those two specific models, I wouldn't buy either. But generally, 256 GB SSD vs 500 GB HDD, I'd probably go SSD if price wasn't an issue. I have a 160 GB drive right now so I'm used to storing my media files on an external anyway. So 256 GB should plentiful, plus I love the speed.

However, I am upgrading my hard drive within the next few weeks, and I'm probably buying a 500 GB or 640 GB WD Scorpio Blue. SSDs are still too expensive per GB to be worth it for me.

 

If price is no object and those two are the only options (and you can live with less capacity), Samsung hands down since it really has no downsides compared to the HDD. Btw you can use both if you don't need a DVD drive, let me know if this woul interest you.

I disagree with the above posters commenting on value, since the OP stated that money isn't an issue nor were costs even mentioned (and I believe he is getting the drive for free from Dell). Dell can give cheap SSD upgrades sometimes (or even straight up SSD purchase for $480 vs. $700+ for Indilinx of the same capacity or Intel for lesser capacity), so value-wise they can dominate Indilinx and Intel.

 

Using an HDD and an SSD (or even 2 SSDs) instead of my optical drive WOULD interest me. Do you have more info?

 

Yeah, since I was going to get the sXPS 1645, I've done some research on it. Your DVD drive is 12.7mm thick, so if you want to use that as well search eBay for an external USB 12.7mm ODD Enclosure (saw one for $9 w/ free shipping).

If you get the SSD and want a 1TB drive, you can get one from NewModeUS - 12.7mm SATA Caddy for 12.7mm ODD (OBHD-SATA12-SATA-B), though it's a bit pricy at $45. You can get 5% off by finding the coupon on their Facebook page. Else you can find a 12.7mm caddy from eBay (compatible w/ Lenovo R400) for a 9.5mm drive for around $10 (but 9.5mm drives only go up to 640GB).

 

Unless I have a need for fast read/write I'd go with an HDD.

They are old and established And data security - if you have a failure - important data can still be recovered by specialists
And that is getting cheaper pretty quickly too.

 

If you really wanted reliability, SLC SSDs are far better than any HDDs. Mission critical applications in government and military settings have been using SLC SSDs for at least a decade now. Most consumers don't need data security though. If they do, a simple back up to an external flash or HDD is easy enough or partition the SSD.

 

OK guys, I've made up my mind and am going with the 256 GB SSD. I've tried to max out my other specs for better performance and am willing to sacrifice 244 GB for better responsiveness. The points brought up are very good though, I've gone from knowing just a bit about them to knowing a lot more. Thanks!

 

yeah definitely the SSD if money isnt an issue. then get a 1TB external drive for ~$100 if you need the space so bad

 

There is nothing wrong with the Samsung SSD's unless you get one with the older FW and that is unlikely unless you buy from Ebay or a small online retailer. The reason that Samsung has been bashed by the SSD tech gurus is because it has slower 4k random write performance at about 7-8mb per second. With the older firmware without garbage collection degradation particularly in the area of 4k random writes was an issue with the Samsung drives compared to Indillinx and most notably Intel that has excellent 4k random write performance.

Garbage collection firmware which erases and consolidates deleted blocks renders the criticism of the Samsung drives moot. The drives maintain their performance levels which are more than adequate for most users. If you are constantly pounding your drive with 4k random writes then pay the premium for the Intel. I have been testing my Samsung based drive for 3 months and will never go back to mechanical for OS and applications. Everything is instantaneous with my SSD even when I have pounded it with IOMeter 4k random writes everything opens instantaneously without fail ever.

 

Sgilmore, have the Samsung drives implemented TRIM yet? I honestly don't know.

 

No, Samsung has stated that a firmware flasher for TRIM will be ready at the end of this month but I am not holding my breath. I have VBM18C1Q which has Samsungs version of GC. OCZ is testing the TRIM firmware and saying VBM18C1Q is better so unless Samsung issues a firmware with GC along with the one with TRIM I will stay with GC. I don't want to get stuck with an inferior firmware.

You can't have both GC and TRIM at the same time because it will result in data corruption so it's either one or the other. OCZ is saying TRIM is the way forward but not just yet. Intel has even taken their TRIM firmware flasher download down--not sure if it was because of the reported bricked drives but I suspect it was due to the data corruption issue.

 

What is TRIM?

 

TRIM is a Microsoft Windows 7 thang... it is similar to garbage collection in that it erases and consolidates deleted blocks on the SSD. Garbage collection is wholly controller based but TRIM is initiated by the operating system. It will be better if the operating system handles erasing and consolidating deleted blocks but the downside right now is that it is not doing it when the drive is idle causing performance hits.

There are other issues associated with too many cooks stirring the pot but I am confident that Microsoft, Intel, Samsung, etal will get it sorted out directly.

 

It's not a Windows 7 thing - TRIM is part of the newest ATA specification, and thus is already implemented in Linux, and will be put into Mac OS X eventually.

 

I stand corrected
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIM_(SSD_command)

I wonder how much firmware is available and on which drives where the TRIM command is being passed on to the controller in Linux?

 

I wouldn't buy either. But of the two I'd go for the SSD. Actually, if it were a choice between a 120GB 3000 rpm HDD and the Seagate, I'd go for the slow drive. That's because I've had two of them Seagate drives die in three months.

 

That Seagate one is with highest failure rate as usual. Never trust Seagate. Try WD or Hitachi.

 

First, I agree that I would choose neither of these options. Samsung SSD meh... (after almost a week's worth ~40 hours, of using a Dell 128GB one). Seagate 7200.4? Run, run for your life! (I've returned 4 of these because of the inexcusable performance they offered - settled for a Scorpio Blue 500GB drive).

Second, if you want it to last 4 or 5 years, then SSD is certainly not the one to choose today. Capacity is what normally determines how long a HD lasts for an individual.

Third, I can honestly say that Samsung SSD's do not offer the snap that they 'should' be offering. Especially once you start multi-tasking with them (client's M6400 Dell 'stutters' for seconds at a time with the Samsung SSD simply right clicking on the desktop) - and on a modern O/S like windows 7 - multitasking is a given.

What I would recommend is get the smallest capacity/cheapest HD Dell offers and buy an Intel G2 (or two, if your notebook can handle two HD's internally). Or, wait a few months and get the G3's (or at least the 320GB G2's that Intel has promised) - a few months is a good compromise to make for making your system 'future-proof' for the next 4 or 5 years.

For your system, it is definitely worth to sacrifice the space, but not for the drives you mentioned (you may be regretting it). To put it in perspective, my VRaptor based desktop (1 VRaptor + 3 Raptors - Non-RAID) although slower when compared to the Samsung SSD for individual tasks, seems much more 'snappy' than that SSD when navigating/exploring the Windows O/S and especially when multi-tasking and doing 'real work' (developing/editing/converting RAW photos to jpg/tiff using 4 or 5 heavy duty programs simultaneously).

BTW, nice, nice system!

 

My laptop has two drive bays. I've found that the best compromise between speed, capacity and cost is to have one 120GB Intel SSD for a boot drive and storing current work and a 500GB Scorpio Blue for data that doesn't need to be accessed at high-speed (most of it).

 

Ah! That too would be my current 'optimum' setup (160GB Intel, right?).

The OP though said money no object.

 

Because the OP is getting it for free. That's why there are only two options. Why bother getting a smaller drive and upgrading, when you can get the best drive and still upgrade yourself.

 

Because both 'free' options are horrible?

 

If I may......

this thread is a bit disappointing because it is sounding alot like the ssd thread. Don't get me wrong here because that thread is chalk full of expertise that you cannot find elsewhere on the net but...it has the same mindset that keeps so many from scooping an ssd.

Why would I buy a Samsung if Intel is just around the corner? This has been going on since day one of ssd's where many believe that something bigger and better will come out as soon as they buy an ssd.

I have owned and tested pretty much every ssd out there and can honestly say you can still put any of them beside a HD and you are instantly amazed. I presently run a 256Gb Samsung and would tell any to jump at it if they truly want an ssd.

The ssd race now is exactly the same as the processor race was a few years back; there will always be bigger and better....but....I have to say....Samsung has nailed it with performance and size in this ssd as one or two others have as well.

In the end you have to ask yourself, if I wait until the next one will I not do the same then? Find yourself a deal and be amazed...There will also be something better around the corner but the truth is, most could never tell the performance difference between one and the other...

 

Les,

I value your opinion and thank you for weighing in here. Just that my Samsung and Intel SSD experience is extremely underwhelming on the systems I used them on.

Not only am I not amazed with either option (in their respective platforms), but can hardly recommend them (yet). Especially not for the 'productivity' gains that I base my 'upgrades' on.

I agree that everyone should be in a position to test for themselves what, if any benefits SSD's currently offer, but having finally used these devices myself, I am not yet a 'believer'.

Further testing (on my own systems) may certainly change my mind. Trust me, I 'want' to be wrong!

 

I respect your view but as amazed at the ssd now as I was when I first tested my Sandisk. This probably comes from the fact that I use my two home laptops (both with ssds) for work purposes at night whereas my work laptop and desktop do not use a ssd.

Windows 7 compliments this even more. I love the feeling that its almost like the system is knowing what I think when I start programs such as office or any windows included programs instantly.

I absolutely HATE the length it takes a HD system to start or shut down or to muddle their way through many programs. Again, I see this for the most part in different Office software and not much further.

I am not a gamer and do not use resource intensive CAD programs but, well, IMHO we are worlds ahead of where we were when the ssd I use now has read/write performance results that are over 3 times faster on my Samsung 256GB now then they were on my Toshiba160GB HD 2 years ago.

 

But if those are the options, then you have to pick the lesser of two evils. The Dell site only offered those two choices...

 

Okay, if those are the only options (I'm not convinced ), then get the Samsung SSD and sell it for an Intel 160GB G2. (At least I haven't seen that Intel even hint of a 'stutter' yet).

 

Les,

I too do not game. However, I have always used the fastest, biggest notebook drives available (currently a Scorpio Blue 500GB) and just as I was looking into SSD's, along comes a program I stumbled across that does what an SSD should be doing and for a fraction of what a 'real' SSD costs; eBoostr beta 4.

I too can notice the difference when using an SSD vs. a mechanical HD system, but those differences are not always all that favourable towards the SSD's.

What I am looking forward to is G3/G4/G5 SSD's and in the meantime Intel's Braidwood technology which the eBoostr beta is mimicking pretty good right now.

 

Neither.

I'd get a WD Scorpio Black 320GB if you want a 7200rpm drive. Otherwise, I'd get a 500GB 5400rpm drive; the Seagate is only faster than them in 1-2 tests (often other 5400rpm drives equal or beat it) and I trust Western Digital more these days when it comes to reliability.

In a few years, I'm sure I'll vote the SSD. Right now, capacity isn't enough for me, they're expensive, and I'm waiting until wear-leveling algorithms and TRIM support improve further.

 

Hmm....test comparisons???

Hers is my present Samsung 256GB overshadowing my old Seagate HD.

Throw your Scorpio in...curious.

 

Run PCMark Vantage and look at the HDD Suite results for your mechanical HDD. http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcmv=233473 I wonder how many of the voters for the mechanical drive have actually used an SSD?

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=4344828&postcount=16
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=5394696&postcount=1
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=4314247&postcount=10

Here is an example of at least two users that has experienced stuttering w/ Intel (G1 and G2).

 

Honestly, I do not see why most users need more than 160GB of space in a laptop. Personally, I can manage with 80GB. It is far more effective to have a NAS or just a simple 3.5" 1TB external hard drive and a fast SSD in your laptop, unless you work with large amounts of data (such as in video editing).

With no consideration for price, I would choose an SSD any day, as that is the only factor holding me back from upgrading to an Intel SSD. Even so, I plan to upgrade soon, as the performance gains from an SSD versus a HDD (especially a mediocre one such as the one I have now) are drastic.

 

For me, I need space because I like to store everything I have (movies, music, installed games) on the laptop as well as my eHDD so that I can watch/play wherever I am and won't bother wondering if I have it on my laptop. I normally only use my eHDD for manual backups so I rarely run movies and stuff off of it. Also, the eHDD is USB and that kind of slows things down and also the HDD is loud when in use. To be honest to fit all my stuff I think I need at least 1 TB.

 

Well, I once managed to create a 30GB temp file...
And I have abour 30GB of software installed (inlcuding my OS)
This would leave precious little space already...

(Just as an example)

On the software angle - I have about 10GBs worth of encyclopeadia that I didn't instal... and some people (students in graphics design etc.) may need more space to save files.

On the saced files (Music Photogrpahs, Uni files (maths for me)) I have about 65GB of files on my HDD...
This means that I'm currently using around 120GB - and I don't have that much on my laptop - most of my "stuff" is at home on external HDDs

 

sgogeta4,

thanks for the links but two of them are almost a year old and the one from a month ago seems to be 'okay' as Chris-m was waiting for Win 7.

As for what I wrote, I literally meant the Intel G2 drive I've used (not G2's in general) has not stuttered once while I've used it.

 

consumer style users have no need for more than 40gb, if they get over the habbit of having to store all their crap on the laptop. if they don't get over that, 4tb of storage is not enough

some specific workstation users might need more (like video editors that do it on the go)

 

Dave?
40GB for consumers on Vista?
(This isn't anti Vista, I actually like to have my drivers "on board" rather than require Windows Upate as on Win7.... (our printer))

But I see your point laptop =|= storage device

 

consumers nowadays need the os, maybe office, and a browser. 99% what they do is checking facebook, googling around, mailing.

most of them, obviously not all. still, os + some apps == around 20gb. and there would still be 20gb left for legal buyed music and photos of the last years.

for the typical consumer, that would be more than enough actually. if he'd know how to behave, that is

as said, even 4tb aren't enough for the typical consumer

 

I agree on the "typical consumer" = facebookgoogling etc.

But Vista is 10+GB alone

The question is really how much does the typical consumer want to carry around - ad most young people will want their music on them...
(and I need to head to uni!)

 

formulate it different: strip out all illegal software and downloads out of a typical young people's system, and he/she doesn't need more than 40gb (same for older ones of course, but the tendency is to fill it less by default).

then run for it, dude, go to the uni..

 

OK that work I suppose
I'm a rarity with being a student and buying too many CDs.

(at the station... - and I did rush I was surprised it was 10 to...)

 

Both.

A 40GB kingston V (intel controller) for the system +
a HDD for multimédia storage.

Bill = 150 $

It's funny to see how a HDD is noticeably faster as a storage drive only (when not hosting a OS).

 

I guess I'm not a typical consumer, which is why I configure my laptops to be extra powerful. Here's what I think I use:

- 15 GB for Windows 7 Pro x64 and its required drivers, etc.
- 20-30 GB for games that I actually play very often (CoD, NFS, Crysis, etc.)
- 500 MB for music (no I don't have much)
- 10 MB for photos (I rarely store photos on my laptop)
- 3 GB for schoolwork
- and at least 500 GB for just movies, 20 GB for 2 TV shows
- 20 GB free for Windows to work with so I don't get the sh*t lagged out of me

That totals about just under 70 GB + my movies storage. Right now I only have about 200 GB of movies because they are the ones I actually watch. I dunno, I'm not a big eHDD fan because that would require me to bring it around with me wherever I go, and if I wanted to bring extra accessories I might as well get a MacBook Pro/MacBook Air.

Oh and throw in about 5-10 GB for programs like Office, AutoCAD, iTunes, etc., along with an extra 10-20 GB for System Restore.

 

Well in terms of external HDDs... you could get a 1TB My Passport

Storage... I've got around 300GB of photogrpahic data - but with a bit of cleaning up I could gain a couple of GB (the ones where I used psd files as a step from RAW to JPEG - that was pointless unless i edite the pPSD files)