SSD v. 7200

I am thinking of replacing my T60 with a T510. Debating the harddrive. SSD is quicker, but the size limit of 128 GB is a little off-putting. How much of a speed difference would I notice versus a 7200. I suspect there is a thread on this already, but the search engine it too cluncky to make it readily findable.

 

Google is your friend. But here are a few striking examples:

YouTube - [M] SSD vs HDD - OCZ Vertex in Dell D630, Windows 7 Startup
YouTube - SSD vs 7200rpm HD

In general terms, raw data transfer to/from disk will be 2-3x faster on an SSD. However, random access times will be 50-60x faster on an SSD. The resultant speedup is, depending on what you're doing, somewhere in the middle.

 

I tested one and I didn't find the upgrade worth it. However, it really depends on how much hard drive speed is worth to you I guess. I know where you can get a 128gb samsung/lenovo ssd for a lot cheaper than the upgrade price if you buy it from lenovo though.

 

It also very much depends on the SSD you purchase.

There are slow SSD's out there, quite a number of them actually. If you're in the market, I suggest something either built by Intel, or else with the Sandforce 1200 controller.

 

External storage is cheap and easy enough so I will always use SSDs with my laptops as it just makes general usage productivity so much more enjoyable.

 

My experience with SSD's leans toward... they're great!!

My T400 starts up W7 quickly and when I press any application notorious for loading slowly it will pop up very quickly with my SSD. I don't think I will ever want to go back to using platter drives for my OS partition! I do use the platter for my ultrabay storage though.

 

Once you go SSD, you never go HDD.....

 

If you often sit in front of your unit, with the HD LED on or flashing, and you thinking 'come OOOOOON!!!!!', then it's worth it. Otherwise yeah it's nice but not a must.

 

That has not been my experience at all. I don't find my Intel SSD to be significantly faster than a HDD in most situations. The main benefit to me is cool and quiet operation.

 

Does SSD speed up entering/going out from hibernate?

 

Well, once I tok it out of my T60 and put it into my X201 the benchmarks were WAY faster than the HDD. The thing is, really how much of the speed of your computer has to do with the HDD? Takes some time off your boot, but my X201 boots, with the programs I have set to load at startup, in 50 seconds with the HDD anyways. Windows 7 64-bit seems to have good memory handling, so everything loads up quickly anyways.

 

it's not only about speed. SSDs don't have any mechanical parts and are less prone to failure, you can move around with your laptop on and SSD working with no risks.

now i don't know what the actual failure rate is on SSDs, does anybody know?

 

Yeah, I think maybe Sir Punk has it right. But with Active Protection...I guess it just depends how much money you have. You cut out a little bit of heat, a little bit of weight, and it seems give yourself a little bit of battery life with an SSD. After using one, to me, the benefits are only worth $50 though, not $200, but if I had more money then I wouldn't care about $200. Maybe it's like CPUs - everybody says CPU speed doesn't matter, but for a lot of my uses it does - maybe for a different use the SSD would matter a lot more.

 

I would love an SSD, but until 500GB 2.5" drives are available and cost < $300, it's not going to happen.

For the average user who wants performance and reliability, a small SSD is great, but if you need to have a lot of data, you can't beat a HDD.

A small SSD is however a good way to give an older laptop a new lease of life.

 

While this is correct in theory, I can’t say it’s valid for the current crop of SSDs—particularly the ones from OCZ. With the rushed pace of bringing affordable SSDs to the market, many of these are half-baked—and the firmware is really not production ready—so many of these SSDs fail before their time. In addition, all SSDs have a limited number of write cycles—some more than others—and the current plan is to use wear-leveling algorithms and similar technologies to make certain this limit is never reached/not reached for a long time.

 

I concur. I replaced the stock Seagate 160GB 7200rpm drive in my x200s with an Intel 160GB Gen2 SSD.

Boot/sleep/resume/shutdown times are great. All other operations improved somewhat, but it wasn't the night-and-day difference I was expecting after watching those YouTube SSD boot time videos. It's definitely quieter though, which is nice.

 

You have two more choices.

1. SSD primary drive with regular HD replacing the DVD drive.

2. The Seagate Momentus XT Hybrid, which combines 4GB of SSD with 500GB of magnetic HD. Performance is between SSD & magnetic HD. See http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...e-momentus-xt-hybrid-hdd-w-built-4gb-ssd.html

 

The 64GB SSD in my X301 is just as fast as the HDD in my T61 (160GB, 7200RPM's), but with a MUCH smaller storage space.
Boot up times a MUCH faster, and shut-down times are MUCH improved as well compared to my T61.

 

Yes coooooool & Quiet!

 

Thanks. Not exactly unanimous, but it sounds like it is worth getting, as the extra money is not a super big deal to me. I already have an external hard drive anyway.

 

I believe these SSD's are worth the money, they run cool, very fast, better battery life & easier on whole computer. I purchased a brand new Kingston 128 GB for $ 189.00 new on Ebay, this thing has plenty of useable space & I would never look back! I have 2 CADD programs, games & alot of drawings & files, no comparison to the past!

 

Is SSD worth AUD$350 in a Thinkpad X201 core i5?

About to buy my first Lenovo

 

"Worth" is a many-headed beast! - but in your case you would be "upgrading" a 160GB 5400rpm HDD to a 120GB SSD for $350. As long as 120GB is enough space (if it isn't, then the 120GB SSD will be poor value, whatever its other virtues), then all that is left to judge is any added value for the extra dollars. The $350 is initial extra cost - but value is spread over the time of the component's use - it's best to spread the extra cost calculation over the expected likely time period the part will be used (and, hopefully, be of extra value!) - say 3 years? So the extra cost over the use-time of added value is not $350 but rather $117 per annum. For that you get the added value of a component that has no moving parts, is utterly silent, and very tough - and much much quicker (system-wide as well as within itself).

The question then is whether $117 a year is "worth it" for the added value. There is no right answer, but one for you. For myself, I spent $470 on a 120GB SSD 15 months ago, and feel I have never got better value for my dollars. My experience of moving between a 7200rpm HDD and a SSD is a matter of light and day - using exactly the same software, data and settings (from a common image). But note that others have reported on this forum finding little difference! - for them the upgrade would not be regarded as good value.