At what point is an SSD worth it?

[VirtualLarry]

When they replace HDs entirely?

When cost comes down to $1/GB or lower?

When you run apps that demand concurrent I/Os higher than a mechanical HD can sustain (VM usage)?

When they are packaged free in Cracker Jack (tm) boxes?


I'm still on the fence. I have yet to have an SSD blow my socks off. I've installed and used them, and while faster than a regular HD, they're not so fast as to make me immediately swear off using a regular HD.

Another consideration, for me, would be the fact that I'm still on an ICH9R chipset, which is limited to SATA 3G speeds.

Maybe I'll get a Crucial M4 (or one of the next-gen Intel 6G SSDs) when I move to Sandy/Ivy Bridge.

The only thing that I can see that an SSD is good for, is being free of any issues of vibration or shock, compared to a regular HD. That is one positive factual point for SSDs.

Cost is still a big issue to me, as is the apparent unreliability of SSDs. (FAR less reliable than HDs, even 2TB HDs.)

The only current-gen SSDs that I would consider, based mostly on reliability, would be: Crucial M4, Samsung 470, and Intel 320. Even Intel had some problems though, with the 8MB bug (supposedly now fixed). I haven't heard of any showstopping bugs with Crucial or Samsung.

 

[Red Squirrel]

For general data storage? When they get unlimited writes and get cheaper per GB.

For OS? Now seems like a decent time. They are coming down in price, and you don't need that much space for just the OS. I'd still use spindle disks in raid for data though. They can store more and have unlimited writes (more or less). They do fail from mechanical but it's not based on the number of writes.

 

[jhansman]

I got my M4 strictly for OS and a select few apps. No regrets, money well spent. But then, I wasn't expecting to have my socks blown off, only to see a significant increase in load times and less heat in my case, both of which I got.

 

[Blain]

When they replace HDs entirely?

There is no magic tipping point for SSDs replacing spinning platter disks.
It's like "beauty", it's in the eye of the beholder.
What makes something a "value" for you may not be a value for me.

 

[zCypher]

Right now is when they're worth it. You can buy 120GB drives for less than $200. That's good enough. Why? Because you already have a regular hard drive and it can be used as backup, so 120GB is plenty for now for an OS/apps/boot drive. At under $200 it's well worth it.

The fact that regular HDD are so cheap now isn't a deterrent IMO, it's yet another reason to get an SSD. When you can get so much cheap HDD storage, what sane reason is there to not get an SSD as boot drive?

 

[Meghan54]

For value, that's between you and your wallet. Only you know what your budget is and how an SSD will impact it.

As far as how well it can effecto your system performance, I just bought a 250GB Intel SSD for my OS/main drive. Not exactly cheap, but I tried a 40GB SSD using the Rapid Storage TEch. on the Z68 mb, ad that was impressive enough to sway me to buy a larger SSD for "real" SSD performance across all my programs, not just the ones the RST caches. The RST was a decent stop-gap alternative, but it showed me the potential for how well an SSD will speed up a system. So, found the money and bought one. Not sorry one bit.....and value is this: my time is worth a lot to me.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

This seems like your thread of the week subject or something. SSDs were "worth it" when the very first one sold -- somebody paid money for it. You could argue whether or not they regretted the purchase, but the things have kept selling, so you'd lose the argument.

When I convinced my boss to pay $450 for a 120GB Vertex 2 for my work computer in 2010, it was well worth it. The near-instant responsiveness of my work computer made my working experience almost completely frustration-free from the perspective of the computer. When you spend 16 or so hours a day every day on a computer, it makes a *huge* difference.

With my new/current job, I have to log into a VM on the other side of the country, running Windows XP, on slow hardware. It is absolutely painful and frustrating to no end.

In the last month I upgraded my home computer to Sandy Bridge and put a 128GB M4 in here, and don't regret one single cent of that purchase. Not a single cent.

 

[Spikesoldier]

it was worth it when intel G2 came out and the price drops associated with it

i bought my first G1 literally a week before the price drop. got it for 250 instead of 600 dollars though. the G2 debuted at ~229.

 

[DirkGently1]

At what point was going from a single core cpu to a quad core cpu worth it?

In both cases i would answer, as soon as they were available to buy.

 

[WT]

When ??? Yesterday for me.
I bought the Gigabyte Z68 board with an onboard 20gb Intel Larsen 311 SSD to use with 2 WD 1tb Blacks in RAID 0.

Thing was not cheap when you look at its measly 20gb size, but I'm going to give it a try and hope it works as advertised.

 

[beginner99]

Now if you are annoyed by stuttering waiting and other issues.

Surprisingly most typical users don't mind these issues because the just say. "Ah, computers just suck" when they are slow. I see it so often. Computers I would tag as unusable and the users claims he doesn't see my problem.

 

[groberts101]

At what point is an SSD worth it?

Simple really.. at the point where you finally decide that your time saved is worth the money spent.

and to each his own

 

[KingFatty]

The argument against SSDs is weakened when based on experience using the slower SATA II instead of SATA III.

 

[groberts101]

lol.. that would only be applicable to anyone who has fast enough raided storage(or another comparable SSD) to read/write from. Otherwise.. the bulk of the initial perception is solely caused by the ultra-low latency.

IOW, having an SSD connected to a sata1 port will not be silly-slow compared to an SSD connected to a sata3 port. If it was that much of a difference then everyone would be tossing aside their older boards and flocking to buy sata3.

I've installed a V3 240GB onto my sata1 Dell laptop and it's barely much slower than running it on a sata3 PC. UNLESS.. I try to R/W from another raided strorage volume that can make use of that extra speed.

 

[corkyg]

For my main desktop, probably never. The old P4 CPU is not worth it. When that gets replaced - yes. On my laptop, probably never. It is used only for travel and then is largely dependent on satellite Internet access - so any SSD speed would not really bring anything to the party. So, maybe when the T510 gets replaced in a couple of years. <VBG>

 

[Tsavo]

When they replace HDs entirely?

When cost comes down to $1/GB or lower?

When you run apps that demand concurrent I/Os higher than a mechanical HD can sustain (VM usage)?

When they are packaged free in Cracker Jack (tm) boxes?


I'm still on the fence. I have yet to have an SSD blow my socks off. I've installed and used them, and while faster than a regular HD, they're not so fast as to make me immediately swear off using a regular HD.

Another consideration, for me, would be the fact that I'm still on an ICH9R chipset, which is limited to SATA 3G speeds.

Maybe I'll get a Crucial M4 (or one of the next-gen Intel 6G SSDs) when I move to Sandy/Ivy Bridge.

The only thing that I can see that an SSD is good for, is being free of any issues of vibration or shock, compared to a regular HD. That is one positive factual point for SSDs.

Cost is still a big issue to me, as is the apparent unreliability of SSDs. (FAR less reliable than HDs, even 2TB HDs.)

The only current-gen SSDs that I would consider, based mostly on reliability, would be: Crucial M4, Samsung 470, and Intel 320. Even Intel had some problems though, with the 8MB bug (supposedly now fixed). I haven't heard of any showstopping bugs with Crucial or Samsung.

This is like the 5th or 6th thread you made on the subject. Either buy an SSD or don't; if you aren't sensitive to delays resulting from using a spindle drive, by all means, avoid an SSD.

There are people, like myself, that feel using any system run from a spindle feels hugely broken and there are people that don't really see the difference.

I'm not an impatient person, there is a pretty big difference doing anything on even a slow SSD (G2 user) than doing anything on the fastest spindles out there. Try poking around in event viewer. Or something less taxing like launching Firefox. Or Office 2010. Or CS5. Or using your pc in any fashion other than as a bookend or a doorstop and the difference to me is nothing less than full-stop shocking.

 

[taltamir]

There is no magic tipping point for SSDs replacing spinning platter disks.
It's like "beauty", it's in the eye of the beholder.
What makes something a "value" for you may not be a value for me.

Actually there is a magic tipping point.
When SSD gain sufficient market penetration for HDD factories to be shut down.

CRTs died when their factories were shut down due to LCDs gaining sufficient traction, eventually that will happen with HDDs as well.

I am guessing it will be about 10 years from now.

 

[pitz]

Its not always a performance problem -- it is also a reliability problem! I use my laptop heavily, and the mechanical HDDs were only lasting 1 year. Now I'm a year and a half into using a 128gb SSD and I haven't had to replace the drive yet.

If you figure the cost of a replacement drive + the cost of one's time to restore a backup (or worse) -- going with a SSD on that basis alone in a laptop is pretty much a no-brainer.

 

[pitz]

The argument against SSDs is weakened when based on experience using the slower SATA II instead of SATA III.

Not really. A SATA-2 interface is perfectly adequate for a SSD. The real beauty of a SSD performance-wise is in random I/O, which is most of what a typical Windows user does anyways.

Not many people even have access to SATA-3 electronics these days anyways.

as is the apparent unreliability of SSDs. (FAR less reliable than HDs, even 2TB HDs.)

Stop buying bargain-basement, gamer-oriented brands then. The drives that Dell/Lenovo/HP/Apple qualify for use in their laptops and desktops, while they're not the sexiest, fastest SSDs on the market, rarely, if ever have the bleeding-edge firmware issues that some of the rush-to-market-with-cheap-controller drives do. There's a reason why a SSD with a Dell laptop costs $600 instead of $150, :lol:

 

[Coup27]

Not really. A SATA-2 interface is perfectly adequate for a SSD. The real beauty of a SSD performance-wise is in random I/O, which is most of what a typical Windows user does anyways.

Unfortunately most users forget this fact and chase SATA III interfaces and drives such as an M4 thinking it will be the quickest. An Intel 320 has much better random performance than the M4 and will also hold its speed better over long term use.

I rarely move large sequential files around my SSD, and for how often I do, ~250MB/sec is adequate.

 

[krumme]

For office and gaming use anything at and above core duo, will benefit tremendously from a ssd. Its the ssd making the difference for subjective benefit = real benefit. We are way beyond the tipping point. I simply dont share the OP experience. Did you have them in you machine and did you then go back to the mechanical hd. I guess you must be the first one in history

I can say - from a personal perspective - there is a very slight difference between the force 3 and the indillinx drive, but hey, the major difference is from the mecanical hd to the jm micron - just go for it, and take the cheap and reliable on. What is the waiting for?

 

[VirtualLarry]

This is like the 5th or 6th thread you made on the subject. Either buy an SSD or don't; if you aren't sensitive to delays resulting from using a spindle drive, by all means, avoid an SSD.

There are people, like myself, that feel using any system run from a spindle feels hugely broken and there are people that don't really see the difference.

I'm not an impatient person, there is a pretty big difference doing anything on even a slow SSD (G2 user) than doing anything on the fastest spindles out there. Try poking around in event viewer. Or something less taxing like launching Firefox. Or Office 2010. Or CS5. Or using your pc in any fashion other than as a bookend or a doorstop and the difference to me is nothing less than full-stop shocking.

I'm going to get one for myself as a Christmas present, finally. Still trying to decide which one. I think I might just bite the bullet on price, and get an Intel 320. None of the other SSDs have the features that I want, and SATA 6G is of no use to me currently.

It's going to be for a laptop. So I think that I need to size it a little bigger than I might otherwise for a desktop. Win7 64-bit is going to be the OS. Unsure, might buy Ultimate to upgrade my ride.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Its not always a performance problem -- it is also a reliability problem! I use my laptop heavily, and the mechanical HDDs were only lasting 1 year. Now I'm a year and a half into using a 128gb SSD and I haven't had to replace the drive yet.

If you figure the cost of a replacement drive + the cost of one's time to restore a backup (or worse) -- going with a SSD on that basis alone in a laptop is pretty much a no-brainer.

This is why I'm finally going to get one, no vibration/shock issues with SSD for laptops.

An Intel 320 has much better random performance than the M4 and will also hold its speed better over long term use.

That's a good data point. It re-enforces my tentative decision to go with the Intel 320.

Will Intel release their refreshed controllers by December? Would it be wiser to go with their newer drives, if they support SATA 6G, just for future-proofing? Or would that be too bleeding-edge? I figure that the G2 controller (also used in the 320 series with updated firmware), is basically tried-and-true now, so it would be a solid and reliable choice.

 

[aceO07]

Worth it for me. The Intel 320 300GB is awesome.

 

[YBS1]

I'm still on the fence. I have yet to have an SSD blow my socks off. I've installed and used them, and while faster than a regular HD, they're not so fast as to make me immediately swear off using a regular HD.

That's part of the problem right there. It's very rare for an upgrade of any kind to really blow your socks off. It's when you downgrade (usually not by choice, part failure, temporary swap, etc.) that blows your mind and makes you realize how good a particular item really is. I've had this happen numerous times with various pieces of hardware. Use a good SSD for a month then switch back to a HDD, you'll want to pull your hair out.