Do SSDs really make a big difference in load times?

[Red Squirrel]

Say I raid 2 of them in a raid 0, would that be like, super fast to load stuff, or barely noticable? I'm thinking of doing it, just for kicks. Also, on a typical every day use PC, what would be the lifespan of them considering they degrade? Would this speed be short lived?

Or should I wait till sata 3 is mainstream?

 

[n7]

To me, yes.

But honestly, considering how it seems every SSD out there presently has issues of some kind, waiting for a little bit for them to work on the shortcomings & pricing wouldn't be a bad idea IMO.

The VelociRaptors are pretty impressive, & there's no noticeable stuttering or performance degradation over time like you'll find with SSDs.

In spite of my disappointment with my own SSD though, i don't foresee myself ever going back to a non-SSD for an OS drive on my main system.
I liked my Raptors because they made everything feel snappy.
Even with my Intel's broken write speeds, read/access is still marvelous....not remotely worth what i paid for it, but eh, i learned the hard way.

 

[ShawnD1]

SSD is not worth it just yet, in my opinion. As seen in anandtech's review of SSD, a VelociRaptor is right up there in performance.

Even the raptor is a scam. What are you doing that requires all this performance? The only thing I can think of would be video editing. If you're looking for straight up read/write and don't care too much about latency, you'll get much better value out of getting 2 standard drives and putting them in RAID0. A raptor is like $200 for 300gb. For that same $200 you can get 2TB in RAID0 and get the same performance, not including latency.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Guess I'm better off waiting. It was more for the "woah look at how fast that loads" factor, nothing more tbh.

I would enjoy messing with those in a server environment though, but I'm best to wait as they are quite pricy. For the price of them I could just build another 2TB array.

 

[Zapper48]

Iv'e run 2 of the first gen 36gb Raptors in RAIDO for years.I really did like the "snappy"
response.I ran them until a couple minths ago when I broke the SATA connector off of one.
I thought about going the SSD route but BestBuy had these 300gb VelociRaptors for $199
so I picked up 2 for RAIDO.Eventually I will probably go SSD but with the drives I have now there's no hurry.I can wait for the SSD tech to mature and become more price competitive.:beer:

 

[cm123]

I went on my main rig from 2 V-Raptors to 2 Intel X25-M SSD, much different, in FarCry2 there is zero waiting, right into next level and off to my spot right away, same with CoD5 and 4 also with Fear2.

I will never again go back to even V-Raptor - I asked the same thing(s) you did here a while back, yes some SSD have their problems, not the Intel X25-M or X25-E series though...

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: cm123
...not the Intel X25-M or X25-E series though...

Oh yes they do.

http://ense7en.com/pics/Intel%...iskMark%2002.15.09.JPG

I don't have the time or patience to try various formatting tricks just to hopefully get write speeds back to 70+ MB/s, & honestly, i shouldn't have to.

 

[ElBurro]

A faster drive will obviously result in faster load times. Regardless of whether it's an SSD or not. So if you get a fast SSD than it will result in you getting information of of them quickly. If you get a slow SSD than not so much.

 

[Rick James]

My 99 dollar Patriot SSD booted Xp Pro in half the time

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: cm123
I went on my main rig from 2 V-Raptors to 2 Intel X25-M SSD, much different, in FarCry2 there is zero waiting, right into next level and off to my spot right away, same with CoD5 and 4 also with Fear2.

Intel X25 - $730/160gb = $4.56 per GB

Far Cry 2 requires 6gb of free space. Simply having that game installed on your hard drive costs $27.

Methinks games are not what SSD is for.

 

[allthatisman]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: cm123
I went on my main rig from 2 V-Raptors to 2 Intel X25-M SSD, much different, in FarCry2 there is zero waiting, right into next level and off to my spot right away, same with CoD5 and 4 also with Fear2.

Intel X25 - $730/160gb = $4.56 per GB

Far Cry 2 requires 6gb of free space. Simply having that game installed on your hard drive costs $27.

Methinks games are not what SSD is for.

Sort of an odd way of thinking, but I guess you are right... SSD's will get better when the software gets better (OS software that is). Vista wasn't designed for the differences that spindle drives and SSD drives have, and being that HDD still dominate the market we pretty much have to wait to see what they do with Windows 7. I for one have played with all the little tweaks and have found that no tweaks at all work the best(for me anyway). The Titan mostly gives me issues when I use Firefox, and various other internet activities. I turned all the tweaks off and it seems to have calmed down. The one thing that I will say is that I can't bench my drive to what the specs say it should be at... here is a screenshot of a typical test:

http://img.photobucket.com/alb...atisman/screensnew.jpg

and for giggles my pc:

http://img.photobucket.com/alb...thatisman/DSCN0467.jpg

Games load REAL fast still, and all other apps that were slowish on load times pretty much pop right up. I have had this drive since Jan 25th... so I was one of the very first adopters of the Titan. Hope this bit of insight helps!

 

[ShawnD1]

That dollars to store a game thing only applies if you're using the SSD as storage. Generally speaking, fast drives like raptor and cheetah were intended for temporary things like video creation. Once the video is created on the super expensive high performance drive, it's moved over to the el cheapo drive for storage. I guess something like that can be done for games, but I can't imagine someone spending a lot of time swapping games back and forth between the SSD and the storage drive. The alternative would be to put games on the SSD and keep them there. As a casual gamer, my games folder is 253GB when NTFS compressed, so that's even less feasible than swapping back and forth.

I should clarify that I'm not trying to troll and say that you're wrong. I'm just arguing in favor of what I think is a more viable alternative - putting shitty drives in RAID.

 

[allthatisman]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
That dollars to store a game thing only applies if you're using the SSD as storage. Generally speaking, fast drives like raptor and cheetah were intended for temporary things like video creation. Once the video is created on the super expensive high performance drive, it's moved over to the el cheapo drive for storage. I guess something like that can be done for games, but I can't imagine someone spending a lot of time swapping games back and forth between the SSD and the storage drive. The alternative would be to put games on the SSD and keep them there. As a casual gamer, my games folder is 253GB when NTFS compressed, so that's even less feasible than swapping back and forth.

I should clarify that I'm not trying to troll and say that you're wrong. I'm just arguing in favor of what I think is a more viable alternative - putting shitty drives in RAID.

I agree. In the end two caviar black 640 gigs would definitly be fast, and less than one ssd. With warhammer online, fallout 3 and about 20 gigs of itunes I have about 50 gigs free. Granted I also have an external and 1tb hdd for whatever. I honestly kept too many games that I no longer played on the terabyte before I got the ssd. If I had the 256 gb Titan I think I would be sitting just fine.

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: cm123
I went on my main rig from 2 V-Raptors to 2 Intel X25-M SSD, much different, in FarCry2 there is zero waiting, right into next level and off to my spot right away, same with CoD5 and 4 also with Fear2.

Intel X25 - $730/160gb = $4.56 per GB

Far Cry 2 requires 6gb of free space. Simply having that game installed on your hard drive costs $27.

Methinks games are not what SSD is for.

What a ridiculous post. Games/OS/Other highly accessed files is exactly what you want an SSD to store. Just because YOU dont play games. And pricing it out like that makes you look like an ass. Who are you to tell people what they use most and will get the best benefit from? To some people the time saved loading textures and geometry in a game they play constantly is WORTH that 27$ and more.


Putting shitty HDDs in a raid does not even come close. How about actually using it and get your nose out of the technical papers.

Also to the people with the sky-is-falling attitudes about SSD in general, realize that ALWAYS in technology the more vocal will be those with issues. The issues are not as big as you want to believe nor as wide spread. You will have a much easier time finding someone irate about it than the 10 people behind him happily ripping through whatever makes them happy using this technology.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: aeternitas
What a ridiculous post. Games/OS/Other highly accessed files is exactly what you want an SSD to store. Just because YOU dont play games. And pricing it out like that makes you look like an ass. Who are you to tell people what they use most and will get the best benefit from? To some people the time saved loading textures and geometry in a game they play constantly is WORTH that 27$ and more.

You're willing to pay $27 per game to save 2 seconds of load time? Posting the price makes me look like an ass? Oh I'm sorry I thought this was a forum where people were supposed to get information. cm123 gave information, and that was great. I posted more information, including price, and that's bad? Are you some kind of fanboy who can't tolerate opposing view points?

Putting shitty HDDs in a raid does not even come close. How about actually using it and get your nose out of the technical papers.

So those speed benchmarks are totally meaningless? I better go tell Anand before he wastes more time benchmarking things!

 

[Yellowbeard]

Originally posted by: n7
To me, yes.Even with my Intel's broken write speeds, read/access is still marvelous....not remotely worth what i paid for it, but eh, i learned the hard way.

Don't you just love the perks of being an early adopter? The bleeding edge makes your wallet bleed

 

[IntelUser2000]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: cm123
...not the Intel X25-M or X25-E series though...

Oh yes they do.

http://ense7en.com/pics/Intel%...iskMark%2002.15.09.JPG

I don't have the time or patience to try various formatting tricks just to hopefully get write speeds back to 70+ MB/s, & honestly, i shouldn't have to.

IMO, the SSD manufacturers should never post write speeds just like HDD manufacturers show only RPM and access times. You buy your platter HDD believing that you'd get 120MB/s but at the end of the drive it would transfer at 70-80MB/s.

Question to n7: has your system slowed down? If it hasn't then the benchmarks are non-real to you. Likely there's very little chance that average users take advantage of sequential writes anyway.

Remember the claims about X25-E achieving 3300 IOPS on 4K writes?? Well 3300 IOPS is only 13.2MB/s at 4K. Of course what Intel showed with 3300 IOPS is demanding server usage but your speed says you are still above the 3300 IOPS.

The problem people see is that the random-->sequential conversion essentially takes out the difference between random and sequential access. The speeds are tied together rather than being independent.

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
SSD is not worth it just yet, in my opinion. As seen in anandtech's review of SSD, a VelociRaptor is right up there in performance.

That review is from seven months ago. Lots of new SSD models have been released since then. It would REALLY HELPFUL (hint hint Anandtech staff) if they could do a roundup of the recent SSD drives and also include talk on the Conclusion page about what's going to be released within the next ~3 months.

 

[coolVariable]

Originally posted by: yacoub
That review is from seven months ago. Lots of new SSD models have been released since then. It would REALLY HELPFUL (hint hint Anandtech staff) if they could do a roundup of the recent SSD drives and also include talk on the Conclusion page about what's going to be released within the next ~3 months.

Agree.
Am rather disappointed that they have not done this already.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: coolVariable

Originally posted by: yacoub
That review is from seven months ago. Lots of new SSD models have been released since then. It would REALLY HELPFUL (hint hint Anandtech staff) if they could do a roundup of the recent SSD drives and also include talk on the Conclusion page about what's going to be released within the next ~3 months.

Agree.
Am rather disappointed that they have not done this already.

Bitch bitch bitch, you guys act like it takes all of a couple hours at most to run a crystaldiskmark, hdtach, and PCMark Vantage bench on a new SSD.

Oh wait, that is about all it takes...hmmm, maybe the Anandtech guys just work Monday and Tuesday of every other week and only in the months that end with the letter "r"?

Yeah you got me, I'm not sure why an SSD review need occur but twice a year. Maybe they just aren't all that excited by hard-drive tech. If their passions lie elsewhere then so to will their priorities and efforts.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000
IMO, the SSD manufacturers should never post write speeds just like HDD manufacturers show only RPM and access times. You buy your platter HDD believing that you'd get 120MB/s but at the end of the drive it would transfer at 70-80MB/s.

Question to n7: has your system slowed down? If it hasn't then the benchmarks are non-real to you. Likely there's very little chance that average users take advantage of sequential writes anyway.

Remember the claims about X25-E achieving 3300 IOPS on 4K writes?? Well 3300 IOPS is only 13.2MB/s at 4K. Of course what Intel showed with 3300 IOPS is demanding server usage but your speed says you are still above the 3300 IOPS.

The problem people see is that the random-->sequential conversion essentially takes out the difference between random and sequential access. The speeds are tied together rather than being independent.

Other people have had the speed issue i have; it's not new.

They've "fixed" it by running certain formatting tools, & then it goes back to 70+ MB/s.

It's NOT normal to be running at 30 MB/s write...it didn't when i first bought it.
I just don't have the time or patience to reload an OS on it again or fight with formatting tools to get it to smarten up & go back to normal write speeds.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: coolVariable

Originally posted by: yacoub
That review is from seven months ago. Lots of new SSD models have been released since then. It would REALLY HELPFUL (hint hint Anandtech staff) if they could do a roundup of the recent SSD drives and also include talk on the Conclusion page about what's going to be released within the next ~3 months.

Agree.
Am rather disappointed that they have not done this already.

You ask, AT delivers...

LOTS of great info in there.

Now quityerbitchin' and go read that article.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000
IMO, the SSD manufacturers should never post write speeds just like HDD manufacturers show only RPM and access times. You buy your platter HDD believing that you'd get 120MB/s but at the end of the drive it would transfer at 70-80MB/s.

Question to n7: has your system slowed down? If it hasn't then the benchmarks are non-real to you. Likely there's very little chance that average users take advantage of sequential writes anyway.

Remember the claims about X25-E achieving 3300 IOPS on 4K writes?? Well 3300 IOPS is only 13.2MB/s at 4K. Of course what Intel showed with 3300 IOPS is demanding server usage but your speed says you are still above the 3300 IOPS.

The problem people see is that the random-->sequential conversion essentially takes out the difference between random and sequential access. The speeds are tied together rather than being independent.

Other people have had the speed issue i have; it's not new.

They've "fixed" it by running certain formatting tools, & then it goes back to 70+ MB/s.

It's NOT normal to be running at 30 MB/s write...it didn't when i first bought it.
I just don't have the time or patience to reload an OS on it again or fight with formatting tools to get it to smarten up & go back to normal write speeds.

Your applications will never run at sequential speeds no matter how fresh the drive is. Unless you are streaming video from your hard drive all day or having a blu-ray rip server, then sequential speeds are most of the time useless. If your system is still responsive or whatever you are doing doesn't show the slower writes, you don't have a problem.

Read speeds are actually important in most scenarios because PC usage is heavily read speed dependent.

Does it stutter? Do you notice it less responsive? Your applications run slower than before?