• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

help me choose between a velociraptor and a SSD

N

ncage

Golden Member
Guys i'm having a hard time choosing between this SSD:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820233075

and a 300GB velociraptor. I already have a 750GB WD 7200rpm drive in this machine that i will be using for the data drive. I keep going back and forth.I hate hard drive benchmarks for the most part. They are hard to equate to real world performance differences. The best response would be someone who had a similar ssd (i'm pretty sure its pretty close to the OCZ vertex) and a velociraptor 🙂. Mostly i'm doing this to speed up Visual Studio and all the programming tools i run. I play a couple games but i'm not much of a gamer so it doesn't matter that much to me. Visual Studio is all about large number of read/writes so think access time is going to make a huge difference. Any help would be appreciated.

thanks,
Ncage
 
ncage, if you have the money for it, go with the SSD. It's performance cannot be told by numbers. I have a 2 Raptors in RAID0 config for the system drive. I was visiting a friend that has a cheap Mushkin 64Gb SSD and found out my RAID0 of Raptors were c#@p compared to a single SSD. I didn't run any benchmarks, it was just the feel of the system. That SSD system was instantaneous and snappy, apps would load many times faster than on my Raptors, Windows would boot 2-3 times faster.
I will have my own SSD in a couple of weeks. I already bought them, 2 120Gb OCZ Vertex drives. Will run them in RAID0 as well. Will post some results on here once it's done.
 
Check AT's vertex review, it included a raptor for reference in many benches- overall an SSD is a better performer and it's time to move on from the stone age of mechanical HDDs.
 
It's nowhere near the OCZ Vertex and it costs $300 with random reads similar to the Raptor. Anyway, if you are running Windows 7, there's so much indexing and pre-caching that makes up quite a bit of ground. I have an OCZ Vertex, Intel X18-M, Intel X25-E, and the difference between those three drives and the VR 300GB to me doesn't feel "jump out the building" difference for light desktop use. In fact its rather minor.
 
If you want your desktop to feel instantly responsive you need an SSD to get there. The difference between a Vertex and Vraptor is enormous in percentage but it comes down to what the user defines as acceptable performance. People who aren't seeing this are doing something wrong or just don't care about it enough to justify the cost.

Load times for apps like remote desktop windows, browsers, folder windows, utility apps, and so on are on the low end to begin with on a normal HD (say 4 seconds a piece just because). They load instantly with no perceivable wait at all on my SSD. I open these windows dozens if not hundreds of times a day while at work. The difference is huge.
 
My experience with the VR vs. the Vertex on Vista 64 is that the two are so close in terms of "snappiness" and app launching, that the decision should generally be made based upon the other merits of SSDs (i.e. silence, durability, etc).

The most significant improvement with the Vertex was that large Excel files saved instantly, as opposed to taking (maybe) one to two seconds. Even when launching multiple apps, the margin between the Vertex and VR was very, very narrow.

That said, if you will be doing a lot of small read/writes, the benefits of an SSD may become more apparent. At this point, I still view SSDs as an alternative, and not a replacement to traditional HDDs. Each has its own set of strengths and weaknesses, and it is up to the user to determine which tool is appropriate.
 
That Corsair is much slower (only 90MB/s read, 70MB/s Write) than Vertex or intel SSD (they have 230+ MB/s read, 100+MB Write)
 
i dunno the intel ones or vertex, im using corsair 128gb one upgraded from vr, slower big file transfer, a lot faster load of applications, time booting vista 64 reduced 20%, my vr is in my htpc now
 
well, if you like that you would love the vertex or the intel... which have been lauded in practically every review as being amazingly faster than other ssds.
 
Does the vertex SSD drives do well with gaming? Or is their still stutter? I play mostly BF2 Crysis etc. And I am debating either the raptor or the vertex..
 
If you use Vista the pre-fetch function will eliminate more than 50% of the SSD speed benefits.
Booting will be faster and rarely used programs open just as fast as the frequently used ones.
 
Originally posted by: zod96
Does the vertex SSD drives do well with gaming? Or is their still stutter? I play mostly BF2 Crysis etc. And I am debating either the raptor or the vertex..
Click to expand...

stutter is caused by 4K write speeds, which were utter crap on SSDs prior to the vertex and intel X25M

4K write speeds (stutter causing)
regular SSD < < regular drive < velociraptor < vertex < intel X25-M

So no, the vertex will not stutter.
 
Originally posted by: zod96
Does the vertex SSD drives do well with gaming? Or is their still stutter? I play mostly BF2 Crysis etc. And I am debating either the raptor or the vertex..
Click to expand...

The Gskill Falcon, which uses the same controller as the vertex is around 80 bucks cheaper for the 120gb. It also works with wiper(the ghetto trimm function).
 
There's nothing to decide really.

A good SSD like the Intel/Kingston or Vertex/Falcon will blow away the VR like no tomorrow.

If you cannot handle the price/lack of total storage size you get with an SSD, then you get the VR.

Otherwise, you absolutely get the SSD...performance between good SSDs & VRs aren't in the same game.
 
I'm leaning towards the Gskill Falcon 64 gb for $199. Are most Falcon and Vertex drives the same speed wise? I'm still really concerned about stutter. Every SSD drive I've heard about other than the Intel ones were supposed to suck big time for gaming. If I get one I want to be able to play BF2 stutter free. And I use Windows Xp so will that make a difference?
 
Well if you are really afraid, just look for a deal on the Intel lol.

I found there were two games on the Vertex where it had trouble with intro videos (of all things)--Dawn of War 2 and Crysis. But otherwise it ran smooth as silk.
 
I'm going to hold off for now. The prices are just to darn high for such little storage. When you can get one with at least 100 Gb for say $180-200 then I'll bite...
 
I used to run a pair of 1st gen 36gb Raptors in RAID0 for years. I killed one of them moving it so I picked up a pair of 300gb Vraptors. I know the SSD's are the future etc but for gaming and general usage I sure can't complain at all.My 2 cents worth.
 
I've had a VR300, VR80, G.Skill 128 Titan, and now an Intel X25 80GB.

My own personal experience mirrors Astrallite's......
the difference between those three drives and the VR 300GB to me doesn't feel "jump out the building" difference for light desktop use. In fact its rather minor.
Click to expand...

There ya have it.

Even the much maligned JMicron controllers of the Titan series weren't bad for desktop use.

The prices are coming down and I'm not suggesting you should go for the "older technology controllers" but for desktop use, there's no need for the Intel price.
 
If price is an issue I would rather invest in more RAM (especially with Vista).
Vista's pre-fetch function will eliminate more than 50% of the SSD speed benefits.
Booting will be slower with a HDD and some rarely used programs won't be included in pre-fetch.
Otherwise, no noticeable difference.
 
You can do 0Raid with two WD SATA HDDs for about $150 and blow both of your options away..

If your mobo supports raid if not buy a new mobo for $100 and two Sata HDDs for $150 and your still ahead on cost and performance.....
 
Originally posted by: rarebear
You can do 0Raid with two WD SATA HDDs for about $150 and blow both of your options away..

If your mobo supports raid if not buy a new mobo for $100 and two Sata HDDs for $150 and your still ahead on cost and performance.....
Click to expand...

0raid just (theoretically) doubles the speed of the drive you now use, so no it will not blow both options away... you will need to raid0a whole lot more than just 2 drives to get vertex or intel SSD performance
 
Originally posted by: taltamir
Originally posted by: rarebear
You can do 0Raid with two WD SATA HDDs for about $150 and blow both of your options away..

If your mobo supports raid if not buy a new mobo for $100 and two Sata HDDs for $150 and your still ahead on cost and performance.....
Click to expand...

0raid just (theoretically) doubles the speed of the drive you now use, so no it will not blow both options away... you will need to raid0a whole lot more than just 2 drives to get vertex or intel SSD performance
Click to expand...

raid-0 improves bandwidth, but makes latency slightly worse (controller overhead).

No amount of spindle-drives will ever close the gap to an Intel or Vertex SSD when it comes to latency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top