is this a good time to buy a ssd?

[exdeath]

There's nothing around the corner but incase you missed this article these are what is coming next. I expect SATA 6Gbps to be around for a long while yet.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4612/two-new-sata-specs-sata-express-ssd

Yeah, probably 1-2 years away just for the interface, another year for SSDs to adopt it, and another year before the first SSD saturates it = 3-4 years before a SATA 6G SSD becomes truly obsolete.

So waiting 3-4 years for improvements and suffering with a dino drive all that time? More than enough reason to buy an SSD RIGHT NOW.

 

[KingFatty]

Random is more important for noticing the benefit in daily use, but most users still manipulate relatively large data files. A folder full of 30+ MB PDFs and PPTs for example would benefit more from a drive's sequential burst performance more than random, if you are running daily backups, A/V. Copying a "random" file to a thumb drive when that one file is 300 MB is still a sequential transfer, and copying a folder of 100 "random" files that are 50-100 MB in size is also sequential. 4K random IOPS are useful for an OS drive, but "real" data files are hardly 4k.

Good points, especially when loading a big file from the SSD into the computer's RAM for manipulation. I would like to highlight that some of the sequential examples above typically involve copying to/from another device that is not an SSD. So when you are copying relatively large data files from a CD/DVD, or running your backup onto your archival hard drive system, or copying those big files to/from a USB drive, the bottleneck will not come from the SSD. In other words, some of the common sequential usage scenarios above will not enable a user to hit the SSD high performance sequential stuff, because those are all bottlenecked by the other device that is "holding back" the SSD. And because the SSD sequential performance is the only thing that would approach a bottleneck for the SATA interface itself, these common sequential usage scenarios will not approach that bottleneck because they are still limited by the performance of whatever the user is copying to/from (USB thumb drive, CD/DVD, archival HDD, etc. etc.).

I think a big sequential copy from one SSD to another SSD would be super fast, but I still categorize that as a less-common event. The next generation of SSDs may make good improvements in other areas such as random 4K, but I think the current crop of "new" SSDs captured a lot of attention for the superstar numbers thrown around that actually don't make much of a dent in every-day common usage stuff. So when will we see SSDs with superstar performance numbers for 4K random read/writes or other non-sequential stuff?

 

[Joseph F]

But what happens to your data when you reboot?

Well, if I remember to unmount and save it first, Nothing.

 

[groberts101]

Good points, especially when loading a big file from the SSD into the computer's RAM for manipulation. I would like to highlight that some of the sequential examples above typically involve copying to/from another device that is not an SSD. So when you are copying relatively large data files from a CD/DVD, or running your backup onto your archival hard drive system, or copying those big files to/from a USB drive, the bottleneck will not come from the SSD. In other words, some of the common sequential usage scenarios above will not enable a user to hit the SSD high performance sequential stuff, because those are all bottlenecked by the other device that is "holding back" the SSD. And because the SSD sequential performance is the only thing that would approach a bottleneck for the SATA interface itself, these common sequential usage scenarios will not approach that bottleneck because they are still limited by the performance of whatever the user is copying to/from (USB thumb drive, CD/DVD, archival HDD, etc. etc.).

I think a big sequential copy from one SSD to another SSD would be super fast, but I still categorize that as a less-common event. The next generation of SSDs may make good improvements in other areas such as random 4K, but I think the current crop of "new" SSDs captured a lot of attention for the superstar numbers thrown around that actually don't make much of a dent in every-day common usage stuff. So when will we see SSDs with superstar performance numbers for 4K random read/writes or other non-sequential stuff?

Finally someone who "gets it"! lol

This is why I laugh at those who go buy cheap sata3 raid cards just to get taller top end speeds. They never realize that without matched storage speeds?.. they'll never make use of those top ends.

In actuality, they would be better off to stay onboard with a good sata2 chip due to the better ram caching and small file performance. Writes and latency are usually stronger onboard as well.

As we all know by now though.. it's just a "who's got the biggest e-peen" kinda world we live in these days.

PS.. as for the increase in smalls/randoms?.. that's where the next gens are heading as we speak. Even less latency(yes I can tell the differences between various controllers on similar sized drives). Larger caches. Better smalls/randoms. And even greater write speeds.

Pretty much all the stuff that we hear many say makes no perceptible difference for an SSD since it's already "far beyond what any typical user could ever take advantage of anyways". Well.. the mfgrs obviously know something that those folks don't.

 

[wpcoe]

I probably wouldnt notice a difference either considering its for a lappy with a few years on its neck (sata1 I'm pretty sure), was more thinking about space might becoming a bit cheaper for each gen. Not willing to shell out much more than todays 120/128gb drives costs, but space is also quite valueable since its the only drive when on the go.

Maybe one of those hybrid momentus xt would be a better way to go? Would there be a big difference in performance, considering my current controller and otherwise somewhat outdated specs?

I've read somewhere (here on anandtech, perhaps?) that when putting a relatively small SSD in a notebook, you can supplement "permanent" data storage if you can insert a 16GB or 32GB SD card and leave it permanently in the slot. Of course, a Class 10 would be best for transfer speed, but for things like movies, songs, etc, speed wouldn't be a large priority.

I'm debating putting an SSD in my notebook. For what I carry around, a 256GB would have lots of free space, but a 128GB SSD plus 32GB SD card would be enough, too. Unless I can get a good price on a 256GB drive, I'll probably go for 128GB + 32GB. My notebook, however, is not my main computer. If it were, I probably would go for 256 GB SSD.

 

[billyb0b]

yes, and i have one for sale in the for sale thread. go there and buy it

 

[gramboh]

Good points, especially when loading a big file from the SSD into the computer's RAM for manipulation. I would like to highlight that some of the sequential examples above typically involve copying to/from another device that is not an SSD. So when you are copying relatively large data files from a CD/DVD, or running your backup onto your archival hard drive system, or copying those big files to/from a USB drive, the bottleneck will not come from the SSD. In other words, some of the common sequential usage scenarios above will not enable a user to hit the SSD high performance sequential stuff, because those are all bottlenecked by the other device that is "holding back" the SSD. And because the SSD sequential performance is the only thing that would approach a bottleneck for the SATA interface itself, these common sequential usage scenarios will not approach that bottleneck because they are still limited by the performance of whatever the user is copying to/from (USB thumb drive, CD/DVD, archival HDD, etc. etc.).

I think a big sequential copy from one SSD to another SSD would be super fast, but I still categorize that as a less-common event. The next generation of SSDs may make good improvements in other areas such as random 4K, but I think the current crop of "new" SSDs captured a lot of attention for the superstar numbers thrown around that actually don't make much of a dent in every-day common usage stuff. So when will we see SSDs with superstar performance numbers for 4K random read/writes or other non-sequential stuff?

Great post, and good response from groberts as usual. As I'm doing research for my first SSD it is really helpful reading things like this and thinking about them, and what my usage patterns will be (e.g. not copying large files from one SSD to another).

 

[MoInSTL]

I'm debating putting an SSD in my notebook. For what I carry around, a 256GB would have lots of free space, but a 128GB SSD plus 32GB SD card would be enough, too. Unless I can get a good price on a 256GB drive, I'll probably go for 128GB + 32GB. My notebook, however, is not my main computer. If it were, I probably would go for 256 GB SSD.

I have 320, 120GB drive in my notebook and a fast SD card. I just leave the card in place as it's near flush.