My new SSD is unbelievably fast!

[Makaveli]

I haven't done the SSD transition yet. I'm competent enough to have built my past 3 rigs, but I'm also unbelievably dumb when it comes to certain functions. Like I wouldn't even know how to add the drive and transition Windows 7 over to it, etc.

I'm also waiting for the costs to drop a bit. I think I'd want at least a 128 GB model and I'm not content with their price quite yet.

If you are going Windows 7 on HD to Windows 7 on SSD that might be doable.

However for me I would just do a fresh full install so this way windows will adjust and tweak itself for the SSD. When you copy over an Install from an HD it will be optimized for a hard drive not an SSD.

Which might bring it own performance issues with it.

Right now I would say 60-80GB is the sweet spot giving you just enough space for the OS important apps and a few small games.

I've read quite a few post of people saying SSD's are too small to fit everything they have, and while they might have a point, that isn't the correct usage models for current SSD's.

One should go SSD + HD for mass storage.

Since games don't benefit that much from SSD'd they can sit on the HD. Also all downloading and media files also should be on the HD. With these changes alone you will notice that you can probably get by on a 80GB SSD.

 

[GTaudiophile]

I am waiting for when 250-320GB SSDs can be had for $.50-.75/GB.

 

[jimhsu]

The problem I have with 80GB (at least on an Intel) is that for optimum speed, I have to leave at least 20GB free (otherwise, random writes start crashing through the floor, followed by seq writes, and in the worst case, seq reads). That means I have effectively 60GB. As far as I can tell, the newer Sandforce drives suffer less from this problem due to overprovisioning.

Windows 7 takes up nearly 18GB (mostly due to that winsxs folder). Core apps (Adobe, Office, 3D stuff, Mathematica, etc etc) and appdata take 25GB. My working directory (which I moved most off to the hard drive already) takes 5GB. Add in other stuff and I'm already close to that 60GB mark where adding any more stuff would simply make the drive slower. And while some games could benefit from SSD acceleration, unfortunately that's not doable with the amount of space I have now (these days, games take upward of 10GB).

(goes off to try to clean more stuff. Already done most everything - turned off hibernation and moved pagefile, symlinked programs to the hard drive, symlinked savegames to the hard drive, etc)

 

[MagickMan]

I tell people they need a SSD and they look at me like I'm nuts. Then I hand them my laptop and let them boot it up and use it a little and they order one. It's that easy.

 

[trelin]

The past few days I started thinking about upgrading my storage. I hear "SSD this!" and "SSD that!" and my interest really gets piqued, then I realize that for some of us the price-premium truly is not worth it.

I reboot about once a week at most; I just suspend if I'm not going to be using the computer for a significant period of time. The little gaming I do is just TF2 anymore, and I'm always just twiddling my thumbs "Waiting for other players" anyway; seems like a better videocard would give me a _constant_ improvement as opposed to a few seconds saved here and there. As for apps, Firefox, Thunderbird and Eclipse are all perfectly happy minimized, open then from scratch maybe once a day. And lastly for my home entertainment needs, video encoding and watching is massively CPU limited anyway.


Your guys' enthusiasm is infectious, but try as I might to justify it I simply can't, which is a pity because I've had the hardware-buying bug for a while now. Anyway, my point is that for some of us that $100 is better spent on another 2TB HDD; I'm kind of curious if there's anybody here that bought one in the heat of the moment and wound up with buyers remorse.

 

[fffblackmage]

...a few seconds saved here and there...

It adds up.

I'm kind of curious if there's anybody here that bought one in the heat of the moment and wound up with buyers remorse.

Nope, not me, but with SSD tech moving so fast, I think the upgrade bug is kicking in sooner. I want one of those Sandforce-based SSDs!

 

[Makaveli]

The problem I have with 80GB (at least on an Intel) is that for optimum speed, I have to leave at least 20GB free (otherwise, random writes start crashing through the floor, followed by seq writes, and in the worst case, seq reads). That means I have effectively 60GB. As far as I can tell, the newer Sandforce drives suffer less from this problem due to overprovisioning.

Windows 7 takes up nearly 18GB (mostly due to that winsxs folder). Core apps (Adobe, Office, 3D stuff, Mathematica, etc etc) and appdata take 25GB. My working directory (which I moved most off to the hard drive already) takes 5GB. Add in other stuff and I'm already close to that 60GB mark where adding any more stuff would simply make the drive slower. And while some games could benefit from SSD acceleration, unfortunately that's not doable with the amount of space I have now (these days, games take upward of 10GB).

(goes off to try to clean more stuff. Already done most everything - turned off hibernation and moved pagefile, symlinked programs to the hard drive, symlinked savegames to the hard drive, etc)

Then I suggest waiting for the 120GB model intel will release before Xmas or looking at the sandforce options in that GB range.

 

[jimhsu]

Does anyone have data on how Sandforce drives perform as % of free space left? For example, I can tell you that I experience a typical drop in random write performance of 50% at 10GB of free space, vs 20GB for my Intel. Anecdotal benchmarks are also fine.

 

[xboxist]

If you are going Windows 7 on HD to Windows 7 on SSD that might be doable.

However for me I would just do a fresh full install so this way windows will adjust and tweak itself for the SSD. When you copy over an Install from an HD it will be optimized for a hard drive not an SSD.

Which might bring it own performance issues with it.

Right now I would say 60-80GB is the sweet spot giving you just enough space for the OS important apps and a few small games.

I've read quite a few post of people saying SSD's are too small to fit everything they have, and while they might have a point, that isn't the correct usage models for current SSD's.

One should go SSD + HD for mass storage.

Since games don't benefit that much from SSD'd they can sit on the HD. Also all downloading and media files also should be on the HD. With these changes alone you will notice that you can probably get by on a 80GB SSD.

Thank you - I appreciate that insight. Makes sense.

If I were to do a fresh install onto an SSD, would I be able to import my general Windows 7 settings from my previous install? Or would I just have to set and tweak from scratch?

 

[RavenSEAL]

Still too expensive for me...

 

[Makaveli]

Thank you - I appreciate that insight. Makes sense.

If I were to do a fresh install onto an SSD, would I be able to import my general Windows 7 settings from my previous install? Or would I just have to set and tweak from scratch?

Need you to be more specific which "general windows 7 settings"??

 

[ShawnD1]

SSD didn't make much of a difference as an OS drive. As long as your computer isn't a total piece of shit, programs and games will already load in a flash.

Right now my SSD is used as the temporary drive for downloading files. Works good so far. I'll move it around more when I find a better use for it.

 

[Makaveli]

i'm on a i7 overclocked to 3.6Ghz

And I still have my old win 7 install on my HD and if I switch between the SSD and that Drive its is very noticeable. It all depends on what you do on your computer and how you use it. I've been building computers for around 15 years now and my first machine was a 286. I notice alot of things about how a system performs due to my experience I guess.

Some people can't tell the difference between a OS on a 5400 RPM drive and one on 7200 RPM.

Also I think putting an SSD in a slow system is a waste of time because the system bottlenecks the drive.

 

[ShawnD1]

Also I think putting an SSD in a slow system is a waste of time because the system bottlenecks the drive.

The hard drive is only a bottleneck in computers that don't have enough memory. My laptop is restricted to 2gb of ram, and that system sucks. The hard drive is always doing something. I'm not even touching the computer and the hard drive is going crazy. It thrashes the virtual memory just to piss me off. I could leave the computer for 20 minutes, come back, and the hard drive is still doing something.

What I love about Windows Vista and 7 is that they have very detailed monitoring tools. Right now Windows says my hard drive in this computer with 8gb of memory is doing basically nothing. It says automatic defrag is running, but I can't tell that it's running. If I try to go into control panel, it opens immediately. When I try to open Excel, it opens immediately. Conventional drives are quite fast when they're not bogged down by a swap file.
My computer at work has 8gb of ram, and it's pretty quick. The boot time is horrible, so I just leave the computer in sleep mode when I leave. Programs like Outlook, Excel, AutoCAD, and Acrobat open immediately and the computer never bogs down.


edit:
I should clarify that putting SSD in a computer that lacks memory will make a HUGE difference. Virtual memory kills the performance of regular drives. Solid state drives seem capable of performing multiple things at a time, so it can swap data and load Excel at the same time.

 

[Makaveli]

The hard drive is only a bottleneck in computers that don't have enough memory. My laptop is restricted to 2gb of ram, and that system sucks. The hard drive is always doing something. I'm not even touching the computer and the hard drive is going crazy. It thrashes the virtual memory just to piss me off. I could leave the computer for 20 minutes, come back, and the hard drive is still doing something.

What I love about Windows Vista and 7 is that they have very detailed monitoring tools. Right now Windows says my hard drive in this computer with 8gb of memory is doing basically nothing. It says automatic defrag is running, but I can't tell that it's running. If I try to go into control panel, it opens immediately. When I try to open Excel, it opens immediately. Conventional drives are quite fast when they're not bogged down by a swap file.
My computer at work has 8gb of ram, and it's pretty quick. The boot time is horrible, so I just leave the computer in sleep mode when I leave. Programs like Outlook, Excel, AutoCAD, and Acrobat open immediately and the computer never bogs down.


edit:
I should clarify that putting SSD in a computer that lacks memory will make a HUGE difference. Virtual memory kills the performance of regular drives. Solid state drives seem capable of performing multiple things at a time, so it can swap data and load Excel at the same time.

I totally agree when low on ram.

 

[Engineer]

That is still a dream and not happening.

I will say this as fact even tho its my opinion you will not see $ 1/GB ratio for SSD in 2011 probably not even in 2012 also.

Maybe not on an "every day" price, but I would dare say that you could pick up "Hot Deals" that have them. Seeing 60GB drives for $75 or 120GB drives for $140ish right now (after rebates, etc) shows that it's possible. Of course, time will tell.

 

[Makaveli]

Maybe not on an "every day" price, but I would dare say that you could pick up "Hot Deals" that have them. Seeing 60GB drives for $75 or 120GB drives for $140ish right now (after rebates, etc) shows that it's possible. Of course, time will tell.

I was thinking about my post today and happen to see this at work.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/memory/faith/kingston-predicts-ssd-will-be-1-per-gb-in-2011/

So we might see it soon but i'm gonna correct my original statement and say in 2012 for sure.

You do bring up a good point Engineer with the rebates and such..

I guess the next question is will we see performance models close to that gb/$ ratio in 2011 or is it the entry level models that they are expecting to get that low?

 

[Nizbot]

Disabling "hibernation" will save you about as much RAM as you have in your rig too. Just run cmd as admin, and type powercfg -h off. This will automatically delete the "hiberfil.sys" file. Saved me 3.1gb on my Intel G2 40gb ssd.

Of course, if you actually use that feature...

 

[trelin]

Disabling "hibernation" will save you about as much RAM as you have in your rig too. Just run cmd as admin, and type powercfg -h off. This will automatically delete the "hiberfil.sys" file. Saved me 3.1gb on my Intel G2 40gb ssd.

Of course, if you actually use that feature...

Be aware, hiberfil.sys isn't only used if you use Hibernation, it's also used for Hybrid Sleep, which is enabled by default in Vista and Windows 7 (ie, when you choose "Sleep" you're actually getting "Hybrid Sleep").

 

[Nizbot]

Be aware, hiberfil.sys isn't only used if you use Hibernation, it's also used for Hybrid Sleep, which is enabled by default in Vista and Windows 7 (ie, when you choose "Sleep" you're actually getting "Hybrid Sleep").

I don't use either, but good to know.

 

[Malladine]

1. The life time of an SSD can be measured thus:
Compared to available new ones, at the time an SSD wears out, an unused SSDs of it's vintage will be worth one, maybe two beers. So just buy the one you want without worrying about the wear factor.

2. Games benefit relatively little from an SSD.

lol, well 1. is great news and i like the use of beer, but 2. kinda puts a dampener on the whole idea, especially given the cost...

 

[pcslookout]

I tell people they need a SSD and they look at me like I'm nuts. Then I hand them my laptop and let them boot it up and use it a little and they order one. It's that easy.

Yeah that is how most people are to me as well. They don't even get what a SSD is. Now for a laptop it is a different story in some ways. An SSD is perfect for a laptop! Desktop not necessary.

I have a Intel G2 80 GB in my desktop but will not be buying another SSD until I see much faster in everything. There nice but not quick enough.

 

[pcslookout]

SSD didn't make much of a difference as an OS drive. As long as your computer isn't a total piece of shit, programs and games will already load in a flash.

Right now my SSD is used as the temporary drive for downloading files. Works good so far. I'll move it around more when I find a better use for it.

Thank you finally someone that understands that SSDs are not what they are out to made to be by so many people! SSDs are overrated for a lot of desktops.

Now if you shutdown and bootup your pc everyday a SSD may be perfect for you especially if you have 10 or more system tray items. If you don't forget it.