I clearly said a 120GB SSD alongside a mechanical drive. Just not configured as a cache.
20GB intel cache SSD = 120$
32GB OCZ cache SSD = 155$
120GB latest gen sandforce = 170$
HDD =~ 50$
You also "Clearly said":
No, I am taking money into account. I am discussing the benefits at no extra monetary cost.
In reality it's more like:
40GB Sandforce SSD : $85
~1TB HDD : $50
vs.
120GB SSD : ~$170
~1TB HDD : $50
so much for "no extra monetary cost" I guess? Though it will be interesting to see how you are going to change your argument once again to skirt around being wrong.
It's also doubtful 120gb would actually be enough for all your apps/games in the long term.
PS. I would like to just throw out that it takes about an hour to install one of the modern heavy games to the HDD and its several times faster installing the SSD.
Hmmm, let's think about that for a moment... Games are either going to be installed from a disc or from an online service such as Steam. It's not going to install faster than it can be read from the source. The fact you are willing to throw out such a silly claim just shows how little thought you are putting into some of your arguments.
No, you are wrong about that.
I am NOT talking about hibernate file, pagefile, and the like. I am talking about windows itself.
You cannot cut that.
the various tweaks to control the size is to prevent it from taking 30-40GB.
That doesn't include the programs that come with windows (like internet explorer and windows media player), because they are not a part of the OS. I was only measuring the size of the OS itself.
So basically, tons more shit I don't have to deal with because I went with SSD caching instead. Good to know.
I resent this. I am not being stubborn at all.
lol
Although I am concerned at just how much performance are you going to get out of a 20GB cache SSD with windows taking up 17.2GB for system files alone (not including bundled programs, pagefile,etc), installed programs, and hundreds of gigs of games.
Why would you think it's caching the entire OS? An OS install includes tons of files that are NOT used on a daily basis. That is one of the benefits of SSD caching, because you can have your OS on there without it caching all the random irrelevant files that are nearly never accessed.
In addition, technologies like SRT don't have to cache entire files, it caches individual blocks. If you have a 2GB file and you only read a few hundred megs out of that file - only those few hundred megs would be cached.
Sorry to chime in but the 95% of the speed of an SSD is highly debatable, it depends greatly on workload patterns as everything to do with caches. Anything from 0-100% is possible. I think 95% is very optimistic.
It might be, but the point is that the performance difference (at least in terms of Gaming) is tiny.
Here are some good benchmarks:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4329/intel-z68-chipset-smart-response-technology-ssd-caching-review/4
I know that with WoW the difference between an SSD and a HDD is night and day, yet I can't tell the difference between running WoW on my SSD directly or my cached hard drive using that same SSD. My boot times also clearly fell within SSD territory within 2 reboots of enabling the cache.
I didn't dismiss your list of use cases with nary a thought. I thought about it and realized you are incorrect in thinking SSD improves performance on those.
You seem to be very confused and optimistic about what this technology can do, it isn't magic.
It's funny you would take that viewpoint - coming here talking to us most of which actually use the tech we're discussing. You admit you've never used it yet you feel justified telling us that the performance gains we see first hand aren't real - get over yourself. You are wrong and now you're acting like a little kid about it.
Facebook
Twitter