SSDs - faster or bigger is better?

[VirtualLarry]

Just wonder, thinking of making the plunge for an SSD for my laptop. I want to virtualize, using (probably) MS Virtual PC for Win7 (XP Mode). Computer that I want to virtualize has a 500GB HD, but the three OS partitions that I want to virtualize are under 128GB.

So that basically means that I want an SSD of at least 160GB, if not 256GB, if I go ahead with that plan.

Is it better to get a bigger SSD, or a smaller and faster SSD?

Are SSDs advantagious for virtualization?

 

[adamantinepiggy]

Have no idea about impacts on virtualization, however in the current SSD world, bigger is "also" generally faster because of more parallell controller/memory operational abilities with more NAND memory.

 

[Makaveli]

Hey Larry,

Currently the only SSD at the 160GB level is the Intel G2 drive which is a excellent performer and reliable, tho it does have slower writes than current top model. How important that is to you depends on what you are doing with the SSD as an OS drive it doesn't matter as much if you ask me.

This drive retails around the $400+ mark.

The sandforce drives are also very popular these days and give excellent performance with good pricing.

Both of these SSD's support trim and as long as you are not going to raid them performance will stay high in windows 7.

If you start looking at 200GB+ SSD you are starting to look at some serious cash and the choices would also include the C300.

I'm no expert on VM's but from what I generally read on the net VM's get a very nice speed increase on a SSDs and its a noticeable difference.

 

[taltamir]

Have no idea about impacts on virtualization, however in the current SSD world, bigger is "also" generally faster because of more parallell controller/memory operational abilities with more NAND memory.

in SSDs bigger is faster... as long as the drives are using the same controller.
Different controller drives will have different performance characteristics.

@OP: only you can decide what is better... we can advise you on HOW much faster one would be over the other. You already know your size target, look up some prices and for drives in those sizes in your location (prices vary based on country and outlet, we can probably recommend outlets if you tell us your country)
once armed with difference in cost, and speed, and size, you would be able to make your decision of "is it worth it to me, personally"

 

[flamenko]

Bigger is better but there are alternatives where u can get a powerful 40Gb Sandforce ssd cheap now if you have alternate arrangements for storage.

An exmple of this is quite common where many swap out their laptop dvd for a hd and adapter tray.

 

[Emulex]

channels - thats how they work it - they raid-0 the chips (more than raid-0 just saying in simpleton terms) and interleave.

The tradeoff is 3 parts (wasted space, speed, life) - pick one. any flash its the same story.

you will always be choosing 2 out of 3 above.

So yeah they can make a 40gb sandforce smoke a 160gb intel - but it might have a 1year warranty for a damn good reason. without wear leveling ssd's could be hella faster lol.

 

[flamenko]

One year warranty? I am seeing 3 not 1. I didnt even know an SSD came with a 1 year warranty any longer.

 

[taltamir]

channels - thats how they work it - they raid-0 the chips (more than raid-0 just saying in simpleton terms) and interleave.

The tradeoff is 3 parts (wasted space, speed, life) - pick one. any flash its the same story.

you will always be choosing 2 out of 3 above.

So yeah they can make a 40gb sandforce smoke a 160gb intel - but it might have a 1year warranty for a damn good reason. without wear leveling ssd's could be hella faster lol.

to clarify... "wasted space" = buying a bigger SSD than you need... aka "spending more money".

So its really:
1. Cheap
2. Fast
3. Long lived.

Pick 2... but that is not true, its actually "Cheap" or "Faster & longer lived" pick one package. If you pick cheap you sacrifice both speed and longevity.
The thing is, they are ALL already so long lived as to outlast every other component in the system... yes we can QUANTIFY their life cycle... but if you actually do the math... under my usage (which is above average writes for a home user) it will take 150 years to run out of writes in my intel 80GB.
Someone came here whining his intel dropped a whole 0.5% of listed lifespan in 6 months of usage (it actually MEASURES it and tells you in the intel SSD toolbox)... thats 1% a year, thats 100% in 100 years of usage... not too shabby. Show me another part in your computer that will live that long...
Granted it WAS an issue... with very early implementation. the problem is completely solved as far as I am concerned.

 

[tweakboy]

I would say BOTH!!! But bigger will not happen until 2015 I believe. This technology is gonna be moving very slowly unlike CPU tech etc....thx g n gb

 

[Emulex]

flash nand is sampling at 25nm - iirc cpu's are not even there yet.

 

[TemjinGold]

flash nand is sampling at 25nm - iirc cpu's are not even there yet.

Of course, NAND chips ARE just a wee bit less complex than cpus...

 

[taltamir]

I would say BOTH!!! But bigger will not happen until 2015 I believe. This technology is gonna be moving very slowly unlike CPU tech etc....thx g n gb

32nm SSDs are already more dense than spindle drives. the only reason you don't see 3TB 3.5 inch SSDs is the cost.
and currently prices halves every 18 months or less on SSDs... so they are progressing much faster than CPU tech.