[TR] Why you don't need a high-end SSD for almost any desktop workload

[Essence_of_War]

https://techreport.com/review/28050/intel-750-series-solid-state-drive-reviewed/5

We'll start with boot times measured two ways. The bare test depicts the time between hitting the power button and reaching the Windows desktop, while the loaded test adds the time needed to load four applications—Avidemux, LibreOffice, GIMP, and Visual Studio Express—automatically from the startup folder. Our old boot tests focused just on the time required to load the OS, but these new ones cover the entire process, including drive initialization.

They go onto measure things like game load-time. PCIe w/ NVMe, 6 year old X-25, 850 pro vs. 850 non-pro, all functionally identical.

 

[Elixer]

So, they don't test anything that is I/O limited, then come to the conclusion they are all the same when it isn't based on I/O.
Imagine that!

 

[Essence_of_War]

Not to rain on the eyeroll parade, but that's my point. If you're buying an SSD for ordinary desktop usage, you're probably not IO limited enough that it's worth shelling out money for the higher cost of "pro-quality", or pcie drives.

Spend your money on extra capacity.

 

[Elixer]

There are still valid reasons to go with the higher cost SSD/PCIe drives though, it isn't always about speed.

Most people will be glad to shell out more $$$ if it can be proven that the SSD/PCIe in question is more reliable.
Other people want encryption on the device, and most low end SSDs don't offer that, with the MX100 being the exception, and not the rule.

 

[Ketchup]

I'll put it this way - every single time I point and click something on my laptop, the response is noticeably faster than on the HDD. And the difference in resume from sleep or cold boot makes the former difference miniscule in comparison.

 

[Essence_of_War]

I'll put it this way - every single time I point and click something on my laptop, the response is noticeably faster than on the HDD. And the difference in resume from sleep or cold boot makes the former difference miniscule in comparison.

I totally agree. My point is that But the difference between hdd and a decent ssd != difference between a mid range one and a "pro-quality" one.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

"Need." "Want." "Desire." "Inclination."

"Enthusiast."

The last word means just what it says.

I see all these Millennials walking around, who appear to be crazy people talking and babbling to themselves. Oh! It's the Blue-Tooth earphone! There's SOME-body on the other end of the line!

They still sell laptops with HDDs in them. In fact, I can't remember for sure if I ever saw an advertisement featuring SSD storage, but it would have been more sparse than infrequent.

Then there's the "boot-time" measuring stick. I could never understand why boot time means anything to a computer user. But in my professional working life, and my retired life -- still -- the systems I use most frequently can run a week or two 24/7 between restarts or boot-ups. I don't freaking CARE (!!) how long it takes to boot up, as long as the delay isn't a sign of impending hardware failure, OS corruption, hardware confusion.

I built my "top-tier" systems out of the same or near-identical parts -- the first one in July, 2011, and the second last fall. With the first one, I decided to try the ISRT option from the very beginning. I think the price I paid for the 60GB SSD would make me embarrassed to tell it.

It was just THAT MUCH BETTER. And so -- January 2014 -- I bought a 500GB Pro. And it was THA-A-A-T much better.

But I'm also bristling at the price per gigabyte.

So when I buy a new one -- at least 500GB or larger -- I take a l-o-o-o-ngg time to think it over before I click "check-out."

 

[OlyAR15]

Sometimes it is not about NEED but more about want, even if there is no perceptible difference.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Sometimes it is not about NEED but more about want, even if there is no perceptible difference.

I think if you'd followed the micro-computer age -- from ZX81/Commodore-whatever, through PC, AT, 386, 486 Pentium and OVerdrive, . . .. . you'd have a good idea about seeming small differences in performance, but they don't seem all that small.

The SSD has opened up a major -- MAJOR! -- bottleneck in the pyramidal or hierarchical model of storage, with each stage from CPU registers on down represented by cost, storage volume and speed. The electromechanical drive has always been at the bottom. The Windows "hourglass" owed much to it.

I think that uncomfortable delays that occur in desktop computing can lead to keystroke errors, processes that can't run normally with resources choked up to capacity, and then -- errors, crashes, all sorts of clumsiness.

Alleviating that kind of bottleneck significantly changes the game. Mainstreamers these days likely only NEED an i3 processor, unless they're "gamesmen," or if you think gamesmanship is pervasively mainstream. Some people mildly attracted to computer gaming may only play some last-gen game that isn't even graphics or processor intensive. Their office applications have no delays; unless they have niche activities -- lots of video rendering and so on -- they wouldn't miss quad-core speed. Throw an SSD into that mix, and it's "Char-lie! You're lookin' at ONE HAPPY MAN!" -- to quote the Pacino character in "Scent."

I can see myself investing in less than 10 more HDD spinners for the duration. They've so far stayed well enough ahead of consumer SSD capacity to have more than just a niche. You may want capacity much more than you want speed -- which is the opposite side of the coin for a bottleneck opening. And there are SSD solutions that enhance performance in that area, too. They just don't cost $0.40/GB. You can't buy a 2TB SSD (easily?) and a 2TB HDD means nickel-gigabytes. When SSDs catch up to HDD capacity and drop back to HDD price, we won't even think about these discussions.

Also, there's the power-consumption factor. I've seen all our systems here in the house running at idle 75 - 100W replace systems that had an idle power draw of more like 190 -- for two reasons I can think of: the number of HDDs, SLI and the number of fans. And I happen to think that too many fans is a mark of an unsophisticated -- just plain silly -- builder. I thought so when I built the older systems -- I think so now.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I can see myself investing in less than 10 more HDD spinners for the duration. They've so far stayed well enough ahead of consumer SSD capacity to have more than just a niche. You may want capacity much more than you want speed -- which is the opposite side of the coin for a bottleneck opening. And there are SSD solutions that enhance performance in that area, too. They just don't cost $0.40/GB. You can't buy a 2TB SSD (easily?) and a 2TB HDD means nickel-gigabytes. When SSDs catch up to HDD capacity and drop back to HDD price, we won't even think about these discussions.

One solution, that I have implemented, for bulk file / media storage, is an unRAID server. On a gigabit wired network, it's a good fraction of a local magnetic disk's performance. And you can centralize the HDDs into one box, and locate it where the noise won't bother you. Then put 128 / 256GB SSDs in the client / desktop boxes.

 

[OlyAR15]

I think if you'd followed the micro-computer age -- from ZX81/Commodore-whatever, through PC, AT, 386, 486 Pentium and OVerdrive, . . .. . you'd have a good idea about seeming small differences in performance, but they don't seem all that small.

The SSD has opened up a major -- MAJOR! -- bottleneck in the pyramidal or hierarchical model of storage, with each stage from CPU registers on down represented by cost, storage volume and speed. The electromechanical drive has always been at the bottom. The Windows "hourglass" owed much to it.

I think that uncomfortable delays that occur in desktop computing can lead to keystroke errors, processes that can't run normally with resources choked up to capacity, and then -- errors, crashes, all sorts of clumsiness.

Alleviating that kind of bottleneck significantly changes the game. Mainstreamers these days likely only NEED an i3 processor, unless they're "gamesmen," or if you think gamesmanship is pervasively mainstream. Some people mildly attracted to computer gaming may only play some last-gen game that isn't even graphics or processor intensive. Their office applications have no delays; unless they have niche activities -- lots of video rendering and so on -- they wouldn't miss quad-core speed. Throw an SSD into that mix, and it's "Char-lie! You're lookin' at ONE HAPPY MAN!" -- to quote the Pacino character in "Scent."

I can see myself investing in less than 10 more HDD spinners for the duration. They've so far stayed well enough ahead of consumer SSD capacity to have more than just a niche. You may want capacity much more than you want speed -- which is the opposite side of the coin for a bottleneck opening. And there are SSD solutions that enhance performance in that area, too. They just don't cost $0.40/GB. You can't buy a 2TB SSD (easily?) and a 2TB HDD means nickel-gigabytes. When SSDs catch up to HDD capacity and drop back to HDD price, we won't even think about these discussions.

Also, there's the power-consumption factor. I've seen all our systems here in the house running at idle 75 - 100W replace systems that had an idle power draw of more like 190 -- for two reasons I can think of: the number of HDDs, SLI and the number of fans. And I happen to think that too many fans is a mark of an unsophisticated -- just plain silly -- builder. I thought so when I built the older systems -- I think so now.

I have absolutely no idea what you just wrote in all those words, and how it even remotely pertains to my post. Can you be a bit more concise?

 

[Dasa2]

shame they didnt test a cheap crappy ssd like kingston v300

 

[ShintaiDK]

The big step for SSDs was the point going from HD and reducing seektime from something like 14000ms to 65ms. After that its pretty much just a wash you need to use benchmarks to show any difference.

Reliability became the biggest factor after the scandals of some manufactors.

I dont think SSD performance beyond what we got today will matter until HDs and SATA is gone. We need applications/games designed with SSD in mind as the minimum to change that.

 

[hawtdawg]

CPU speed is the bottleneck usually.

 

[VirtualLarry]

The big step for SSDs was the point going from HD and reducing seektime from something like 14000ms to 65ms.

No, more like 14ms to 0.1ms.

 

[ShintaiDK]

No, more like 14ms to 0.1ms.

Sorry was to write 14000us, not ms

SSDs seektime is done in microseconds and not milliseconds.

 

[PhIlLy ChEeSe]

A key point here is that the Intel PCIe w/ NVMe needs windows 8 to run, you can hack it if you search. Why go buy 8 when 10 is on its way soon? That adds to the final price of said drive, cause if your gonna run 10 then you will need certain hardware. Can't just pop it into a 775 socket and hope for the best.

 

[slag]

snip..And I happen to think that too many fans is a mark of an unsophisticated -- just plain silly -- builder. I thought so when I built the older systems -- I think so now.

If removing heat is silly, consider me Miles Davis.

 

[Ketchup]

...And I happen to think that too many fans is a mark of an unsophisticated -- just plain silly -- builder.

Sounds about right. When I first started building my fans were loud and annoying. My current system is silent in comparison (it is not truly silent, my file/media server is quieter) and still performs admirably.

 

[sm625]

That's why I scoop up 80GB X25M drives when I find them on ebay for $30. Incredible value for a drive that gives you what you need from an SSD. The rest is just fluff.

 

[MrPickins]

CPU speed is the bottleneck usually.

You really can't make a blanket statement like that in computing.

It all boils down to the workload.

 

[Carson Dyle]

What the hell is "pro-quality", beyond marketing? It never ceases to amaze me that the people who _should_ have greatest ability to weed out the marketing bullshit are also the ones most susceptible to succumbing to it.

 

[corkyg]

I can think of one thing that often defies logic - and that is, - technolust!

 

[B-Riz]

Well, I will throw 2 cents in here.

All computers at home have SSD (even the old WinXP box!); last new computer was wife's Ivy Bridge laptop.

I only turned it on to register Windows before making an image and putting it on an 840 Pro SSD.

At work the HDD is the most frustrating part of using a computer all day.

 

[Ketchup]

CPU speed is the bottleneck usually.

I hope that's a joke. But maybe you need to define the bottleneck you are referring to.