What do you think of M4 and v+100 setup

[TJCS]

1. I have seen deals on the Kingston V+100 drives recently and I thought of this setup:

• Crucial M4 128GB use with programs that do lot of random writes

Win7 OS + VM + Antivirus etc... = ~90-100GB
​

• Kingston V+100 96GB for general programs that do not require heavy random writes

Steam & Games + Video Encoders/Editors + Photoshop CS5 and Photo Processing Apps + Office + Video Encoder = ~60GB

​

I know the Kingston V+100 series has very low random-write performance, but for the programs I use with it should be as good as any other SATA2 SSD, yea?
​

2. Cost-wise, I think it is a lot cheaper than buying a single M4 256GB SSD:

• Crucial M4 256GB = $391

• Crucial M4 128GB ($180) + Kingston V+100 96GB ($106) = $286

What you guys Think?​

 

[Coup27]

No offense to you, but for ~£60 in my money, I would rather have the 256 M4. Simplier to keep it all on one drive plus you'll have more overall capacity, not to mention the M4 will be quicker than the 128 model.

 

[TJCS]

No offense to you, but for ~£60 in my money, I would rather have the 256 M4. Simplier to keep it all on one drive plus you'll have more overall capacity, not to mention the M4 will be quicker than the 128 model.

None taken. If it wasn't for the price I would really prefer the M4 256GB myself.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

I think you'll have a really hard time filling up a 128GB SSD if you only put OS and (all) apps on it. Keep your games on a separate drive? Yes. Office, Adobe, any other programs? No. They're fine on the SSD.

At work I had a 120GB SSD, paired with a 1TB HDD. I installed all programs to the SSD (I'm a software developer, so believe me when I say I have a lot of installed programs...), had all my source code on the SSD (~10GB), hosted all my databases from the SSD (~30GB), and never really surpassed 60% space usage.

If you really, really want to have your Steam folder on an SSD then yeah, your strategy seems desirable. But you'll only see marginal gains. Get a *new* 7200 RPM drive and games, video encodes, etc. will be plenty fast enough on the HDD.

 

[beginner99]

I think you'll have a really hard time filling up a 128GB SSD if you only put OS and (all) apps on it.

Yeah but he also mentioned VMs...

Get a *new* 7200 RPM drive and games, video encodes, etc. will be plenty fast enough on the HDD.

this. I have steam on a WD green drive and it's good enough for it.
Also note that the load time of netbeans is not much different from SSD @home and caviar black @work. meaning it takes it's time also on the ssd.

 

[TJCS]

I think you'll have a really hard time filling up a 128GB SSD if you only put OS and (all) apps on it. Keep your games on a separate drive? Yes. Office, Adobe, any other programs? No. They're fine on the SSD.

At work I had a 120GB SSD, paired with a 1TB HDD. I installed all programs to the SSD (I'm a software developer, so believe me when I say I have a lot of installed programs...), had all my source code on the SSD (~10GB), hosted all my databases from the SSD (~30GB), and never really surpassed 60% space usage.

If you really, really want to have your Steam folder on an SSD then yeah, your strategy seems desirable. But you'll only see marginal gains. Get a *new* 7200 RPM drive and games, video encodes, etc. will be plenty fast enough on the HDD.

I am planning to put a pre-allocated VM (~50GB) on the M4 128GB drive with the OS along with some programs, so I think filling up the space won't be too hard. Also, I want to reserve 10~20% for Trim.

The Kingston is more optional like you said, but I think a lot of single player games I have would benefit from the Kingston SSD (Portal 2, Torchlight etc..) I think with the prices this low I should just buy it.. damn it...

 

[TJCS]

Yeah but he also mentioned VMs...



this. I have steam on a WD green drive and it's good enough for it.
Also note that the load time of netbeans is not much different from SSD @home and caviar black @work. meaning it takes it's time also on the ssd.

Really? oh man... i was hoping it make games like sluggish BC2 run faster..

 

[LokutusofBorg]

Sorry, "VM" in the OP didn't even register in my mind as I read... I must be tired.

 

[TJCS]

Sorry, "VM" in the OP didn't even register in my mind as I read... I must be tired.

Don't worry about it man. I think the process of re-explaining helped re-evaluate what I wanted to do.

 

[beginner99]

Really? oh man... i was hoping it make games like sluggish BC2 run faster..

I have bc2 on the green drive. it does take some time to load a map and you probably would see a difference but not "in game" and like 6s instead of 9s load time? The experience will be the same.

 

[CFP]

Plenty of tests have been done showing that, quantitatively, many games do benefit from SSDs in terms of loading times.

When the plan is to get a 96GB SSD for games, I don't understand why anyone would recommend a standard HDD.

OP: That's a swell idea. I have my OS on a C300 64, apps on an M4 64, and games on an X-25M 160. It's a wonderfully quick setup.

 

[beginner99]

Plenty of tests have been done showing that, quantitatively, many games do benefit from SSDs in terms of loading times.

No one doubts that but 2 s or even 10 s more loading time for 30 min of gaming? Who cares? Spend the saved money on a better GPU.
It's also proven that anything that takes like more than 1 s is "slow" for a user and it it is 4 or 10 s doesn't really matter that much for the experience.

But then I do agree that computer parts aren't that expensive compared to rent, other living cost and "going out". So if you have the money why not? My recommendation is for people who are on a certain budget.

 

[CFP]

Yes, anybody on a budget that doesn't allow for a second SSD certainly is on a budget that doesn't allow for the first to begin with, IMO.

But the only reference to cost that the OP has made is in relation to a single, larger SSD. Either way, he's getting an SSD, so we may as well say good choice for having an SSD games drive, rather than talk about costs inconsequential to the OP and then go and recommend a HDD?

I've come to appreciate short loading times over time. I never thought it was a big deal to begin with, but now hate firing up games on the spare.

 

[TJCS]

I have bc2 on the green drive. it does take some time to load a map and you probably would see a difference but not "in game" and like 6s instead of 9s load time? The experience will be the same.

Yes, I understand most the benefit is in the loading times while in-game it is essentially the same as on a HDD. I think SSDs loading time offer more notable benefit to games that frequently zones and reloads textures/game data.

However, I did some reading last night and one review site pointed out that the reason that faster SSDs aren't loading certain games any faster is due to other factors like time which GPU loading textures and other components. So, I guess I didn't consider these other factors.

 

[TJCS]

Plenty of tests have been done showing that, quantitatively, many games do benefit from SSDs in terms of loading times.

When the plan is to get a 96GB SSD for games, I don't understand why anyone would recommend a standard HDD.

OP: That's a swell idea. I have my OS on a C300 64, apps on an M4 64, and games on an X-25M 160. It's a wonderfully quick setup.

Thanks CFP, I certainly have some games that will have notable benefit from SSD (Torchlight, Portal 2, etc). And I think if I can find a good price on these SSD why not!

 

[Zap]

EDIT: READ THIS!!!

Just saw this HOT DEALS thread on getting a 256GB m4 for $333.

/thread ()

Really? oh man... i was hoping it make games like sluggish BC2 run faster..

It will speed up loading time, but then you will be facing the countdown timer for the map start. If you want BC2 to run better, you primarily need more GPU performance, followed by more CPU performance. What are the specs of your system?

When the plan is to get a 96GB SSD for games, I don't understand why anyone would recommend a standard HDD.

Because it is a very cost effective alternative with little performance loss?

I have all my games installed on a 256GB SSD. It is Indilinx Barefoot based Patriot TorqX, so not a speed demon compared to faster SSDs. However, it is the 256GB version so it is pretty decent, and it handily puts all hard drives to shame.

My wife's system has all games installed on a Samsung F3 1TB hard drive, on a 250GB partition (thereabouts, forgot the exact size I made it). When we're loading into League of Legends, our systems are neck-to-neck in loading speeds. In fact, sometimes it goes one way or another. I've also never seen any other system load as fast in that game (you see all 10 players' load bars), though a few have come close.

Best thing is a drive like that costs only around $60-70.

 

[TJCS]

Thanks for the heads-up on the deal, but unfortunately my M4 128GB just arrived this afternoon. I might consider the 256GB at that price if I can sell the 128GB without a loss. Seems like prices are coming down, wasn't 256GB around $650 earlier this year?