Weekend Open Forum: Your take on solid-state drives

By on May 7, 2010, 9:39 PM
Even though 2009 appeared to be the year that was going to mark a wider adoption of SSDs and a big nosedive in prices, ultimately only part of that came to realization. Things have slowed down a bit during 2010 with SSDs still gaining ground albeit at a much slower pace than predicted. Prices have stagnated after some big cuts in previous years, that combined with a number of issues that every new wave of SSDs seem to face, have made for a combination that only enthusiasts and performance junkies seem to be willing to pay.

Recent history tells us that weíve already come a long way from the pricey first generation drives that suffered from severe slowdowns. Last year we ran two round-ups of solid-state drives that on its majority represented a big leap in performance over anything a traditional hard drive could offer. Newer and faster products keep coming, just last week we checked out OCZís Vertex 2 based on a new SandForce chipset. But as we noted in our conclusion, new SSDs also present the question of reliability over the long term. Even almighty Intel, the most resourceful of manufacturers, has fallen prey to buggy firmware updates when showing brand new SSD solutions.


Personally, I upgraded to a first generation Intel X-25M drive which I use to this day and Iíve never had to look back. I retired my WD Raptor hard drive to use as secondary and next time I buy a laptop it will have an SSD in it. Thatís been my story with SSDs, but how about you? Have you made the jump yet? If so, when and what drive do you run these days? If not, whatís holding you back? Discuss.




User Comments: 41

Got something to say? Post a comment
Chazz said:

I really want to get a SSD but two things are holding me back.

1. Price: I've barely seen improvements in this field. When a decently priced SSD is launched, it turns out to be very slow (by ssd standards). All the while newer and better SSD's are getting released, the older ones seem to hover around with little price change.

2. There seems to be a new SSD released every week. It's getting to a point where it's boring to look at their specs /benchmarks.

On one hand, it's encouraging that these companies are pouring R&D into this tech. But, on the other I feel I should wait until everything settles down a bit.

Even still I am a tech junkie..and will prob break down and get a drive for my OS.

TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I agree with chazz on point #2. It's near impossible keeping up with new SSD releases. Unless you're actively shopping, doesn't seem to be a lot of point to keep looking at each and every one.

I'm doing a complete rebuild in the spring of 2011. I'll be putting in an SSD as a boot drive but will stick with regular hard drive to hold programs.

To be honest, until the prices start coming close to "old fashioned" hard drives, it just makes no sense to do anything more than the boot drive thing with an SSD.

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I've kinda been wanting one for a few months, but every time I'm about to click on purchase, something stops me, either reports of installation hassles, firmware upgrades/problems, do I want to spend all that money on such a small drive.

I'm probably going to break down when I convert my backup PC into a HTPC, have a small boot drive, and then a larger storage drive. I'm probably shooting for fall of this year. Prices are dropping nicely, and occasional specials are really good. If I see a really good special, I might get it.

Guest said:

I bought a Vertex last summer and I have never looked back. I liked the manufacturer and how OCZ seemed to be the most proactive in supporting their devices, and I liked how Indilinx seemed to be the most supportive of any of the myriad controller makers. My decision was buoyed by the great reviews and perceived reliability of the Vertex and I haven't been let down.

What drew me to SSDs wasn't sustained read/write speeds; it was seek times. I use Photoshop, Indesign and Illustrator on a daily basis. Nothing bogs down a PC like opening an InDesign project that calls 40-50 Photoshop or Illustrator images or graphical elements. I actually timed the difference in speed between this 120 GB SSD and the 250 GB HDD I was using prior.

All things being equal, the SSD shaved about 30 seconds off my average load time. Since I got it, the SSD has probably saved me about 20 hours of time just on InDesign page loads alone. That's a real difference, and that's real billable work I've been able to accomplish and real money I've earned as a result.

eafshar said:

I was building a gaming rig last august and realized that i was spending over 1800$ on it, and that an extra 200-250 dollars is gonna make my OS that much faster..i didn't want to do it even though it was around a 10-15% extra cost for what i would now say a very good upgrade. (much more than 15% speed improvement). i ended up getting an ocz summit series 60gb since the store didn't have hd i was looking for . i will be looking to get another one at 100gb+ memory.. whenever their price drops.

Guest said:

I went for an X-25 postville, spent 190 euro's on it at the time.

The performance increase over a normal harddrive is amazing, but the price does sting a bit, since for that amount of money you'll only get 74 gigs of capacity.

It currently holds my windows 7 install, all my software and half a dozen multi gig games, this leaves it nearly full, but this is honestly all the stuff I want to have on a bootdrive :)

I was worried about "80" gigs not being enough space, but it's actually quite workable !

I'm still not entirely sure it was worth it, but like with all improvements in PC performance, going back now would be unacceptable.

It's all the little things combined that make an SSD so nice, no mechanical noise, fast loading of files, lovely ingame loadtimes, and I can have AVG do a thorough scan of the entire drive in 2.3 minutes !

Jibberish18 said:

I've kept up with SSD's ever since the first drives came out. I mostly read and learned about them on Anandtech. You gotta say that when it comes to testing and finding glitches, he seems pretty awesome. Ever since I learned how many obstacles SSD's had to overcome, I kept up with all the new of firmwares, TRIM support, SLC, MLC, On Board Cache, etc. You sort of have to if you plan on every getting one. To be honest, by the time I finally decide to get one, you may not have to worry about any of this stuff. SSD's are becoming more and more popular because of their potential and because of that their capabilities are increasing exponentially. Their drawbacks are quickly disappearing as the months go by. Everyday you hear of bigger capacities, faster read and write speeds, better wear algorithms and more.

Do I want one personally? You bet your hippy smokin mind I do there are a few problems. For one they're just way too expensive although the price has gone done very much. For two I have a Macbook with OSX which DOES NOT support TRIM to the best of my knowledge. Third is that I really don't need one. Lets face it, I use my laptop for the things that most other people do which are email, forums, manga, communication, etc. Your everyday stuff. If I truly used my lap/desktop for something of more importance such as Home Design or Video Editing or Photo Editing or Even Heaving Gaming, then I would say that the price of an SSD could be worth it. But as it stands, buying a faster 7200 RPM drive would suite me fine. Sure I have to wait longer than I'd like for my OS's to boot up and programs to open but it won't kill me. I can't wait. Plenty of other things to spend $250+ on.

Good day sirs.

Didou Didou, Bowtie extraordinair!, said:

I'm hesitating between an SSD or one of the latest VelociRaptors to use for my system drive. I don't need that much storage & I like my system to be quiet so the SSD looks tempting, if only it was simpler to pick an SSD out of the 5 million different models out on the market.

Staff
Per Hansson Per Hansson, TS Server Guru, said:

In April 2008 I bought a 32GB Transcend SSD Model: TS32GSSD25S-M for my firewall, I simply wanted a quiet drive and did not care about performance...

I was surprised however by how poor it's performance actually was, I run the IPCOP firewall distribution and it's ISO install is only around 40MB.

However it is many small files which is exactly what the JMicron JMF602B controller is poor at and the installation took around 30 minues. On an old 2GB SCSI drive I have at my parents house I can do the same install in 5 minutes, just for reference...

After this I've kept up with the SSD articles and reviews on Anandtech, I've read every single one and love the detail he goes into.

I got to try a 16GB Mtron SSD with SATA interface, we bought it for a CNC machine at work however where sent the wrong drive, we ordered with IDE interface but got SATA...

I tested this drive in my comp with World of Warcraft, after that I was hooked, the loading time with all my addons decreased from 1:46min into Dalaran when all characters had finished loading up on my screen to just 0:32min

But the biggest testament was that with my VelociRaptor I was into the game at 1:17 but then it spent 29 seconds loading characters, with the SSD I was in at 0:28 then it spent 4 seconds to load the characters!

Right now every computer I build for friends and family get an SSD, for example a HTPC I built for my parents, an old Epox 8RDA3+ with ATI AGP 2400Pro to support offloading the decoding work of 720p and 1080p movies got a Kingston 40GB SSD (The rebranded Intel X25-M) That system simply flies!

I also built a workstation computer for a client, it got the 80GB Intel X25-M G2 and Win7

The system feels way faster than mine even tho it is "just" an AMD system with half the RAM and CPU power that my rig with VelociRaptor HDD has!

I tell all my friends to upgrade to SSD drives (wink to Julio's X25-M purchase ) I am however myself reluctant.

Because while the Intel X25-M is a great drive there are many others like the Crucial C300 or the Sandforce based drives that are way faster, and I'd like one of those however not a week goes by without either we (Techspot) writing about a SSD that has died in testing or a new Firmware problem bricking drives, and Anandtech has the same experience.

Right now I'm actually considering getting a Seagate Cheetah 15k.7 SAS drive instead, simply because it is known reliable tech and that way I will be able to hold off until the next round of nice SSD's get released with 25nm flash (And because the newly released VelociRaptor 600GB model left me very disappointed in it's performance "improvement"

nichitapavel said:

I love my SSD, but damn, it would be nicer if prices went down a little bit!

Tekkaraiden Tekkaraiden said:

It's a very promising technology but it is still too expensive.

9Nails, TechSpot Paladin, said:

As others suggest, there's a few flaws in SDD's marketing campaign.

1. Price - it's still too high. One dollar per Gig is a bit too much, and I'd like to see that at about fifty cents per Gig.

2. Performance - there's a disparity in performance between offerings. You can go wrong and spend too much. Lots of prior research is necessary.

3. Size - in an America where big is beautiful, a small hard drive seems like need for the plastic surgeon.

slh28 slh28, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I just ordered some upgrades for my system (mainly because the to-be-discontinued i7 920 was just so cheap at £160) but an SSD was not one of those upgrades. Sure, I have heard really good things but I can't shake off the feeling that if I spend £150-£200 on one now, in a few months time there will be drives which will be twice as fast and half the price (well hopefully anyway...)

alcarin2030 alcarin2030 said:

At the moment SSD's are pointless. If you take two Raptor drives and Raid 0 them they are faster. Until the speed of SSD's go up, I am not buying.

Guest said:

I bought a 60gb OCZ Agility for $130 for my boot drive on Windows 7....Works like a charm and I will never put an OS on a HDD again. I just installed a couple of my games and all of my programs to my SSD and I love it.

Guest said:

Got OCZ Vertex 60gb SSD few months ago to replace WD Velociraptor and i never looked back.

My pc is quiter and boot times are better as well.

Im looking to buy a new laptop by the end of the summer and it will have and SSD as well.

Guest said:

I bought a 2nd-generation, 80 GB Intel X25-M for use as the system drive in a Dell Dimension E510 / Windows XP system. This was my main business system and central control node for my network. While it may seem overstated, I can honestly call the X25-M a "life changer"!

Although expensive (I paid $235 for it), based on the system performance boost provided by the drive, I have already recouped my investment in terms of increased productivity.

I recently upgraded from the E510 system to a new Dell Vostro 230 system. I put the X25-M in the new system, booted Windows, and loaded the new system's drivers. The performance of the Vostro 230, with the X25-M as the system disk, is nothing short of phenominal. Windows starts so quickly, I never even see the Windows splash screen! The system runs 41 processes at Windows startup, and total startup time for everything to be loaded and running after the Dell BIOS screen disappears is only 25 seconds. When I run programs for the first time after Windows startup, they appear on the screen and are ready to go in the blink of an eye.

I'd love to get an SSD for my Dell Vostro 1400 notebook system, but I need at least 160 GB on that system, and SSDs at that capacity are still in the $400 range -- too expensive for me at this time.

Yad Yad said:

Would love one but prices atm are quite high :/

Staff
Per Hansson Per Hansson, TS Server Guru, said:

Alcarin2030; You need to read some SSD reviews if you think any mechanical HDD is faster than a good SSD (Unless you are speaking soley of sequential write performance but that pretty much rules out SSD's anyway since they are so small to begin with)

Quoting myself from this news post on the new VelociRaptor 600GB drives; [link]

4k aligned random write; (Numbers from Anandtech)

OCZ Vertex Limited Edition; 162MB

Crucial RealSSD C300; 141MB

X25-M G2; 46MB

Velociraptor 600GB; 1,9MB

That's at least an order of magnitude, and in worst case for the Raptor actually well over 10 orders of magnitude

Route44 Route44, TechSpot Ambassador, said:

I really want to get a SSD but two things are holding me back.

1. Price: I've barely seen improvements in this field. When a decently priced SSD is launched, it turns out to be very slow (by ssd standards). All the while newer and better SSD's are getting released, the older ones seem to hover around with little price change.

2. There seems to be a new SSD released every week.

This. I want to do a new build in a year's time. I'd like to put in an SSD but at the moment I am not going to put that kind of money out for basically first and second generation tech. As much as I love the new stuff I am patient enough to wait until there is more maturity to the tech plus price drop and by the time 2011 comes around we should be in the third or fourth generation with more capacity at lower price points.

Anyway, that's what I'm hoping for.

tengeta tengeta said:

You can say the price is better, but its not acceptable to the extreme majority of the market. Period.

They can market whatever about non-moving parts and faster speeds, but a casual user has been informed for once and they know its useless and will only pay for it when its the same as what they use now.

I myself am amongst that group.

Geek4life said:

I think SSD's are the future. Everything progresses in technology and mechanical hard drives are outdated technology. SSD's are the best upgrade one can do for their computer stated Anand Lal Shimpi and I could not agree more.

OCZ is leading the way.

ET3D, TechSpot Paladin, said:

SSD's are on my future wish list. I'm sure they'll do my PC some good, but can't justify the price.

CMH, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I jumped on the bandwagon when I built myself a new PC.

Now I'm running a pair of 64gb Corsair Novas, and I must say I'm really pleased with the results.

There's really no point in getting a good graphics card, good CPU, good RAM, etc, and then skimp on the slowest performing part in the whole computer IMO. Instant load times is still a dream today, but at least we're now a step closer.

Guest said:

If we were here in 2007 I'd have bought myself an affordable 80GB - 60GB - even 40GB - SSD by now, plenty room for Windows XP and a couple games installed at a time, with all my media, documents, etc. on a seperate 1TB workflow drive, or archived on my Drobo.

In the last few years however, I've been running Windows 7 since the RC, and gotten into Steam (with over 100 games on it already), and really even 160GB is struggling to be enough; I'd need more like 250GB or 500GB to give myself a bit of breathing room, and at present those kind of capacities are just much too expensive.

I might give in, as I am very tempted, and shunt the Steam games onto a seperate drive and work something out, but my intentions are to wait and see what the upcoming 25nm SSDs from Intel and the end of the year are like with regard to capacity and pricing before making a decision.

cogenmaster said:

Just recently built a new computer with a intel x-25m 160. I can honestly say that I can hardly stand to use my other home computer or my laptop. Programs respond so quickly with the SSD that is truly amazing. I wanted to purchase the Crucial real SSD 300 but after reading a not so good review at anandtech I ended going with the tried and true Intel drive. If you are considering it don't let the price scare you away you will not be disappointed with the outcome.

Guest said:

Ever since i bought my first SSD i haven't looked back.

Laptop 1 - G.Skill Falcon 64gb

Laptop 2 - Intel X-25V 40GB

Laptop 3 - Intel X-25V 40gb

Desktop - Intel X-25M G2 80GB

my velociraptor is collecting dust. i use a 1.5TB for storage. SSD is nice and quiet. speed is very nice. but have any of you who own a laptop see the difference with heat? i noticed my laptops doesnt run as warm with SSD.

I've seen reviews for sandforce but i'm staying a way and sticking with intel. my first SSD was the G.Skill.... and the customer is crap.

Lou3 said:

I like the idea of lower power draw and heat, no moving parts, and less space usage. In the SFF systems I build, this is especially attractive. Of course, the faster times are great too. The price is the only thing that has held me back. I don't think the prices are unreasonably high, but it's just a value proposition when less expensive and perfectly usable HDDs with higher capacity are available at a much lower price. Another value consideration, however, is buying components that might soon be phased out (not that I think HDDs will disappear in the near future).

I'm thinking about buiding a second system, so I'll probably get an SSD for that one. I'm watching for sales.

IvanAwfulitch IvanAwfulitch said:

Lou3 has hit the problem right on the nose as far as I'm concerned.

Let's say it once more as a final wrap-up. SSDs are incredibly fast, very small, produce little heat, require little power to run, and are delightfully quiet. But on a space-to-price ratio, SSDs are out of the question as far as I'm concerned. If I were to buy one, I would want to use just one drive instead of managing a series of drives. And for that, I would need a drive of relatively decent size. This means that I would need to reach for at least 250 gigabytes of space to feel somewhat comfortable. Unfortunately, the way things are currently priced, I'd be spending almost as much money as I've spent on my entire computer as I'd be spending trying to purchase such a large SSD. What does that equate to on the ratio I mentioned? Well, for every dollar I spend I would get about 0.4 gigabytes per dollar. 409 megabytes?!

If I were to get an internal HDD with 1 terabyte of storage, I would be getting about 9.3 gigabytes per dollar. From that sort of a standpoint, for me an SSD is absolutely out of the question with prices the way they are. For an SSD to be of any appeal to me, they would have to reduce the prices to nearly 1/10th of what they are. That would mean I'd get about 3.5 gigabytes per dollar which would be much more practical and frugal.

I just simply cannot see prices coming down to that sort of a range for quite a long time to come. Perhaps a year from now, they will have come down by an appreciable amount. But for me? I think I'll stick with my HDD for a while yet.

LightHeart said:

I have not purchased one yet as the price is simply too high for me. I get pretty decent performance with my current hard drives and my system in general. I have no real reason to jump in at this time, so until prices drop I'll just being reading and learning from others experiences.

raybay said:

They are as reliable as rotational drives, but they are slow, and have limited capacity.

Price, capacity, and speed are the big issues. The most recent drives are faster, and larger. The cost is coming down monthly.

I suspect part of the problem is that manufacturing assembly lines are not yet converted, and there is too much manual labor still involved... along with manufacturer greed.

These drives don't cost any more to make that a regular hard drive, and in volume, they will be less.

When the manufacturers stop taking advantage of the rarity and drop their prices... which will likely occur after high school and college graduations, then real change will start to occur.

When the capacity reaches 100 GB, and the price is under $100, we will see rapid change. By March, 2011, we will see significant changes in those used for laptops.

CMH, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

They are as reliable as rotational drives, but they are slow, and have limited capacity.

You better start reading up on their performance for SSDs released in the latter half of the last decade. Calling them slow is about as far from the truth as you can get. That is unless you're comparing them to RAM based drives. The last commercially available (industry available ones aside) that I know of is the Gigabyte iRAM, which has a max capacity of 4GB.

When the capacity reaches 100 GB, and the price is under $100, we will see rapid change.

Capacities have now reached 500Gb, and the price for some 30Gb models are already under $100. As far as I know, rapid change has already begun, you just didn't realise it yet.

Given the "simplicity" in producing SSDs compared to whats required in HDD production, if the price per gigabyte of SSDs reach 400% of HDDs, I'm willing to bet HDDs will no longer be manufactured. Right now the figure is above 2000%.

The one other thing that comes to mind when I think about SSD's taking over the scene is the fact that Windows 7 comes prepared for them. Take into account that Microsoft was dumb enough not to see FDDs being phased out when releasing WinXP.

ikenlob said:

Just my user experience with a mid-range ssd...

Got a intel v series fro Christmas from my wife after I had decided to wait a while on price and implementation. Nearly sent it back as it wasn't a second gen M series. Never the less, installation was flawless and relatively easy. I can see were some might flub the firmware updates, but i read the directions and pulled it off.

I upgraded the os drive from a pair of 7200 160Gb drives in raid 0 and run a core 2 duo with a 5770 gpu. I have been very happy with the results overall. Minor hassle to monitor where to install different programs, but worth it. Computer is easily faster than before, certainly load times are much faster.

Still, it does not make game play any different. The difference is no better than buying a new computer every couple years with a new cpu and gpu.

Bottom line IMHO, for $100, a similar midrange SSD can give you a solid "new computer" experience provided you are reasonably hardware savvy.

The minor complaint is monitoring storage. One expected plus is that my case makes installing a new HD a bit of a pain. With this I just plugged it in, shoved it inside the cover and closed it. Runs like a champ with no mounting at all...

One negative is optimization. Not required in my experience, but a lot of info available to keep the antsy occupied. In my case, ran benchmarks and then a recommended cleaning utility only to see my scores fall.

I would not buy a top end SSD now until prices come wayyy down. If I were rich and had hours to optimize there would be four raided in my box.

Guest said:

I made the jump on dec 2009, I'm running an X58 chipset with a i7-920 so the chioce in brand was easy. I stuck with intel and it was the right choice, 160GB G2 SSD was needed to really allow the i7 to flex itself. I won't go back to using a regular HD has a boot drive ever again.

The choice between the intel drive vs vertex was simple. The X-25M has much faster random read and write and this matters most for an operating system drive. Even with the capped write speeds on the intel drive i'm vary rarely writing to the SSD so it matters not.

If you can afford it make the jump!

TorturedChaos, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I plan to buy a smaller SSD just for my OS install and keep everything else on a separate hdd. Thats how my install is right now, just using partitions on a 500 gig drive.

But I have never been one to jump right into a new product. I always wait a while for the kinks to get ironed out.

And as it is now tho, there is a new flavor every week, with new improvements. I'm going to wait until the rate of the improvements slows down, and the price becomes more reasonable. I love my tech gadgets, but my apatite for them and my amount of cash left seem to be inversely proportional

Docnoq said:

I'll probably get one in Q2 2012. That's when I will be finishing up my Master's degree and will (hopefully) have enough income to actually rebuild my entire PC. Until that time, I just pray my 8800GTS and e6400 are capable of holding me over for games. If not, my PS3 might see a bit more action :-P

pravusnex said:

I took the leap in August of 2009. I was so impressed by the speed difference of my OCZ Vertex on my desktop I went so far as to purchase an OCZ Agility and install it into my work laptop. I have absolutely loved the performance. It is a night and day difference. My laptop SATA controler is only capable of 1.5Gb/s so I don't even take full advantage of the performance. But the seek time alone makes it worth my while. I have many co-workers with the same laptop and 7200RPM drives and they all find their systems painfully slow. With an SSD in mine I really have no need for anything more. That is a pretty significant difference.

On a different note, my Vertex bricked a few months back. That has left me a little shaken. I had almost no warning that things were going bad and they went bad very fast. I use Mozy for backup so I had all of my data consistently backed up (I'm moving off Mozy btw. Going over to Carbonite). OCZ replaced my drive under warranty. So with that combination I guess I am willing to deal with a little trouble, but it would be nice if they could work out some of these issues.

I don't ever want to go back to slower drives, but I'm not ready to recommend this to "non-power users".

Guest said:

Everyone wants an ssd but noone wants to pay the price/performance hit. I'll stick up for conventional HDD's in my argument as no one else has really.

1. They are a more reliable source for storing data and don't require another hdd to backup your data just in case of either fail or becoming full quickly. I.e most people who buy ssds and still require another hdd anyway to backup in case of fail and for all other larger info like programs and vids.

2. Having bought 2 mechanical hdds (spinpoint f3's) and putting them in raid 0 my write & read speeds are 300meg/sec for a tiny $130 dollars with 2 terabyte of space. If i bought an ssd for the same price write read would be lower at maybe 160 read 80 write and I'd end up with 64gig and still needing another hdd for storage. Windows 7 boots in about 10 seconds anyway and games boot super fast as well as paint-shop and larger programs.

I believe a lot of people who upgrade to ssds there previous mechanical drives were poor to start with making the upgrade seem even better. The older mechanical drives are old school and maybe run at 50meg/sec a second to start with rather than the newer generation mechanical hdds that run at 150meg/sec(or in raid 0 x2 300meg/sec write and read). At the price rate compared to a decent ssd you could buy 4 raid 0 drives and run a smooth 600meg/sec write read speed with 4 terabytes of space for $260. or 3 raid 0 with 1 as backup raid 1 mirror if you prefer.

Only main advantage to the ssd is the lower sized sequential write/read speeds i.e 4kb sized info and also the seek times although my mechanical drives seek at 8ms. Compered to ssd's which cost more, have slower write speeds at the top end and have ridiculously low capacity.

To sum up you CAN buy high performance mechanical hdds that perform close to a ssd for everyday use with massive capacity at a low cost.

Badfinger said:

When prices on the big ones come down off R&D ripoff cloud9 newness, the switchover will complete.

CMH, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

As a reply to what Guest said 2 posts above.

Traditional HDDs are NOT more reliable as a storage media. When HDDs fail, they fail catastrophically (ie: sudden and complete loss). In SSDs, the main worry is not about actual failure of the drive, but the loss of ability to write over previous data (ie: you can read, but you cannot write). There is no mechanical construct that is more reliable than a solid state equivalent that I know of in any field.

However, I agree that anyone who uses SSDs would have a HDD for large media such as movies.

Secondly, mechanical HDDs in RAID as you mentioned can reach 300mb/sec when data is read SEQUENTIALLY, and this rate is NOT sustainable. If you took that raid drive and compare it with another SSD which is rated at 300mb/sec, and raced them to see which drive will load something faster, or copy a file faster, the SSD will undoubtedly win. Unlike HDD which will have to move mechanical heads to the required position to read data, SSDs... just reads it.

I think a similar comparison will be reading a book: the HDD is like a good ol' paperback, searching for a particular paragraph means turning the pages to look for it. SSDs is like an e-book: just enter the page number and you're there. How fast you read that paragraph will be the same in both cases, but you'd be reading the paragraph first with the SSDs.

Also bear in mind that data stored in either HDD and SSD may be fragmented. What looks like 1 file to you can be split into innumerable parts. This will particularly be true with program data which gets altered every time you use the program. Following the above scenario, its like reading old style rpg game-books where you turn to particular pages for each decision you make.

Again, one of the last comments the same guest posted is innacurate for a few years now: SSDs have faster, or comparable write speeds than HDDs for sometime now.

[link]

Its not the perfect comparison, but go ahead and divvy up by two for the raid. Just remember that when you put 2 drives in RAID, you don't get 200% the performance of one.

To sum up: You're comparing and old Toyota to a brand new Ferrari (feel free to substitue Ferrari with any high-performance car brand). Yeah, you pay more for the ferrari, get 2 seats instead of 4, and if you can't tell the difference, you need your head checked.

CMH, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Just another article I found....

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=918

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.