Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

SSD IDE vs SATA

Tags:
  • Hard Drives
  • SSD
  • Storage
Last response: in Storage
October 13, 2007 5:53:09 AM

I'm looking at getting an SSD for my OS in my newest build, but I have a couple of problems.

For one, how much space would I need for Vista 64 Home Premium? The one I'm looking at has 32 GB, which I think is enough, but I don't know if these drives lose space after format, and how much the OS would take to install. Also, when I install programs, I'll probably tell it to install them into the storage drive (to try and reserve the SSD for purely OS). How does that work? Those programs will still use .dlls from the C: drive, right? Basically, I plan to install a lot of games and programs, will that totally destroy my C: Drive's space and whatnot?

Also: The only really affordable drive I can find on newegg with 32 GB is an IDE drive. Will the fact that it's an SSD be fast enough to overcome the interface? If the SATA is worth it, I guess I'll just end up spending however much it costs, but I wasn't sure, and I can't find any benchmarks between the two.

Thanks in advance.

More about : ssd ide sata

October 14, 2007 8:05:21 AM

anybody?!
October 14, 2007 9:03:27 AM

Well, I don't see why you would use the SSD for just Windows and no programs, that kind of defeats the purpose of fast storage. You won't see much of a difference if you have just your OS on the SSD, it will boot faster and that's about it.

I have no idea how much an install of Vista takes because I'm really not a fan of Vista(and by "not a fan" I mean I absolutely despise it), but from what I hear around 8-10GB. If I understand how flash works, it shouldn't slow down as it fills up so you could fill it almost all the way without any slowdown, but 20+GB should be enough for your main programs, and put the less frequently used ones on your secondary drive.

It depends on the IDE interface. If it's the ATA66 one I saw reviewed on Tom's a while back, then no that probably won't cut it. I would recommend SATA only, unless you can find an ATA100/133 one.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
October 14, 2007 9:03:32 AM

Well, I don't see why you would use the SSD for just Windows and no programs, that kind of defeats the purpose of fast storage. You won't see much of a difference if you have just your OS on the SSD, it will boot faster and that's about it.

I have no idea how much an install of Vista takes because I'm really not a fan of Vista(and by "not a fan" I mean I absolutely despise it), but from what I hear around 8-10GB. If I understand how flash works, it shouldn't slow down as it fills up so you could fill it almost all the way without any slowdown, but 20+GB should be enough for your main programs, and put the less frequently used ones on your secondary drive.

It depends on the IDE interface. If it's the ATA66 one I saw reviewed on Tom's a while back, then no that probably won't cut it. I would recommend SATA only, unless you can find an ATA100/133 one.
October 14, 2007 12:21:29 PM

You are wasting your money. The affordable SSDs are not fast enough to be of any value. The seek times are very low but the read / write times are also very low. Save your dough until they increase the speeds. As far as the PATA connection, those things aren't even close to using up the theoretical 133MB/sec. throughput.

If you want to go hog wild and get something you can boast about try this Can Gigabyte's i-RAM Replace Existing Hard Drives?. It doesn't get very large so may not be sufficient, but it is cheap. Here is another alternative A New RAM Hard Drive from HyperOs. In the article they say that the throughput is less than the I ram but Hyper has changed to SATA etc. so I think it is faster. And it can grow to 64GB. Here is the site for the page for the HyperDrive4 (Revision 3). Understand when they say SSD they are talking about RAM. Also, be prepared to get your wallet out.

Otherwise save your money and let the nonvolatile SSDs mature and come down in price.