The ssd is cheaper ... yes i know, lotta less space... but i think its LOTTA faster.
The spec arnt the same for the 2 tings .. the ssd spec are (Sequential Access ) and the hard drive is average seek time or write time.
Its making it hard to really know which one is better ... ?
THX alot, and again, sorry about my english ( i may buy 2 of those for 128G total )
so what i can tell about those spec is that a SSD is WAY faster for Acces time, but not that much for read or write.
For an OS its good ? Im XP user, so a 32g SSD would be NICE to run my XP ?
THX for chart !
It's not "access time" but "random access time," random is the key word. It means that a hdd will have to mechanically move its pin from one part of the disk, read a small piece, then move to another one. That takes time. SSD does not have to do this. If it's continuous read/write, hdd is almost as fast as ssd, or faster, depending on model. Everyday computing involves a lot of random access, which is where ssd has an advantage. When you copy a large file, hdd is just as fast.
Size depends on your needs. I use two hdds, one 1tb, the other 1.5tb, and 32gb just won't cut it. But it may be enough for you. The XP os itself should take under 1gb. But a typical new game takes 7gb or more each when installed.
Some tell that installing a game to a SSD can make it freeze. @ If you use it for everything you might get lag/hangs. @ just said roadrunner197069.
I might use it for Windows only or i can safely install game to it ? or just stay with 2 Raid 0 16mb cache 7200 rpm disk ?
I don't see how Windows is different than games. If you get lag/hang on anything, it means the drive is defective. Yes, you can install the game on it. If anything, RAID is less reliable than SSD, with higher incidence of data loss/corruption.
Consider SSD for core system, large 1-1.5tb drives for storage.
The best configuration if you can afford it would be a fast SSD for OS and everyday use, like surfing the net, watching photos etc (small files, random access time more important) and have a RAID configuration for video files, games, etc (larger files, transfer rates more important).
In time, and probably sooner, the SSD problem will be resolved, and with competition, the prices will drop. In the mean time, the Velociraptor DOES make a difference, and is about as good as it gets. I love mine.
There are a few people who think they are great, and a lot more people who think they are not that great. Whenever I see a piece of hardware that has so much negative feedback, and such a high price tag, common sense tells me to back away for now.
One of the problem with SSDs is the swap file, Windows 7 will have a setting especialy for use with SSDs but at this point, virtual memory is the bane of SSDs as it means lots of random writes.
Also, it will shorten your SSDs life to use it for swap, so place your swap file on another (traditionnal) HD or use enough RAM not to have a swap file.
BTW RAID-0 is totally overrated unless you do Video editting or other large file stuff that needs high transfer speed (then you would also need two arrays). What it realy does is multiply your chances of data loss by the number of drives on the array and gives you a worst random access time than that of a single drive.
Mostly it's for the Benchmarktubators who like to boast high transfer rate numbers more than actual real world performance.