computernewbie

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2009
576
0
18,980
Instead of buying a HDD, i thought i might as well get an SSD, although i dunno which one to buy, one thats around 100-200$ and has a nice reading rate, Or two SSD's that are like 100$ each and put them in RAID 0 or such
 

Zenthar

Distinguished
One of the best you can get is the new X25-M G2 from Intel, 230$ for 80GB, but currently out of stock everywhere because of firmware bug, but a patch was released today so they should be available soon. If you really want to go for the lower priced ones, the Kingston SSDNow V series is ~140$ for 64GB. If you are serious in wanting a SSD, I would bite the bullet and get an Intel, the difference is quite noticeable. Look at the last few graphs, the random read and write. They are probably the most significant results for an OS/Application drive. Sequential write is, my opinion here, more significant for a DATA drive where you store large multimedia files.
 

computernewbie

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2009
576
0
18,980
Damn, so dont mind me asking...SSD's are just the same like HDD's, in like hooking up and all? Do you need some kind of special cable or anything? And can you still have a hot swappable HD while using a SSD? or are they all the same thing in terms.
 

Zenthar

Distinguished
Connecting a SSD is just like connecting a standard HDD yes. The only difference you may find is that SSD have the 2.5 inches form factor normally used in laptops so if you want to hook them in standard 3.5" HDD bays, you will need some metal brackets to fill the gap (less than 10$).
 

computernewbie

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2009
576
0
18,980
@ovrclkr

Yea i was thinking of the Cav Black's but then i thought an SSD would be faster and more future proof, why did you say 1.23 terrabytes of storage space if there in RAID 0?
 

ottosen

Distinguished
Aug 8, 2009
86
0
18,630
I've got 2 Intel X25-M Gen 2 disk, on 80 GB each, and I'm about to throw them in raid 0, as the million dollar question arises: What stripe size?

Any hints or pointers would be nice, cause I really am somewhat puzzled by it. All the different info I can find through google points in different directions.
 


Because when you raid the PC sees the HD as ONE and not 2 drives.....Once formatted they are 590GB x2 =1.23TB
 
Make SURE the SSD will support the Trim function (available with win 7)

Prefer Intel 80 Gig G2
Alternatives I’m looking at
As One poster said, prices may drop some (not a lot) when Intel ships revamped G2’s

OCZ Vertex 60
www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleId=25610
Positive
+ Very high reading/writing speeds match the drive's nominal specs
+ 3 years of warranty
+ 64MB Cache buffer permanently solves 'stuttering' problem
+ Supports TRIM command with wiper.exe
+ Upgrading the firmware to the latest revision doesn't erase data
+ OCZ offers very active forums and constant support with new firmware releases
+ Price is below $200

Patriot Torqx 128 (Didn’t see one for the 64 Gig)
www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleId=25599
Nearly identical to vortex line.
Seems a little faster than Vortex.
10 Year warrenty

Refer 640 WD blacks in raid 0. I have a pair that are “short stroked” for OS and programs. They are nice, But performance wise, a “Good” SSD should trounce it., But then the WD’s have the “Size” advantage – big time.
 
Well yea but I am looking at price to performance.... You gotta have a deep wallet and be very impatient to buy an SSD, unless you absolutely need it for whatever reason... Thats my point.... I have used several SSD's and still dont see the point in spending mad cash to shave off a couple of seconds and lose a lot more space.....

Another point that is very interesting is the fact that SSD's are kinda like thumb-drives in a way..... When the thumb-drives came out for the first time they were super expensive, not because of costs of making one but because they were new and very convinient... The 8GB model was like almost 80.00$ and now you can get one off e-bay for less that 5.00$.... The SSD's are nothing but a big memory chip as opposed to the traditional hardrive that has many parts... The cost to make an SSD is alot cheaper than a traditional drive... So whats up with the prices? Just cause its faster does not mean it should cost more money, specially when the cost to make them is dirt cheap......Its just like everything else... In a year or 2 they will come down in price and peeps will be saying, "remember when the SSD was 500.00$$? " ...that is my point.....
 

Zenthar

Distinguished
Not even close to being the same speed. They might read the same but the SSD will have an access time of 0.2 and the black's will be around what 10.0? BIG difference
Woohooo, finally someone who seems to grasp the concept of latency vs bandwidth!!!!

Want to know what latency can do to a drive's performance??? Let's compare the X25-M to the Velociraptor. Velociraptor sequential read ~118MB/s, sequential write ~119MB/s and random write ~1.6MB/s. X25-M sequential read ~230MB/s, sequential write ~70MB/s and random write ~23MB/s.

You can put a shitload of Velociraptor in RAID0, but until you put 14-15 of them, you will still not reach the 23MB of the X25-M.

I'm not saying the Vertex is not good, it's probably very competitive for the price, but you can't compensate all shortcomings with RAID0.
incompetence.jpg
 
OvrClkr
Yes price/preformance is valid - should have put it that way orginally.
In reference to current cost - The cost of parts and assembly is an invalid assumption. HDDs went thru the same cost reductions verses time. least we forget the expensive MFM and RLL HDDs. The current cost reflects the development cost which is by far larger the production cost. And Yes after the companies recoup thoes cost the prices will drop.

In my case - the SSD is for a laptop (will not use for desktop untill they come down in price and improve the firmware). here it is not just a performance issue, but also a power consumption issue in terms of battery life. Besides, I do not need a 500 gig HDD in my laptop - No gaming. I will have a esata HDD for offloading any large video files (Plugged into AC) and I have a 32 Gig thumb drive for data files. Can also stick a couple of DVD's on the thumb drive to watch on airplane.

PS Although I'm normally very cost wary - Hell I've got the Money. Might as well enjoy it.
 
Yea I agree to an extent... But the SSD's are waaaayyy overpriced ATM.... They coulda gone for double what a normal HD costs but not 5-6 times that amount, that is my argument, specially with the economy its just like a thread I started a month ago that had to do with Intels EE chips....Why sell a chip for a grand in this economy when a 279.99$ chip can be overclocked to the same speed??? Intel has it's line of enthuisiast's that will pay the premium,, dont get me wrong here... But if that same EE chip was 500.00$ less Intel would have doubled thier profits in NO-TIME....Its all about the cash, not about who can sell a chip for a grand and see how many they can lure in to buy it.... It's marketing, something that many companies use and something that Intel needs help on......
 
Psycho I can tell you are an Intel Superfanboy, it is what it is....I am talking stock speeds, who care how high a 975 can go? The i7 lineup is not known for being superb overclockers anyways......All I am saying is that if you buy a 975 EE it will be due to the fact that either 1) You are a supa-noob that does not have a clue to what overclocking means or 2) You are stupid rich and could care less how much a CPU costs in the first place....

Btw in real-world apps you do not see any speed difference after 4.5Ghz.... So why bother unless you are benching?
 
You are not understanding what I am trying to portray here.....

I am saying why spend cash on a 1000.00$ CPU when you can achieve the same speed with a 279.99$ CPU?

CAPICHE?

Then you stated ummm...... " The 975 EE can do 5Ghz. A 920 Cannot and to my knowledge has never gotten past 4.4Ghz. " <--has NOTHING to do with the question........(comparing the 920 @ 3.3Ghz stock 975 speed)

And BTW FYI not EVERYONE overclocks their i7's ...... I know more than 8 programmers that have 920's and 950's and see no need for overclocking since they don't bench nor play any games....
 
His point is that your statement was wrong. You cannot achieve the same speed with a 920 that you can with a 975. As for the i7 not known for overclocking? The 920 is practically expected to go to 4GHz. That's a 50% overclock that people consider common. If that isn't considered superb overclocking, I don't know what is. The Q6600 was considered a great overclocker, and it didn't routinely get anything farther than 150% (3.6GHz), and the AMD Phenom IIs are considered pretty good too, even though the 955 can't even get to 150% (4.8GHz).