SSD or upgrade GPU?

[photog10]

Hello all,
I have the following:
Q6600 @3.6
EVGA780i FTW
EVGA 9800 GTX
4GB KIngston HyperX 8500
XP SP3 (not moving yet to W7)
Hitachi 320GB HD (sata. not sure of model)

And so I have some money and would like to know what would be a better choice. An upgrade to the gtx 285 or 275 or the Intel X25-M 80GB. I play games like GTA4/ NFS / mirrors edge/FC2 but I have no problem playing games with the current GPU.
I previously had an OCZ ssd (what a piece of junk it was!!!) and had only bad memories with it. Just wondering how much of a percentage increase can I expect to gain in the system with the chosen SSD?
any help appreciated...

 

[photog10]

Hello all,
I have the following:
Q6600 @3.6
EVGA780i FTW
EVGA 9800 GTX
4GB KIngston HyperX 8500
XP SP3 (not moving yet to W7)
Hitachi 320GB HD (sata. not sure of model)

And so I have some money and would like to know what would be a better choice. An upgrade to the gtx 285 or 275 or the Intel X25-M 80GB. I play games like GTA4/ NFS / mirrors edge/FC2 but I have no problem playing games with the current GPU. I do D300 sized raw photos/editing in PS CS4. I watch movies. I usually run multiple things at once.
I previously had an OCZ ssd (what a piece of junk it was!!!) and had only bad memories with it. Just wondering how much of a percentage increase can I expect to gain in the system with the chosen SSD?
any help appreciated...

 

[sminlal]

If you've got no problem playing games right now then what is the reason you want to upgrade? Chances are that an SSD won't improve your gameplay (assuming that the games you run will fit into your 4GB of RAM), but it should substantially reduce the time it takes to boot your system and get programs started. If that's what you're looking to improve then go for it!

 

[amnotanoobie]

GPU for higher fps, SSD for lower load times.

Since you don't have problems with your current setup, why bother?

 

[kleinberg]

+1 for amnotanoobie

Go GPU for better gaming, SSD for better general computing experience. An SSD makes the whole desktop really snappy, especially when heavily multitasking. But it won't do squat for gaming, except for pulling up your min FPS in the rare occassion where the computer will crank the HDD trying to load textures and such in game. Then again, you could just spend the money on games and arguable get more value out of your $300+. It all depends on what your priorities are and the relative value to you.

 

[photog10]

I didn't mention that I would like things to be zippier like loading PS CS4 much quicker than 25 seconds (with heavy plugins/brushes/and others) and on the other side I can't play current games with rez on full (24"). My other concern is with my previous OCZ SSD core 64gb v1 (sold it withing 2 weeks) which sucked like hell writing with all the configuration the OCZ mods recommended. 3 times as slow as my current normal sata drive does and I don't want that at all. And it was just like before where Tom shows the drives performance flying but my HDtune showed it much different. Slower in writing and it would sit there. especially when first installing everything new.. Man that hurt. I felt like I had a P2. So I'm wondering which of the ssd's to get that will write fast. all read fast but they suck ass writing.
And that's what I want .. So that's why i'm hesitnt to leave the regular drive or go raptor or get the gtx 285...
thanks for your opinions guys!

 

[photog10]

after looking at this thread:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/253748-32-intel-80gb
I'm quite hesitant to buy an SSD. the write speeds are worse than I thought.

and then shown here of the VR:
Western Digital VelociRaptor VR150 * WD3000GLFS,SATA/300,300 GB,16 MB Cache
both at max.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-3.5-desktop-hard-drive-charts/h2benchw-3.12-Max-Write-Throughput,1012.html

vs the SSD
Intel X25-M * SSDSA2MH080G1, 80GB, SATA/300



http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-flash-ssd-charts/Write-Throughput-h2benchw-3.12,908.html

The SSD have some way to go in terms of writing. I have no patience for that. So I guess I might have to re-look at getting a VR..
and for some reason I don't believe the speeds Tom shows for the SSD. as they never seem to get to those speeds just like USB 2.0

 

[photog10]

actually after seeing the charts i'm looking to crucial. their M225 CT128M225, 128GB, SATA/300 is flying in writing!
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1651&pageID=7399
Bjorn #d confirms it's blazing fast write speeds.

 

[sminlal]

>I didn't mention that I would like things to be zippier like loading PS CS4 much quicker than 25 seconds (with heavy plugins/brushes/and others)
Then you definitely want an SSD.

>I'm quite hesitant to buy an SSD. the write speeds are worse than I thought.
In most cases sequential write speed is the least important metric because a typical system doesn't do a lot of large writes. What's more important is RANDOM I/O speeds for relatively small chunks of data. The Intel X-25M drives don't have the fastest sequential write speeds, but are still regarded as the best overall performers because of their excellent random performance.

 

[photog10]

First, In Bjorn's review it beats the Intel in almost every test he did. and for a less price. I do Nikon D300 sized photos with multiple layers, tons of plugins, actions and what not. Saving +opening all the time. IMO the Crucial is the right drive to choose for my needs. When I used the 64GB ocz SSD it was so awful. In HDTUNE it showed 101 or so...after a new install (which was excruciatingly slow) it took it 22 minutes to install PS2. Even with the same hardware I have now. I hope the Crucial won't let me down. But it just seems like in 1 year they doubled performance for around the same price..

thank you for your help everyone!!!!!