Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

VelociRaptors vs. SDD

Last response: in Storage
Share
December 13, 2009 9:18:03 PM


What's best for performance (boot drive and running main apps)?



WD VelociRaptors 10,000 RPM vs. SSD?




Western Digital VelociRaptor WD1500HLFS 150GB 10000 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

or

Western Digital VelociRaptor WD3000HLFS 300GB 10000 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...



VS.


Solid State Disks

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...

More about : velociraptors sdd

a b G Storage
December 13, 2009 9:27:44 PM

SSD will always win, especially Intel SSD's - just install everything to it, and any data you have (music, docs, iso's etc) just get another normal or green series hdd for that.
December 13, 2009 9:49:52 PM

apache_lives said:
SSD will always win, especially Intel SSD's - just install everything to it, and any data you have (music, docs, iso's etc) just get another normal or green series hdd for that.


Sorry my friend, but you are not speaking right. A good SSD will always win. For example take the Kingston V series and the VR steps all over it! And that is just one drive, there are other low performance SSDs out there that the VR beats them.

So to summarise and answer to our friend here: A good (and usually expensive) SSD will be much better than the VR
Related resources
a c 415 G Storage
December 13, 2009 11:02:54 PM

darkguset said:
Sorry my friend, but you are not speaking right. A good SSD will always win. For example take the Kingston V series and the VR steps all over it!
You're comparing sequential transfer rates, not access times. There aren't ANY SSDs made that I'm aware of that ANY mechanical drive can beat in terms of access times - and that's the performance metric that really matters for things like boot speed and application load times.

Sequential transfer rates only matter if you copy a lot of large files or are running programs like video editors which have to do a lot of large file I/O.
December 13, 2009 11:43:47 PM

sminlal said:
You're comparing sequential transfer rates, not access times. There aren't ANY SSDs made that I'm aware of that ANY mechanical drive can beat in terms of access times - and that's the performance metric that really matters for things like boot speed and application load times.

Sequential transfer rates only matter if you copy a lot of large files or are running programs like video editors which have to do a lot of large file I/O.



Would this be a good choice?

OCZ Vertex Series OCZSSD2-1VTX30GXXX 2.5" 30GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid state disk (SSD)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Sequential Access - Read Up to 230 MB/s
Sequential Access - Write Up to 135MB/s
Sustained Write: Up to 80MB/s
December 14, 2009 12:55:10 AM

sminlal said:
You're comparing sequential transfer rates, not access times. There aren't ANY SSDs made that I'm aware of that ANY mechanical drive can beat in terms of access times - and that's the performance metric that really matters for things like boot speed and application load times.

Sequential transfer rates only matter if you copy a lot of large files or are running programs like video editors which have to do a lot of large file I/O.


Oh dear...

Who said anything about sequential? Did i mention anything like that and i did not see it?

Yes access times are far better in ALL SSDs BUT it is not the only metric that really matters. You are completely wrong here. I will take the Kingston V series for example again, since it takes 0.1ms to reach an area to make a write operation (compared to 6.5ms for the VR), but it takes a whopping 3 seconds to begin and finish that write at a paltry 40MB/s!!! The VR begins the operation immediately and it does so at a random write of ~90MB/s. That means that the VR person will in many cases see a faster computer.

And like you explained to me what a sequential transfer is, let me explain to you that your PC not only performs read operations (where access time matters like you say), but it performs a lot of write operations as well, hence if a crappy SSD takes 30 seconds to write a file that a normal HD or even VR takes 3 seconds, you will see a lot of stuttering and pauses on the SSD system.

December 14, 2009 1:02:57 AM

Eng1neering said:
Would this be a good choice?

OCZ Vertex Series OCZSSD2-1VTX30GXXX 2.5" 30GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid state disk (SSD)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Sequential Access - Read Up to 230 MB/s
Sequential Access - Write Up to 135MB/s
Sustained Write: Up to 80MB/s



Go for at least a 64GB model minimum.Not only it will give you bigger capacity but it will give you improved speeds as well.

OCZ's agility series is good value and Super Talent Ultradrive GX series too (i own the ST).
a b G Storage
December 14, 2009 1:35:33 AM

The newer Agilitys are faster than the Vertexs (I hate to use the correct plural for that name ;) ).
December 14, 2009 1:37:38 AM

randomizer said:
The newer Agilitys are faster than the Vertexs (I hate to use the correct plural for that name ;) ).



..and a tiny bit better value too! ;) 

lol at the plural!
December 14, 2009 2:41:27 AM

darkguset said:
Oh dear...

Who said anything about sequential? Did i mention anything like that and i did not see it?

Yes access times are far better in ALL SSDs BUT it is not the only metric that really matters. You are completely wrong here. I will take the Kingston V series for example again, since it takes 0.1ms to reach an area to make a write operation (compared to 6.5ms for the VR), but it takes a whopping 3 seconds to begin and finish that write at a paltry 40MB/s!!! The VR begins the operation immediately and it does so at a random write of ~90MB/s. That means that the VR person will in many cases see a faster computer.

And like you explained to me what a sequential transfer is, let me explain to you that your PC not only performs read operations (where access time matters like you say), but it performs a lot of write operations as well, hence if a crappy SSD takes 30 seconds to write a file that a normal HD or even VR takes 3 seconds, you will see a lot of stuttering and pauses on the SSD system.



So would you recommend VR over a SSD all around? What would you use? (certainly not interested in seeing the system bottleneck and stutter) I understand a high-end SSD would be ideal, but $500+ might be extreme for most of our budgets.

So what do we go with? VR or SSD?
December 14, 2009 2:48:41 AM

darkguset said:
Go for at least a 64GB model minimum.Not only it will give you bigger capacity but it will give you improved speeds as well.

OCZ's agility series is good value and Super Talent Ultradrive GX series too (i own the ST).



So would you recommend this better over the previous mentioned choice?

OCZ Agility Series OCZSSD2-1AGT60G 2.5" 60GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid state disk (SSD) - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

December 14, 2009 2:49:20 AM

randomizer said:
The newer Agilitys are faster than the Vertexs (I hate to use the correct plural for that name ;) ).


What would you use?
December 14, 2009 3:03:22 AM

Eng1neering said:
So would you recommend VR over a SSD all around? What would you use? (certainly not interested in seeing the system bottleneck and stutter) I understand a high-end SSD would be ideal, but $500+ might be extreme for most of our budgets.

So what do we go with? VR or SSD?


I would go for a 128Gb Agility or Vertex or Ultradrive model if money allowed for. If not, next on scale the 64GB variants... if not even that, then for a VR definitely over a HD.

I own both. I have the 150GB VR for WinXP and Games (2 partitions) and the 64GB Ultradrive GX for W7.

They are both very good and in this case SSD>VR (except for space obviously)

December 14, 2009 3:04:38 AM

Eng1neering said:
So would you recommend this better over the previous mentioned choice?

OCZ Agility Series OCZSSD2-1AGT60G 2.5" 60GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid state disk (SSD) - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...



Yes! For sure! Like i said, it is worth spending a little extra to get a 64GB minimum! It is a major major investment+improvement!
a b G Storage
December 14, 2009 3:08:54 AM

I have almost 60 GB in games alone. A good 1 or even 2 TB drive with a small 200 GB partition for the OS and programs would also be a good choice overall. The real world load time difference between SSDs and HDDs aren't worth the hassle of having to constantly uninstall and reinstall your games as you need them. Just my opinion.
a b G Storage
December 14, 2009 3:29:10 AM

Eng1neering said:
What would you use?

I would use an Agility if I had the cash, but I won a 30GB Vertex so that's what I am using :D 

PsyKhiqZero said:
I have almost 60 GB in games alone. A good 1 or even 2 TB drive with a small 200 GB partition for the OS and programs would also be a good choice overall. The real world load time difference between SSDs and HDDs aren't worth the hassle of having to constantly uninstall and reinstall your games as you need them. Just my opinion.

Install the games on the HDD, OS and smaller programs on the SSD. Perfect balance.
December 14, 2009 3:30:22 AM

He is asking for a boot drive + main applications, not games.

SSD as main drive + VR for games=WIN-WIN @ performance/cost
a b G Storage
December 14, 2009 5:26:24 AM

darkguset said:
I would go for a 128Gb Agility or Vertex or Ultradrive model if money allowed for. If not, next on scale the 64GB variants... if not even that, then for a VR definitely over a HD.

I own both. I have the 150GB VR for WinXP and Games (2 partitions) and the 64GB Ultradrive GX for W7.

They are both very good and in this case SSD>VR (except for space obviously)


The Intel 80GB would also be a good choice, and would in most ways be faster than any of these ones that you mentioned.
a c 415 G Storage
December 14, 2009 5:54:14 AM

darkguset said:
Yes access times are far better in ALL SSDs BUT it is not the only metric that really matters.
My point was that you claimed that the Velociratpor would "step all over" the Kingston SSD. This is misleading because, while it may be true for sequential I/O, it's not true for random I/O. And for most people, random I/O is more important.

Everyone benefits from faster random I/O through quicker boot and application startup times. The only people who benefit from faster sequential I/O are those who regularly work with large files, and then only if they put the files on the SSD (which is not the norm since most people put the OS on the SSD and use a hard drive for bulk storage).

The two types of drives have different performance characteristics and excel at different tasks. It's inaccurate to simply say that one is flat-out better than the other.
December 14, 2009 8:15:56 AM

cjl said:
The Intel 80GB would also be a good choice, and would in most ways be faster than any of these ones that you mentioned.



...and it would also be much more expensive! lol!
December 14, 2009 8:20:39 AM

sminlal said:
My point was that you claimed that the Velociratpor would "step all over" the Kingston SSD. This is misleading because, while it may be true for sequential I/O, it's not true for random I/O. And for most people, random I/O is more important.

Everyone benefits from faster random I/O through quicker boot and application startup times. The only people who benefit from faster sequential I/O are those who regularly work with large files, and then only if they put the files on the SSD (which is not the norm since most people put the OS on the SSD and use a hard drive for bulk storage).

The two types of drives have different performance characteristics and excel at different tasks. It's inaccurate to simply say that one is flat-out better than the other.


Ok, you got stuck on that specific quote. I did not mean that the VR will win in ALL benchmarks. You can read if you want the following quote when i say that ALL SSDs have faster access times (including the Kingston) and later that a computer user with a VR will in many cases (NOT ALL) feel his system more responsive.

So i am not saying that VR beats all and wins all. I am just trying to state the fact that there are crap SSDs out there that are not worth the money at all compared to a normal HDD, not even a VR. Now if you do not want to believe that... whatever. :) 
December 14, 2009 8:33:14 AM

I am using Patriot Torqx 128GB and it was HUGE improvement over 15krpm SAS disk which outperform any raptor.
I am using SSD just for OS (w7 Profesional) and few small basic applications and rest have on 1.5TB drive and it gives me around 15s boot time 5-7s shutdown (7s if it needs to close several applications).
December 14, 2009 8:45:48 AM

Mix it up I say!

SSD for OS and apps

VR for games and maybe some larger apps

7200RPM for storage/media

At least, that's what I plan on doing.
a b G Storage
December 14, 2009 9:42:40 AM

darkguset said:
...and it would also be much more expensive! lol!


Not really...

I picked one up a month ago for $229.
December 14, 2009 2:00:48 PM

If you just looking for a boot drives+applications. The 30gb OCZ is fine, a slimmed out Win 7 OS is only 7-8GB.
If you want a model with more space, go with the Intel 80gb SSD.

Newegg is having a OCZ SSD as it's shellshocker on Thursday morning.
December 14, 2009 2:12:09 PM

HI,
I have two vertex 30gig in raid and I used the tools develop by the community in ocz website to set everything to be optimal, moving swap file temp and other thing I don't remember.
for the SSD drive you also have to update the firmware too the last version, to used windows 7 to it's full possibilty, meaning using of the trim command.
If you're not familar with any of thoses task or the process to doing it it's more easy and secure to get a velociraptor, 2X150 (258$ for 280gig of storage) in raid then setting everything for the ocz vertex. you will see an improvement in your systems and it's a little bit cheaper.
a c 415 G Storage
December 14, 2009 4:31:18 PM

darkguset said:
So i am not saying that VR beats all and wins all. I am just trying to state the fact that there are crap SSDs out there that are not worth the money at all compared to a normal HDD
And what I'm trying to say is that even the crap SSDs beat ANY hard drive in SOME respects. So whether they're "not worth the money" depends entirely on WHAT kind of performance you're looking for.

But I personally would spring for the extra cost of an Intel.
December 14, 2009 5:17:57 PM

cory1234 said:
Newegg is having a OCZ SSD as it's shellshocker on Thursday morning.


Good heads up :D 
Anonymous
a b G Storage
December 15, 2009 4:02:06 AM

Hey guys. im going to be doing a new build soon. Will be running windows seven, rig will be for gaming ONLY. Music etc i keep on a removable wd hdd. Do you think a decent sdd (up to $600 budget tops) is the fastest choice? Been outa the loop for a while, was going to go vr's raid 0. Could get by on 150gb storage space min. Also Just wondering if there are an problems with ssd's malfuntioning etc.
!