VelociRaptors vs. SDD

[Eng1neering]

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=N82E16822136296

or

Western Digital VelociRaptor WD3000HLFS 300GB 10000 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136322



VS.


Solid State Disks

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010150636&bop=And&ActiveSearchResult=True&Order=PRICE

 

[apache_lives]

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.

 

[darkguset]

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

 

[sminlal]

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.

 

[Eng1neering]

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=N82E16820227393

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

 

[darkguset]

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.

 

[darkguset]

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=N82E16820227393

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).

 

[randomizer]

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

 

[darkguset]

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!

 

[Eng1neering]

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?

 

[Eng1neering]

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=N82E16820227461

 

[Eng1neering]

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

What would you use?

 

[darkguset]

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)

 

[darkguset]

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=N82E16820227461

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!

 

[PsyKhiqZero]

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.

 

[randomizer]

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

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.

 

[darkguset]

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

SSD as main drive + VR for games=WIN-WIN @ performance/cost

 

[cjl]

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.

 

[sminlal]

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.

 

[darkguset]

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!

 

[darkguset]

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.

 

[xrodney]

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).

 

[Raidur]

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.

 

[cjl]

...and it would also be much more expensive! lol!

Not really...

I picked one up a month ago for $229.

 

[cory1234]

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.