OS on SATA or SSD?

[ZanshinKyo]

I am working on replacing several parts on my old computer and I am wondering if the benefits of a solid state drive justify getting one. I would think I would only use one for installing the OS and games, and any other storage needs would be taken care of on a regular SATA drive.

So, would a solid state drive improve load times enough to justify it? And what would be the most reasonably priced solid state drive? (best price per gig)

BTW, I am planning on installing WinXP. Would there be any problems loading WinXP on a solid state drive?

 

[AndreL]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227393

fast and cheap

 

[sminlal]

I've never heard anyone say that they were unsatisfied with the performance that an SSD gave them. Considering the relatively high cost of an SSD, that in itself speaks volumes, IMHO.

 

[4745454b]

I'm going to go with it depends. What will the new system look like? Assuming you will have a fast dual or quad core CPU, 4GBs of ram, higher end video card, etc go get the SSD. But I wouldn't get the SSD if it means you'll stay at 2GBs of ram, or you have to keep your 2180 C2D CPU.

 

[jr39]

Consider the following: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1111/1/ and http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820139081 . I just installed one on my desktop using Win 7 Home Edition 64-bit. Win 7 performance index raised from 5.9 (with a WD Velociraptor) to 7.1. CrystalDiskMark performance is similar to that published by Legit. Excellent price/performance.

 

[raybob95]

I've never heard anyone say that they were unsatisfied with the performance that an SSD gave them. Considering the relatively high cost of an SSD, that in itself speaks volumes, IMHO.

My OCZ Vertex performs very well, but there has been noticeable degredation over time even with the TRIM command. (Like, 6 months time)

Max Read speed went down from 210MB/s to ~192MB/s. Avg speed went from 142 to 140, Latency the same, burst speed went up by 4 from 138 to 142 (?) and HD Tune reports it as having 84% life left.

Or at least I think it has the TRIM command. OCZ Firmware 1.10? It also might have to do with the fact that all I did was pop the drive in, install Vista and start using it. No aligning the partitions or anything. I also use it for the boot drive and page file. So you could say that I stress the drive a bit.

 

[4745454b]

Consider the following: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1111/1/ and http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6820139081 . I just installed one on my desktop using Win 7 Home Edition 64-bit. Win 7 performance index raised from 5.9 (with a WD Velociraptor) to 7.1. CrystalDiskMark performance is similar to that published by Legit. Excellent price/performance.

See, this is the thing that bugs me. So your WEI went from 5.9 to 7.1. This means what? How many seconds did that shave off on your game load times? There is so much more going on when loading a game or level that having a faster harddrive means so little.

 

[sminlal]

Or at least I think it has the TRIM command. OCZ Firmware 1.10? It also might have to do with the fact that all I did was pop the drive in, install Vista and start using it.

Vista? That's your problem - Vista doesn't support TRIM, only Windows 7 RTM does.

 

[randomizer]

My OCZ Vertex performs very well, but there has been noticeable degredation over time even with the TRIM command. (Like, 6 months time)

Which is normal. TRIM doesn't magically keep the drive working at 100% performance, it has (notable) limitations. Vista doesn't send the TRIM command itself either.

Max Read speed went down from 210MB/s to ~192MB/s. Avg speed went from 142 to 140, Latency the same, burst speed went up by 4 from 138 to 142 (?) and HD Tune reports it as having 84% life left.

HDTune isn't much good for SSDs, it's far too old and was built with HDDs in mind. It also likely doesn't read the correct SMART data for estimating drive lifespan. 84% would require heavy usage over a short period of time or normal usage over a long period of time. Benchmarking is heavy usage.

No aligning the partitions or anything.

Not required for Vista or Win 7 anyway.

There is so much more going on when loading a game or level that having a faster harddrive means so little.

I beg to differ, but the difference is more noticeable in normal OS usage than in games nonetheless. I can't stand using a HDD-based PC any more, it's painfully slow and gets an order of magnitude slower over time.

 

[4745454b]

What I'm trying to say is that saying your WEI went from 5.9 to 7.1 is a lousy way to judge if the SSD paid off. Saying your level load time for Crysis went from 1.5min down to 30secs means something. Unless your switching from a 5400RPM drive to a SSD you won't see any reductions like that however.

 

[ZanshinKyo]

First, thank you all for all your replies. I have read considered them all, but some one in another thread recommended that a SSD wouldn't improve load time in games enough to make as much of an impact as getting a better GPU, so they suggested that invest in a better GPU rather than getting a SSD.

An SSD still seems like a good proposition for the future, but at this point I think I will just get a SATA drive. Besides an SATA drive will give me more than enough space at an exceptionally reasonable price.

Thanks again for all your suggestions and advice, and I will still keep looking at these forums for additional advice on SSDs, in case some other relevent factors are brought up.