Randomizer is correct - because of the expense and limited write cycles of an SSD you should try to use it only for performance-critical files. Downloading something from the Internet is NEVER performance-critical - even a slow hard drive is a LOT faster than an Internet connection.
Videos take up a lot of space, and the size of a ssd is usually limited. For purposes of conserving the limited ssd space, I agree on downloading to a separate hard drive.
For purposes of extending the life of the SSD, I would not worry about it. Intel stated 5 years at 100GB/day for their 80GB X25-M before no more writes can be done, and the drive becomes read only. I think it will be obsolete long before that.
What do you mean by "better"? The G1 drives were 100GB per day for 5 years, the G2 were 20GB per day. At the same rate of "advancement", the G3 could potentially be down to 4GB/day for a 5-year lifespan, which is not "better" in my book.
The problem is that they're increasing capacity by shrinking the cell size, and smaller cells don't hold as much of a static charge - this reduces their write durability. Unless someone comes up with some sort of breakthrough, this is going to become a limiting factor in how large they can make an affordable SSD.
Some of us will kill them much faster then 5 years. (media junkies like myself...)
By "media junkie", are you suggesting that you store music and video files on your SSD? Why on earth would you do that?
Edit - ah, I see you don't use an SSD. You should understand that plenty of media junkies do use SSDs and don't have any problems with SSD lifespan because of the simple solution of not storing the media files on them. You don't need the expense of an ultra-fast SSD drive for music or video files that play with a transfer rate of well under 5 MBytes/sec.
SSDs, like sound cards, RAID, etc are what I call rich man toys. You don't need them for a basic build. I am not rich, so I don't use them. I was just playing TF2 on my E6600, 4GB of ram, 5750, and a Seagate 7200.10 drive, where I spawned 3rd. Why should I spend oodles of money just to spawn one or two places higher?
Siminlal, can you imagine the number of people who have gone out and bought SSDs, only to run everything off of them? I'd bet the number is higher then we think it is. You and I know not to run things like that off of them, but does the guy down the street buying something his nephew told him about understand that? How many people have left their windows swap file on their SSD?
> Siminlal, can you imagine the number of people who have gone out and bought SSDs, only to run everything off of them?
There's nothing particularly wrong with putting everything on the SSD if what you have is small enough to fit on it. But if you've got a huge terabyte media library you'd be pretty foolish to fork out a thousand-plus dollars for a 1TB worth of SSD space to hold it. If someone wants to spend that much money without understanding exactly WHY and what they should expect to gain from it it then that's their prerogative, I guess.
> How many people have left their windows swap file on their SSD?
That's not such a terrible thing to do as a lot of people seem to think - both Microsoft and Intel actually recommend it. But most modern systems have plenty of RAM so the swap file isn't nearly as important as it once was.
I'd sure like to understand better how those write limitations are derived. Intel's original claim of 20GB/day for 5 years for the 160GB G2 drives works out to more than 35TB of writes - that's well over twice as much as the 15TB write endurance this article is claiming for them.
And it would be very interesting to understand how they've increased the durability. I find it hard to believe that it's all done through optimized writing - the original drives had a write amplification factor of something like 1.2X, which means that the best you could hope for through optimization was about another 20% or so. The only other obvious ways I can think of to go from that to the claimed figures for the G3 drives are to provide a LOT more spare area or to use compression - but I haven't seen anything so far suggesting that Intel is using compression.
I never really quite trust performance or write durability claims with SSDs that do compression because the manufacturer can base the specs on optimistic assumptions about the files being written - you can never achieve those specs if the files you write to the drive are already compressed. It's like the old days when tape drives started to use compression to extend their capacity.
To date, I have never heard of someone running out of write capability on a SSD, at least on a home system.
Intel seems like a competent company, and I would be very surprised if they had not tested these devices to death , and have the real numbers. It may be more complicated because of access patterns.
And... I am one of those who put everything on my 160gb ssd except for external backups. I am very happy with it.