Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Just bought Vertex 3 OCZ 120gb SSD, not sure if this is worth $300

Last response: in Storage
Share
May 5, 2011 9:23:53 PM

Recently paid $300 to replace my 10k RPM RAID 0 74GB HDD's. My Vertex OCZ 3 is hooked up to the 6gb SATA ports on my Mobo and I use it strictly to run my OS & programs and have a 1TB HDD where I stash all my downloads. Yeah it's cool to see Windows 7 boot up in 8 seconds and watch all my programs install from start to finish in ~10 seconds flat, but I see absolutely no difference when it comes to load times in video games, music programs, playing videos, coyping files, and other misc. things I do on my comp.

I'm seriously considering selling this and downgrading to a cheaper SSD unless I'm doing something completely wrong in how I'm using my Vertex 3 OCZ. $300 seems like a rip-off for what I would consider a 30% increase in performance at best.
a b G Storage
May 5, 2011 10:03:41 PM

I'll admit I don't know much about these new Vertex (Vertices ;) ) but are you certain you can't make some configuration changes to improve the general performance?

If I remember rightly Vista & 7 do some kinda of program preloading where on startup they load things into RAM. So perhaps you aren't seeing a change because of this functionality?
m
0
l
May 5, 2011 10:04:23 PM

slayerbizkit said:
Recently paid $300 to replace my 10k RPM RAID 0 74GB HDD's. My Vertex OCZ 3 is hooked up to the 6gb SATA ports on my Mobo and I use it strictly to run my OS & programs and have a 1TB HDD where I stash all my downloads. Yeah it's cool to see Windows 7 boot up in 8 seconds and watch all my programs install from start to finish in ~10 seconds flat, but I see absolutely no difference when it comes to load times in video games, music programs, playing videos, coyping files, and other misc. things I do on my comp.

I'm seriously considering selling this and downgrading to a cheaper SSD unless I'm doing something completely wrong in how I'm using my Vertex 3 OCZ. $300 seems like a rip-off for what I would consider a 30% increase in performance at best.


Edit: Guess I should list my hardware:

i5-2400 SandyBridge Quad-core @ 3.1Ghz(3.4GHZ with turbo-boost)
1GB SAPPHIRE 5850 Graphics Card
MSI P67A-GD65 (B3) LGA 1155 Intel P67 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
2x2GB DDR3 G.Skill RAM PC3 12800

Currently not overclocking anything.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b G Storage
May 6, 2011 12:38:33 AM

I don't think an SSD is all that much of a benefit on a fast desktop computer, but it probably depends on your system and what apps you run.

I think the best benefit is for a laptop that has a relatively slow processor and probably has a real slow hard drive in it. My wife and I each have slow laptops that I want to put SSD's into.
m
0
l
May 6, 2011 1:28:43 AM



I've actually been looking for something like this since yesterday, thanks. After reading, it seems like the biggest increase in performance will be shaving seconds off Shutdown and Startup, which is negligible to me at this point, but nonetheless, I'll give this a whirl tonight and see if I get significant improvement in general performance. Thanks.
m
0
l
a c 289 G Storage
May 6, 2011 4:03:04 AM

Well, I guess I should mention a few things.

1. Just about any solid state drive can easily outperform a hard disk drive.

2. Programs installed on a solid state will start faster.

3. You may "feel" that your computer is more "snappy". The "feeling" of "snapiness" is not quantifiable by any ordinary means.

4. Any additional ssd performance depends on the computer configuration, software application, and how it is used.

Individual results will vary. I absolutely, positively 100% guarantee it.

BTW - You mentioned you did not see any improvement when playing videos. What type of videos are you referring to and what sort of improvements were you expecting?
m
0
l
May 6, 2011 4:42:49 AM

JohnnyLucky said:
Well, I guess I should mention a few things.

1. Just about any solid state drive can easily outperform a hard disk drive.

2. Programs installed on a solid state will start faster.

3. You may "feel" that your computer is more "snappy". The "feeling" of "snapiness" is not quantifiable by any ordinary means.

4. Any additional ssd performance depends on the computer configuration, software application, and how it is used.

Individual results will vary. I absolutely, positively 100% guarantee it.

BTW - You mentioned you did not see any improvement when playing videos. What type of videos are you referring to and what sort of improvements were you expecting?


Yeah like I said, things are running faster but for me, going from a pair of RAID 0 $40 HDD's to a $300 SSD and only seeing an overall modest improvement at best isn't enough bang for my buck you know. I'm tweaking my comp right now per the guides you posted. I'll give you an update when I'm done tinkering around.
m
0
l
May 11, 2011 11:36:01 AM

Going from a Raptor array to an SSD isn't going to be nearly as impressive as upgrading from a laptop's 5400 obviously... Hell even my WD Blue could open programs and boot Win7 in a snap, but I wouldn't dare try opening something while doing heavy sequential reads and writes.

In that all too common scenario it took 30 seconds to open iTunes - with an SSD it's down to under 2 secs. Photoshop, Vegas, and even the most bloated Java software now load up in less than 3 secs no matter what I'm doing, whereas before it may take over a minute. And that's what SSDs are all about! Feeling free to use any program whenever you want without having to wait :) 

Is it worth $300? For a desktop user, I don't think so, unless you frequently work with large programs or do heavy multitasking (especially with sequential r/w in the background). If you're just a hardcore gamer, Raptors are fine.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
May 11, 2011 12:51:56 PM

synce said:
most bloated Java software


Somewhat unfair given that all Java applications use a virtual machine!
m
0
l

Best solution

a b G Storage
May 11, 2011 1:23:13 PM

quote:
"Yeah like I said, things are running faster but for me, going from a pair of RAID 0 $40 HDD's to a $300 SSD and only seeing an overall modest improvement at best isn't enough bang for my buck you know."

ssds (and all flash memory in general) are quite a bit more expensive than standard hard drives. you can get standard hdds for around $0.09/gb while older ssds can still go for $1.60/gb. so yes, you do get less for your dollar but the gains could be worth it.

performance wise you are noticing a smaller improvement because you were already running 10k drives. overall system performance should be quicker but you might not notice as much improvement when copying/accessing multiple files at once as this is where raid0 works best. though with the new drive it should be at least a bit faster.

as stated before programs should load quicker off an ssd. any program or game level that doesn't load quicker might be bound up by something else. for transfer speeds it all depends on where you are copying files from. if your source is slow then the write speeds will be slow. as far as copying files on the ssd from one area to another... for me its almost instant.

-----

as stated by others, any ssd will beat out a hdd in speed tests. if all you want is faster than hdd performance then you can do it on a smaller budget.

for example... if you wanted another raid0 array you could go with two ocz vertex 2 sataII 80gb drives at around $130 each when on sale. 160gb total space for about $260.

or if you wanted just a single drive you could go with a single vertex2 120gb for $200.

the difference in speed will be a little smaller than with the v3 but the drive performs well. (i have two in raid 1, going to upgrade to four)
Share
May 14, 2011 6:12:05 PM

Best answer selected by slayerbizkit.
m
0
l
!