Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

What is the best SSD for me?

Last response: in Storage
Share
August 8, 2011 4:23:04 PM

Guys, I'm a VFX arist and I'm dealing with software like 3ds max and mudbox.. where disc transferring speed is a critical fact. My current hardware and os is :

Quote:
Windows: Windows 7 Ultimate Edition (64-bit) Service Pack 1 (Build 7601)
Memory (RAM): 8182 MB
CPU Info: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz
CPU Speed: 2938.6 MHz
Motherboard: Intel Corporation DX58SO
Display Adapters: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 | RDPDD Chained DD | RDP Encoder Mirror Driver | RDP Reflector Display Driver
Monitors: 2x; ViewSonic VA1916w | ViewSonic VA1916w |


and my hard drivers are :

Quote:
Hitachi HDP725050GLA360, 1TB
WDC WD20EARS-00MVWB0, 2TB


as you can see that my hard drivers are not matching with the rest of the hardware which clamps my performance index to 5.9 (the lowest value, of cause from the hard drives). So i decided to move on to a better solution.

here is my performence index :

Quote:
Processor : 7.4

Memory : 7.4

Graphics : 7.9

Game Graphics : 7.9

Primary Hard Disk : 5.9


I checked the internet for a SSD or a Hard Disk that worth the price.. but it was all confusion. (i found that Hard Disks like velociraptor are cool but at the same time, SSDs like vertex 3 are cool too.) but I need to know from you guys is there any alternative and cost effective brand? my budget is around 300$ and ya.. the bigger the capacity, the better. what is the best choice for me?

More about : ssd

a c 304 G Storage
August 8, 2011 5:36:38 PM

The bad news is that an affordable SSD may not solve your problems. The classic solution is to install your OS and applications on the SSD. This speeds up boot times and application load times.

However, if you are working with huge data files and data transfer speed for those files is critical, you won't benefit from having your OS on the SSD. Worst-case, you will need an SSD large enough to hold all of your data, or at least the project that you are working on, temporary files, and probably two copies of everything so there is room for your input version and your processed output version.

Do the two apps that you named need massive IO speed for just scratch files (possibly small), or for the whole data set? In the latter case, you won't get the SSD advantage until you have an SSD large enough for your whole data set. TB SSDs are pretty expensive.
m
0
l
August 8, 2011 6:25:18 PM

WyomingKnott said:
The bad news is that an affordable SSD may not solve your problems. The classic solution is to install your OS and applications on the SSD. This speeds up boot times and application load times.

However, if you are working with huge data files and data transfer speed for those files is critical, you won't benefit from having your OS on the SSD. Worst-case, you will need an SSD large enough to hold all of your data, or at least the project that you are working on, temporary files, and probably two copies of everything so there is room for your input version and your processed output version.

Do the two apps that you named need massive IO speed for just scratch files (possibly small), or for the whole data set? In the latter case, you won't get the SSD advantage until you have an SSD large enough for your whole data set. TB SSDs are pretty expensive.


Ya.. i understand that situation well. For i know what part of my project needs a higher transfer rate, (probbly something like 2k footages) and for i have separate libraries with all the assets i commonly use for my productions, here is the data flow that i'm expecting;



Data Flow that I'm Expecting


I probably work on Projects like that weights about 40 GB. Maximum 2 Projects.

m
0
l
Related resources
a c 304 G Storage
August 8, 2011 7:27:29 PM

So. 60 GB for the OS plus two 40 GB projects (and don't forget the setup time copying a project from HDD to SSD in order to work on it!) is 140 GB minimum.

Per Tom's most recent "Best hard drives for the money," you can sneak in a Vertex 2 at 180 GB for just about $300: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-ssd-caching,29... .

One curious alternative to consider: Leave your OS on the HDD, and only keep the project that you are working on on the SSD. Weird, but you can spend less for the SSD.
m
0
l
August 8, 2011 7:52:01 PM

WyomingKnott said:
So. 60 GB for the OS plus two 40 GB projects (and don't forget the setup time copying a project from HDD to SSD in order to work on it!) is 140 GB minimum.

Per Tom's most recent "Best hard drives for the money," you can sneak in a Vertex 2 at 180 GB for just about $300: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-ssd-caching,29... .

One curious alternative to consider: Leave your OS on the HDD, and only keep the project that you are working on on the SSD. Weird, but you can spend less for the SSD.


ya.. that is great that you pointed out that time i will have to spend for copying project related content from HDD to SSD. But for it is a one time copy, it will be not a big disadvantage. is there any Hard Drive that I can get performance index of 7.4 to 7.9? how about their prices and capacities?
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 304 G Storage
August 9, 2011 12:44:03 PM

alex3003 said:
is there any Hard Drive that I can get performance index of 7.4 to 7.9? how about their prices and capacities?

In my humble opinion (truly humble, I haven't done extensive testing), the performance index is a load of useless hooie for hard drives. Ignore it.

Again my my opinion, hard drives are commodity items and I will buy whatever I find at the store. Not since the Seagate 7200.11 disaster has there been enough difference in hard-drive quality for it to matter in the small sample sizes that I represent. For most usages, buy whatever size you need (plus some) in any performance-class drive. Western Digital makes Green, Blue, and Black lines. Green are noticeably slower, as they are meant to conserve power. Not for you. Black and Blue should suit you fine (should I rephrase that?).

In my mind, there are only two differentiators. If you want faster transfer and seek, get something like a Velociraptor. I used one of these before my first SSD. Second, change disks frequently. This year's consumer-class 2 TB drive will be faster than last year's enthusiast-class 2 TB drive; it's just the nature of the beast.

If you want comparative opinions on hard drives, either start a new thread (people seem to be leaving this one to me) or check out Tom's' charts. (Aside - how _should_ one punctuate the possessive of "Tom's?") I find it very interesting that Tom's hasn't done hard drive charts for mainstream hard drives in the last two years. The last one is from 2009; there are charts for enterprise SAS drives from 2000. http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hard-drives,3.html
Share
August 9, 2011 3:17:51 PM

Best answer selected by alex3003.
m
0
l
August 9, 2011 3:25:28 PM

WyomingKnott said:
In my humble opinion (truly humble, I haven't done extensive testing), the performance index is a load of useless hooie for hard drives. Ignore it.

Again my my opinion, hard drives are commodity items and I will buy whatever I find at the store. Not since the Seagate 7200.11 disaster has there been enough difference in hard-drive quality for it to matter in the small sample sizes that I represent. For most usages, buy whatever size you need (plus some) in any performance-class drive. Western Digital makes Green, Blue, and Black lines. Green are noticeably slower, as they are meant to conserve power. Not for you. Black and Blue should suit you fine (should I rephrase that?).

In my mind, there are only two differentiators. If you want faster transfer and seek, get something like a Velociraptor. I used one of these before my first SSD. Second, change disks frequently. This year's consumer-class 2 TB drive will be faster than last year's enthusiast-class 2 TB drive; it's just the nature of the beast.

If you want comparative opinions on hard drives, either start a new thread (people seem to be leaving this one to me) or check out Tom's' charts. (Aside - how _should_ one punctuate the possessive of "Tom's?") I find it very interesting that Tom's hasn't done hard drive charts for mainstream hard drives in the last two years. The last one is from 2009; there are charts for enterprise SAS drives from 2000. http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hard-drives,3.html


thanks a lot for the replies. my budget is raised to 400$. so i decided to go fora 240GB vertex 2 or Agility2. that will boost my work a Little. :) 
m
0
l
!