Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

SSD for boot/games

Last response: in Storage
Share
August 26, 2011 1:14:07 PM

Gonna buy a SSD in the next 2 weeks. need to know a few things. and btw yes i looked through alot of these threads but there are pages and pages on ssd and not any of them i could find cover exactly what im asking.

1.) im using it for my o.s. (windows 7) and battlefield 3 once it comes out. maybe a few other games , steam etc.. i still have 2 WD raptor 150 in a raid 0 i will use for a majority of my stuff.

2.) is it worth it to get two SSD and put in raid 0? isnt one SSD already super quick??

3.) is this a good drive? its super cheap. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

4.) id like to get something that i can plug in out of the box and not have to do tons of tweaks.

thanks for the input.


More about : ssd boot games

August 26, 2011 3:21:02 PM

i have this board:

ASUS P6T Deluxe V2 LGA 1366 Intel X58 ATX Intel Motherboard
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 353 G Storage
August 26, 2011 3:29:03 PM

Loved Raid0 prior to SSDs. While GC has improved I still like trim support which is not available for Raid0 SSds. Raid0 only improves large File Sequencial read/writes, least important for Boot/program drive.

Myself, I have install daul SSDs on three of my systems, one for operating system and 2nd for overflow and my files that I frequently access.

Windows 7 + common used programs will take between 30->50 gigs. So add in the space required for adding your games + leave a min of 10% free. I 240 gig SATA III drive is about the same price as 2 x 10/128 gig drives and is generally faster than its smaller brother. Myself I still prefer the 2 x 120/128 gig drives.
m
0
l
a c 170 G Storage
August 26, 2011 3:46:29 PM

A SDD for the os and apps is one of the best performance upgrades you can make.

1) Raid-0 on a ssd is not a great idea.
a. It is faster only in sequential benchmarks, but not in real os usage which is mostly random.
b. A larger SSD will have more nand chips which can be accesses concurrently. Sort of an internal raid-0.
c. Raid-0 will negate the trim command which will maintain the free space ready for updates. Trim is necessary to avoid slowdowns as the
drive fills up.

2) Do not bother with micromanaging tweaks. You gain little, if anything. Just install and enjoy. Do specify AHCI sata mode in the bios to enable trim. AHCI is a subset of raid, so you are ok if you specify raid with a ssd and your velociraptors in raid-0 so long as you use the latest intel raid drivers and the ssd is not part of the raid array.

3) I loaded windows 7 and microsoft security essentials on a 40gb ssd. It took 17gb. I would consider 60gb to be the minimum, and 80gb might be better.

4) All ssd's will perform about the same for your usage. Be skeptical of synthetic benchmarks, they do not represent what you do.
The 6gb/3gb sata is an issue only for synthetic benchmarks. I would discount that as an issue.
Today, I would pay a bit more for an Intel ssd, either the 320 or 510 series. Even the older gen2 X25-M would be good.
Intel has had the fewest return rates recently:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/810-6/components-ret...
m
0
l
August 26, 2011 8:43:55 PM

so being as this is the mobo i have:

ASUS P6T Deluxe V2 LGA 1366 Intel X58 ATX Intel Motherboard

are there any ssd's i should stay away from because my board wont support them?
m
0
l
a c 170 G Storage
August 26, 2011 9:07:16 PM

hatebreeder said:
so being as this is the mobo i have:

ASUS P6T Deluxe V2 LGA 1366 Intel X58 ATX Intel Motherboard

are there any ssd's i should stay away from because my board wont support them?


Nope, not for support reasons. A SSD is a sata device, and looks like a hard drive to the motherboard and windows. Windows only knows it is a ssd to treat differently by sensing the speed of the device.

You get a SSD for it's high random i/o capabilities. The sata speed 2.0/3.0 makes negligible difference in random i/o, and very little practical difference on sequential i/o.

Reliability may be an issue with some brands. Go to their forums to check out what issues owners are having.

The sweetness of the price will be forgotten if you should have reliability problems.
m
0
l
August 26, 2011 9:10:02 PM

From Tom's Aug. SSD updates...

"There's no debating whether SSDs offer blistering performance. That that doesn't really matter if you can't trust the device holding that important information. When you read about Corsair's Force 3 recall, OCZ's firmware updates to prevent BSODs, Crucial's link power management issues, and Intel's SSD 320 that loses capacity after a power failure, all within a two-month period, you have to acknowledge that we're dealing with a technology that's simply a lot newer (and consequently less mature) than mechanical storage. "
m
0
l
August 27, 2011 6:36:38 PM

bump

anyone have any suggestions on brands?
m
0
l
a c 170 G Storage
August 27, 2011 6:54:27 PM

You will pay a bit more, but I would not buy anything but Intel today.
m
0
l
a c 353 G Storage
August 29, 2011 1:24:06 PM

(1) for SATA II, Intel (Intel has a new firmware that fixes the 9 mb bug)
(2) For Sata III, Probably Intel. But Intel uses the same controller as say the crucial M4, Marvel. Only difference Between the Intel and other Marvel based Sata III SSDs is the Firmware. I'm Using the Crucial M4 and just bought a 2nd one (It was on sale at Newegg on friday. Also Crucial has a new firmware that improves it's performance.
m
0
l
a c 290 G Storage
August 30, 2011 3:32:01 AM

I am inclined top agree with geofelt and RetireChief.

Right now the three most problem free ssd's are the Intel 510, Crucial M4, and Samsung 470. None of the three use a SandForce controller.
m
0
l
September 1, 2011 12:36:01 PM

RetiredChief said:
(1) for SATA II, Intel (Intel has a new firmware that fixes the 9 mb bug)
(2) For Sata III, Probably Intel. But Intel uses the same controller as say the crucial M4, Marvel. Only difference Between the Intel and other Marvel based Sata III SSDs is the Firmware. I'm Using the Crucial M4 and just bought a 2nd one (It was on sale at Newegg on friday. Also Crucial has a new firmware that improves it's performance.


1) is inaccurate.There have been reports where the new firmware not only didn't eliminate the bug,but introduced lots of random BSODs.
m
0
l
a c 353 G Storage
September 1, 2011 12:49:23 PM

^ Thanks, I had read that they had completed the firmware and it was available. Had not followed up to see results.
m
0
l
a c 290 G Storage
September 1, 2011 3:05:36 PM

I ran across the same info last night in another forum. User comments indicated the fix worked for some but not for others. Bummer!
m
0
l
!