Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Ok, but really, should I get an SSD?

Last response: in Storage
Share
September 27, 2011 1:45:53 AM

I'm building a new system and I will be using it to edit HD videos and play computer games. Stability is important to me, but speed would be nice. I can afford a 120 GB SSD in my build. Should I get an SSD or go with a regular mechanical HD? (If I got the SSD I would also have a 2TB mechanical HD for media files etc.)

I just don't know if they are reliable enough yet and I hate reinstalling the OS or having a big meltdown while working on an HD project.

Thoughts? Opinions? Are they safe enough yet? What ones would you recommend?

I hear Intel 510 and Crucial M4 are a good place to start?

More about : ssd

September 27, 2011 3:41:11 AM

I cannot recommend a SSD more than the Crucial m4. As good as any and best price per GB to boot. Make sure to upgrade firmware to 0009 if it is not already installed before installing OS.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b G Storage
September 27, 2011 4:07:56 AM

notapcguru said:
I'm building a new system and I will be using it to edit HD videos and play computer games. Stability is important to me, but speed would be nice. I can afford a 120 GB SSD in my build. Should I get an SSD or go with a regular mechanical HD? (If I got the SSD I would also have a 2TB mechanical HD for media files etc.)

I just don't know if they are reliable enough yet and I hate reinstalling the OS or having a big meltdown while working on an HD project.

Thoughts? Opinions? Are they safe enough yet? What ones would you recommend?

I hear Intel 510 and Crucial M4 are a good place to start?


The Intel 510 is the best option for reliability, but you will pay for that stability. The m4 is a decent option, esp with the firmware suggeted. But I have another suggestion for a reliable and speedy drive, the Samsung 830. There's an article here:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4863/the-samsung-ssd-830-...

Although I suppose they aren't quite available just yet, they will be shortly. This might be just what you're looking for.
And yes, I do recommend you include an SSD in your build. They are worth it, and the 120GB range are the best value/performance/real estate option going right now.

BTW I've had 0 problems with my 40GB Intel or my newer OCZ Vertex III 120GB as my system drives for the last 2 1/2 years. I consider them more reliable than mechanical drives.
Share
Related resources
a c 283 G Storage
September 27, 2011 4:22:40 AM

^5 +1 what buzznut said. The Intel 510, Crucial M4, and probably the Samsung 830 will be your best bets for reliability.

I use an ssd for professional photography. Speeds up most, but not all, of the processes. For video editing processing times for certain tasks should be cut in half.
m
0
l
September 27, 2011 4:35:59 AM

See the Tom's SSD review for the gory details of SSD issues with all the popular brands. If data security and a reliable PC is important, then you may want to do like I am - wait until they sort out the compatibility and reliability issues with SSDs.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-solid-state-nan...
m
0
l
September 28, 2011 2:53:42 AM

I don't know why I agonize over details like this, but maybe it will benefit me in the long run. I am checking out that website that geofelt recommended and am going to use that as one of the variables when I pick my parts.

JohnnyLucky, when you say that it helps cut processing times for video editing in half, does that mean you are referring to rendering and transcoding? My assumption is that you would install Adobe Creative Suites on the SSD and load footage onto a separate mechanical drive--is that extra speed still applicable? Or does your whole project have to be on the SSD?

In other words, do I have to capture the footage to the SSD as well as Adobe CS to see the speed increase?
m
0
l
a b G Storage
September 28, 2011 3:16:09 AM

If you can afford a 120Gb SSD, keep EVERYTHING on the SSD, except of course, music, pictures, videos and games. "work" files, like videos from a movie you are editing should totatlly be on the SSD, when finished, the produced video can be stored on the HDD. This way you get your work faster.

If you can afford, get 4x 512GB SSDs this way you dont have to worry about HDDs.....oh but do get a my passport for backup purpuses..
m
0
l
a b G Storage
September 28, 2011 3:18:37 AM

notapcguru said:
I don't know why I agonize over details like this, but maybe it will benefit me in the long run. I am checking out that website that geofelt recommended and am going to use that as one of the variables when I pick my parts.

JohnnyLucky, when you say that it helps cut processing times for video editing in half, does that mean you are referring to rendering and transcoding? My assumption is that you would install Adobe Creative Suites on the SSD and load footage onto a separate mechanical drive--is that extra speed still applicable? Or does your whole project have to be on the SSD?

In other words, do I have to capture the footage to the SSD as well as Adobe CS to see the speed increase?

Hi,

I still use it, I have Vertex2 and C2D E6750, so its not a speed demon, but when I had Velociraptor as OS and installed programs it was painfully slow under load compare to SSD. Even now I have sort of grandfather CPU, it does not stutter or give u busy mouse anymore when under heavy load.

U can set storage for CS5 on different drives as it will ease the system drive. U are not gonna have a case when HDD will not be fast enough to write from CS5.

So SSD? Yes. Can't u return it if u wouldn't like it? Best upgrade u can do, after CPU.

My 2 cents.
m
0
l
September 28, 2011 3:35:25 AM

Ok maybe I am not understanding here, but Leandrod and Nikorr, are your suggestions slightly conflicting? Nikorr, are you saying that I won't have a problem just loading the footage onto the slower, mechanical 7200 rpm drive and just have Adobe CS on the SSD? Or should I actually have the footage I'm working on and the programs on the SSD like Leandrod is saying?
m
0
l
a b G Storage
September 28, 2011 3:46:34 AM

notapcguru said:
Ok maybe I am not understanding here, but Leandrod and Nikorr, are your suggestions slightly conflicting? Nikorr, are you saying that I won't have a problem just loading the footage onto the slower, mechanical 7200 rpm drive and just have Adobe CS on the SSD? Or should I actually have the footage I'm working on and the programs on the SSD like Leandrod is saying?


I am suggesting HDD for storage too. The application writes small pieces to the drive in small speed. U can read from HDD1 and write to another HDD2 Don't confuse with 2 partitions on the same HDD.

SSD is not much better than HDD in writing in small pieces.

General idea is to keep OS and CPU free as much as possible. So keep documents on different drive than system. In case of the crash or corruption u don't loose any of Document files.

Modern HDD will do fine for storage.
m
0
l
September 28, 2011 3:51:12 AM

Yeah, storage on a HDD is fine, but do I have to have the footage on the SSD to see increased performance or will it be limited by the speed of the HDD? Then I can move the footage to the HDD after I finish the project? Maybe that's the way to do it?
m
0
l
a b G Storage
September 28, 2011 3:55:38 AM

notapcguru said:
Yeah, storage on a HDD is fine, but do I have to have the footage on the SSD to see increased performance or will it be limited by the speed of the HDD? Then I can move the footage to the HDD after I finish the project? Maybe that's the way to do it?


Its here already

The application writes small pieces to the drive in small speed. U can read from HDD1 and write to another HDD2 Don't confuse with 2 partitions on the same HDD.


Read as footage is stored and fed to the software from HDD1

Write as footage is edited and saved through the software and stored here on HDD2
m
0
l
a c 167 G Storage
September 28, 2011 4:24:50 AM

How much data are we talking about here?
How big in gb is the source footage, and how big will the output be?

If you can have the data entirely on ssd you are golden.
A ssd will read and write sequentially about 3x or 4x a fast hard drive.
Random reads and writes are much faster. Think 10x or better than a hard drive.

If you will be doing lots of concentrated writes, the intel 510 would be a better choice.
It cleans up space as it goes. Samsung and some others do the cleanup at idle times.
Just a different strategy.

If the data is not reasonable to fit on a ssd, put the source on one hard drive, the output on another and the os on a ssd. Use larger 1tb drives, even if you don't need the space. They are denser and have better transfer rates.
m
0
l
September 28, 2011 4:31:28 AM

Ok geofelt, I think that cleared it up a bit better for me. I'm leaning towards the Intel 510 drive, but it's $279 and stressing my budget a little bit. The crucial M4 is cheaper but...ehh....that Samsung drive coming out mid October could be a good thing too.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
September 28, 2011 4:36:08 AM

geofelt said:
How much data are we talking about here?
How big in gb is the source footage, and how big will the output be?

If you can have the data entirely on ssd you are golden.
A ssd will read and write sequentially about 3x or 4x a fast hard drive.
Random reads and writes are much faster. Think 10x or better than a hard drive.

If you will be doing lots of concentrated writes, the intel 510 would be a better choice.
It cleans up space as it goes. Samsung and some others do the cleanup at idle times.
Just a different strategy.

If the data is not reasonable to fit on a ssd, put the source on one hard drive, the output on another and the os on a ssd. Use larger 1tb drives, even if you don't need the space. They are denser and have better transfer rates.



I agree with u, but if u are not transferring data, the application is the bottleneck not HDD, right?

But again, if the money is no object ....
m
0
l
September 28, 2011 4:40:02 AM

The money is definitely an object, for me anyways!
m
0
l
a b G Storage
September 28, 2011 4:46:23 AM

notapcguru said:
The money is definitely an object, for me anyways!


Now that's the spirit : )

For another $2K u can be in a whole new league.
m
0
l
September 28, 2011 4:50:36 AM

I cringed when they burned money in an episode of Breaking Bad--is that...bad?
m
0
l
a b G Storage
September 28, 2011 4:53:57 AM

notapcguru said:
I cringed when they burned money in an episode of Breaking Bad--is that...bad?



U can say it upfront, see u next time ((:D 
m
0
l
a b G Storage
September 28, 2011 3:05:33 PM

In my opinion, for editing movies, its good to have the temporary work on the ssd, cause the applications is always reading from it, you will have a smoother editing experience. This will probably happen automatically. When importing videos to the PC, its ok to put them in the HDD. When you start a project in an editing program, the application will make a temporary copy of the original source to the SSD. Thats the way it happens with iMovie (Mac OS) and Cyberlink (Windows) at least.

The most important is to have the OS and the applications installed on the SSD, simply install everything on C:/. But keep your media on the HDD, cause they are files that you rarelly use, and consume much space. In addition is more organized and safer if the computer crash, Windows registry corruption happens randomly, but you dont need to get that paranoid about it.

Nevertheless, you NEED to have a backup solution. WD My Passport drives are my favorite, Im also a fan of Transcend drives.

And certainly, if you win the lotery, go ALL SSD, that thing is awesome, it made my 4 years old notebook perform faster then today machines.

m
0
l
a c 353 G Storage
September 28, 2011 3:57:26 PM

My recommendation would be for the 128 gig Curcial M4 (for OS/Programs) and a smaller one as a "working" drive, say a samsung 64 gig sata II 470 ($227 + $114) vs $278 for Intel 510. NOTE: you can catch the 128 Gig M4 on sale for Under $200, last one I bought was arounfd $175.

(1) The M4 and Intel 510 use the same controller, diff firmware. Both have simular 1/2 egg ratings. NOTE: This the first Intel drive that does NOT use an Intel controller. The M4 (with firmware 9) is quite good. For both drives need to factor out Max problems.

(2) While the Samsung 800 series should be a great drive, I'd like to see 6 monthes of user evaluations before buying (Pricing vs user problems vs performance.

(3) Reliability - Long term performance is differnent from Initial user "compatability" problems. While Intel was KING-of-the-Road with Sata II drives (Note Exception Intel 320 bug with their newest Sata II drive which has yet to be fixed to my knowledge) in terms of Reliability, the SATA III is still more open ended.
I have 8 SSDs 4 older ones ranging from Intel G1 and G2 -> Gskill Pheonix Pro. HAVE had NO problems with any of them. NO problems with M4 ( 2 of them). also have 2 Agillity III drive - only problem Agility III was incompatable with SB notebook, but worked fine as a data drive in I5-2500k Notebook.
Still Do Not recommend SF2281 based SATA III SSDs (Plug& PRAY)

Side comment, Buzznut's "or my newer OCZ Vertex III 120GB as my system drives for the last 2 1/2 years. " slight typo as I don't think the 2 1/2 years applies to the vertex III. But agree for the older SSDs
m
0
l
September 29, 2011 2:10:32 AM

Thanks for linking that article swifty morgan--I read a decent amount of it and of course I read the conclusion. Along with RetiredChief's comments I am seriously leaning towards the Crucial M4. Yeah, it does have some slowdown while doing writing intensive activities, but I think it will give me a good balance between speed and reliability. I can always buy a new, more stable SSD when they arrive--I just have to make this SSD work for the time being!

m
0
l
October 9, 2011 7:14:57 PM

Best answer selected by notapcguru.
m
0
l
!