[Solved] Considering a SSD

Hello all,

I am in the midst of slowly putting together a build and buying components for a major upgrade to my system. The list so far:

Asus P8P67 Pro mb

EVGA gtx 560ti video card (1G)

Intel i5 Sandy Bridge 2500k processor

8G Crucial 1600 memory

--undecided on hd, the one I wanted just sold out on newegg --

I'm thinking of picking up a small SSD to hold just the OS and maybe a couple important games (sc2 for starters). I'm completely new to SSD's though. I don't have much idea how big a drive I would need. a (very) rough tally of the size of the relevant folders on my current drive puts the number at about 24G, but how much wiggle room do I want? What are the good/bad drives? Bonus points for cheapness!

I have Windows 7 Pro installed. With all the updates, patches, and fixes from Microsoft my grand total comes in at 21 GB. Others have reported similar results give or take a couple of gigs. A 30GB or 40GB ssd is typical for a Windows only boot ssd.

Now, I have a question for you. You are considering purchasing an Intel P67 based motherboard, a cpu, and memory. Since you might purchase all three components have you considered an Intel Z68 based system?

What will you be doing with your computer? Business and professional work or gaming?

That's Windows 7 Pro 64 with all the Microsoft downloads, updates, patches, and security fixes. I just did a clean install for my new Samsung 470 256GB ssd. Microsoft had over 90 of those downloads. There have been reports of some Windows versions tweaked down to 17GB.

For gaming you might want to consider the Crucial M4 which uses a Marvell controller instead of a SandForce controller. The M4 has been relatively problem free and performs well. There was a problem that developed. However, Crucial issued a firmware update that not only fixed the problem but also increased performance.

The SSD Database has links to technical reviews. Just scroll down to the Crucial section and click on the links to the reviews.

What is your price range for a new ssd?

the Crucial M4, Samsung 470, and the Intel 510 have the best reliability at the moment so I would try to get 1 of these.

(the 510 is more expensive but I put it in here because it is reliable)

21gb may be because of a large page file and hyberfil.sys file--seems the more ram you have the larger these get set by windows

did you do the delete hyberfil.sys file?

i only use sleep so deleting that gave me another large space back--i also lowered down the reserved space for system restore

the main thing is get an ssd you wont regret it

as johnnylucky says your board is sata 3 (6gbs) so get a sata 3 ssd

it all comes down to budget as always--but i started with an intel x-25m 80gb and have now moved up to a mushkin chronos 120gb

as your formatted size isnt the advertised size 40gb may only be about 35gb actually useable so personally i wouldnt go below a 64gb and would try to stretch to an 80gb

Windows folder? That explains it. Windows also installs files in other locations.

Here is a link to the official Microsoft Windows 7 disk space requirements:

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US [...] quirements

Please note there is a very large difference in disk space requirements between Windows 7 32 bit and Windows 7 64 bit. Also take a good look at the additional space that might be required.

You may be up to 40GB minimum but the smallest capacity SATA 3 6Gb/s ssd for a desktop pc is 60GB.

I've been taking a deeper look at the two drive linked above. There is definitely a difference in performance between the Crucial M4 and the OCZ Agility. the Agility boasts max speeds of 525 read/475 write on the SATA3 connection, while the M4 is a piddly-sounding 415 read/95 write. Why such a huge difference in write speeds without a corresponding difference in price? from reading the reviews, I do see that the Agility seems plagued with BSOD issues while the M4 seems solid through and through. For what I want to do, use the drive for windows and starcraft, would I feel the hurt from the lower write speed of the M4? not too knowledgeable about these things

The benchmarks are called "synthetic benchmarks" for a reason. They are grossly exaggerated results. They were purposefully designed to exaggerate a very small difference in ssd performance. Manufacturers and vendors pick and choose benchmarks that make their ssd's look better than they are.

I first became aware of the problem with synthetic benchmarks last November. I was reading a review of an ssd that included comparison charts. For one particular benchmark the author of the review casually mentioned there wasn't much difference between the best and worst performing ssd and explained why. Since then I have run into several additional articles and reviews with similar information. The information is there but it only surfaces in little bits and pieces making it difficult to put it in perspective.

thanks, that clarifies it perfectly. I'll add the M4 to the list then