60Gb SSD is it worth it?

[NeilV]

Hi All,
I'm looking to get an SSD for my boot drive but can only afford a small one (60-64Gb). having seen many posts saying that the figures for the OCZ drives are inflated because of the way they are benchmarked and their compression algorithms, I am not sure whether it will it. The write speeds on drives like the Crucial m4 seem so low and I can't afford a 128 or 256Gb to take advantage of the more RAM modules.

At the moment I'm running Win7 64bit installed on a 1Tb Spinpoint F3 (although I'm not sure it is working correctly as I had a few failure warnings before Xmas) but I also have a 250Gb SATA II & an 80Gb IDE not doing an awful lot apart from backing up photos etc. I mainly play games like Skyrim, Mass effect 2, Fallout NV & CIV V but I also develop applications in VB and Eclipse

So, to summarise, will I have problems with write speed on a small SSD? will I even notice anything other than a boot time increase while gaming and coding? Should I wait until I can afford a bigger SSD to get better write speeds out of an m4 or was the rating on this site of an Agility 3 being a best buy for $60 taking into account the inflated figures?

P.S. Although I am currently using a SATA II MOBO, I won't want to replace my SSD if I change to SATA III so unless the financial benefits are enormous I would not like to go for a SATA II device.

Thanks iin advance for your assistance.

NeilV

 

[JohnnyLucky]

Tom's Hardware recently published an article about the 60/64GB segment of the market which you might find interesting:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/tests-ssd-review-solid-state,3103.html

I just happen to have Microsoft Windows 7 Pro 64 installed on the ssd in my personal rig. After all the updates, patches, and fixes are downloaded and installed Windows used up between 20 and 21 GB. To save space backups are saved to a hard disk drive. Conservatively that leaves you with about 30GB of capacity to do with as you like. Some individuals install one or two of their most favorite games. The rest of their games are stored on a hard disk drive. The games can be easily swapped, unless your doing Steam.

 

[nosnitrousx]

Hi.

Yes, it´s totally worth it.

I´ve got that configuration too with a 40GB intel SSD and a WD caviar blue and everything goes superfast. I can´t imagine having games installed on a SSD. The basic windows stuff (browser, antivirus, office, utilities, music/video software, etc....) are on the SSD everything else is on the hard drive.

I put TEMP files also on the hard drive. I do graphic design and the Adobe Suite loads up pretty fast too albeit being on the hard drive.

I´ve got another hard drive only system and the difference is day and night.

 

[kage_a]

I'd like to add a question to this discussion:

I have a 3tb Barracuda that I was thinking about pairing with a OCZ Agility 3 SATA III 60gb.

Would it be better to use the OCZ by itself doing as described above? or to use SRT?

I looked for benchmark differences between SATA II and SATA III ssd's in SRT and couldn't really find a difference, does anything think there would be a difference?

 

[saratj1]

I have 2 Crucial c300's now in raid 0 and they are pretty quick. I like you didn't have much to spend so I bought one then another, it is a definite improvement though not as much as I thought, and even with 128gb I still have to monitor my space.
As for the SRT don't do it, it won't make enough difference to be worth your while, just get a 64gb now and possibly another in the future. With having one 64gb you'll learn how to keep win7 lean and trim so when you add another you'll have plenty of space and get the benefits of raid 0 performance

 

[undercovernerd6]

hi I recently built a new system it has a 64g SSD crucial m4 as my boot. Its retarded fast and everything I've always dreamed of. Personaly from experience I'd say its one of the best purchases I've ever made

 

[mazuren]

I'd say 120gb is the sweet spot money wise.. or try the corsair 90gb for a little extra. of course if you are sure that you dont need any more then go 60gb.

 

[canyoudigit489]

For a boot drive I don't think you should really concern yourself with write speeds. The main reason for the drive is speed in booting up windows/launching up programs. Read speed in this consideration is the primary determinant. You won't be moving large amounts of files back and forth on the drive because of the sheer size of it, so I doubt you'll really notice the gains of a drive with a high write speed performance.

I haven't heard a bad thing about the Crucial M4, everyone who has it raves about it. That and the Samsung 830 are excellent 64gb options. I think it's wise to stay away from drives using the Sandforce controller, but supposedly with firmware updates they've fixed most of the issues.

Also, I'd stay away from drives using asynchronous nand (i.e. OCZ Agility 3, Corsair Force 3, Mushkin Chronos, Patriot Pyro) as they don't have good real-world performance compared to the m4 and the 830.

 

[JohnnyLucky]

kage_a - Here is my standard answer:

Intel's SRT caching technology was designed for buyers who could not justify or afford the cost of a larger capacity solid-state drive. According to Intel, the original idea was that for about $100.00 a user could purchase a small capacity ssd of about 10 to 20GB and use it as a cache to improve hard disk drive performance. The Operating system and programs remained on a hard disk drive. The actual improvement could not compare to a stand alone ssd. Intel also looked at different capacities all the way up to 512GB and concluded 64GB was the point of diminishing return. It made more sense to use a 64GB ssd as a boot drive that also contained software programs. Intel was hoping that if business clients saw an increase in performance, then they would be induced to purchase larger capacity ssd's that promised an even greater boost in performance.

A lot has changed sinced then, especially prices. For $100.00 you can definitely purchase an ssd that is much larger than 20GB. Might as well take full advantage of ssd performance.

 

[NeilV]

Tom's Hardware recently published an article about the 60/64GB segment of the market which you might find interesting:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/tests-ssd-review-solid-state,3103.html

I just happen to have Microsoft Windows 7 Pro 64 installed on the ssd in my personal rig. After all the updates, patches, and fixes are downloaded and installed Windows used up between 20 and 21 GB. To save space backups are saved to a hard disk drive. Conservatively that leaves you with about 30GB of capacity to do with as you like. Some individuals install one or two of their most favorite games. The rest of their games are stored on a hard disk drive. The games can be easily swapped, unless your doing Steam.

Thanks JohnnyLucky and all others that have made valuable contributions!

There are a few response that might have got best answer as they have been very informative but I chose this one as it has some good solid facts, plus the link to an article that didn't turn up in my search. (although I don't actually know how to mark it as the best answer, sorry!)

undercoverne & canyoudigit48 alsoo deserve a mention as they specifically mention the m4 which was one of my purchase options and adress my fears for the slow write speed.

Thanks again guys, this forum continues to Exceed expectations everytime I use it.



Happy weekend all!