Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

About choose a SSD

Last response: in Storage
Share
February 24, 2012 11:20:52 AM

hi

I have a old machine
a intel Q9450. overclock to stable 3.4GHZ
nforce 780i mortherboard
DDR2 patriol 8GB 4-4-4-12
zontac GTX 560(non-ti) SLI 336 cuda-core 1GB vram
using i oc it to 850MHZ core speed stable
700W PSU
WD harddrive 320gb. 10000 round / s
window 7 64bit

when i play battlefield 3 , i set the graphic to 1920 x 1200, which all ultra except MSAA off
and run very smooth 50-100 fps. i wonder if i put a SSD SATA2 to get rid of bottlenect. do i
have better performace? being able to set the MSAA on
if there is .i know my cpu is working so hard to push battlefield 3.
so it still a bottlenect, but i like my machine, don't plan on get rid of it

please help me choose a good SSD SATA2, and it would be better
to work on my upgrade machine in the future. price can be
around 100- 200$. or cheaper if possible and good value for the
price. Thanks
:bounce: 

More about : choose ssd

February 24, 2012 11:57:00 AM

Hope anyone can help me and spend little time
on me . i appreciate you kindly help. if you don't know
can you tell you friend to help me ?
Thanks
m
0
l
February 24, 2012 12:08:13 PM

SSD will help you with loading games faster but it does not effect the actual FPS at all. Your "bottlenect" is your video card not your HDD
m
0
l
Related resources
February 24, 2012 12:08:28 PM

How large of a SSD were you looking for?
m
0
l
February 24, 2012 12:14:06 PM

if just like maxinexux say. but i think two gtx 560 is enough for
me. i don't plan on spend any money on high graphic card. but
maybe the ati 6950 will do better and give me more value,

the SSD i can around 60-120gb. any capacity is ok seams
i don't care about the capacity a lot, i do care about the
speed for the OS
m
0
l
February 24, 2012 12:14:13 PM

Anyway to play games at 1920x1200 with high or ultra setting and MSAA on you need serious video card not mediocre non-Ti 560 if you like nvidia go 580 or better choice would be AMD 7950
m
0
l
February 24, 2012 12:17:07 PM

maxinexus said:
SSD will help you with loading games faster but it does not effect the actual FPS at all. Your "bottlenect" is your video card not your HDD



thanks your replay. i don't care about the fps
i think msaa doesn't really care about the fps
it depend on something else, no FPS.
but i don't really know about it.
i think one possible is the vram i have.
seam i have 1gb vram. but graphic card
can share some memory and page file on
harddisk. so i think ssd may be possible to
let me turn on the MSAA, by the way.
i can trun on 4XMSAA, But laggy, the fps
don't really affect a lot, it just lagg. i think
graphic card a lot tranfic for the harddisk.
and i guess battlefield need a good ssd.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b G Storage
February 24, 2012 12:21:18 PM

I have used SSDs from OCZ, Intel and Crucial and varying degrees of success.

I had to RMA several OCZ drives - they were one of the first to use the sandforce controllers and I think you lost some reliability in order for speed. The 2nd set seems to be pretty stable after some settings tweaks and firmware updates but it still is in my back of my mind every time I boot up those boxes. If you do go with OCZ, do not install the Intel Rapid Storage Tech driver. It can and will nerf your system.

After the issues with the OCZ drives, I started getting Crucials for usage in laptops for work. They have been darn near bulletproof and I have yet to see one croak even after being in use for over a year in 20+ laptops. Their write speeds (even at SATA 6g/s) aren't as fast as most but you can get some read speed increases in a SATA 6g/s setup.

When someone asked for slighter quicker performance but without any hiccups, I looked at Intel. I haven't had any challenges with the 320, 510 or 520 series of Intel drives. The 320 wasn't necessary extremely fast, but it was very reliable without any hiccups or headaches. The 510 was a step up in speed, but the 520 (using a SATA 6g/s) is incredibly fast and I haven't had any issues whatsoever. My only issue with Intel is their drives are more expensive than any other in their performance category but as with all tech, you get what you pay for.

If I were in your shoes, I would probably get a 128 GB Crucial M4 - you can format and reuse the drive when you upgrade your rig and take advantage of the speed. Here's a link - currently $150 on newegg:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I haven't used it personally, but everyone seems to love Samsung's 830 series - here's a link to their 128GB version:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

This is the drive I use in my desktop - smoking fast but a little more expensive:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

In all sincerity, you'll get more benefit from the increased I/O in other applications other than gaming. File transfer and bootup were where I saw a real difference. My applications are more responsive and coping files from my OS disk (the SSD) to my media drive (1.5 TB HDD) is fantastic
Share
February 24, 2012 12:22:20 PM

Agree on the OCZ. Too many reported issues.
m
0
l
February 24, 2012 12:32:04 PM

so now . the suggestion here is crucial m4. samsung's 830 series,
a intel 320. 510, 520,
ok .i will look all the suggestion here, i will pose what i choose,
if there is something wrong, correct me..
i don't really hury to get a SSD, just take my time to choose.
Thanks.
i hope anyone still write his thought about the ssd.
i am chinese, and i have worst english at all. i
see your pain.
m
0
l
February 24, 2012 12:39:18 PM

No frets. It really boils down to cost vs. reliability. They are all fast. Intel is the most reliable but a great middle range for the money is the Samsung series. But keep in mind once you filter through the crap, they are really all about the same in terms of reliability and speed, from the average user's perspective.
m
0
l
February 24, 2012 12:51:58 PM

OSU Cowboy said:
No frets. It really boils down to cost vs. reliability. They are all fast. Intel is the most reliable but a great middle range for the money is the Samsung series. But keep in mind once you filter through the crap, they are really all about the same in terms of reliability and speed, from the average user's perspective.


so what you mean depend on i want more reliability or speed ?

i would prefer the reliability, if a ssd cannot have reliability. then that is little bit worthless.
i don't want to spend some time filter through the crap. i pay no attention on cost 100- 200$
i need reliability to make my pc stable
and better speed than my wd hard disk. :D 
m
0
l
February 24, 2012 1:03:32 PM

What I mean is once you filter out the bad SSD brands, pretty much all the issues around reliability and speed are negligible to the average user. That's what I meant.
m
0
l
February 24, 2012 1:13:03 PM

my motherboard seams does not support sata III
i only support SATA II . sorry about that.
when i put on the post, i mention that.
all i saw seam i SATA 3 . so what is your opinion
better to not buy SSD and stay what i get?
if i am using SATA 2 . Is intel 520 can work on SATA II
i don't know anything about the SSD.
m
0
l
February 24, 2012 1:16:09 PM

OSU Cowboy said:
What I mean is once you filter out the bad SSD brands, pretty much all the issues around reliability and speed are negligible to the average user. That's what I meant.



ok .thanks for you explain. ==`
m
0
l
February 24, 2012 1:30:22 PM

We need to remember the things before choosing SSD
Higher read/write speeds is always better.
We know that the higher the input/output operations per second is the faster. While the IOPS number tends to follow data transfer rates, this value differs even with SSDs with similar transfer rates.
m
0
l
February 24, 2012 1:36:43 PM

mountainman25 said:
We need to remember the things before choosing SSD
Higher read/write speeds is always better.
We know that the higher the input/output operations per second is the faster. While the IOPS number tends to follow data transfer rates, this value differs even with SSDs with similar transfer rates.



i only know about the read/write speed.
but what is the input/out operation per second on the SSD,
where i can recoginzed it ? .
the similar transfer rates but with different IOPS number?
what i understand is tranfer rates are depend on the IOPS number as well?
and IOPS different, the tranfer rates different. ?>


the up is my last post. i rethough again . what you mean is don't look
at the write / read speed, .it is not higher.and it is better.
i need to look at the tranfer rate. even it is same tranfer rate,
the value of write/ read speed are different.
is that right? how can i caculate the tranfer rate for a SSD
is that any formula ?
m
0
l
February 24, 2012 1:58:42 PM

Best answer selected by philchen.
m
0
l
February 24, 2012 2:01:36 PM

so the SATA III SSD can support SATA III and SATA II as well?
do i misunderstand the concept?
if STATA III SSD can support SATA II interface.
then think the way to go among on is crucial M4 or intel series 520.
the samsung 830 is great too for capacity 128gb. good for the price too
i jump over the 320 series.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
February 24, 2012 3:35:11 PM

Right now for speed and reliability, it's Samsung & Intel. For mid-range speed and reliability, it's crucial. For my personal machines, I buy Intel. For work machines, I buy Crucial. It is definitely good enough for day to day use, I just like the extra write speed for encoding and copying data to/from drives.

If you don't need to get it any time soon, you might find there is a new controller type or new memory process that is developed that will change the market pricing. Looks like they're trying to reduce cost and increase the capacity to get more people to make SSDs adopted in the mainstream. The flood in southeast asia definitely was their greatest helper - HD costs shot through the room without impacting SSD pricing so more people bit the bullet for increased performance.

SataIII drives are compatible with SataII ports - they're backwards compatible. With most drive manufacturers, you'll get higher write speeds with larger capacity drives. Keep that in mind when you're selecting the size of your drive - I am using a 120GB which is probably more than I'll need for my OS but the I/O increase was significant over a 60 GB drive.
m
0
l
February 24, 2012 4:23:32 PM

game junky said:
Right now for speed and reliability, it's Samsung & Intel. For mid-range speed and reliability, it's crucial. For my personal machines, I buy Intel. For work machines, I buy Crucial. It is definitely good enough for day to day use, I just like the extra write speed for encoding and copying data to/from drives.

If you don't need to get it any time soon, you might find there is a new controller type or new memory process that is developed that will change the market pricing. Looks like they're trying to reduce cost and increase the capacity to get more people to make SSDs adopted in the mainstream. The flood in southeast asia definitely was their greatest helper - HD costs shot through the room without impacting SSD pricing so more people bit the bullet for increased performance.

SataIII drives are compatible with SataII ports - they're backwards compatible. With most drive manufacturers, you'll get higher write speeds with larger capacity drives. Keep that in mind when you're selecting the size of your drive - I am using a 120GB which is probably more than I'll need for my OS but the I/O increase was significant over a 60 GB drive.


well. thanks for you reply !!! it is very helpful.

m
0
l
!