Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Interesting SSD vs. HDD value article

Last response: in Systems
Share
July 7, 2010 4:39:56 PM

Came across an interesting article (via slashdot) looking at the value of SSDs vs. HDDs. Could have tested more HDDs, in my opinion, but they got a pretty good cross-section.

Today's solid-state drives: The value perspective - Quantifying the value of today's SSD goodness (EDIT: Apparently the url bbcode hates colons...or hidden carraige returns.)

The conclusion is that as your system budget goes up, SSDs are more and more attractive. Which is largely obvious, but it recommends them starting at around $1k, which seems a little low to me.

TLDR: If your budget is high enough, look at the Crucial C300 RealSSD (overall performance), Intel X25-M (cost/value), Corsair Nova (overall value). Consider the Agility 2 as well, but the cost is a little higher than performance may warrant (though it's the value leader for the Sandforce drives and owns some of the benches).
July 7, 2010 4:51:21 PM

I think the $1K recommendation is assuming the computer is general use and not specialized. A build that isn't specialized for gaming wouldn't need to spend more than $150 on the GPU (the 5770) or over $160 on the CPU (X4 955). Assuming those parts, and basic prices on everything else, leaves you with about $300 after the full build. That would be enough to consider a SSD.
m
0
l
Related resources

Best solution

July 8, 2010 3:20:22 PM

I've got 1 issue with that article, and that's their load time bench.

Their data conflicts quite heavily with Anandtech's data. Looking over their test methodology, I'd say they're lacking over anand's.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/SSD/67
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2899/12
Share
July 8, 2010 3:34:45 PM

Yeah, I thought the boot time test was a little ridiculous as well. And good point about the general use vs. gaming, MadAdmiral.
m
0
l
July 8, 2010 4:03:44 PM

Hereisphilly said:
Just come across this article today, really clears the mud about which SSDs are good/which ones to avoid, and which ones are just repackaged other models with a bigger price tag.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2010/07/08/ssd...


Interesting that this article provides evidence for boot times being faster with SSDs, when the value article claimed they didn't provide much of an advantage. Decent intro/comparison article.

Although it's a little dated on recommendations at this point, Anandtech's SSD Relapse is still the best relatively technical article I've found explaining SSDs.
m
0
l
July 8, 2010 4:57:13 PM

For gaming PCs I find SSDs a waste of money. When you've got 3 screens, good gaming peripherals and enough horsepower to run every game on highest settings then an SSD would be a good idea, but spending 350 for 120gb storage which can maybe hold your OS and 5 large games or apps when you could spend that on 2 extra screens for surround seems ridiculous to me.
m
0
l
July 8, 2010 5:08:07 PM

@somebody: Those are crazy large games/apps (16 GB each), but I agree mostly. I think that after you have the i7-930, the 5970, some super fast sticks of RAM, and a highly efficient PSU, the next step is the SSD. After that, all the extra monitors and such would come into play.

Definitely once the prices come down to where you can get a 120 GB SSD for $150-200 there would be no reason not to include a SSD any more.
m
0
l
July 9, 2010 1:32:39 AM

Prices are not coming down, nearly as quickly as I has speculated, in February.

The 20nm (18~24nm?) class silicon is, just now, hitting the channel ... should be about 8-12 weeks before any associated price frops manifest, on egg.usa.

That is a whole new crop, with Intel leading the charge, and everyone (almost) should be "doing it" before xmas.

= Al =
m
0
l
July 19, 2010 2:18:18 AM

Best answer selected by coldsleep.
m
0
l
!