Are SSD's really worth it?

[Sret43rg]

Hello i am going to be building a computer very soon and i am still debating whether to buy an SSD or not, my budget for an SSD is around 70 pounds and i found this one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kingston-Technology-120GB-SSDNow-SATA3/dp/B006YLTY2O/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1354124478&sr=8-2
I am going to be using my PC for pure gaming so is an SSD worth the extra money for me or should i not get one and use the saved money to improve my PC?

EDIT: I've also managed to find this for 65 pounds: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B004Z0S6SO/?tag=pcp0f-21 is this brand better?

Thanks in advance.

 

[jay2tall]

I think it depends on what is important to you. The advantage of an SSD over a typical hard drive is speed. There is also lower power consumption and some other items, but for the most part it is pure speed. Now for gaming the only real advantage is it will start your games up faster and load maps faster. It is almost more of a convenience to tell you the truth. However, in my experience it is worth it if you have the extra money to spend. I would however, recommend using an SSD for OS and applications, then a standard hard drive for data. So whether it is worth it too you... that is your call. One draw back is SSD's are they cost more per GB. So people usually get a 120GB or so and you would have to manager your drive space to that. This means you could not leave a ton of games installed all the time. I sprung for a 240GB intel 330 drive when there was a really good deal and I am glad I did because I am already up to 85GB used and only a few games installed. Steam is also another savior for SSDs because you can back up an entire game to files on another drive and uninstall it from your primary drive.

 

[nstiver]

Lets put it like this. I was used to gaming on my SSD. BF3 maps loaded in just a few seconds, boot up time was really quick, etc. Then the SSD dies in an unfortunate accident. I have to revert back to a regular old hard drive and....boy did I ever notice it. This seemed really sluggish at first. It took minutes to load a BF3 map, minutes to boot up. After a while I got used to it again. Then I got my SSD back from RMA and BAM--everything is lightning quick.

The short answer is yes, it was worth it for me. Everything loads in a fraction of a time that it would normally take to load on a hard drive.

TLDR version: Things load much faster and it is really convenient. No real boost in gaming performance, but load times only take a few seconds.

 

[jay2tall]

I will mention that as well. Once you go SSD, you will not want to go back. So be warned.

 

[Sret43rg]

How are the SSDs that i've mentioned in my first post? which is better? btw the OCZ is cheaper too

 

[ram1009]

Contrary to the other posters I will tell you that the extra speed is not worth the investment by itself. Yes, they are faster to load and boot however in a short time the speed will become normal to you and go unnoticed. IMHO, the real reason to invest in an SSD is reliability. No moving parts. It seems so obvious I feel like I'm insulting people's intelligence to say so. Personally, I wouldn't buy either of the ones you linked. I have two Samsung 830 that I like and they are comparably priced.

 

[odiervr]

Yes to answer your title.

I am very 'thrifty' (drive a 1989 Honda crx w/ 229,00 miles). I was a sceptic for financial reasons. Once you own one, you will not put your OS on another HDD.
Period.

May I suggest:

1. No lower than 120GB
2. Great brands: Inte 330/335, Samsung (830/840), Crucial M4. These are three SDD's that have great brands and reliability. While the 830 and Intel 330 are 'older' versions of the most current, most users will see no difference between any of these in day to day use.
3. I own 2 Intel 330, 180 GB. Just bought one yesterday for $100 USD.

Good luck !!

 

[Warmacblu]

Yes, especially with the super low prices on quality drives.

 

[jay2tall]

IMHO, the real reason to invest in an SSD is reliability. No moving parts. It seems so obvious I feel like I'm insulting people's intelligence to say so.

SSDs are no more reliable than HDDs. Just because they have no moving parts does not make them any less prone to failure. Most Drive failures are no necessarily mechanical in nature. Hard drives have been around for more than 60+ years and have long been improved upon. For both SSD and HDD reliability will fall on the manufacture and how well they are constructed and built. Here is an article I found on a quick search. There are others out there. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-reliability-failure-rate,2923.html

How are the SSDs that i've mentioned in my first post? which is better? btw the OCZ is cheaper too

There are alot of SSDs out there, but I believe Intel has the lowest failure rate by far. Even though they are not the fastest based on testing, in real work usage you won't notice much difference. They are not slow by any means either, they usually fall in the middle. I also believe Samsung has made a huge leap in their SSDs and are up there right on Intel's heels for reliability and surpass them in performance. I would recommend either brand. See below.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Intel-Series-120GB-Solid-State/dp/B007P3RMLU/ref=sr_1_2?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1354143806&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-2-5inch-Desktop-Accessory-Norton/dp/B005OK6VTA/ref=sr_1_2?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1354143892&sr=1-2

 

[Sret43rg]

SSDs are no more reliable than HDDs. Just because they have no moving parts does not make them any less prone to failure. Most Drive failures are no necessarily mechanical in nature. Hard drives have been around for more than 60+ years and have long been improved upon. For both SSD and HDD reliability will fall on the manufacture and how well they are constructed and built. Here is an article I found on a quick search. There are others out there. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-reliability-failure-rate,2923.html




There are alot of SSDs out there, but I believe Intel has the lowest failure rate by far. Even though they are not the fastest based on testing, in real work usage you won't notice much difference. They are not slow by any means either, they usually fall in the middle. I also believe Samsung has made a huge leap in their SSDs and are up there right on Intel's heels for reliability and surpass them in performance. I would recommend either brand. See below.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Intel-Series-120GB-Solid-State/dp/B007P3RMLU/ref=sr_1_2?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1354143806&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-2-5inch-Desktop-Accessory-Norton/dp/B005OK6VTA/ref=sr_1_2?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1354143892&sr=1-2

Unfortunately, they are out of my budget so which one of the two i posted would be better?

 

[jay2tall]

^I would probably go with the Kingston over the OCZ. But either choice is probably perfectly fine.

 

[count_rugen]

I would definitely say that an SSD is not worth it, if you can use the extra cash for a better graphics card or CPU (if not, then go ahead and get the SSD, I mean, why not?). Twelve months ago, almost to the day, I built a new rig and this SSD was my sole ROM:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227726

After a year of running out of space periodically, I finally decided to just use the SSD for the OS and put everything else on a standard HDD. I bought this HDD on sale for $49 dollars:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148697

The exact same games I played on the SSD, I now play on the HDD (though my OS remains on the SSD).

Results:
My boot up time is the same and is speedy (though noticeably not as speedy as it was when I first installed the SSD and OS...I have to assume there is some sort of "burn in" that occurs with an SSD that degrades it over time, but this is just speculation). My game speeds (maps loading, etc.) have not changed in the slightest noticeable way.

This could either mean that current HDDs, such as the one I bought, can achieve read/write rates that make them indistinguishable from SSDs, but more research would be needed, I guess.

 

[jay2tall]

^ I would agree that you need to manage your drive space better when you have less space to work with. This is why I sprung for the 240GB drive, it was on sale and even so a little more, but I was glad I did. However, it all depends on your intentions. For someone that doesn't have a ton of apps or games 120GB should be fine. You can also do some OS tweaking to get ride of your windows recovery, which consumes space. You should also consider manually setting your page file to something very small, like 1GB, and reducing application cache sizes for IE or Firefox. You can also set Firefox to use RAM as a cache instead of disk. There are a lot of individuals who are doing just as you mentioned with installing the OS and some apps on the root drive and games on another HDD. It is all personal preference and how you manage your system. Personally, since I use STEAM for most games I can back them up to a file on my HDD and uninstall them. If I want to go back and play an old game I can just restore for that file.

I still think SSDs are a good component to consider as it adds to your total system experience, however, you are correct in that it does not add any gaming performance. So it is the judgement of the system owner. I do think anyone who has an SSD should also have another HDD for just data and for items that consume a lot of space. Actually, I have always recommended keeping your data on a completely separate drive than the OS and Apps simply because it is "safer". Your OS/app drive is much more likely to crap out on you or become corrupt as it is written to much more than a data drive usually is. It also makes reinstall much easier because you don't have to move data off of it. It makes backup easier to since you can just back up the entire drive to an external device and do not have to worry about OS or App files.