magley64 Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 If he had an unlimited $ build or a higher budget than $750 SSD would work, but not for what he wants. Sure he can get a 40GB SSD, but that's just a waste. Save the $$ and spend it on the mobo(most people cheap out on the mobo )You only need SSD for boot/system so it doesn't need to be huge anyway...Platter is better for storage. And those drives are finally starting to come down since the tsunami.Storage drive i'd go caviar black... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 I'm thinking more like 100 bux http://www.corsair.com/en/ssd/nova-series-ssd/nova-series-2-60gb-solid-state-hard-drive-cssd-v60gb2a.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exarch Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 Still $100 for 60GB is a bit much when you can get 1TB for $100, boot time isn't really shouldn't be an issue/factor neither should load time, there isn't that big of a difference to make up for the price.I take the platter comment was a joke atleast the second part anyhow.If he really wants SSD I would only recommend storing his high performances games on it, but I still find it rather useless outside of a laptop(which is where they shine)Once the market is flooded with SSDs it will be worth it, but until then there just isn't enough to justify the price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 Still $100 for 60GB is a bit much when you can get 1TB for $100, boot time isn't really shouldn't be an issue/factor neither should load time, there isn't that big of a difference to make up for the price.Have you ever seen a side by side comparison?Seriously... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exarch Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 Have you ever seen a side by side comparison?Seriously...I have built quite a few PCs (prob 4-5 with SSD) it really isn't that impressive... We are talking meer seconds(if that in most cases) between boot/load times, it doesn't justify the 4x+ cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jporter12 Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 I have built quite a few PCs (prob 4-5 with SSD) it really isn't that impressive... We are talking meer seconds(if that in most cases) between boot/load times, it doesn't justify the 4x+ cost.But you can afford it since you have the government manage your $10k in savings each year! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exarch Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 Btw, if your just suggesting it for faster boot times(because 6sec on a high end PC is alot...) Just use flash storage, I used to run my OS on flash before I had a high end PC. You do realize you can do this right? Flash and SSD are pretty similar, but I'm sure you knew that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jporter12 Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 Btw, if your just suggesting it for faster boot times(because 6sec on a high end PC is alot...) Just use flash storage, I used to run my OS on flash before I had a high end PC. You do realize you can do this right? Flash and SSD are pretty similar, but I'm sure you knew that Beacause booting to a flash drive is meant for day to day use... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaCinci Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 If anyone needs and SSD, LMK, I've got some I need to sell. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbot Posted May 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 just an fyi in case people have lost touch with reality on how much ssd's cost now a days...http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?SID=p9Iueqn_EeGpaqpGMlI0_A6f23&AID=10440897&PID=1225267&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-cables-_-na-_-na&Item=N82E16820227706in case the page changes:OCZ Vertex 3 VTX3-25SAT3-120G 2.5" 120GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)Tom’s Hardware Recommended Buy 2011$109.99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1crusher Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 I've been running a Core i7 w/ 24GB RAM, 2 x 120GB SSD, 1 x 1TB WD HD, 2 x GTX560 in SLI, Thermaltake case, 800 watt PSU, 2 x 24" displays.Frame rates are stupid and the SSD's are the shit....period (as long as you get a decent one because they're not all the same). Boot times are under 7 seconds and when using it for work running 3-4 VM's on the SSD's it doesn't even break a sweat.Jinu...if you want any help just holla. Hell if I can get to the track soon we can throw some stuff together after we're done for the day.All I'm going to say is you get what you pay for. If you go cheap you'll wish you'd of spent the little bit extra to make it better. Do stick with Intel CPU's, ATI has made a come back recently otherwise Nvidia is still a solid performing video card, and if you can do an SSD along with a conventional HDD, do it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbot Posted May 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 I've been running a Core i7 w/ 24GB RAM, 2 x 120GB SSD, 1 x 1TB WD HD, 2 x GTX560 in SLI, Thermaltake case, 800 watt PSU, 2 x 24" displays.Frame rates are stupid and the SSD's are the shit....period (as long as you get a decent one because they're not all the same). Boot times are under 7 seconds and when using it for work running 3-4 VM's on the SSD's it doesn't even break a sweat.Jinu...if you want any help just holla. Hell if I can get to the track soon we can throw some stuff together after we're done for the day.All I'm going to say is you get what you pay for. If you go cheap you'll wish you'd of spent the little bit extra to make it better. Do stick with Intel CPU's, ATI has made a come back recently otherwise Nvidia is still a solid performing video card, and if you can do an SSD along with a conventional HDD, do it.what mobo are you running? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1crusher Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 just an fyi in case people have lost touch with reality on how much ssd's cost now a days...I'm running two of these and they are fast. Vertex 4's are now out and the prices on the 3's have been falling steadily. Keep an eye out for the 240GB version. Plenty of room for OS and apps as well as a few games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exarch Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 Beacause booting to a flash drive is meant for day to day use... It doesn't make a difference, as long as you have the OS installed and boot from flash. There is no reason to remove a dedicated drive and it will save boot time. If you don't believe me just try it, it's pretty simple to set up it's not quite as fast as SSD, but pretty close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1crusher Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 what mobo are you running?Gigabyte UDR3 I thing (if I remember correctly). I wouldn't recommend that particular board due to the SATAIII controller issues. There are plenty of good reliable makers out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1crusher Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 It doesn't make a difference, as long as you have the OS installed and boot from flash. There is no reason to remove a dedicated drive and it will save boot time. If you don't believe me just try it, it's pretty simple to set up it's not quite as fast as SSD, but pretty close.If you're using a USB3 drive for this it should be very close but USB2 isn't all that fast. Still faster than a conventional HHD though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exarch Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 what mobo are you running?I would guess along the lines of a PT4 SE if thats what he has and didn't cheap out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaCinci Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 It doesn't make a difference, as long as you have the OS installed and boot from flash. There is no reason to remove a dedicated drive and it will save boot time. If you don't believe me just try it, it's pretty simple to set up it's not quite as fast as SSD, but pretty close.Uhm no. Check the max throughputs of a USB 2.0 (I'm assuming that's what you are using as most don't have 3.0 yet). Not even close. USB 3.0 flash drives (good ones) are hitting 125MB/s which is still a far cry from even the "value SATA II SSD's. I've tested over 50 SSD's, I know a little bit about this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDBGoalie Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 Still $100 for 60GB is a bit much when you can get 1TB for $100, boot time isn't really shouldn't be an issue/factor neither should load time, there isn't that big of a difference to make up for the price.I take the platter comment was a joke atleast the second part anyhow.If he really wants SSD I would only recommend storing his high performances games on it, but I still find it rather useless outside of a laptop(which is where they shine)Once the market is flooded with SSDs it will be worth it, but until then there just isn't enough to justify the price.Hey look, Exarch is talking out of his ass again. The boot and access times are almost twice as fast as a HDD. 60GB is enough for the OS and basic programs, everything else should be on the storage drive. You are going to pay the same for the storage drive, the extra $100 to make everything run faster is a small price to pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaCinci Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 If you get a small SSD on Windows 7 64-bit, turn off hibernation as Windows will allocate enough drive space = amount of RAM for hibernation which can be a lot if you are running 8GB or more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exarch Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 Uhm no. Check the max throughputs of a USB 2.0 (I'm assuming that's what you are using as most don't have 3.0 yet). Not even close. USB 3.0 flash drives (good ones) are hitting 125MB/s which is still a far cry from even the "value SATA II SSD's. I've tested over 50 SSD's, I know a little bit about this 125mbs? Where are you getting that from on 2.0? Sounds a bit off to me... Multiply that by 4.5 3.0 gets around 2.5gbps(up to 5gbps)Also I'm pretty sure if you do a little research I'm sure you would know this.. I'm also sure if you did the research between USB 3.0 and SSD you would also come to find there isn't a huge difference in data transfer speeds When it comes to computers I know my shit, so don't spit fake numbers at me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exarch Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 Hey look, Exarch is talking out of his ass again. The boot and access times are almost twice as fast as a HDD. 60GB is enough for the OS and basic programs, everything else should be on the storage drive. You are going to pay the same for the storage drive, the extra $100 to make everything run faster is a small price to pay.OS is a given and basic programs? Gtfo, you want to put that shit on your HDD, put your high end shit on the SSD. "basic programs" don't use alot of space, save that for the HDD... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 OS is a given and basic programs? Gtfo, you want to put that shit on your HDD, put your high end shit on the SSD. "basic programs" don't use alot of space, save that for the HDD...Yeah... not like you want the operating system to be quicly accessible:rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaCinci Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 125mbs? Where are you getting that from on 2.0? Sounds a bit off to me... Multiply that by 4.5 3.0 gets around 2.5gbps(up to 5gbps)Also I'm pretty sure if you do a little research I'm sure you would know this.. I'm also sure if you did the research between USB 3.0 and SSD you would also come to find there isn't a huge difference in data transfer speeds When it comes to computers I know my shit, so don't spit fake numbers at me.Theoretical throughputs don't take into account overhead etc. Real world performance is much less. I have yet to see a USB 3.0 drive hit even 2.5Gbps speeds - especially in writes. SATA III is 6Gbps/750MB/s (theoretical) and I've tested the fastest drives out there and the best they can do (on reads) is ~560MB/s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jporter12 Posted May 30, 2012 Report Share Posted May 30, 2012 When it comes to EVERYTHING I know my shit, so don't CHALLENGE me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.