SSD Shopping


#1

Hello once again everyone. This is just a simple question, but can anyone recommend a rather inexpensive SSD of at least 750GB? I only found one on tigerdirect.com for about $129.99 but I don’t like the look of it as just about every other SSD I’ve found is no less than $500.00 and that is for even a 512GB SSD. Thanks again everyone.


#2

Hey man,

Are you talking about that hybrid HDD they have accidentally listed in the SSD page? Thats not a SSD. 512GB is about as big as they get in the consumer world.

I’ve got a couple of small ones from Intel, and they’ve never gone wrong. I don’t think there is a lot of difference between the brands though. I bet they all get made in the same few factories.

-AJ


#3

No such thing sir. You’ll be looking at at least $600+ tax if you even manage to find one.


#4

You could use multiple in RAID 0 to get the capacity, but it wouldn’t be “rather inexpensive” like you want. If you need a lot of storage for cheap then get a hard drive. :thumbsup:


#5

I didn’t think so. It was just wishful thinking really.

My situation is, and thanks again for your input imashination on my post shopping for a new computer, but as I was saying my situation is that my new computer does have a 150 SSD in it, but the Windows 8 OS is eating like 40GBs of space. With my Autodesk 2013 Suite, Adobe Creative Suite CS6, its killing my available drive space already. I’ve been looking through sites that supposedly help to reduce the disk space that Windows 8 takes up but there isn’t much I’ve found. So in short, I’m looking to upgrade the SSD it currently has. Luckily I have a 2TB secondary drive though.


#6

Until prices come down further in a year or so, youre really going to need one SSD for the system and main apps and another for your data. Whilst it would be lovely to get everything you need onto the SSD its just not financially sensible yet.


#7

Even if they get bigger and cheaper next year, hard drives will be even bigger and even cheaper. Also theory shows SSD performance will plateau or decrease as capacity continues to increase.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2012/08/02/no-solid-state-drives-are-not-going-to-kill-off-hard-drives/
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9224322/SSDs_have_a_bleak_future_researchers_say

People are obsessed with SSD and think it’s just a matter of time until it makes hard drives obsolete. That won’t happen next year, or any year after that. Each should be used where their benefits are best realized.


#8

My prediciton, within 5 years, all harddrive manufacturers will have closed down.


#9

apart from the $/GB discrepancy between SSD’s & HDD, don’t SSD’s have much reduced performance once they start filling up? And can they nowadays handle constantly writing data without going bad?


#10

Sort of. The write endurance specifications assume the drive is empty. So if you have an SSD with nothing on it and use it for caching it should last a very long time (assuming there are no firmware bugs in the wear leveling algorithms, which has been an issue with some drives).

If you have an SSD and it’s 80% full with persistent data and you use it for caching, the write endurance is effectively 20% of what it would otherwise be because the other 80% of the drive is already storing data and can’t be used randomly to insure even wear of all the cells.

The more persistent data there is on an SSD the lower the write endurance of the drive as a whole will be. Advertising with this write endurance specification in terms of bits (like TB, PB, etc.) is very shady in my opinion, the expected number of write cycles is a much better indication of the endurance because it doesn’t assume silly things like a drive always being empty. How many of your in-use hard drives are empty 100% of the time? Yeah… I don’t have any like that either.

I’m not sure about the performance as the disk fills up. Traditional hard disks have degraded performance as the disk fills up because of fragmentation and geometry (bits on the outside of the disk are moving faster under the head than bits on the inside). My guess is an SSD with little free space would perform pretty much the same as an empty one, only it would wear out a heck of a lot faster. Maybe someone with direct experience can discuss this, or someone who knows of a good article about this?


#11

SSD firmwares have advanced a lot in recent years.
A big component of it is the unever wear you mention, which means when a lot of space is taken, the remaining cells will have to work increasingly harder, combined with state persistence (once a file is written it’s written and taking space in the tables differently than Sequential storage works).

The performance degrades to alleviate the problems above, wear levelling and TRIM are usually the main factors (for those disks that have a TRIM or a TRIM subset running semi-automatically). The less space you have, the trickier and more round-about levelling becomes.

How performance is affected varies enormously depending on a large number of parameters, to the point it doesn’t usually get tested because the scenario is so complex and messy that it’s hard to puzzle out any significant results.

These days it’s not too bad, and with a decent OS and a recent drive with a good firmware 15% is enough in most cases for wear levelling to operate. 5% is dangerously low, and less than 5% combined with frequent writes is still a recipe to sizzle up a good chunk of blocks.

I have about 30% of my system drive, and it sees a fair bit of data turnaround, and I TRIM and safe-erase manually once in a while, and have seen no noticeable degradation.
When I looked into the subject myself (where I got most of the above), even after days it was hard to come to any conclusive tests or data. In fact, most of the better articles and forum discussions in those regards point out there is none (conclusive) that they’d trust, and you have to play it by ear.

Generally 85-15 or 80-20 still seems the agreed upon limit for efficiency and safety. 95-5 was generally agreed on as a disaster guaranteed to happen within a few weeks to months even with recent drives with superior firmwares.

P.S.
I still image my system disk to my NAS (and from there it’s included in my backup to offline) every week, and I recommend anybody using one does so and makes sure they can replace an SSD with a minimum of hassle.
They HAVE got better, way better, they still have a very high number of failures due to “misuse” though, and unlike magnetic drives data recovery is between nightmarish and downright impossible when they fail.

Regular TRIMming and monitoring for corruption will usually give you weeks of forewarning of an SSD that’s stuttering, and telegraphic an imminent death. Damage is usually non preventible and non curable (no block isolation).
I’ve personally seen more than one gone to the graveyard VS the 0 failure rate of the last 5 years for magnetic.


#12

In my unsolicited and completely inexpert opinion. My ssd drive was is the biggest waste of money in my computer. 120gb vertex 3.

No noticeable difference in any aspect of my computers performance, including startup and swap file use. But it constantly (predictably) fills up.


#13

You must have bottlenecks somewhere else then.
An ssd isn’t some magical device that makes everything more awesome. It will speed up boot, application launch, and switching applications due to faster paging when the bottleneck is retrieval and not sorting. That’s it.
Those things though it does, objectively speaking, do very well.

I have a 10 seconds or so windows boot, instant login, and just over 4 seconds Linux login to non X, and 7 or 8 to X.

Some things, like the active zbrush project and backups, I also keep there, and the difference is noticeable.
Of course if you have a full drive with a messed up table, you’re asking for trouble, see my post and Olson’s above.


#14

It isn’t a magical device? Next you’ll be telling me it won’t make my art any better.

Butseriously

I can’t say I’ve noticed any real discernible improvements in the thinds you’ve mentioned above. Even straight out of the box.

I’m not sure where I might have a bottleneck. The rest of my hardware is
3770k @4.6gz
16gb ram @1800mhz
Gigabyte GA-Z77-D3H
firepro v7900
3 hard drives including the ssd


#15

If windows isn’t booting in half the time or less, and paging isn’t seriously less impactful, I would imagine something is getting in the way.
I’d take a guess at bios or OS settings before I’d blame any individual component.

It might be worth starting from testing your drives to see if at least their benchmark/theoretical performance corresponds to expectations, and move on from there.

Again, as mentioned before, if your SSD is almost full that can contribute majorly (and contribute to the shortening of its lifespan as well).


#16

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.