Why are so many people fasicinated with SSD vs current HDs?

I see threads and posts recommending the super high priced SSD HD.

Why would anyone want to put one in a Laptop that is 3 or 4 years or older?

a Brand new Laptop sure I see some advantage but not a lot until you get to CULV and ultra lights which is Why I think it is offered on those rigs

I feel the faster access time is not enough reason to spend up to 70% more for a Hard drive with less storage.

I run videos from a 320gb external USB drive well,

so what reason to upgrade to SSD?

I think the main advantage is Ultra lights with Battery life but other then that

tell me why?

 

SSDs to HDDs is like LED to CCFL backlight in LCD. Solid state technology has a lot more benefits to traditional technology. SSDs are pretty much better in every way compared to HDDs. They can be faster (higher transfer rates across the board, less access time), have more capacity (density), no moving parts (more shock resistance), less power consumption (less heat, more battery life), and lighter. The only thing holding back capacity is price, hence why you only see small capacity drives. Just note that not all SSDs are created equally, so there are always "good" ones and "bad" ones. The reason why it's a popular upgrade is because HDDs are almost always the slowest component of a computer, so upgrades to a good SSD will always yield very noticeable improvements.

 

But older laptops are mostly 32 bit and I argue that the upgrade on a slow Buss will not be as significant as 64 bit system.

Also to me it makes no sense to me to spend more then the Laptop is worth.

What you said still does not answer the main issue, what in real performance of programs will you see between a SSD and Non SSD HD?
Currently programs load in ram for access.

(BTW I'm not so against SSD I like and think the technology will be standard in the near future)

 

Whether the system runs on a 32-bit OS/CPU is not a factor in SSD performance. Performance depends on the SSD and the application. While I wouldn't upgrade an old system, some people do. They spend similar amount of money on a CPU, but for the same cost, a SSD would be give a more noticeable improvement.

For example, Windows requires lots of random read and writes. Taking a typical HDD (like my 320GB 5400RPM drive), on CrystalDiskMark, I have random R/W speed of 0.4/1.3 MB/s compared to (a random member's) Intel SSD which boasts 13.1/37.6 MB/s (30+ times faster). This means that an identical copy of Windows will load faster on the SSD compared to a HDD and generally be more responsive (though this is a more subjective thing).

Comparing transfer rates, if you transfer or load a lot of big files, there will also be a significant decrease in time. From my HDD, I have about 50MB/s for both sequential R/W. Intel SSD has a 250/70 MB/s sequential R/W, but some such as the OCZ Vertex have speeds such as 250/180 MB/s. Most current HDDs can't even fully saturate the SATA/150 bus speeds, while majority of current SSDs are maxing out SATA/300.

 

Because when you try a ssd, you just can't go back to a HDD...There's no need to tell more ;-)

 

Or what you meant to say, was once you go to 15K enterprise drives you just cant go back on anything else.

With a good SAS raid card, you can yield higher data bandwidth and IOPS than an SSD. However each option is expensive, you get more storage with harddrives, and faster seeks with SSD's
In loading applications I have found that 15K drives boot into windows faster, and load applications faster than an SSD. However SSD's will beat the hell out of any 15K drive copying tons of small files.

With 15K drives you get the pure whine and clicking that ssd's just dont have. In my opinion, a computer isnt a computer without that experience.

K-TRON

 

Except most people don't have your notebook K-TRON

 

Don't blame me, but i largely prefer ssds than your elitist/laborious system

 

Blah! SSD at this point of time is a total waste of time and money. Other than booting Windows, what on earth would you do with the few seconds that you save on application load and such? or that extra 10 minutes on battery life. The only thing that would make sense is if you already need a ruggedized laptop for your work and then it makes sense to replace the weakest link with a SSD.

That said, SSD seems to be the future, once capacity/price reach closer to parity with conventional HDs, then it's time to switch.

 

Yeah, silence was one of my biggest motives for switching to solid state. I want a laptop that doesn't make any noise whatsoever. Even my desktops are completely noiseless save for one or two slow spinning 120mm fans. I just can't stand the whirring and clicking of conventional hard drives anymore.

 

Actually TIME is the one thing it does not waste and probably the biggest reason to get it. If you want to shave at least 50% on booting up, shutting down, launching programs, games, levels, multitasking...etc then you'll want an SSD. The fact that i can launch firefox with all my tabs opened and other programs at the same time feels like magic. I've upgraded my ram and cpu before and did not experience the same kind of improvement in everyday performance that i did when I went to an SSD. Like others have said once you experience working with an SSD for a day or so your old machine will just feel sluggish and dated. It's like night and day kind of difference

 

I won't argue the merit of an SSD on an older laptop vs a newer laptop. But, the 32bit/36bit address bus of an IA-32 processor will have little to do with the thoughput of disk access.
People seem to worry too much about bus width.
As an aside, not sure how many folks realize SATA is only 1bit wide while PATA is 16bit wide.

 

Thanks It looks like we agree and you explained some more things to me, I forgot about the write and rewrites

 

I believe within 5 years 256gb ssd drives will be the standard even in low end notebooks

for the time in between there is an advantage to the CULV notebooks since power consumption of the HD is a factor for battery life.

We have LED back lighting, paired with ssd you have a sginificant increase in battery life,

later OLED screens will even make it better!

I just needed to ask some questions because I feel its a waste for an older notebook and I really did not know the impact on performance other then energy and speed, as explained the speed factor does have a real life impact on performance and that was my question.

 

More than seconded...It's the only upgrade where you see a real damn improvement in everyday usage. People who criticizes ssd don't know what they're talking about since they DIDN'T try it. HDD is the weak link in today's computer when it comes to global reactivity, even laps with the strongest cpu can seem totally lame/slow with a basic 5400k HDD.

Best way to go for now is having a combo SSD/HDD one for the system, the other for heavy storage. At least while ssd's are that expensive...

 

Any time gain other than booting up an OS is totally meaningless (actually even OS boot is mostly meaningless since most people do other things while their PC is booting up). As if you're really going to be more productive since you saved 20 seconds launching photoshop

 

Even though I don't have an SSD, I have to say that is completely false. If I'm waiting on a program or file to load, it is usually me sitting there doing nothing. Most people don't launch programs till they need them, which means they are waiting on them. This is doubly true for gamers or people that actually do heavy lifting with files, like video editing or some programming applications. And I would say that, especially for laptops, faster boot/resume in Windows makes a big difference. Most people don't leave thier lappies in sleep mode when not using them so they can save batt life. That means lots more resuming from hibernate and cold booting, which means SSDs have even more benefit there.

 

So what does that 5 minutes a day do for you? Did you make your company millions more? Got better grades? discover the cure for cancer? Ok, ok, you're able to frag an extra 15 guys online but is that really meaningful?

 

Someone has sensitive ears, I should remind myself never to start my Detroit near you, you may go deaf

K-TRON

 

LOL. You are going for the "meaningful" argument? People use computers for personal enjoyment as well as being "meaningful". Leaving the metaphysical argument completely aside, it is perfectly justifyable to decide to spend your own money to get more enjoyment out of your computer by increasing load times. Get off your high horse. oi, hah.

 

The hard drive is the main bottleneck in a system for general usage. SSDs can completely saturate the SATA II bus, delivering upwards of 300MB/s read speed. Most hard drives are lucky to hit 100MB/s read speed, and usually only near the center of the platters.

For some people, that is a BIG difference. For some of the work I do, an SSD would probably reduce my compile times down by 5-10 minutes. When I'm compiling very often for testing and tweaking, those 10 minutes per run can really add up. I'm thinking about getting one primarily for that reason.

Not to mention there are no moving parts. No noise, but most importantly you do not have to worry about the drive croaking because you accidentally dropped the computer while it is on. Granted I have never done that, but reliability from shocks is a big plus too.

 

SSDs are just plain awesome. There really isn't anything more to it

Are they necessary? Well no of course not. I do agree however that of most of the computer parts, a fast HDD(which would be an SSD in this case) is the part which would yield the most significant performance difference in every day tasks assuming the rest of the computer isn't blatantly horrible. Actually, considering an Atom does what most average users need, an SSD probably works wonders regardless of the system

My main gripe is that they're both expensive and lack storage space. IMO, currently the best combo would be an SSD for the OS and perhaps a few applications while the bulk of the storage goes into a large HDD.

 

Which is precisely the market SSDs are currently aimed at. Considering that the most advanced SSDs out there right now are only hitting 160GB-256GB with 40nm flash products, it is going to take a long time for capacities to compete with traditional hard drives.

 

I'm sure that numerous answers have been given to your question, but it seems to me that the upgrade from an HD to an SSD is largely because the upgrade has been needed for some time. While CPUs and other hardware have improved by leaps and bounds, conventional hard drives have largely improved by increments and evolution. Progress has been slow, and as such it is no surprise that the HD is now the slowest component in ANY system.

Whenever you find yourself waiting and cursing your PC, chances are you can blame the HD. SSDs largely solve the frustration of the severe limitations imposed by conventional mass storage technology, with the temporary exception of price.

It isn't just about the technical aspects of the upgrade; it's the fact that, compared to any other upgrade in any system, the SSD yields the greatest performance boost. This is probably why SSD upgrades are hyped up more than any other upgrade in the computer underworld.

 

The market doesn't aim SSDs for a particular type of storage, it just aims it at the type of storage which would most benefit the speed it grants. Whatever that is is up to the user.

You could theoretically use an SSD as your main and only drive, not that many people need more than 250Gb of storage(mostly they need more because they keep really old stuff). I remember the days where I had a 64Gb HDD(which was only 2 years ago mind you lol ) and I got along just fine.

The SSD technology cannot yet implement high capacity storage so people put the extreme speed of an SSD where it most mattered i.e. the OS and a handful of applications.

 

Well, if you go with the enjoyment factor. Let's say you spent an extra $200 for an SSD. Wouldn't you think getting 4 new games or 15 DVD or 200 itune download bring more enjoyment? Nah, it's all about bragging rights. more like I can afford a SSD and you can't.

 

Having an SSD makes my laptop much nicer to use because it's silent, vibration free, runs cooler (fast hard disks put out a ton of heat...) and is loads quicker.

Yes, I have less storage space but still more than I can fill. Got a 500gb 7200RPM disk ready to go on eSATA if needed

 

There is a tangible effect on battery life as well, as per reports from moderators on this site that have SSDs.

 

And your point is? People buy SSDs because they feel they canget value from it. The numbers as well as annecdotal evidence back up the claim that they make noticable impact on performace, so the argument holds up there. Just because you make the value calculation differently doesn't mean thier's is any less "correct". And no, those other things you could buy with the money aren't necissarily better anyway. If you don't have extra time to enjoy those things, then saving the time the SSD buys you is a better investment in any case.

 

Well it's more about performance. Why get a 7200RPM over a 5400RPM? It's because a 7200RPM(if both are well built) can in general provide faster transfers than the 5400. Or how about IDE vs Sata? We all agree Sata provides faster transfers than IDE yet I didn't die of waiting back in the days I used an IDE HDD.

If the performance is there and you can afford it, lots of people will get it. It's not a question of "need" as much as it's a question of "want". It's like that guy who gets a Quad Core and his most taxing activity is word processing

 

My point? My point is that unless you have a specific need, Getting a SSD for general use is a waste of time and money. Sometimes I wish I can get a giant to show up in my message.

 

It seems like you cant justify spending a couple hundred bucks on an ssd. That is your choice, everyone has their reasons. As for a waste of time and money, I would have to disagree. ssd's are snappy and fast, have you used one? For some, it is about saving time and having a fast system that they could throw anything at without any glitching or freezing, that my friend, is priceless.

 

If you don't like them, don't buy one. As people have told you several times, for general usage, the hard drive is the bottleneck -- every other component of a modern system is orders of magnitude faster. Some people would like to remove this bottleneck and I personally don't think it's a waste at all (there are few things as satisfying as a perceptible increase in general performance). Of course, if you're strapped for cash, SSDs are probably not for you.

 

Capacity isn't an issue. Density of SSDs can be greater than HDDs. The issue is cost. For example, you can fit 512GB into 1.8" SSD but only half that for a 1.8" HDD. The reason why it isn't common is that the market of customers who will pay $5000 for that SSD isn't very high, but if you did want one, at least you could get one.

 

Actually, that's a common misconception. Compiling is usually CPU bound, not I/O bound. See here:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3631&p=25

So yes, you might save a little, but not 5-10 minutes for each compile. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

Let's see, you really don't care about performance. But you spent a ton on the computers in your signature? And why exactly are you on this forum? Does the time you spend here, and making your 848 posts so far, "make your company millions more? Got better grades? discover the cure for cancer? Ok, ok, you're able to frag an extra 15 guys online but is that really meaningful?"

Oh, I see . . . you're just a troll and didn't have the cojones to post your comments in the SSD thread.

 

Well what are they comparing?
I am sure a mechanical 1.8" drive will yield better battery life than an SSD.
Unless John did the test, I would like to see some results to prove that

Most SSD's do use more current than a mechanical drive sticker to sticker comparison. But we all know that mechanical drives have different power consumptions between idle, and being used, an SSD also uses different amounts of current at idle, and under use.

I know in the server environment SSD's are much more power efficient. Most 15K drives use on average 20-25 watts of power, while an SSD will use less than that.

K-TRON

 

LOL same meaningless argument everytime a new piece of tech is released. So stay on a pentium 450 Mhz if you don't care about more speed.

Everyone will enjoy a faster computer even you (but you don't realize it yet apparently).

I bought a P9600 190 euros and see no noticeable improvement 90% of the time (so only in a very few games and specific applications).

Then i bought a ssd 135 euros and i didn't recognize my computer.

That's all. Best upgrade ever.

 

^what he said


anyone that thinks having a faster computer is worthless(i'm looking at you wiz33) should trade their comp for the pentium II i still have

SSDs provide the biggest bang for your buck for speeding up your system. its a simple concept, i don't understand why you don't get it.

 

Troll. End of argument.

 

Well, no giant here, but definitely a troll. That's great that you think getting an SSD for general use is a waste of money, but acknowledge the fact that that is your opinion and move on.

You basically heard all the pro-SSD arguments, but you're not convinced - that's great. Yet, you dwell on it and claim that people getting SSDs do so for bragging rights...ok? As if you can convince people that SSDs are a waste of money around here.

I think you're a troll, but I'm not dwelling on it. Why can't you do the same? Don't put down SSDs and their users because they have one - put them down because those people are smarter than you.

 

And I think you are close minded and cruel. Everyone is allowed there opinion, dont flaunt others on theres.

In reality, SSD's are only worthwhile on the laptop form factor. In desktops, why bother with an SSD, cause for the same price of an X-25M you can get 2 velociraptors in RAID0, which would outperform the SSD 90% of the time, with 540gb more capacity.
In 1U servers SSD's are worthwhile, or in any server exposed to intense data transfer. Otherwise sticking with mechanical drives is more advantageous.


K-TRON

 

Sticker-to-sticker comparison is the worst comparison you can do. Because if that was true, you'd be caring about it as much as you'd be caring about "Max Power"(or even TDP!) on laptop CPUs. Truth is even when doing CPU intensive apps it doesn't even reach TDP. The 130W TDP using laptops with a 95W battery lasts an hour using gaming. Now if the CPU even reached 60% of TDP, would you think the battery would last that long?

Low idle power combined with high performance is *VERY* important.

This review: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3532&p=6

tells me that in a single processor desktop system, the SSDs are perfectly capable of smashing *ANY* platter-based HDD.

It's true you get bigger advantages if the environment you are using the SSD on is more "Extreme". You'd probably be better off in laptops(smaller the better!) and thermal/space-constrained servers. But that doesn't mean your desktop won't be better off.

I've seen UMPC reviews that use SSD(good ones like Runcore) and the benefits are enormous!

 

Are you kidding? He's the one flaunting his opinion - I accept that he has an opinion, and I respect that. He's the one who went on about SSD users being rich, blurring wants for needs, buying bragging rights, etc.

I might be cruel, but I'm definitely not close-minded. EDIT: Just read his posts (#9, 16, 18, 26 and 31). People are taking the time to explain to him exactly why SSDs are beneficial and he's basing his arguments off of vague concepts such as "meaningfulness" and calling SSDs a "waste of time and money," not to mention implying that for all buyers of SSDs it all comes down to "I have money and you don't."

Um, RAID0 is not magical. Do you have a benchmark showing 2 raptors beating an X25-M in IOPS and access times?

 

Thread closed, it's not going anywhere.