Thread: SSD Question

  1. #1
    Pit Lord philefluxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Silicon Highway
    Posts
    2,295

    SSD Question

    So I'm building a new rig. Considering going with a SSD OS drive. Because of the SSD technology I primarily wish to use this for the OS and keep all my applications and anything that is often writing on my storage drive. Im constantly adding and removing games/programs so I think its definitely best to keep these all on my HDD storage drive.

    With this being said, would I see any increase in performance of applications stored on the standard HDD? I know the OS will boot up ten times faster on the SDD and any applications installed on it, but will this also improve my OS ability to manage the applications running from a different drive? Thanks!

  2. #2
    There's really no reason not to get a 128GB+ SSD and put frequently used programs on it alongside your OS. The issue you're referring to (excess writing) is not really a concern in the newer generations of SSDs, it is highly doubtful that you'll perform enough writes to actually impact the lifespan (you certainly won't be able to do so by simply moving games around unless you do it all day, every day, for years).
    Last edited by noteworthynerd; 2013-01-23 at 06:22 PM.

  3. #3
    I am Murloc! Cyanotical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Co
    Posts
    5,037
    your daily use applications should be stored on the SSD, large games and software suites such as adobe should only be kept on the HDD if space is a concern

    installing and uninstalling has no negative effect on an SSD, by design they cannot become fragmented in the sense that a HDD can

    i7-4790K | Z97 Class. | 8GB DDR3-2133 | GTX-690 Quad SLI | RAIDR | 512GB Samsung 830 | AX1200 | FT02
    Dell U2711 | Ducky Shine3 YoS | Steelseries Sensei Wireless | Xonar Essence One | KRK RP8G2s

  4. #4
    Pit Lord philefluxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Silicon Highway
    Posts
    2,295
    Quote Originally Posted by noteworthynerd View Post
    There's really no reason not to get a 128GB+ SSD and put frequently used programs on it alongside your OS. The issue you're referring to (excess writing) is not really a concern in the newer generations of SSDs, it is highly doubtful that you'll perform enough writes to actually impact the lifespan (you certainly won't be able to do so by simply moving games around unless you do it all day, every day, for years).
    Thank you

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyanotical View Post

    installing and uninstalling has no negative effect on an SSD, by design they cannot become fragmented in the sense that a HDD can
    Technically flash memory has a shorter lifespan if its constantly being written to, that is the reason for concern but I guess SSD's are getting better so its not as much of an issue.

    Well mind is made up, SSD it is. Thanks again guys!

  5. #5
    Mechagnome HolgerDK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    601
    Anandtech has done some tests on the durability of SSDs, and even with heavy daily random use, consumer SSDs will last years before wear starts being noticeable.
    HolgerDK Stærkodder Shocknorrís
    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke.

  6. #6
    I am Murloc! Cyanotical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Co
    Posts
    5,037
    Quote Originally Posted by philefluxx View Post
    Thank you



    Technically flash memory has a shorter lifespan if its constantly being written to, that is the reason for concern but I guess SSD's are getting better so its not as much of an issue.

    Well mind is made up, SSD it is. Thanks again guys!
    the flash does yes, unlike a hard drive, it is limited in the number of write cycles, however, on average a SSD lasts 10 years, a HDD only lasts 5 years

    in a few years, we'll be ditching HDDs altogether in favor of high capacity SSDs

    i7-4790K | Z97 Class. | 8GB DDR3-2133 | GTX-690 Quad SLI | RAIDR | 512GB Samsung 830 | AX1200 | FT02
    Dell U2711 | Ducky Shine3 YoS | Steelseries Sensei Wireless | Xonar Essence One | KRK RP8G2s

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by philefluxx View Post
    Technically flash memory has a shorter lifespan if its constantly being written to, that is the reason for concern but I guess SSD's are getting better so its not as much of an issue.
    Considering the average SSD can rewrite itself at least 3,000 times over (let's say a 120GB drive), that would come out to about 30TB of data written to the drive before it dies after assuming 9-10x write amplification. At 10GB written per day, that's still over 8 years.
    i7-4770k - GTX 780 Ti - 16GB DDR3 Ripjaws - (2) HyperX 120s / Vertex 3 120
    ASRock Extreme3 - JBL S300A - FiiO E10 - EVGA Supernova 650G - Corsair H80i

    build pics

  8. #8
    You poor confused mortals.

    You only need to buy a 60GB SSD and set it up as a Raid Cache using Intel Rapid Storage Technology Interface to get insane speeds on your 1TB+ standard hard drive.

  9. #9
    I am Murloc! Cyanotical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Co
    Posts
    5,037
    Quote Originally Posted by GoodNewsEveryone View Post
    You poor confused mortals.

    You only need to buy a 60GB SSD and set it up as a Raid Cache using Intel Rapid Storage Technology Interface to get insane speeds on your 1TB+ standard hard drive.
    if that was all we needed, then there would be no need for any SSD larger than 60GB would there?

    RST is a transitionary technology, nothing more

    i7-4790K | Z97 Class. | 8GB DDR3-2133 | GTX-690 Quad SLI | RAIDR | 512GB Samsung 830 | AX1200 | FT02
    Dell U2711 | Ducky Shine3 YoS | Steelseries Sensei Wireless | Xonar Essence One | KRK RP8G2s

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyanotical View Post
    if that was all we needed, then there would be no need for any SSD larger than 60GB would there?

    RST is a transitionary technology, nothing more
    Correct, there isn't currently a need.

    When SSDs reach 1TB and become affordable that's when RST is redundant. Until then it's better to take a 20% hit in write speeds to gain over 10x the storage space.

  11. #11
    Keyboard Turner
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyanotical View Post
    your daily use applications should be stored on the SSD, large games and software suites such as adobe should only be kept on the HDD if space is a concern

    installing and uninstalling has no negative effect on an SSD, by design they cannot become fragmented in the sense that a HDD can

    The contents of SSDs are actually fragmented, by design. The firmware of a SSD attempts to spread information into the least recently used blocks/sectors of the memory before over-writing a recently used sector. This is what gives flash memory it's life-span, and keeps down on sequential writes.

    The concept of de-fragmentation is a performance boost for HDD only, due to the fact that the contents must be read using a magnetic head that tracks across the platter. If information for a program was stored on different tracks there would be a performance loss due to the tracking time of the head. Because the contents of SSDs are essentially random access there's no need to defrag it, or worry about fragmentation at all.


    On Topic: have no fear about over using your SSD. Unless you're doing some serious video editing and recording you won't notice any performance loss for years.
    Last edited by Vortech; 2013-01-23 at 08:11 PM.

  12. #12
    I am Murloc! Cyanotical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Co
    Posts
    5,037
    Quote Originally Posted by GoodNewsEveryone View Post
    Correct, there isn't currently a need.

    When SSDs reach 1TB and become affordable that's when RST is redundant. Until then it's better to take a 20% hit in write speeds to gain over 10x the storage space.
    http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic..._for_under_600

    i7-4790K | Z97 Class. | 8GB DDR3-2133 | GTX-690 Quad SLI | RAIDR | 512GB Samsung 830 | AX1200 | FT02
    Dell U2711 | Ducky Shine3 YoS | Steelseries Sensei Wireless | Xonar Essence One | KRK RP8G2s

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by GoodNewsEveryone View Post
    Correct, there isn't currently a need.

    When SSDs reach 1TB and become affordable that's when RST is redundant. Until then it's better to take a 20% hit in write speeds to gain over 10x the storage space.
    If you think the only downside of 60GB of cache over a 1TB drive is a 20% hit in write speed reductions, you're severely misinformed.
    i7-4770k - GTX 780 Ti - 16GB DDR3 Ripjaws - (2) HyperX 120s / Vertex 3 120
    ASRock Extreme3 - JBL S300A - FiiO E10 - EVGA Supernova 650G - Corsair H80i

    build pics

  14. #14
    Titan Synthaxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Rotherham, England/UK
    Posts
    12,992
    Quote Originally Posted by GoodNewsEveryone View Post
    You poor confused mortals.

    You only need to buy a 60GB SSD and set it up as a Raid Cache using Intel Rapid Storage Technology Interface to get insane speeds on your 1TB+ standard hard drive.
    Except caching doesn't change the speed or performance of the drive itself. It only caches what you use frequently, and that's still less optimal than having a dedicated SSD. That 1TB drive won't be any faster. Only things that you use frequently will potentially see an improvement. There's no control over what it caches.
    Coder, Gamer - Thoughtcloud | NEW SITE: IOCube| Node.js Monkey | #Error418MasterRace
    Knows: Node.js, JS, JQuery, HTML, CSS, Object Pascal, PHP, WQL/SQL, Ruby

    PC: 750D / 16GB / 256GB + 750GB / GTX780 / 4670K / Z87X-UD4H | Laptop: 8GB / 120GB + 480GB / GTX765M / 4700MQ

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •