SSD or more RAM

[Djinni]

Human eye can't detect more than 8gb of ram so go with the ssd.

Sorry what?!

---------- Post added 2011-08-02 at 08:32 AM ----------

If you're video editing, get the RAM. Not sure if that model of Intel SSD has the issues others do or not.

Also, it's only the SATA-3 SSD's with bad rep at current... and all OCZ SSD's of course.

Which reminds me... what's the point of buying into an SSD that's not SATA3?

(If something costs that much it might as well be the best it can be)

[Bendder]

Anandtech did some Z68 SRT testing with both the Intel drive (Intel 331 20GB) and a Corsair F40.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4337/z...andforce-ssd/5

I haven't seen many reviews of SRT, but from what Anand is saying about it, the more storage you have for the SRT cache, the better performance you'll get due to data being evicted from the cache on the smaller drives.

[Skelly]

Human eye can't detect more than 8gb of ram so go with the ssd.

I definitely lol'd

[Wries]

Pretty much all boards support triple channel, it's the CPU's that work more effectively with either dual or triple, in this case the i7 2600k works better on dual channel.

1155 doesn't support triple channel. It literally has two channels with most mid-end and up boards having two DIMM slots per channel. You could put in three sticks of RAM there but it wouldn't be called triple-chan, it'd run in single channel mode.

[Cyanotical]

I definitely lol'd

as did I .

[Wries]

Which reminds me... what's the point of buying into an SSD that's not SATA3?

(If something costs that much it might as well be the best it can be)

Because often the difference in speed can only be measured and not so much felt. I feel no difference in snappiness between my X25-M G2 (3Gbps interface) and my Intel 510 (6Gbps interface). So if a SATA 3Gbps model cost less it might be a yummy opportunity to save some money and buy some coke/beer/cheese doodles.

I WOULD have voted for a Intel 320 series 80GB or bigger. But they had that "drive shrinks to 8MB"-issue. Has that been resolved? Anyone?

[BicycleMafioso]

I WOULD have voted for a Intel 320 series 80GB or bigger. But they had that "drive shrinks to 8MB"-issue. Has that been resolved? Anyone?

New firmware is present. Not that it would've affected me anyway.

[Skelly]

Which reminds me... what's the point of buying into an SSD that's not SATA3?

(If something costs that much it might as well be the best it can be)

SATA3 gives you the same flow with a bigger pipe. Not very useful when the old pipe is still big enough.

[Djinni]

SATA3 gives you the same flow with a bigger pipe. Not very useful when the old pipe is still big enough.

And you'd be happy using the smaller pipe because of that? when there are drives there that will exceed the capacity of the "older" pipe?

To put it another way.... when buying a car... would you rather buy a clapped out old banger (HDD) a clean <10yr old car (SATA2 SSD) or a SuperCar (SATA3)?

Given that the "10yr old car" is going to cost you within 10-20% of the SuperCar?

[ispano]

The point of not buying a SATA3 SSD is if your system you plan to use it in won't have SATA3 support for a while. Or has crummy SATA3 support. Like the Marvell controller in my system is pretty much garbage.

Course if you know you'll use it in a SATA3 system down the road, then sure. But if not, that's 10-20% you save.

[Tykus]

Human eye can't detect more than 8gb of ram so go with the ssd.

I lol'd as well.

[DeltrusDisc]

Get the Crucial m4 you linked!!!

[Djinni]

Get the Crucial m4 you linked!!!

Crucial RealSSD M4 64GB 2.5" SATA 6Gb/s Solid State Hard Drive - Retail
Read Speed: 415MB/Sec, Write Speed: 95MB/Sec, Flash: MLC, Controller: Marvell, Buffer: 0MB

Performance

Average Access Time	< .1 ms
Sequential Read (up to)	415MB/sec (SATA 6Gb/s)
Sequential Write (up to)	95MB/sec (SATA 6Gb/s)
Random 4k READ	50,000 IOPS
Random 4k WRITE	30,000 IOPS

Reliability

MTBF	TBD hours
Data Reliability	Built-in EDC/ECC
Warranty	Limited 3 Year Warranty
Read Endurance	Unlimited

[wyrdone]

In strictly WoW performance, more than 8G of ram is less of an upgrade than the lower access times on an SSD. (I really wish WoW had a better way to tell it how much texture information to hold in memory.)

http://www.storagereview.com/ is a good site to read up on said SSD's you're considering. I wouldn't get anything less than 120G drive these days though.


(If I ever won the lottery, I'd build a system around using one of these: http://www.storagereview.com/lsi_war..._slp300_review )

[DeltrusDisc]

Crucial RealSSD M4 64GB 2.5" SATA 6Gb/s Solid State Hard Drive - Retail
Read Speed: 415MB/Sec, Write Speed: 95MB/Sec, Flash: MLC, Controller: Marvell, Buffer: 0MB

Performance

Average Access Time	< .1 ms
Sequential Read (up to)	415MB/sec (SATA 6Gb/s)
Sequential Write (up to)	95MB/sec (SATA 6Gb/s)
Random 4k READ	50,000 IOPS
Random 4k WRITE	30,000 IOPS

Reliability

MTBF	TBD hours
Data Reliability	Built-in EDC/ECC
Warranty	Limited 3 Year Warranty
Read Endurance	Unlimited

Damn, that's pretty rough compared to my 128gb. =S

[Djinni]

Damn, that's pretty rough compared to my 128gb. =S

I think i'll leave the SSD's for now....

[DarkBlade6]

Crucial M4 64gb
Crucial C300 64gb

To be honest the only SSD with no problem atm is the Crucial M4 or C300 .. all other SSD with sandforce controler or intel controler have problem (Crucial SSD have marvell controler), mmh Gen2 Sandforce have no problem actually only the Gen3.

Both M4 and C300 are Really GOOD boot drive they have really high sequential read and high random read IOPS. Thats the most important for a boot drive. But they suck compared to the competitions when it come to write speed, but who care you will probably just install windows on it and a 1 or 2 games and never touch it untill you change ur games.

[Djinni]

Crucial M4 64gb
Crucial C300 64gb

To be honest the only SSD with no problem atm is the Crucial M4 or C300 .. all other SSD with sandforce controler or intel controler have problem (Crucial SSD have marvell controler), mmh Gen2 Sandforce have no problem actually only the Gen3.

Both M4 and C300 are Really GOOD boot drive they have really high sequential read and high random read IOPS. Thats the most important for a boot drive. But they suck compared to the competitions when it come to write speed, but who care you will probably just install windows on it and a 1 or 2 games and never touch it untill you change ur games.

I wouldn't be using it as a boot drive, but as an SRT drive... it's too small for me to use for anything else.

[baller1308]

SSD imo, but get something at least 60GB+. You'll find that the space will run out quick because you're going to want to put more and more apps on it :P.

[Djinni]

I'm so glad people read the contents of a thread....