HD / SSD question

J

JPigg

Poster
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
165
I have a question about hard drives..this part im not very knowledgeable in.. currently have a WD 160gb 5200rpm 8mb cache... im wanting a bigger faster one obviously but im not concerned about booting up speed... doesnt take long with what i have.. so my questions are...

will a 7200rpm sata III 64mb cache be fine/good with games and general use?

what the he!! is the hype about SSD's? (watched youtube videos compared to normal drives... mainly boot ups...still cant figure why every whats one)

would a SSD be better for gaming?

What would you guys recommend for under $100.00?


thanks,

all input is appreciated, since i dont know jack about hd's
 
As allways with computer systems, it depends what U want.

SSD's are very popular atm, mainly because they speed up loading times significantly. Putting your Windows 7 on a SSD speeds up the startup of the system. Imagine windows 7 starting up in only 20 sec. Gaming whise SSD's don't give any benefits, your game might start up faster but thats about it. They don't give you a better FPS like some people think.
I myself consider an SSD to be a 'luxury' item, if you have the money.. buy it.

For 100 dollars you won't get any big SSD's, because SSD's cost a lot of money compared to HDD's ( gig per dollar wise)

I would suggest the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Spinpoint-3-5-Inch-Internal-HD103SJ/dp/B002MQC0P8/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1315139486&sr=8-2"]http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Spinpoint-3-5-Inch-Internal-HD103SJ/dp/B002MQC0P8/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1315139486&sr=8-2]Samsung Spinpoint HD103SJ[/ame] , 1 terabyte for only 60 dollars. Lot of gigs for your money :)
 
very well then..now i there a noticeable increase in sata II vs sata III ...and 32mb cache and 64 mb cache?
 
Well, it's best to get a Sata III, it's more future proof. II has a maximum transfer rate of 3Gb/s and III has maximum transfer rate of 6Gb/s.

HDD's store recently opened file paths on their Cache so next time you open that same file it opens faster. So if you have a bigger cache it stores more, bigger is better in this case.
Pls correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't think the difference between 32 and 64 is very noticable.
 
it wouldnt be noticeble on start ups of any kind more if you wanted to watch a stored film that is on the drive it could transfer more info into the cache to give smoother playback less glitching same with wrighting a disc it puts more into the cache so as not to cause disc underwrite errors.

hope that helps
 
Last edited:
Solid State Disc is better for gaming because transmitting data is much more efficient and that means faster. It makes loading way more faster, the buffering is smoother and they don't make scrambling noise like Hard-disc does - there are no moving mechanical parts in SSDs.


BUT they have shorter lifespan than HDDs. mainly because SSDs are limited on rewriting, and HDD aren't (well, they are limited, but limit is so high, no one is capable of reaching it - HDD mechanical parts breaks before you reach even 25% of rewriting lifespan).

BUT FOR GODSAKE DON'T DEFRAGMENT SSD. YOU ARE JUST SHORTING IT'S LIFE (well, do defragment but once a three months not twice a week like on HDDs).

Anyway, I'm thinking about first (120 GB) SSD for games, second (30 GB) SSD for system files and external 2TB HDD w/ USB 3.0 for multimedia. I think it's the best option due to low capacity of cheaper SSDs and lots of changes in multimedia field.

Final word: SSDs are faster, but they don't last as long as HDDs. For notebooks, it's the best way, for netbooks it ought be the only way (less energy consumption)

Link. said:
Pls correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't think the difference between 32 and 64 is very noticable.
Click to expand...

You are right, the 64bit system differs from 32bit a little in the general but a lot in closer view.
32 bit is limited on 4 GB of RAM (if anyone have more, it's not wrong, but there is unused space on them - proof can be seen here
322.png
), if system needs more, well he uses virtual memory or HDD. This slows you down if you use HDD, and because HDD uses mechanical parts to search itself, it slows the whole PC down (unnoticeably, but crashes and freezings are often caused by this). If you use SSD, than it works smoother and faster.

64 bit is recommended for latest Source Engine versions ;)
 
Last edited:
For one, I don't think I've ever seen anybody who owns an SSD regret their purchase. From what I hear, it doesn't just speed boot times, but increases the general responsiveness of everything you ever do in your OS ever. Also, SSDs don't die earlier than HDDs especially if you use them as a boot drive. The mechanical parts give out at the same time or earlier as the SSD runs out of writes. I mean we're talking more writes than you can physically imagine. Using it as a comparison is just silly.

Of course, for <$100 you should just get the Samsung F3 already posted.
 
a pet rock said:
For one, I don't think I've ever seen anybody who owns an SSD regret their purchase. From what I hear, it doesn't just speed boot times, but increases the general responsiveness of everything you ever do in your OS ever. Also, SSDs don't die earlier than HDDs especially if you use them as a boot drive. The mechanical parts give out at the same time or earlier as the SSD runs out of writes. I mean we're talking more writes than you can physically imagine. Using it as a comparison is just silly.

Of course, for <$100 you should just get the Samsung F3 already posted.
Click to expand...

The cheapest models are pretty short on lifespan (app.8 years) ;) Also, system rewrites data every single second, so number of rewrites can be unimaginable but if you use scale of how much writing system does per second, well then the number becomes quite imaginable ;) And defragmentation does a bleepload of rewrites ;)
Because of this, HDDs are still better choice for movies, photos, music, TV shows etc. ;)
But I agree - no one regrets buying it. Shame is that space limit but hey - soon enough there will be affordable 1TB SSDs :)
 
Mahoney said:
The cheapest models are pretty short on lifespan (app.8 years) ;) Also, system rewrites data every single second, so number of rewrites can be unimaginable but if you use scale of how much writing system does per second, well then the number becomes quite imaginable ;) And defragmentation does a bleepload of rewrites ;)
Because of this, HDDs are still better choice for movies, photos, music, TV shows etc. ;)
But I agree - no one regrets buying it. Shame is that space limit but hey - soon enough there will be affordable 1TB SSDs :)
Click to expand...

Defragmenting is disabled on SSDs, assuming you're running Windows 7, and will do more harm than good. Unlike platter HDDs, they don't need to keep data in sequence since the access times are so low. Their internal garbage collection techniques, combined with TRIM are all they need to maintain top shape.

As for the OP, you're unfortunately not going to get a decently sized SSD for under $100. I too recommend getting a 1TB HDD over a 32/64GB SDD, with that budget. You can always add a SDD boot drive when you can afford it.

Mahoney said:
You are right, the 64bit system differs from 32bit a little in the general but a lot in closer view.

*Snip*
Click to expand...
He was referring to HDD cache, not OS architecture.
 
Last edited:
Ok ;) But some programs are trying to defragment even SSD and screw all up (like defraggler) ;)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Link.
Pls correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't think the difference between 32 and 64 is very noticable.
You are right, the 64bit system differs from 32bit a little in the general but a lot in closer view.
32 bit is limited on 4 GB of RAM (if anyone have more, it's not wrong, but there is unused space on them - proof can be seen here ), if system needs more, well he uses virtual memory or HDD. This slows you down if you use HDD, and because HDD uses mechanical parts to search itself, it slows the whole PC down (unnoticeably, but crashes and freezings are often caused by this). If you use SSD, than it works smoother and faster.

64 bit is recommended for latest Source Engine versions

^^^^^ was talking about 64mb vs 32mb of cache on the HD not OS..lol

and i've read almost every where that ssd's dont improve gaming at all..if it does its very minimal..im going to get just a 1tb 7200rpm 64mb cache..ssd's not worth the money to me, until the storage amount goes up to like 500gb or so...thank you guys for the input
 
ssd's don't really factor into gaming. things like processing power (CPU), RAM and GPU (video card) are more important to game performance. The only benifit to an SSD over a HDD is that it allows for faster seek times from the drive, thus things like moving files between folders and in general accessing files will be faster compared to a normal HDD, also since a SSD has no moving parts it's less likely to break down. Cons of SSD over HDD - it has a limited number of read/writes you can do on it (not gonna go into technical details here), and price - SSDs are expensive right now compared to HDDs.

if cost isn't really a worry - get an SSD and make it your primary OS disk, otherwise go with HDD. regardless of either one, while in game performance it won't make any difference (apart from when u hit save or load)
 
JPigg said:
I have a question about hard drives..this part im not very knowledgeable in.. currently have a WD 160gb 5200rpm 8mb cache... im wanting a bigger faster one obviously but im not concerned about booting up speed... doesnt take long with what i have.. so my questions are...

will a 7200rpm sata III 64mb cache be fine/good with games and general use?
That'll do fine for anything. I have a 7200 RPM wich works out great on games.
what the he!! is the hype about SSD's? (watched youtube videos compared to normal drives... mainly boot ups...still cant figure why every whats one)
SSD's are fast. Very fast. An HDD is slow. Very slow (compared to SSD lol) What do you do with SSD's: Mainly install your OS on it. Faster booting will be accomplished by that. If you buy a small SSD (under 100) it'll probably just be enough for the OS. Otherwise if you get a big one, install one of the games you play alot on them and you'll get an increased FPS. An SSD doesn't require any maintaince (defrag, etc).
would a SSD be better for gaming?
Depends if it's big enough. I suggest you put your OS on it and if you have place over, put a game or 2 on it. If it works, no idea. I have no SSD's but i plan on getting them once they get cheaper :D
What would you guys recommend for under $100.00?
I'll leave that up to the pro dudes up here

thanks,

all input is appreciated, since i dont know jack about hd's
Click to expand...

Hope this helps you
 
SSD Drives won't increase FPS-rates. It does lower loading times a lot.
Personally I only keep my OS and some of my favourite and often used programs on my SSD drive.

For around 100$ you'd only get a 60GB SSD
So it depends on how much space you need.
 
Mikkel said:
SSD Drives won't increase FPS-rates. It does lower loading times a lot.
Personally I only keep my OS and some of my favourite and often used programs on my SSD drive.

For around 100$ you'd only get a 60GB SSD
So it depends on how much space you need.
Click to expand...

thanks for pointing that out. Like i said, i don't own an SSD but plan on getting one :P
 
I have 2 SSD's and notice no difference gaming wise. Once a game is loaded into your RAM that's where it's accessed from, not your hard drive.

SSD's have no moving parts so they are suppose to last longer. I wouldn't buy one due to their expensive nature. Only reason I have 2 is because I commendere parts from work from left over projects.

This is the only truth that matters.
 
Yeah, I forgot to mention that the difference is notable with low RAM (2GB or less), combined with 32bit system it's quite more notable ;)
My friend has one SSD and it quite boosted his whole PC. Not the gaming performance, but there is less waiting. Shame they didn't come about 10 years ago... loading was a huge enemy of gaming that time (and I remember that 1GB RAMs cost almost like Mars Rover that time :D )
 
I found that SSDs are worth their money as boot drives (the difference between HDD and SSD is most noticeable here). SSDs are also really good for programs that frequently access a database (most of us dont use programs like that........). you can easy get a 40GB SSD to work as a boot/programs drive (since you can "optimize" W7 to about 10 gig) meaning ~ 100 bucks will get you there and then some.

For games. Speaking from experience, the only thing you gain is maps will load faster....... so youll be first back in the game between matches or you wont have to wait as long between levels in Single player. Is it worth it? for gaming no.... the difference between SSD and HDD is hardly noticeable).

If you decide you want a SSD, then you have to think of which one to get (which is a different discussion in itself).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top