Solved Point of getting an SSD?

[Trucidation]

A 60GB SSD is ample for the OS and a good selection of programs (unless you have very large games) By now I own 7 SSDs and the biggest is 90GB - but that is in a laptop where I have no other disk. All my /7 desktops run on 60GB including 2 virtual partitions for Ubuntu and Windows 8. All my user data is on the HDDs.

Just my $0.02, but I picked a 120GB SSD when I built my latest gaming rig a couple months ago and now it's just about full - well, there's 40GB or so left, and if I ditched SF4 I'll probably get 10GB back, but the point is 60GB wouldn't cut it. My documents and songs etc are all on another drive too. It's just the OS and games in the SSD.

Most modern games - meaning stuff you'd pick up at the store, like Skyrim - you need to allow 10GB or so each. They're just simply freaking huge. Steam games are smaller but even at 2-3 gigs apiece it adds up. This is one of the things that motivates me to finish games: so I can uninstall them and reclaim the space

 

[UnknownReverent]

I'll be installing games and what not on my other hard drive. Not the SSD.

 

[whs]

As for the SSD, since your budget is tight and your buying multiple components - it falls under the luxury rather than necessary category atm. Save up and grab a higher capacity when you can.

I don't know about the luxury part. I would rather spend my money on a SSD than a faster CPU. In daily operation the SSD gives you more mileage in terms of performance. The disk is usually the bottleneck; the CPU only in rare cases.

 

[pparks1]

I don't know about the luxury part. I would rather spend my money on a SSD than a faster CPU. In daily operation the SSD gives you more mileage in terms of performance. The disk is usually the bottleneck; the CPU only in rare cases.

I usually refer to SSD's as luxury items as I still find that you can have a wickedly fast and more than usable PC by installing a standard spinner drive and having lots of disk space to boot. While I do run SSD's on some machines, I don't see a need to run them on all machines that I might own.

If I had 1 and only 1 machine, i can very well see your point that I would want an SSD on it. But if I have 5 different computers that I use at home, I don't think having an SSD on 5 of them would really be enough of a benefit to justify the cost. < - But of course, that's just my opinion.

 

[linnemeyerhere]

Yes SSD's were luxury items when they had their original cost to performance but as they have gotten faster and fallen to sub $100.00 for 128 gb then they now have firmly entered the realm of must have. As I've stated over and over they are the single most transformational item one can add or upgrade to in a system. Are they for everyone....no but they're the one item you hear over and over that once added people say that they now understand and would never go back. Proof is in the testimonials of all types of users. Don't underestimate the heat and power savings as well !

 

[whs]

Right Alan - the low (or non existing) heat is one of the benefits of SSDs. I had a HP laptop that ran very hot. I replaced the HDD with a SSD and the heat problem was solved.

 

[pparks1]

Yes SSD's were luxury items when they had their original cost to performance but as they have gotten faster and fallen to sub $100.00 for 128 gb then they now have firmly entered the realm of must have. As I've stated over and over they are the single most transformational item one can add or upgrade to in a system. Are they for everyone....no but they're the one item you hear over and over that once added people say that they now understand and would never go back. Proof is in the testimonials of all types of users. Don't underestimate the heat and power savings as well !

Don't get me wrong, I own 2 SSD's. I've had my 80GB Intel X25-M2 for nearly 2 years and it cost me nearly $300 (and I don't regret the purchase one bit). My primary desktop runs the Intel X25-M2 and my laptop runs an Intel 320 series 80GB. And I'm actually considering upgrading my 80GB intel to the Corsair Force 3 240GB as it's $199 from NewEgg and this would give me lots more space for games and such than my current 80GB provides.

With that said, I've also got a desktop at work that runs from a 1TB WD Caviar Blue that I use day-in and day-out. I don't feel having an SSD on this machine is necessary at all. So, I'm not yet in the camp who feels that an SSD is a must have or would never want to work on a machine without an SSD again. But certainly, as an enthusiast, on my primary workhorse PC, I want an SSD.

Luckily, SSD's have gained lots of traction because
1). SSD prices have fallen (perhaps artificially fast because of #2)
2). Mechanical prices have skyrocketed due to flooding in Thailand

 

[linnemeyerhere]

SSD's have for sure gained traction from the floods and higher costs of spinners currently. But it mainly has been the economic's of the manufacturing process scales that have tipped the balance from luxury/enthusiasts to the, must have, average Joe needs and wants this device. Again not for everyone or every situation but that being said for most users once they load their OS in a forth the normal time, boot in a fraction of the time and hit the Photoshop icon and before they can sip from their coffee it's open........wow this is what they mean! It's all about time and the best use of same only problem I see is we very quickly get normalized to it. But use a computer without a SSD and the differences are right in front of you.

 

[Victor S]

SSD's are still many multiples of cost per GB than spinners.
Really depends on your needs.
You see many warnings here about 60GB and even 120GB not being big enough.
You can get a 1.5TB spinner for the the price of a 120GB SSD.
So if you're cost conscious and your primary need is storage and not speed, choosing a spinner is an easy choice.
My main PC use is playing games. Not doing benchmarks, just playing games.
They all play flawlessly sitting on WD Caviar Black spinners, for on-line and off-line play.
I almost pulled the trigger on an SSD for my boot drive this week.
Didn't do it though, because I don't need it for performance, and it doesn't make financial sense to me for storage.
Oh, I wanted it, and it was a bit hard not pulling the trigger.
I've been wanting SSD for 30 years.
Thing is, spinners have much improved since then.
Sure, an SSD would boot faster, and load a game faster.
Then what? Nothing really.
If I want to transfer lots of data, say a 20GB system image, unless I have all SSD for storage, it's only going to transfer as fast as a spinner can read/write.
So SSD is still a "luxury" to me.
My next drive will be an SSD for the boot drive, but only after one of my current 500GB drives gives me issues.
Not that I'll need it, just want it. I deserve a treat.
Heat and power consumption are also good arguments for SSD. Especially for laptop users. If I used a laptop I would already have SSD's, no doubt.
For my desktops, I've resisted the attractive prices to get boot and load speed.
When I built this box 2 years ago SSD's were much more expensive, and 500GB WD Caviar Blacks were cheap - about 75 bucks I think.
Seems there were many more SSD reliability complaints on Newegg then too.
Might just be because people will complain about $300 bricks more than $90 bricks.
Anyway, that's my view. Still want SSD, just not yet.

 

[linnemeyerhere]

It's all about justification. So many ways of getting the job done and no one solution is for everyone. It's what makes this hobby so interesting, seeing all the systems customized or bone stock. It's all good!

 

[Victor S]

It's all about justification. So many ways of getting the job done and no one solution is for everyone. It's what makes this hobby so interesting, seeing all the systems customized or bone stock. It's all good!

Exactly. I tend to stay with what works, and only built my last 2 PC's when they
wouldn't play a new game. Basically lacked graphics horsepower.
But everything got updated. MB and CPU always a couple notches behind bleeding edge.
Somebody said when you use SSD, you won't go back.
How true. Whenever I go back to one of my old boxes with PATA and 5400 rpm drives, it's pure torture!

 

[whs]

You see many warnings here about 60GB and even 120GB not being big enough

That is only a problem if you do not properly organize your SSDs. I have 7 SSDs, the largest being 90GB for a laptop. All my desktops work with 60GB models and I never had a space problem even with 2 virtual vBox partitions for Ubuntu and Windows 8 running as guest machines under Windows 7. With windows 7 alone, I could easily manage with 30GBs.

 

[pparks1]

You see many warnings here about 60GB and even 120GB not being big enough

That is only a problem if you do not properly organize your SSDs. I have 7 SSDs, the largest being 90GB for a laptop. All my desktops work with 60GB models and I never had a space problem even with 2 virtual vBox partitions for Ubuntu and Windows 8 running as guest machines under Windows 7. With windows 7 alone, I could easily manage with 30GBs.

This doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't organizing properly. A gamer is going to struggle with a small amount of disk space unless they simply load their games to a spinner drive. If you don't play games, well then you will be able to easily handle smaller amounts of disk space compared to somebody who does game.

But if you have an SSD, why would you want your apps on a spinner if you could have them on an SSD? I've heard the excuse that games don't benefit by being installed on an SSD, the gameplay doesn't improve...just the load time. Well, the exact same can be said for pretty much any application on an SSD....eg..Photoshop.

I have an 80GB SSD and I'm down to about 20GB of free space. I'm not a huge gamer, but I do play some games. At present, I have BF3 installed (nearly 25GB), Diablo3 (about 10GB) and Wolfenstein (around 7GB). That's about 1/2 of my SSD right there.

 

[Victor S]

You see many warnings here about 60GB and even 120GB not being big enough

That is only a problem if you do not properly organize your SSDs. I have 7 SSDs, the largest being 90GB for a laptop. All my desktops work with 60GB models and I never had a space problem even with 2 virtual vBox partitions for Ubuntu and Windows 8 running as guest machines under Windows 7. With windows 7 alone, I could easily manage with 30GBs.

Right. A 64 for the system would be way more than enough for me.
But data/system organization is a topic in itself.
That's why you see all the recommendations to get +64 SSD for the system drive.
All I see there is inefficiencies - and dangers. But that's me.
So you would have to convince people to organize data as we might do.
Then convince them to buy 7 SSD's!

 

[whs]

Games are never a consideration for me. They are a waste of time. I don't know what I could possibly learn from playing games.

 

[pparks1]

Games are never a consideration for me. They are a waste of time. I don't know what I could possibly learn from playing games.

Well, there you go. If you don't even consider gaming, you could get away with very small drives. But that doesn't mean that everybody else could do exactly the same and be perfectly happy.

I can understand your feelings about games being a waste of time. Same can be said for reading a fiction novel, or watching a movie, or painting a picture. For me personally, I have to sit in front of a computer working all day long. Sometimes I want to just fire up a game and spend time having fun, not learning.

 

[whs]

Then convince them to buy 7 SSD's!

Just to clarify - those 7 SSDs are in 7 different systems. The oldest one is from 2008. Reason why we (3 system are for the wife) have so many systems is because we have 3 homes in 3 locations on 2 continents thousands of miles apart. But in any single location there are only 3 systems max.. And we we do not like to haul even the laptops.

 

[whs]

Same can be said for reading a fiction novel, or watching a movie, or painting a picture

Right, I don't do any of that either. Last time I was in the movies was in 1964 and have not watched TV in years (at least not in the US).

 

[Victor S]

Same can be said for reading a fiction novel, or watching a movie, or painting a picture

Right, I don't do any of that either. Last time I was in the movies was in 1964 and have not watched TV in years (at least not in the US).

For me it's music. Waste of time, and I learn nothing from it.
Sometimes it does make my foot start tapping though.
Can't figure out why.

 

[pparks1]

Music is something that I would move to a spinner if it were available. no point in having very fast access to your music really.