Show Us Your WEI [4]

[A Guy]

Good numbers Andrew

A Guy

 

[andrew129260]

Great scores andrew........it's absolutely begging for an SSD though

The difference between a HDD and an SSD is mind boggling!

Yeah, I figured someone would say that
I just am not willing to shell out a lot of money for a SSD that can hold 500gb or more.
I will probably get one when they come down in price in a few years. Plus, I do not think they are very reliable like others claim. For not having moving parts, they seem to die pretty quick in my experience with friends SSd's. Even good ones like Intel brand. Plus, once they get to many wrights they die out.
They are fast, but at what cost?

And I do not like having my OS on a separate drive and data on another. It's annoying.
The way I have my set up now is two terabyte Black edition Western Digital drives at 7500 rpms.
The one is my data and OS, the other is for windows backup. It makes a daily image every month on that drive, which makes it convenient so I don't need to remember to plug in my external hard drive every time windows backup is scheduled to run.

I Do have an external drive for a separate backup just in case.

Thanks a guy

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Great scores andrew........it's absolutely begging for an SSD though

The difference between a HDD and an SSD is mind boggling!

Yeah, I figured someone would say that
I just am not willing to shell out a lot of money for a SSD that can hold 500gb or more.
I will probably get one when they come down in price in a few years. Plus, I do not think they are very reliable like others claim. For not having moving parts, they seem to die pretty quick in my experience with friends SSd's. Even good ones like Intel brand. Plus, once they get to many wrights they die out.
They are fast, but at what cost?

And I do not like having my OS on a separate drive and data on another. It's annoying.
The way I have my set up now is two terabyte Black edition Western Digital drives at 7500 rpms.
The one is my data and OS, the other is for windows backup. It makes a daily image every month on that drive, which makes it convenient so I don't need to remember to plug in my external hard drive every time windows backup is scheduled to run.

I Do have an external drive for a separate backup just in case.

Thanks a guy

You are really cheating yourself by distrusting SSDs. They have come a long way since the earlier ones and are not to be feared.

The early Intel SSDs (and any others that used the Sandforce controller) didn't do all that well. The newer SSDs have a much better track record. The newer Sandforce controllers have improved but other controllers, such as the ones used in the Samsungs are even better. The higher end SSDs now are better than HDDs for reliability and, if set up and used correctly, will last as long, if not longer. The Samsung 840 Pros are getting better reviews than any spinner gets.

You're being overly worried about premature failure due to excessive writes. Yes, there is a finite number of writes that can be made on an SSD but that number is high enough to not be a concern. As long as the SSD is set up correctly, it should last as long as your machine, if not longer. There are tutorials and threads here on Win 7 Forums that tell how to properly optimize an SSD to get the best performance and life from an SSD.

I agree 500-512GB SSDs are too expensive. Most people use SSDs for boot drives with just the OS and their programs and put data on spinners. 128GB is all the bigger one would need for that unless they are gamers with a shipload of large games (games can be put on a spinner, though). The decrease in boot time and program loading with an SSD is simply amazing.

I put a 128GB Samsung 840 Pro (I highly recommend the Samsung 840 Pros) in my desktop machine and don't regret it for even an instant. In fact, as long as there is room for one, I will never have another machine without an SSD. The only reason I don't put one in my notebook is there is room for only one drive in it so I would need a 512GB SSD. I just can't justify spending 50% more than what the machine cost just for a drive, no matter how fast it is, especially since the machine gets used only occasionally. I did compromise and get a SSHD (a SSD/HDD hybrid) and have been pleased with it so far.

 

[andrew129260]

Thanks lady,
I see what your saying. But these were recent ones my friends have gotten.

Plus, I spent $200 for TWO terabyte hard drives. I am not going/willing to spend $240 for a 256gb drive. It's just not happening. That pricing is ridiculous. I understand its new tech, but there is no performance boost in heaven that will make me pay that much haha.
Plus, it's only going to save me a few seconds. My pc starts up quick now, I can't justify the price for shaving 10 seconds off my time.
And I know what you said about putting the OS on one drive and data on another. But I am not willing to do that. I like everything on one drive. Its just to annoying and frustrating otherwise.
Also, I know I do not have much on my drive now, but that will change once my girl starts loading her pictures haha. I will soon need a lot more space then what I have on it now. She is also going to be doing video editing.

Thanks though , I hear what your saying. I just don't think SSDs are for me right now.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Why do you feel you need to get a 256GB SSD? Why not a more reasonably priced 128GB? In fact, if you can keep your OS and programs down to no more than 40GB, you could do nicely with a 64GB SSD. You have plenty of room in that case of yours for another drive or few and have plenty of SATA III ports on your MOBO.

 

[satchmo]

I upgraded step-wise to avoid the high cost of SSD's.

When I first built my system in 2010, I bought the Vertex 2 128 GB. When I was running low on storage, I got the Vertex 3 128 GB. I also have a traditional HDD for my videos and photo backups.

I was able to get the Vertex 3 for less than the Vertex 2 because I waited two years.

You don't have to break your bank account to upgrade to SSD. And it's not just about fast boot-ups. All my programs start instantaneously now.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

...And I know what you said about putting the OS on one drive and data on another. But I am not willing to do that. I like everything on one drive. Its just to annoying and frustrating otherwise...

That's something else you believe that I don't understand. Why would it be too annoying and frustrating? If anything, it should be less frustrating. Having the OS and programs on a separate drive from data is no different than having the OS on a separate partition and the data on another partition.

The part of a computer that goes wonky most frequently is the OS. If you have the OS and the data in the same partition and the OS gets corrupted, everything can go down. If they are separated, only the OS will be affected. That makes recovery much easier and faster. Imaging is faster because the OS partition needs to be imaged only when a major change is made, such as changing a setting, making updates, and/or adding or removing programs. Data partitions should be imaged (or otherwise backed up) whenever any data is added, deleted, or changed By being able to image the OS, etc. separate from the data, you only have to repair/restore the damaged partition which is much faster.

Also, if you should ever need or want to do a clean reinstall of your OS, doing so is much easier when the OS and programs are on their own drive/partition since you don't have to also restore your data.

 

[kbrady1979]

Plus, it's only going to save me a few seconds. My pc starts up quick now, I can't justify the price for shaving 10 seconds off my time.

Reboot time for a desktop is barely even important enough to mention in my opinion.......what an SSD does is make EVERYTHING faster, program installation, zip extractions, searches, PROGRAM LAUNCHING, etc. Not just a little faster.........substantially faster. I have one of the 2nd generation Intels, the X-25M and it is still rockin and rolling to this day. It has almost 7TB of writes on it and still reports 100% life. My Samsung 830 is probably the gold standard in reliability because they have torture tested the 830 and it had almost 7 PetaBytes written to it before it went out(he had to power it down to move to a new location and was sure that it would have lasted much longer had he been able to keep it running)......7 petabytes! Do you know how long you would have to use one to write that much data to it? A long damn time lol.

As far as having the OS on one drive and your data on another, it's not a big deal. You can remap your "Users" folder to the spinner which will allow you to still be able to use Downloads, Documents, Music, Pictures, etc links to access your information. Also, what Lady Fitzgerald said needs to be repeated: If your OS goes down for some reason, your data will still be safe on another drive. Most people will do a clean install of Windows on the SSD, update drivers and load windows updates and then make an image of that point, so if they have a problem, they can spend 12 minutes and reload that image and be back to normal. OS is ready to go, and your data is right where you left it. The stigma of SSD's being unreliable is garbage as long as you get a half-decent model. The idea that SSD's don't make much difference in performance is just plain wrong.

The following benchmarks are of my Seagate 2TB Barracuda HDD(comparable to your WD Blacks) and my Samsung 830 SSD.

 

[Britton30]

To those who have a SSD, no explanation is needed. To those who don't, no explanation is adequate. :sarc:

 

[kbrady1979]

To those who have a SSD, no explanation is needed. To those who don't, no explanation is adequate. :sarc:

Having to convert them one at a time sucks lol!

 

[paulpicks21]

To those who have a SSD, no explanation is needed. To those who don't, no explanation is adequate. :sarc:

Having to convert them one at a time sucks lol!

If SSD manufacturers needed sales people, you and Lady F would be snapped up lol!

I guess it's old dog new tricks etc

 

[kbrady1979]

I'd be more than willing to be on Samsungs payroll! I own so much of their crap they owe me that at least lol.

 

[essenbe]

I own 3 of the Samsung 256Gb drives, 1 830 and 2 840 Pro's. And I wouldn't run a machine without one. If you would like to see how your Western Digital Black compares to an SSD, I'll show you. But, Kelly is right, it really has nothing to do with start up time. Think about these 2 drives and opening programs or doing scans or most anything else you do on an every day basis.

 

[kbrady1979]

To be honest Steve, I don't believe I have EVER tested a HDD with AS SSD. It is excruciatingly slow! That alone is enough for me.

 

[essenbe]

Nah Kelly, it wasn't bad. It only took like an hour and a half to run the test. Took the Samsung about 5 minutes, which again shows the difference in speed. Just a simple test.
EDIT:Truthfully Kelly, I did it a while ago, simply for demonstration purposes for seven Forums in threads like this one. That's the only reason I did it. If those numbers don't make someone believe, nothing will.

 

[paulpicks21]

Nah Kelly, it wasn't bad. It only took like an hour and a half to run the test. Took the Samsung about 5 minutes, which again shows the difference in speed. Just a simple test.

5 mins sounds slow Steve, I am sure it only takes 2 on mine, you need to upgrade

 

[kbrady1979]

LOL. I'm running a test on my 2TB Barracuda right now. I'll post results in an hour or so lol.

 

[essenbe]

Nah Kelly, it wasn't bad. It only took like an hour and a half to run the test. Took the Samsung about 5 minutes, which again shows the difference in speed. Just a simple test.

5 mins sounds slow Steve, I am sure it only takes 2 on mine, you need to upgrade

You think 3 256Gb's in raid0, Paul? Or should I just get another one and make it 4?

 

[essenbe]

LOL. I'm running a test on my 2TB Barracuda right now. I'll post results in an hour or so lol.

Better make it tomorrow, Kelly. :roflmao:

 

[kbrady1979]

To hell with this, I just cancelled the test. Ain't nobody got time for that...