To the best of my knowledge games don't run any faster on a ssd only load faster. So with a 128gb you can get loads of games and all your work and play software on it. If you need to make space for new games then place the older less used games on the spinner and they just take little longer to load. Another option is to set up a second 128 ssd and dedicate it to games.
I just tested a few games last night on the 256gb SSD I personally feel that the load time savings aren't worth the limited space and cost of the SSD.
I am probably going to make the 256 gb SSD my main os and program drive and move the 128gb SSD to my htpc as its system drive and move the 2tb drive from the htpc and put it in my main rig.
^ Do you not feel having games on the SSD are worth the time savings because the games consume so much space? Because I think the benefit of faster game loading is pretty significant since it's games that take the most time to load on my machine. For example, if Diablo 3 launches 8 seconds faster from the SSD and I launch it say 3-4 times in a day, but Excel only loads 2 seconds after and I launch it 2 times per day...there is far more time savings by having the game on the SSD. Of course, Diablo 3 takes 8GB of space already, and there isn't any other single app that i use that consumes that much space.
8 seconds faster isn't much of a difference. If you're playing the game then you obviously have the 8 seconds to spare to wait.
Launching a game in 8 seconds versus 16 seconds is a pretty sizeable difference. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't people say they are blown away with their SSD because photoshop opens in like 2 seconds versus 10 seconds. That's an 8 second or so difference.
I'm not sure if Diablo 3 is 8 seconds or not. My point was that games take some time to load and these times can be reduced significantly with an SSD. probably moreso than 99% of the applications that would otherwise be installed on the SSD.
SSD's are also too expensive to get a big enough one to hold all of your information like a HDD. I'd rather keep the important things that I want to speed up on the SSD, and throw everything on the other hard drive. That would most-likely include my games because of their file size.
Yes, that makes sense. It's a trade-off, size to performance. For me, I always suggest making sure the SSD is large enough to hold at least a few games, because after experiencing the faster game load times, its hard to go back.
That's the reason I am looking to potentially upgrade my 2 year old 80GB drive to an Corsair Force 3 240GB from NewEgg for $199.
I'll be getting a 128gb SSD.
I think if you use your ssd for loading lots of games at some point you'll be forced to review and move games that you don't find yourself playing any longer or rarely. I can only speak for myself but with the 60gb ssd I had about 12-10gb left after a nice compliment of software and a few games. But with these sizable software updates that kept coming I saw the writing on the wall that the 128gb was the best sweet spot for me but I'll bet I could have kept the 64gb for at least a year or two longer and then just placed less used items and software on the spinner. But I'm with my music like a lot of you are with your games but music works just fine on spinners but I can only imagine that waiting to play a game would be frustrating.
I don't disagree about it being a bottleneck. The only area we differ is the importance of time of purchase. Due to budget restraints, for a lot of people it's either a SSD or a HDD - not both. And for the majority of people 60/120GB is not enough space for all the data they wish to store.
But starting with a HDD gives them a drive to not install an OS, but also apps, and a larger amount of data. Plus it's arguably far easier to install a drive at a later date than it would be to replace a CPU. Particularity if they've had someone else build the machine for them.
There's no guessing - people do like games. It's a multi-Billion dollar industry after all.2. Games - well I guess there are people who like them. But the extra knowledge you have listed is mostly useful in the context of games. But that's OK. It never hurts to learn something.
And as far as context goes - no. It's not mostly useful for 'games' only. I don't think I managed to make my point clear enough.
Whilst games were the instigation of acquiring knowledge, A lot of acquired skills and knowledge are transferable into a wide array of areas that have nothing to do whatsoever with games.
Quote