Optimum ssd/hdd configuraton that doesn't require a huge ssd?

[FuturDreamz]

Basically I have a lot of steam games, and I'm looking to build a proper gaming pc (well, many not proper by your standards, but it'll be better than my laptop). But I'm a little bit hesitant to get a 256GB ssd since I'll have a hdd, and my laptop's 128gb is pretty full with only a fraction of my collection.

Here are what I think my options are:

1. Get a smaller SSD and use it as a SRT cache. This way I won't be limited and it won't cost as much, but it may be slower than a pure ssd (I have never used SRT)

2. get a 60-128GB ssd and move my steam library to the internal hdd. it would be faster for most of the system, but games won't benefit from the ssd.

3. suck it up and get a larger ssd. that way I won't have performance issues, but I really don't want to do that as it would be pretty expensive.

Thoughts?

 

[taylorig]

Get a 128GB - 256GB SSD in my opinion. You would actually have more than enough room with a 128GB SSD with your OS/Programs and a few games but of course if you can get a 256GB one then go for it as they are said to be slightly better in speeds and performance.

Then of course have a secondary HDD (Say 1TB+) for other games/Music/back ups etc. Yes the games on this HDD wouldn't benifit from faster loading times as the SSD but that is basically all it boils down to. You get nothing else from running games on a SSD other than load times. If you can wait that few seconds longer for your games to load then all will be fine.

I have a 120GB SSD with my OS, all programs and ARMA II:CO and DayZ with a few mods on it. Still have just under 70GB left on it. And then i have just a 500GB HDD for everything else. Also have a external HDD for back ups etc.

Basically it's entirely up to your own usage requirements.

 

[sygnus21]

I'll try to answer this way...

On my desktop PC where I game, I have a 256 SSD drive that hosts my OS and other programs. For gaming (and data) purposes though, I have a 2TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard drive which contains a 600GB game partition. This is where all my games (including Steam based ones) gets installed and played from. I have absolutely no performance issues related to the "slower" hard drive.

And I haven't seen or read anything to suggest you gain that much more performance by using an SSD drive over a spinner HD in terms of gaming. You "might" see it on paper, but you want see it in everyday real world use.

With regards to my laptop - mine came with a 256SSD drive, but I also purchased a 2TB Western Digital Passport (USB 3.0) for data not necessarily needed to be kept on the Laptop. On it I have my entire iTunes collection (60+gig). This saves me space on the SSD drive for the files and programs that really do need to stay with the laptop.

Anyway I personally would get a good "spinner" drive for gaming, and leave the SSD drive for other tasks. Especially when you consider storage space to price – my 2TB hard drives were cheaper than the 256 SSD drive in my desktop.

My two cents.

 

[FuturDreamz]

I am kinda-sorted limited in space, so I have to use 2.5" notebook drives - which only go up to 750GB for 7200rpm drives but 1TB for 5400rpm drives. Not sure if the slower drive would be as noticeable though

6.8"x2.6"x9.7"
(don't worry, I'll be using Haswell's Iris Pro Graphics, which should be equivalent to a Nvidia 650m)
And has anyone ever used Smart response technology and can say if it is goo enough?

 

[sygnus21]

Maybe I'm not understanding you. Is this for a notebook or desktop?

Either way you could always use an external drive. For the notebook I use a WD Passport, which I linked to in my earlier post. Here you can see the size comparison to the notebook...



If this is a small desktop PC, you can get something like this high performance drive - Western Digital Scorpio Black WD7500BPKT 750GB 7200 RPM RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 2.5" Internal Notebook Hard Drive - Newegg.com. It's a 750 GB 7200RPM drive. And if you still need added space there are all sorts of external drives. But for gaming, I'd stick with an internal drive.

My two cents.

 

[FuturDreamz]

It's for a desktop. I'll be building a custom case (see picture above), but I'm still tweaking the design. I do have a version with a 3.5" hdd, but I am unsure if it has enough venting.

 

[whs]

I run my desktops with 60GB SSDs for the OS and all OS files and put my user files on the HDDs. My SSDs are half empty so I can even run a virtual Linux partition in addition.

At the current price levels, I would recommend to use a 128GB SSD. Gives you more options especially if you have games and/or want to run virtual systems.

My laptops have 90GB SSDs plus additional large USB sticks for rarely used data - most of the data is on the SSDs though.

A Windows 7 with an average number of programs should not need more than 25GB if properly setup.

 

[Stephanie]

Intel 320 Series SSD (OS and programs) WD Caviar Black 1TB (games, photos, music etc)

 

[AstaLaVista]

Which such a small case, I would be more worried about temp issues than I would on speed limitations caused by and ssd or hdd... also, unless you play common games, having a limited GPU may yield negative results?

 

[sygnus21]

A Windows 7 with an average number of programs should not need more than 25GB if properly setup.

I don't really see that unless you're installing a basic bare bones nothing OS.

Anyway I might suggest at least a 250 seeing you as say, prices are dropping. You should be able to find them for under $180 USD now.

With that, I really can't see why you wouldn't install all your base programs like office & say Photoshop on the SSD drive. Heck I've got a lot of stuff on my desktop SSD drive, and it totals less than 85Gig...



Anyway for less than $180 buck a 256gig SSD drive would be nice and roomy. And if you need more space, go with a internal or external spinner drive. I personally see no need for such a small drive, especially with prices falling. And at the bare minimum, I wouldn't recommend anything less than a 120gig.

My two cents

 

[whs]

I don't really see that unless you're installing a basic bare bones nothing OS.

Absolutely not. All you have to do is a) get rid of too much bloatware, b) get rid of the hiberfile and c) reduce the pagefile to 2GB. Then you start with less than 20GB before you install your programs. I have 6 Windows 7 and Vista systems and they all are in that ballpark - no games though.

 

[FuturDreamz]

Which such a small case, I would be more worried about temp issues than I would on speed limitations caused by and ssd or hdd... also, unless you play common games, having a limited GPU may yield negative results?

That's why I'm waiting for Haswell. It's not official but so far there's a 65w processor with Iris pro that's equivalent to a Nvidia 650m, which is sufficient for my needs. the top and sides will have huge vents, so cooling shouldn't be too bad.

I could use Steam Mover to move games I'm not playing to the external however. Then I'd only need a 128GB ssd.

 

[Wishmaster]

Basically I have a lot of steam games, and I'm looking to build a proper gaming pc (well, many not proper by your standards, but it'll be better than my laptop). But I'm a little bit hesitant to get a 256GB ssd since I'll have a hdd, and my laptop's 128gb is pretty full with only a fraction of my collection.

Here are what I think my options are:

1. Get a smaller SSD and use it as a SRT cache. This way I won't be limited and it won't cost as much, but it may be slower than a pure ssd (I have never used SRT)

2. get a 60-128GB ssd and move my steam library to the internal hdd. it would be faster for most of the system, but games won't benefit from the ssd.

3. suck it up and get a larger ssd. that way I won't have performance issues, but I really don't want to do that as it would be pretty expensive.

Thoughts?

I have a 80GB Intel that has only Windows and all my apps/programs on it. Nothing else. I find its the perfect size for me.

For Steam, I have a 1TB HD dedicated just to Steam. Steam is installed there and the majority of my games go there as well.

You'll find many games really do not benifit enough from a SSD to justify the cost/space. While some games do, not all will.

I also have a 40GB Intel SSD I use as a secondary Drive dedicated to Steam.

For the most part open world games that stream data constantly. (Skyrim, Fallout etc) live there. Ive found that these type of games, especially heavily modded get some benefit.


Still ... OS on SSD and a spinner dedicated to Steam will suite you just fine. Since that spinner has nothing to do except be being dedicated to games, it will be more responsive. And, you get full benefit from the OS on the SSD.

This is the cheapest way to go and What I would do for now.
Later, get a bigger SSD you can dedicated to your most played or favorite games, leaving smaller less daeanding ones on the spionner. Its very easy to add/format and them move some Steam games over to it.
This also has the added benefit of keeping the OS SSD clean and free from any clutter. It will make back up and restores of the OS very quick.

 

[essenbe]

Well, I have tried almost every configuration of Spinners and SSDs there is. I can tell you from experience, there is very little difference in playing games from an SSD or a spinner. I have 2 systems with the exact same games on them. One the games are installed on a spinner and the other games are on an SSD. The only advantage to installing them on an SSD is they will load faster. As for actual game play, Sygnus is correct. There is no difference. As for Smart Response, it may help slightly, but nothing in the ballpark to an SSD. As far as I'm concerned, it all comes down to what you want and how much you are willing to pay for it. If it is worth it to you to have your games load faster, get a big SSD or 2 big ones, if you want. Your games won't play any faster or smoother either way though. I ran for well over a year with a 64GB SSD and a couple of spinners and did very well. I've done it almost every way it can be done. If you are on a budget get a 128GB SSD and a 1TB spinner. If you just want the speed and are willing to pay the price, go for it. But, truthfully, there is only a little difference.

 

[sygnus21]

I don't really see that unless you're installing a basic bare bones nothing OS.

Absolutely not. All you have to do is a) get rid of too much bloatware, b) get rid of the hiberfile and c) reduce the pagefile to 2GB. Then you start with less than 20GB before you install your programs. I have 6 Windows 7 and Vista systems and they all are in that ballpark - no games though.

Well, one man's "bloatware" is another's essential. So I guess it's a matter of perspectives

 

[whs]

I don't really see that unless you're installing a basic bare bones nothing OS.

Absolutely not. All you have to do is a) get rid of too much bloatware, b) get rid of the hiberfile and c) reduce the pagefile to 2GB. Then you start with less than 20GB before you install your programs. I have 6 Windows 7 and Vista systems and they all are in that ballpark - no games though.

Well, one man's "bloatware" is another's essential. So I guess it's a matter of perspectives

I am not talking about essentials. What I mean is the useless stuff that the OEMs put on the systems. If you install from a retail disc, there is no bloatware and the system is around 18GB after the initial installation.

 

[Wishmaster]

I don't really see that unless you're installing a basic bare bones nothing OS.

Absolutely not. All you have to do is a) get rid of too much bloatware, b) get rid of the hiberfile and c) reduce the pagefile to 2GB. Then you start with less than 20GB before you install your programs. I have 6 Windows 7 and Vista systems and they all are in that ballpark - no games though.

I usually do this too.
But, I left my PF as-is since moving from a 40 to 80GB SSD.
I have a ton of Programs installed. some of the heavier ones being the Nero Suite, Power DVD, and Photoshop. With everything, my 80GB SSD is only half full.

If needed I could reduce the PF I just haven't needed to yet.


For just OS and apps, I really can't see needing bigger TBH. With dedicated Game and Media drives anyway.

But maybe thats just me. We all have our own needs.

 

[josearedux]

I would recommend getting the largest SSD you can afford, but avoid ones with sanforce controllers. To maintain performance over provisioning is a great idea from what I have read.

 

[madcratebuilder]

A-zon has SanDisk's on sale, 240gb for $170, 120's for a C note. Some may not like the quality of SanDisk, I've always had good luck with thier SD cards. I have about a dozen 16g cards for my Pi collection with different OS's.

My Samsung ssd with what I consider a typical W7 install uses under 20gb. A 120g is more than large enough.

Well, I have tried almost every configuration of Spinners and SSDs there is. I can tell you from experience, there is very little difference in playing games from an SSD or a spinner. I have 2 systems with the exact same games on them. One the games are installed on a spinner and the other games are on an SSD. The only advantage to installing them on an SSD is they will load faster. As for actual game play, Sygnus is correct. There is no difference... But, truthfully, there is only a little difference.

This!

With good configuration of the hhd, the difference is miniscule vs a ssd when gaming.

 

[sygnus21]

But, I left my PF as-is since moving from a 40 to 80GB SSD.
I have a ton of Programs installed. some of the heavier ones being the Nero Suite, Power DVD, and Photoshop. With everything, my 80GB SSD is only half full.

This is how I do mine as well - Leave my page file (6gig) on the SSD drive, and install all my programs to the C directory. For heavy data such as media files - photos, music, games, I keep those on a spinner drive. With that my 256 SSD drive is only 35 percent filled (83gig used out of 238 available).

This leaves me plenty of room, and options to work with heavily layered files in Photoshop, or install games there should I want to. I also don't have to worry about the "My Documents" folder.

Some might view that as wasted space, but I've always liked room, and options. And with the price of SSD drives continually dropping, outside of budget considerations, I can't see why you would want anything less than a 120. But, like said, that's me.