using 2 ssd's

[vic46]

Hi
Been thinking about getting an ssd.The idea at the moment is to use 2 ssd's.
Ist ssd (60gb) for os+apps and second (120gb) for games.Does this sound good
or would it be better to stick with one ssd for the os.
Thanks.

 

[pparks1]

You will definitely see a huge improvement loading games from the SSD. If you can afford the price of 2 SSD's, go for it.

 

[vic46]

Thanks for reply pparks,I think I'll go with a 60gb for os for now then later get another one for games as the cost of one large ssd is a lot.
Thanks again

 

[jimbo45]

Thanks for reply pparks,I think I'll go with a 60gb for os for now then later get another one for games as the cost of one large ssd is a lot.
Thanks again

Hi there
I beg to differ slightly on the value of an SSD for gaming.

Games aren't I/O bound normally ("in the usual sense of loads of temporary files and disk writes").

OK they need to wait for User input but games once loaded and started aren't usually DISK I/O intensive.

Games benefit hugely from having a decent GPU where most of the work is done -- and of course a fast enough processor to handle the data stream coming from the GPU -- most modern computers that you would consider as OK for gaming would have a fast enough processor in any case.

I assume there is sufficient RAM in the machine of course. If not it's REALLY cheap now to buy some more -- I'm stuck in the UK this week (yet another volcano so no flights to Iceland at the moment) - so I bought 2 * 4GB DDR desktop ram for 2 * 35 GBP -- 8 GB RAM for approx 73 EUR / 100 USD - a bit cheaper than SSD's !!.

I even upgraded a Laptop to 8 GB RAM as well -- mainly for use with Virtual Machines.

Might be bonkers but it only cost 2 * 39 GBP for the 2 * 4GB laptop modules - so I have now ONE ACER aspire Netbook with 4GB RAM and a Dell laptop with 8 GB RAM !!!.

Where SSD's matter hugely is in scratch files for applications like photoshop where if you are processing large camera RAW files from professional quality DSLR's with loads of layers etc then this type of app which writes loads of data to temporary work files would benefit HUGELY from SSD's.

If you use VM's an SSD might also be a good idea - but for gaming apart from loading the game itself I don't think you'll see the improvement you would expect when playing it apart from having the Windows OS itself on an SSD.

So unless you use photoshop or use a lot of VM's I'd spend the money not on a second SSD but on more RAM while it's cheap.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[vic46]

Hi jimbo45
I see what you mean about games on an ssd.Just thinking that if all programs were on an ssd an overall improvement would be had,seeing as
other pc parts have speeded up so much.

Thanks
vic

 

[pparks1]

As a moderate gamer on the PC platform, I can say that my SSD makes a big difference with gaming. When a game first loads from the hard drive, a large amount of data is read from the drive and loaded into memory and into the video card. Some games that used to load in 10-15 seconds, now start in 2-3 seconds. So, while I don't constantly start and stop games on my machine, it certainly is nice when I decide to fire up a game that I can get into the game in 2-3 seconds versus waiting for 15 seconds to get into the game.

I will actually venture to say that game loading performance increases have been the most noticeable change when going to an SSD. While apps like Office, firefox, paint.net and such are an improvement, they are nowhere near as dramatic. What really blew me away was how fast I could get into games like Call of Duty, Crysis, Wolfenstein, and StarCraft II.

 

[mickey megabyte]

i agree pp, many games have 'loading' screens - i would prefer to be actually playing the game, rather than watch a progress bar slowly fill up.

some games, particularly rpg's such as fallout, dragon age, mass effect etc etc, have lots of these loading screens as you're moving from one location to another.

shooters aren't so bad in this respect - as pp says above, if you can afford it, then go for it! but do bear in mind that some games are huge space hogs - for example my copy of shogun 2 takes up 18 gigs!

 

[DustSailor]

I wouldn't recommend the 60GB ssd for the OS unless you plan on ONLY having the OS on there and moving everything else to another disk drive. 60GB is a lot, but over time you will come to find that you will loose a lot of space if you install too much to it. my SSD is 80GB and I've come close to running out of space, and I've put most everything over to another HDD! with 120GB, you could install some games and/or applications onto the same drive as your C drive and not have to worry so much about keeping everything from installing on your main

 

[pparks1]

I'm running an 80GB OS drive at home and I've never filled it past 50% capacity with a couple of games loaded. I think it all depends upon how much stuff you elect to load. I don't load a bunch of stuff myself.

 

[vic46]

Hi,
Thats why I was looking at having 2 ssd's eventually.My os and some other bits takes up 35gb while my games at the moment is at 62gb.Any new software would only be games so a second ssd would just be for the games.

vic

 

[GeneO]

Yeah, great idea. Loading textures etc. for levels on games can take quite a long time. Even if you had a large SSD for the OS, putting games on a separate SSD lets you image backup the OS quicker (without having to back up huge games along with the OS).

 

[DustSailor]

I'm running an 80GB OS drive at home and I've never filled it past 50% capacity with a couple of games loaded. I think it all depends upon how much stuff you elect to load. I don't load a bunch of stuff myself.

yep. All depends on OP's setup. I think I loaded steam up on my main drive and it filled it good. With steam, you have to download the whole program to another drive because it doesn't give the option to download to other drives when installing games.

 

[whs]

I wouldn't recommend the 60GB ssd for the OS unless you plan on ONLY having the OS on there and moving everything else to another disk drive. 60GB is a lot, but over time you will come to find that you will loose a lot of space if you install too much to it. my SSD is 80GB and I've come close to running out of space, and I've put most everything over to another HDD! with 120GB, you could install some games and/or applications onto the same drive as your C drive and not have to worry so much about keeping everything from installing on your main

60GB is plenty. I have Win7 x64 on this system since day1 on a 60GB Vertex, There is also a Virtual Box Ubuntu system plus 1700 program folders. I only keep some of my user files on a HDD but the original user folders are still on the SSD. And after all that time I still have 32GB of free space.

 

[mickey megabyte]

yep. All depends on OP's setup. I think I loaded steam up on my main drive and it filled it good. With steam, you have to download the whole program to another drive because it doesn't give the option to download to other drives when installing games.

this sounds like a job for steammover - a simple app that lets you use junction points to move certain games to other drives...

You can store all your steam games on multiple drives, and they all carry on working! You no longer have to do the install/uninstall shuffle to get enough disk space on drive C:\ for that latest game.

You can benefit from that fast, but small, SSD drive by only storing the games you regularly play on the SSD, and moving the older games onto a slower larger hard disk. And all games remain playable in steam.

more...

 

[DustSailor]

I wouldn't recommend the 60GB ssd for the OS unless you plan on ONLY having the OS on there and moving everything else to another disk drive. 60GB is a lot, but over time you will come to find that you will loose a lot of space if you install too much to it. my SSD is 80GB and I've come close to running out of space, and I've put most everything over to another HDD! with 120GB, you could install some games and/or applications onto the same drive as your C drive and not have to worry so much about keeping everything from installing on your main

60GB is plenty. I have Win7 x64 on this system since day1 on a 60GB Vertex, There is also a Virtual Box Ubuntu system plus 1700 program folders. I only keep some of my user files on a HDD but the original user folders are still on the SSD. And after all that time I still have 32GB of free space.

lol yea, i have to be more careful with what I throw on my main drive. I have like 4 different drives in my computer because SSds are so expensive o.0 rofl. Wish I could have only 2 SSDs and perhaps an HDD for storage.

Glad the OP got the suggestions he required.

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
I agree that LOADING of games will be much faster using an SSD -- no question about that.

My point was that once the game was loaded - provided you have enough RAM and a decent GPU in the computer the actual Game playing experience won't be that much quicker overall.

The OP addresses the point of a SECOND SSD -- I wasn't suggesting that he doesn't use ONE SSD but merely to say IMO I think the money would be better spent on more RAM or a large conventional faster HDD drive than a second SSD.

I think the point was missed -- nobody was saying DON'T have an SSD !!! merely whether it was cost effective in buying a SECOND one.

(Of course if you can source a CHEAP decently large one then go for it). However with 2 TB conventional usb drives available now for around 85 USD You IMO would be better off buying one of these and using for taking adequate backups - SSD's like other devices aren't 100% reliable either although so far the track record of these appears to be quite good).

Cheers
jimbo

 

[vic46]

Hi,
Thanks for all replys to my question.Seems to be 50/50 regarding using a second ssd just for games,so I think i'll look for an ssd for the os install one or two games on it as well initially to see what it's like and go from there.Thank's again to everyone.

cheers vic


Do I need to mark this as solved

 

[GeneO]

Loading of the game itself isn't a big deal, I agree. But once you have loaded a game, you usually have to load very large files for each new level you play and those take a long time and an SSD helps a lot.

 

[whs]

Hi,
Thanks for all replys to my question.Seems to be 50/50 regarding using a second ssd just for games,so I think i'll look for an ssd for the os install one or two games on it as well initially to see what it's like and go from there.Thank's again to everyone.

cheers vic


Do I need to mark this as solved

Maybe a hybrid HDD would be another option. They are supposed to be 80% faster than traditional HDDs and the cost per GB is a lot better than for SSDs.

If anybody has one of those hybrids, it would be interesting to get real life input.

 

[DustSailor]

Maybe a hybrid HDD would be another option. They are supposed to be 80% faster than traditional HDDs and the cost per GB is a lot better than for SSDs.

If anybody has one of those hybrids, it would be interesting to get real life input.

I actually do, just installed it with a new motherboard so I'll be testing games on it pretty soon. Before, I would play most of my games on a 10,000RPM Velociraptor HHD. I wont do any benchmarks, but I'll see if I can't let you know if there isn't any tangible, real difference between what i used before. This Hybrid is a 7,200 RPM, I think like 2 GBs of it are SSD.