So Sup Forums do SSD have any real cons compared to HDD?

So Sup Forums do SSD have any real cons compared to HDD?
Like ssd wearing faster or is that a meme?

Other urls found in this thread:

pcworld.com/article/2921590/death-and-the-unplugged-ssd-how-much-you-really-need-to-worry-about-ssd-reliability.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

It's getting to be a meme nowdays as shit gets mature, even so, the speed, power consumption and noise trade offs still make SSDs a more attractive option. You should be running regular backups anyway, so even if it does fuck out, it's still your fault.

SSDs are a meme
>muh disk transfer rate
>muh boot up time speed

They go corrupt if they're not powered up every few months.

Also, find me an SSD that will last as long as a reliable HDD like my 60GB Seagate.

> muh performance
> muh QOL

Quit being such a luddite.

Shit you serius?

pcworld.com/article/2921590/death-and-the-unplugged-ssd-how-much-you-really-need-to-worry-about-ssd-reliability.html

Also
> Seagate
> Reliable

No, he's a trolling faggot. Go do your own fucking research instead of listening to these cock garglers.

That's not a problem with newer SSDs, most can last a year unplugged, ones with a capacitor can last even longer

SSDs are nothing more than a Sup Forums meme. No one seriously uses them in industry because of the extremely limited number of writes. Also they cost a fuck ton more per gigabyte, and do not have the capacity to hold the entire operating system and applications for a modern computer workstation. The speeds are barely faster than 10000 rpm drives, especially when you consider the fact that most of your hard drive accesses are going through RAM caches anyway, you aren't going to hit the actual disk every time. The only thing SSDs have is *slightly* faster bootup times. But bootup is less than 1% of computer use time, so it's not really a metric worth optimizing for. Just hibernate your PC instead of shutting it off, or grow some pateince and wait the 10 extra seconds to boot up with a normal hard drive.

What about games?

They're well used in the server industry, obviously expensive businesses with money to blow but price isn't the concern here, SSDs are MUCH faster than any HDD on the planet, there's no argument there, sequential read and write speeds multiply by the hundreds and random reads and write speeds skyrocket. RAID starts scaling amazingly with zero seek speed
The proper utilization of these extreme speeds from the software side is still debatable, and the current price/GB is higher than with HDDs, but as far as hardware goes, HDDs have absolutely not chance whatsoever.
For a quick consumer comparison here's a WD Black

And here's a 960 Pro
If you need the speeds then they're there with SSDs. Price is the only consideration left.

enjoy
>Paying more/GB is
>Having your filesystem corrupted by fundamentally flawed drive design
>being barely faster than an HDD in real world tests
>being fooled by a bunch of tests that either exaggerate minor differences, test conditions that could never happen in real use, or outright lie to you

Your ssd costs almost as much as my pc

And here's a much cheaper average SATA SSD
These are the kind of speeds you can expect even with a $100 SSD like this

Enjoy;
> Working for a shit tier company that has to buy basic hardware because they have no budget
> Making grandiose statements with zero evidence despite the fact SSD uptake by OEMs has never been higher.
> Making claims that can be demonstrated false by a simple fucking test like disk mark.
> Believing the hype and making yourself look like an angry poorfag because you are arguing against a bunch of people who are providing you with facts and sources, and all you can say is "huuurr u r wrong m8"

Cite, or fuck off.

If crystal disk mark is 21,000% inaccurate and a 960 pro is as fast as a WD black in real world, it probably wouldn't be as noticable as it is, especially with small file transfers like modifications

>So Sup Forums do SSD have any real cons compared to HDD?
I can think of two:
- Price per GB
- Loses data when powered off for more than a few months (depends on temperature, hotter is worse)

Modern SSDs will last longer than HDDs even under heavy write load. NAND tech has improved to the point where write cycles are no longer an issue.

Literally the only reason not to use an SSD is because they're more expensive. That's why I still use HDDs for my mass storage (although I threw in an 850 Pro to use as a cache and log device to speed it up a bit)

>no noise
>system boots up within 1 minute instead of 5
>can run multiple VMs and IO-intensive applications without the system becoming noticeably laggy.
>can copy large files over 10gbit networks and USB3 an order of magnitude faster

It's all a con. Just use a fast HDD. ;)

>No one seriously uses them in industry because of the extremely limited number of writes.
I work in the “industry” and they're used fucking everywhere. Either as cache/log devices, or in many cases as primary storage. Often they're used as system drives. Heck, even our workstations all come with SSDs these days. It's actually more cost-effective.

I don't seriously believe anybody can be stupid enough to consider a worldwide multi-biillion dollar industry a “Sup Forums meme”.

Sorry that's the $120 one, here's the $100 one

>fox and grapes.jpg

Actually the drive in the pic is $80

You can get an even cheaper NVMe SSD. Go look up the Samsung SM961 for example. We ordered them in bulk for our new workstations.

SSDs feel even faster than you'd expect from the benchmarks because their latency is so much better than mechanical HDDs. This greatly improves worst case UI responsiveness because you're not waiting for disk seeks when you have cache misses. Humans notice these performance outliers more than average performance so getting a SSD (even a slow one) is subjectively a very big upgrade. It feels like going from 60Hz LCD to 144Hz LCD.

> No one seriously uses them in industry because of the extremely limited number of writes.
Pretty much approaching parity, NVMe is getting more mature as a technology everyday and it will likely match HDD reliability within the next few years. Thats the whole point right? Make shit better.

> Also they cost a fuck ton more per gigabyte,
Fuck off poorfag, just because you can't afford one does not mean they are shit.

>and do not have the capacity to hold the entire operating system and applications for a modern computer workstation.
You must be talking about facebook machines, because every machine I have touched that is used by someone who does CAD/AV production or medical imaging has a SSD primary with a HDD secondary for app data and storage. I guess, having never actually touched a high end workstation, you wouldn't know this.

> The speeds are barely faster than 10000 rpm drive
Which cost close to the same as SSDs because they are built for speed. Don't go moving the goalposts.

> The only thing SSDs have is *slightly* faster bootup times. But bootup is less than 1% of computer use time, so it's not really a metric worth optimizing for.

> programs don't require start up time
> program operating performance will not be improved because the storage they are sitting on is faster.

> or grow some pateince and wait the 10 extra seconds to boot up with a normal hard drive.
My time is worth money you basement dwelling cock jockey. The less time I have to wait for designs to render, programs to start, and simulations to run, the more productive I am being. You'll understand this once you finish school and get a job. Speaking of school, it's spelt "patience" you faggot. Stop shitposting and go finish your education.

>NVMe
hurp, I meant NAND. NVMe is an interface.

Good goy! Thanks for shilling for our placebo.

>Like ssd wearing faster or is that a meme?
It used to be worse than it is. Now, a quality SSD will last a lot longer than you'll have a use for it.
Yes, they cost more but that's the price for the extra speed and the lack of noise. The latter is very important in an appliance situation.
It's interesting that used SSDs are pretty cheap, considering. They are far better value than new ones in my book. The old owners probably believed they'd wear out.

>It's interesting that used SSDs are pretty cheap, considering.
Yeah but you don't really want to be buying last-gen SSD tech either

Moving from HDD to SSD cut our development cycle from 60 minutes to 10 minutes
>poorfags will call this placebo

>going from 60Hz LCD to 144Hz LCD
so basically nothing

lmao, everything that is on SSD is loading faster

I'm sorry to hear of your disability. Fortunately it is rare and most people have normal vision.

UKfag here

Samsung 850 EVO 500GB just went down to £135 (who even fucking knows the US price equivilent anymore, thanks Brexit). Should I grab it?

I welcome SSDs for the sole reason I don't have to listen to hard drives spinning for the rest of my life.