Are SSDs just a meme? Why would I pay twice as much for a quarter the capacity and a whole 10 seconds less of boot time?

Are SSDs just a meme? Why would I pay twice as much for a quarter the capacity and a whole 10 seconds less of boot time?

Other urls found in this thread:

hardware.fr/articles/927-7/ssd.html)
techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead
newegg.com/Special/ShellShocker.aspx?cm_sp=Homepage_SS-_-P1_20-215-016-_-11262016&Index=1
newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132566
amazon.com/HighPoint-Internal-Mini-SAS-SFF8087-Int-MS-1M4S/dp/B001L9DU88/ref=pd_rhf_dp_s_cp_1?ie=UTF8&dpID=41Vyk3mwrTL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_SL500_SR135,135_&refRID=15980DTYQ7EMSVH5BQV2
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I recently bought it for the first time and it it well worth it. It made my laptop smooth and super fast way more than more ram or a better cpu does. It's well worth the money.

people just like to store things they access frequently on the
stuff like games, whatever you want to load quickest

Yes. Only a complete and utter retard would buy one.

I got the same experience as you. Everything is so buttery-smooth on my desktop now.

>whole 10 seconds less of boot time

It's not just boot time, it affects all load times. Spend some time using an SSD (especially games), then switch back to a HDD. There's an enormous difference. HDDs are garbage to me for anything but storing terabytes of movies and music.

Because i have a job

/thread

Get a ssd for your operating system then just get something else for whatever else

SSDs are a meme that last 2 years at best

flash memory in general is a meme

No noise and spin up time is worth it alone for me

I thought so at first too, but my job involves a lot of data extraction and read/write operations. I migrated my system to a new SSD yesterday and the script managed to extract and process more data in an hour on the SSD than it had been able to in 2 days on the old HD. Now I'm hoping that the SSD won't lose data integrity like I heard they sometimes did.

When you bust down the fucking door and need to get some important shit done an SSD will be there for you. Every second counts. Put your OS and important programs on there.

For you impatient gamer types an SSD is also worth the investment.

It's not just boot time, you're shaving seconds and fractions of seconds off everything you do.

You do realize that it's not 2008 anymore, right?

>SSDs are a meme that last 2 years at best
I have my samsung ssd since 2010 and it's still working fine

SSDs have different failure profiles than HDDs. Well kinda.
Two failures:
1. Randomly dying. Shit happens, sometimes they die. Good news is that based on returns (from a french retailer hardware.fr/articles/927-7/ssd.html) they have a random failure rate 1/10th that of HDDs.
2. NAND exhaustion, IE; limited writes. However, with SSDs made after 2012, this write limit is so colossally huge that it's not worth worrying about. If you pound an SSD at max IOPS 24/7 you should get at least a year out of the thing. For more average heavy use (50GB/day) this shoots up to 35 years. Over a 256GB SSD. For 512 this would double to 100GB/day for 35 years.
And this is for TLC/planar NAND. For the new 3D nand this shoots up to centuries. For MLC or SLC (SLC you won't find anywhere but enterprise thousand dollar SSDs, but MLC is usually the kind of 'pro' tier consumer drives) this increases even more.
SSD endurance is bretty high.

>If you pound an SSD ... you should get at least a year out of the thing
How long for an HDD?

is there much of a difference in watching movies on an HHD compared to an SSD?

Are meme just a meme? Why would I meme meme as meme for a meme the meme and meme 10 meme less meme meme.

3 years

Unlimited really or until the drive randomly fails. Hard drives don't have maximum writes

Let me know when the SSD figure exceeds that of HDDs

No idea. But when I say pound I mean POUND. As in absolutely hammer the poor thing at the highest capability, continuously. As in actively trying to kill it.
Real world workloads are orders of magnitude smaller, even real world heavy workloads.

From google's hard drive studies, they get an annual failure rate of 5-10%, which shoots up after a few years. They hit their drives pretty hard but it's not as hard as the SSD test I'm referring to:
techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead
6 SSDs, and it took 18 months to kill all of them. Ones that died first were TLC, ones that lasted longer were MLC.
These SSDs were pounded orders of magnitude harder than a HDD is even capable of doing, you need to understand that SSDs perform so much better that they take much harder poundings.
If you glance at the charts you'll see that the SSDs took roughly a PB (1024 TB) of writes over 250GB before dying. That'd be like a 1TB HDD taking 4PB of writes before dying.

Additionally, write limit deaths are more graceful. The drive software monitors NAND wear and so can warn you when the drive is getting on in years.

Yeah, it starts playing 1/2 second earlier.

id rather get a 50$ 1tb than a $350 1tb ssd

you must own a dozen then

Well duh, HDDs have much better $/GB.
That's the point. SSDs are fast, HDDs are cheap.
If you don't need the speed; eg you just want to store movies and porn, then HDD is what you want.
If you want to run programs, and operating systems, then an SSD is the best choice. Decent little 256GB is enough for OS and a shitton of programs.
Games don't actually benefit from being installed on SSDs. Mostly, anyway.

so should i get a 128-256 gb ssd and just have all my games on a hhd
will that even change anything

Get an SSD for Operating system and programs, and a HDD for pretty much everything else.
128 is a bit small but it'll do fine.

not an argument

Get a job, fag.

As someone who's about to purchase a new laptop and wasn't sure if I should make the switch. This was very informative.
Thanks.

I'll never own a laptop with an HDD again

Cars are dangerous. Especially that model T, with the big spike in the steering wheel. You crash and it just crushes your ribcage, even at like 20mph.

Oh wait, it's not 1910 anymore

>128 is a bit small

No it's not. If you're just putting your OS and programs on it, then 128GB is plenty. Very few people put more than 10GB worth of programs on their computer.

For laptops SSDs have another bonus: Physical resistance. No moving parts to be sensitive to shock or movement.
You can actually move your laptop around and not be constantly worrying about damaging the HDD. While a HDD is active, it's fragile as fuck.
When off and the drive isn't spinning it's pretty tough but while on and doing I/O it's porcelain origami.

kill yourself

Well the thing is that 128 has a worse $/GB than 256GB.

where lol?

And another bonus: They use less power. A 2.5inch HDD uses like 7W, but an SSD is closer to 0.5-1W.
Actually quite a significant difference when it comes to laptops.

That's a very true point. That's one I knew and I had heard that the SSD failure rate had gone down but didn't know it was that hard to kill them now.
About to pull the trigger on this laptop.

>can't wait for tfw browsers and IDEs instantly pop up
hnnnng

less likely to have mechanical failure in a portable

also no disk spin up noise

We get it, you were in a coma or something. The technology has advanced a lot since 2007. It's not an argument, it's a fact.

wow, haven't been to Sup Forums in a couple years, and you're still talking about this.
Nothing ever changes.

Maybe. But it's so small that it's irrelevant. I would recommend anyone that is hesitant about SSDs to buy a $35 128GB over a $60 256GB because the total is smaller.

Well on newegg, the 120GB samsung 850 EVO is $89, while the 250GB is $79.
Really not sure why the 250GB is cheaper, but you get my point, surely.

>he still doesn't own an nvme ssd

poorfags gonna poor

>a $35 128GB
Kek fuck no, don't buy that cheap chink garbage. Don't buy a kingston v300.
Adata is okay for the low end, so is kingdian.
But kingston- fuck no.

newegg.com/Special/ShellShocker.aspx?cm_sp=Homepage_SS-_-P1_20-215-016-_-11262016&Index=1

$55 for 250gb

should i get

come on bro. that's obviously a pricing mistake.

Technically HDDs they aren't limited to how much they can write. Some might die early while others last ages with no hitch, also differentiating between SAS and SATA drives can give insight to the MTBF.

It's been found though that once a hard drive passes three years of age, every year following that point will mark a 5-10% increase in chance of failure.

its not
the 120 is more than the 250 on almost all sites

Sandisk and a few other brands had their SSDs priced that low yesterday and you might still find some today.

Nah, it's black friday season so I think there's a sale on the 250but not the 120.

Looks okay. Adata have a decent reputation. If you're unsure, always look at the warranty length.
For that it's 3 years. That's acceptable.

the 120GB model is discontinued. companies often don't adjust prices on discontinued products. please use a current product as an example.

How high is the write limit for the Samsung 850 EVO?

it's time you got one, you don't seem to understand what ssd does to OS experience.

They (samsung) don't make 120GB ssds anymore.
But the kingdian S280 is current; £35 for the 120, £50 for the 250.
This is more representative pricing. It's an extra £15 for double the space.

Dunno. But the average for SATA3 SSDs is around 350MB/s

HDDs are slow and cheap. SSDs are fast and expensive.

Use what you need/can afford. Get over it.

But to answer OP's question, I get much more work done on an SSD since I can do I/O bound tasks faster, the main one being testing expensive DB queries. Also, there is no noticeable lag when opening most programs (except fucking IntelliJ).

If you don't expect to be doing very large or frequent random-access reads/writes to disk, don't get an SSD, but when I first upgraded from an HDD, it felt pretty good.

Oh sorry, write limit not write speed.
It's 3D nand.
I don't actually know what the limit is for sure because no-one's killed one before.
Rumours from samsung put it at 10PB over 128GB.
But the limit is so high I don't know it.

couple petabytes or so tests say

i'm using one for 3 years, wrote only 13.38Tb on it.

I'm not buying my first SSD until they're as cheap per GB as mechanical disks.

use a RAM disk for productivity stuff where speed matters, for most purposes you don't need an SSD, you'll load programs once and it'll sit in RAM

do you grasp concept of inflation?

Not him, but this has nothing to do with inflation.

SSDs would be as affected by inflation as mechanical disks, and I'm not sure what thought process led you to believe differently.

Do you know what inflation is?

The NSA has sent the price of HDDs down by the sheer quantity they have purchased (making economy of scale arguments).
The hard drive floods of 2011 weren't the reason prices spiked- it was the demand of the NSA and cloud computing companies.
Anyway the point is that you're gonna be waiting like 5 years, the problem being that an SSD would save hours, perhaps even days of your life accumulatively in that time.

Protip: you still have to wait for the program to copy into the RAM disk, so you're effectively saving no time at all.

>Protip: you still have to wait for the program to copy into the RAM disk, so you're effectively saving no time at all.
>hurr all i do is open and close programs all day long
>implying programs take all that long to load from an HDD anyway

you are also paying for every single application (outside of the really big ones) opening almost instantly, and if its a laptop not having to worry about killing your drive if you bump it.
imo no laptop in 2016 should still have a hard drive.
and hdds only belong in cheap ass desktops, and nasses and nothing else.

If programs don't take long to load to ramdisk, why are you using a ramdisk?

i just ordered an ssd but now i realized that idk if i have enough SATA 6.0 Gb/s ports can i run it some other way like maybe sata express
i have this motherboard and already have 6 hdds
newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132566

because it's the usage that matters you insufferable fucktard

Do you have any idea what happens when you open a program? It loads itself into RAM. By making a ramdisk for the program, you're moving the program to RAM, and then opening the program moves it from RAM to RAM.

>what are files

so you load to the RAM disk once, and then you're all set and it's much faster than an SSD

It has an m.2 socket. But you could get a PCIe card with extra SATA ports.

Yeah, you load the files you're working with into RAM, like video files and such.
But then you could have just gotten an SSD, instead of the 32GB extra RAM.

I didn't know that someone could be so pompous and retarded at the same time.

How do you even breathe?

Sup Forums in 2016, everyone. Phoneposters and third-world shitters have ruined this board.

the 1tb model has the best $/gb ratio, but you wouldn't recommend that because it's so expensive. i would recommend a cheap 120gb ssd because it has a low entry cost. i don't care about $/gb.

>buy an SSD because all everyone does is open and close programs all day
>don't use a RAM disk even though it's better than an SSD in basically every concievable way except for the initial load on boot
k

My point is that the 250GB is only a little bit more expensive than the 120GB, while the 512 is a lot more expensive than the 250.

>still doesn't understand that RAM is volatile and that programs are loaded from the cold storage regardless if you use a RAMdisk or not

i understand your point user. please understand mine.

fuck off retard

so what if RAM is volatile, i'm saying the initial load isn't a big deal, once it's loaded it's way faster than an SSD, and using a RAM disk doesn't mean you can't use an SSD too

i just spent all my money on the ssd
is there a way i could use the port circled?

sitting on small amounts of money is stupid, that's all what I meant

Dunno. Consider unplugging a HDD.

Modern operating systems will cache program image files in memory without a ramdisk or even any configuration. This takes care of the efficiency that you propose using a ramdisk for.

Other than that, nothing you suggests that you need a ramdisk, or even an SSD.

If all you care about is loading things into RAM once, then you might as well stay with a conventional HDD, because your OS will cache launched programs in memory for a longer time than you probably care for.

Except what happens when the power goes out pajeet?

Storing any type of data on volatile memory that's not purely temporary is a retarded habit.

amazon.com/HighPoint-Internal-Mini-SAS-SFF8087-Int-MS-1M4S/dp/B001L9DU88/ref=pd_rhf_dp_s_cp_1?ie=UTF8&dpID=41Vyk3mwrTL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_SL500_SR135,135_&refRID=15980DTYQ7EMSVH5BQV2

could this work?

what do you use most productivity applications for? you use them to process files. IDIOT

>he's worried about his power going out
LOL

and you can still use an UPS FUCKING RETARD

People in first world countries don't need to worry about this.
And don't you understand that you can simply buy a $300 UPS so you don't have to get a $100 SSD?

>process files
Your OS also caches files in memory on first open, that's why memory mapping is a thing.

Please stop talking out of your ass, it's okay to admit that you have no clue what you're talking about.

There are many legitimate reasons to use a ramdisk, but your use case has none of them.

(You)

>People in first world countries don't need to worry about this.
Hell, i'm pajeet, had power switched off last time 5 years ago for 1 hour. Unlike FIRSTWORLD we have nuclear plants running.

>consumerist Sup Forumstard never does anything that produces files
and according to your argument that using a RAM disk doesn't matter then neither does using an SSD except for the initial load

>Anyway the point is that you're gonna be waiting like 5 years, the problem being that an SSD would save hours, perhaps even days of your life accumulatively in that time.
I've never had any issues with speed due to my storage media. I just think SSDs would be nice because they're easier to move and whatnot.

This. It isn't just boot times. It's overall performance of the PC. Loading games and programs, opening files. It improves everything. Buy a cheap $40 Sandisk or PNY and see if you can tell the difference.

Nice response, really made me think.

>according to your argument that using a RAM disk doesn't matter then neither does using an SSD except for the initial load
I suggested nothing of the sort, please consider taking some remedial reading comprehension classes, you are in dire need of them.

Let me re-explain for you:
You WILL notice a difference by upgrading from an HDD to an SSD or a ramdisk, but the differences between the SSD and ramdisk are insignificant for an average consumer. You could get the same benefits of a ramdisk by getting an SSD, and not have to set aside large parts of your RAM to do so.
Unless you have a build with over 100GB of RAM that you don't use regularly, the cons of a ramdisk will outweigh the pros.
If a person has an HDD, and they want to upgrade their storage system, an SDD will be a cheap and easy upgrade, whereas upgrading to a ramdisk would involve buying enough memory to actually make a ramdisk usable, a new motherboard to support that memory, and the time to put the whole contraption together.

Do you understand now why SSDs are more suited for average consumer use than ramdisks?

>average consumer use
funny because i was talking about productivity use

So I should spend an extra money on a UPS just so I can get negligible gains from loading programs into a limited amount of volatile memory and have peace of mind?

I don't see anything reasonable about this.

So I should spend an extra money on an SSD just so I can get negligible gains from loading video games quicker and have peace of mind?

I don't see anything reasonable about this.

Why would I spend extra on an HDD when I can get 6TB of magnetic tape storage for $35?

>I've never had any issues with speed due to my storage media.
I've never had any issues with horses as my transportation.


why is Sup Forums such conservative shithole, what the fuck? aren't you supposed to be on the "edge"?