Is getting an SSD to load windows still a meme or is it good?
I've head that these guys have limited writes and since Windows won't stop writing around in it's partition/SSD/HDD it will probably shorten the SSD's lifespan a lot, I guess.
Also, does it even speed up the booting time enough to justify buying one?
What's the final consensus on this?
Just get a flash memory drive.
It's what Apple uses, and they just work.
NAND is unable to write forever, it will run out in time, but the amount that it can write is huge. You'll probably get 10 years out of a consumer SSD with typical usage writes before it runs out.
With SSD prices as low as they are you'd be stupid not to have one.
fucking hell user, you're clearly stupid or dont have your os running off one do you?
Should I only install Windows on it and keep away or should I also install normally used programs on it too to feel the difference?
You should install all your programs on them other than huge things like video games. SSDs can last for several hundred terabytes of writes, you don't need need to baby it and be scared of installing some program on it.
Install your web browser, text editor(s) + IDE(s) and whatever other programs you use every day on the SSD.
Other than that you really don't need to install anything else on there.
The point of the ssd is to speed up boot time more than anything else. Unless you do heavy video editing or graphical work it's not worth the effort.
I put a 64GB ssd (some obscure industrial oriented product, with samsung controller and cells) inside my notebook. Windows 10. I have a secondary shitty 5400rpm caddy in place of the ODD.
I spent 35 euros total. I don't give a damn if it lasts 3 years instead of 10 years.
Boot time dropped from 5 minutes to 15 seconds. Yes, 5 minutes, because Windows installations tends to go heavy on the I\O side within 2 weeks you reformatted your entire system).
Now i'm at 34GB of used space (64bit version of Windows10). For shit like vidya (namely Minecraft), i simply use sumbolic linking from Porgam Files or %appdata% to the 5400rpm hdd.
1 week after i did that, i ordered another 64GB for my LXDE\Mint shitty netbook (atom n270). It's like being in paradise.
It's 2016. You get an SSD for all types of files now. Write limits are not relevant to desktop users.
>The point of the ssd is to speed up boot time more than anything else
Just completely and absolutely false. SSDs increase overall system responsiveness by a huge margin.
I guess I didn't explain my point well.
Yeah, they do, My point is that at the end of the day, 99% of people have 3 maybe 4 programs they use on a daily basis. There's really no reason to install anything other than those programs and your os on the ssd.
I have an sad for windows, and two extra hdd for storage. It works fine for me
SSD is only a meme if cost or offline data retention matters to you.
It's a good meme.
Try it.
You'll never go back.
I have been using SSDs only for several years now on all my machines.
People who only store the OS on it or are scared to write on one because 2007 pre-TRIM and cheap controller memes can stay on HDDs for what I care, I will never go back myself.
This. I have an SSD for my OS and programs and games and stuff and a few mechanical drives for all my data. It' really is the best meme.
I've head that these guys have limited writes and since Windows won't stop writing around in it's partition/SSD/HDD it will probably shorten the SSD's lifespan a lot, I guess.
Firefox and ABOVE ALL chrome write TBs and TBs pf cache in a few months. Firefox has some tweaks for increasing the sample time of cache building, but chrome keeps writing and writing and writing its shit every few seconds.
But... who cares. If you buy something around 250GB you will probably destroy your drive in 15 years of constant runtime...
>Also, does it even speed up the booting time enough to justify buying one?
Yes. Going from 1-2 minute boot time to
ITT: NEETs who bitch about 120GB $50 drives
this
The final consensus is that it's 2016 and buy Samsung 850 PROs which are superior to EVOS
They have a 10 year warranty and you shouldn't worry about rights, 10 years from now I bet some normiefag will still ask this exact same question, I bet you'll receive an upscale RMA for every defective drive that worn out.
NVMe are another matter, Winblows load slower on them.
Intel 750 are still superior as scratch disks
how long until i can get a 1tb SSD for $100?
>I've head that these guys have limited writes
Yes... It will only last 10 years if you constantly read and write.
>and since Windows won't stop writing around in it's partition/SSD/HDD it will probably shorten the SSD's lifespan a lot, I guess.
Yes, don't expect it to last longer than 10 years if it constantly rewrites everything.
Just get a 150gb or less ssd for the os and main programs and a hard drive for everything else.
Yeah. It's kind of a waste to buy a 2TB SSD/Flash drive just to warehouse porn.
Right, the 960 PRO 1TB costs 700 bucks (!)
And they used to overheat like mad, it's probably slowly fixed.
I recommend this:
Buy 2x 256 pros (they're faster than the 512 version)
Magician, update em, wipe em out, RAID 0
bam, all you need. The NVMe is just an experiment and only if you need the extra gigs ("working" on 100 gigabyte files on a daily basis)
the meme is not having an ssd to boot windows
You mean 950 series getting hot
Windows has been fine to use on an SSD since they came out. They basically immediately started issuing patches on W7 to auto-detect an SSD and more appropriately use IO operations
yeah I was quite sure it's fixed on the 960 pro, it was such an issue since the SM951
That price though. In every case, PRO series are always much better than the EVO but that's going in professional territory (implying the corresponding usage), the diff is very worthwhile. Can't cut corners with bleeding edge tech. The 960 pros are really, really nice for sure
>RAID0
enjoy your non-trim drives
TRIM stays active in RAID0, plus using RST
plus with RST loaded from UEFI
come on it's way too obvious bait
Are you serious? Software RAID?
Please be bait.
where do i see proof of working trim in that picture? and you say im baiting, kek
RAID from UEFI, just installed RST to disable the flush and enable write back
The number of writes is ridiculously huge. I doubt you'll ever reach that point.
That's not TRIM and EFI RAID is still firmware (software) RAID.
Enjoy your shit if you can't do things properly.
>2016
>being scared of SSDs
>firmware botnet
>TRIM cannot be raided
>muh cost frugal rationale logic need proof
how can TRIM not be enabled are you serious, it's not EVO
I did say that I updated the firmware and TRIM is enabled thru Magician right? What makes you believe TRIM is inactive, these are updated RST drives, you want me to go through their KB and open ticket for you ffs
nvm maybe that's your job because you would be answering me in tech support
OP here.
I'm going for a Seagate SDSSDA-1250G-G26 because I can get a really good price for it.
I'm also going to buy two Seagate ST1000DM003, to replace my old HDDS which are almost 10 year old.
How much am I fucking up? Again, I'm getting a good price for them.
>amazon.com
For some systems, Intel now supports passing the TRIM command to SSDs in RAID-0. The requirements are:
A 7-series motherboard (6-series chipsets are unfortunately not supported).
Intel's Rapid Storage Technology (RST) for RAID driver version 11.0 or greater (11.2 is the current release)
Windows 7 (Windows 8 support is forthcoming)
/triggered
tired of neckbeards in their cave supporting their status quo traditions and breaking regular user balls just because they're not up to date and fearful of change, SSDs are fine, current and be on par
The point isn't that SSDs aint fine, the point is that it's useless to RAID SSDs if PCI-E SSDs exist.
More CPU overhead and losing SSD function for less then half the speed of an PCI-E SSD
holy shit, this butthurt but still so wrong
You're both correct, thx for the explanation. So you'd rather have traditional AHCI on SATA lanes
PCI-E vs M2 then.
PCI-E has limited lanes to a certain extent on a board, I mean the physical card slots.
You're saying that filling all SATA ports with SSDs in RAID adds overhead and is counter-intuitive, so better keep them individualized (simplified). The overhead actually totally makes sense. Thx for the info.
You're definitely working on enterprise level because most consumers wouldn't know this
You only fucked up by going too small. Should have gotten the 480.
REMEMBER THE TIME TO BUY AN SSD IS NOW! NAND MEMORY SHORTAGE IS EXTREMELY CLOSE!
>NVMe are another matter, Winblows load slower on them.
Wait, seriously?
It's great.
which manufacturers are good nowadays?
M.2 2280 - SATA 6Gb/s £50 for a T420, Should I?
Samsung (the pros) and some Intel ones.
thx
They're all good, in a sense that you probably won't see much of a real life difference in normal use and they're not going to suddenly die on you or anything.
But if you keep on moving tons of files routinely,have a workstation etc.. then go for Intel or Samsung drives.
No, stop believing everything retards write on Sup Forums
I've had a 250gb EVO 840 with Windows and all programs I use on it for well over two years, with heavy daily usage and it hasn't degraded one bit according to tests. Just use something else for storage.
>is 10 seconds boot time a meme
>2016
Why even are you on Sup Forums?
>Mfw just ordered a 500GB 960 EVO
Better get to ordering your SSDs and RAMs right now, because their prices are only going to steadily climb up during the next year.
why?
Actually getting an SSD was never a meme.
>"Getting an ssd is a meme"
is a meme.
Buy one. Install everything on it. Stop making shit threads
digitaltrends.com
Basically due to the factories not being able to keep up with the demand and simultaneously moving from from 2D-NAND to 3D manufacturing.
Also phones are sucking up a metric fuckton of resources.
So prices aren't going to drop for a good while, if anything they're just going to climb in the near future.
It's already been going on for the last few months, especially with RAM.
>You're saying that filling all SATA ports with SSDs in RAID adds overhead and is counter-intuitive, so better keep them individualized (simplified).
Yes? What's so hard to understand?
Just get a PCI-E (NV, M.2(non SATA), PCI-E slot) SSD if you want speed and more I/O ops, SSDs in SATA are a legacy thing to make use of those computers manufactured at the time of HDDs.
>sata SSD
>raid 0
Dumbest shit I've seen.
They're kinda meme, I wouldnt recommend them to any poorfag/budget minded really. And I have one.
You only reboot once a week to once a month. Shaving 30 seconds off that is silly.
You only open your web browser and other applications a few times per week or less. Shaving milliseconds to a few seconds of that is also silly.
Now if you use adobe or a massive am amount of tabs, its much faster and cheaper to just get more ram so you can leave it on.
For games like league there's no point since you have to wait for hdd users anyways.
For 4k video editing and such they make sense tho. And for single player games, but they arent as good as you might think. While they are 300-500% faster than a hdd, they'll only shorten the load times by 20-40% usually since the CPU has to decompress all the assets.
>ram is cheaper than SSD
a 8GB stick is ~$40, and thats assuming you have a ddr4 system.
120GB ~= $40
SSD for everything.
RAID directed at a normal Hard Drive for backups.
Unless anyone can point out why, I think this is the best way to do everything.
As others have said. SSD is not at HDD in terms of storage space price.
So for storage/archiving purposes, hard drive is the only option.
>$120 5TB HDD vs $400-800 for 1TB SSD
A single 240GB for OS (and some important applications) and 5TB HDD stacked together works perfect.
It's simple, stop being a fucking pussy and deal with having a smaller SSD.
I run 240G/1T. Longer storage is obviously useful on the Harddrive. I really don't care about faggots who use their computer for work, gaming and browsing are the only legitimate uses of this speed of computer.
If you need 'industry standard' bullshit, just get some suit to pay for it, leave us Neets alone.
I thought that wasnt true (write cycles) anymore and only applies to gen 1 tech
Does anyone honestly still use a harddrive from before 2007 in any machine with another piece of equipment made after 2010??
Loading times are a lot better. For me, that is not the reason I run SSDs in all my machines though.
Noise and power consumption are my main reasons. The latter laptops only ofc. I know HDD vs. SSD power consumption is not that much but every little bit helps.
My workstation laptop has a HDD in it as well and sounds like a jet engine compared to my X220.
In my desktop I did some VERY scientific noise-source-searching some time ago and HDD as one of the louder components. The suspension-trick helped a lot though.
Yeah.
>2016
>not running OS from SSD
Your head alright boy?
you would need to be constantly writing gigs of data for like 10 years straight to wear out a new SSD today.
If you have to ask these questions. You don't belong here. Lots of testing and information exists now, and its just a search away.
>the biggest and cheapest way to speed up a budget build
>i don't recommend it
techreport.com
Lets say SSDs last for about 500 TB.
And you write 100 GB per day every day. Every year, it will have written 36.5 TB.In 10 years, it will be 36.5 TB. In roughly 13 and half years, the SSD will die.
If you do 200 GB per day, just half it. Roughly 7 years - 2 months or so.
And this is low end of the spectrum too. Some of them lasted about 2PB or so, that will further push them down into few more decades
ya i was just pulling from some shit i read a while back. basically, dont worry about wearing out an SSD.
>he spends his days rebooting and opening and closing programs constantly