>there are people on this board RIGHT NOW who think SSDs are a meme
An SSD is literally the most cost-effective computer upgrade you can buy.
>b-b-b-but i never reboot my computer!!!
>why do you need fast startups for???
Having a beefy CPU and maxed out RAM slots doesn't mean shit when your spinning rust drive is still being thrashed every time you do anything.
Other urls found in this thread:
>he fell for the ssd meme
enjoy your dead flash LMAO
it's good
M.2 SSDs are a meme currently, but the prices are going down. Soon, they'll be cheap as fuck and you can boot your OS in less than 3 seconds.
I fell for it 5 months ago, sadly.
I do not regret.
Why are M.2 SSDs a meme?
>there are people on this board RIGHT NOW who think SSDs are a meme
I don't think there's such people anymore, senpai
Since you're clearly a fucking idiot who's fag-aids has rot your brain, so I'll break down your argument for you.
A hard drive is cost effective, because it's the same or more storage for a vastly lower cost. I could by a 4TB hard drive for $100.
An SSD provides faster read and write times, but are much more expensive. They are certainly NOT cost effective compared to the COST of a HDD.
>Why are M.2 SSDs a meme?
because they are priced higher and offer the same performance as another sata 2.5" ssd. Even an nvme drive would barely have an impact for the average user.
Hmm, I see. Thought it performed better than SATA SSDs.
AFAIK PCI-Express are the fastest but they're really expensive, right?
ssd for my laptop made boot time from 2 min 30 seconds to like 10 seconds
They do, it's just that nothing can feasibly make use of the speed so the performance increase is fuckall. Also, m.2 == pcie. (common keyings anyway)
yes, using an SSD as a boot drive will be loads faster and in 2018 there really is no excuse to still use a HDD for OS. ur only hurting yourself
Sauce?
>hard drives don't die
>Using SSD/HDDs instead of superior floppy disks.
nvm found it
>>there are people on this board RIGHT NOW who think SSDs are a meme
Yeah, so let's drag the cretins out of the woodwork so they can voice their retard opinions.
>Not using tape drives
Fuck all of you
came to driveby save all the trap pics onto my ssd and leave
Wow that's a VERY large penis.
M.2 is a form factor, it has nothing to do with speed. You can have both SATAIII and NVMe M.2 drives with the SATA ones being the same price of their 2.5" counterparts.
what takes advantage of an nvme is usually uncompressed data or data with little compression, as all ssds are currently bottlenecked around 300-400mb read with most applications.
However, and this is a key part, most ssds that are sata or m.2 do not fully satruate a sata connection, many dipping to the 100ish~ read
the sata drives that do keep sata saturated cost the same as nvmes, remember not all drives are made the same, there is usually a damn good reason something costs more if the product is overall less then you would otherwise get (sata 2.5 and m.2)
get a 60-120mb boot drive, put programs on it, shit is a game changer in terms of speed, hdds will never come close.
hell fucking thumb drives have better access times then hdds now, would rather boot off commodity thumb drive then hdd.
Source
MVMe as a protocol destroys SATA for IOPS in general. A database, software compilation and DVCS operations are examples of IOPS-heavy workloads. General read/write speeds are better too but that's due to the PCIe bus affording better speeds.
it has nothing to do with "uncompressed data. Some (Sandforce mostly) SSDs do better with highly compressible data writes since the controller uses compression to reduce write cycles on the flash. Protocol or bus architecture has nothing to do with this.
>nokoppa
Superb taste.
nhentai.net
Have fun.
dont think im talking about the same thing you think I am
what im talking about is the difference between a program launching and a program reading uncompressed video data.
the program launching almost always bottlenecks in the 300-400mb range where there is nothing more to be gained, while video read or write can saturate the drive. the drive itself can read and write faster then the ability to process what its doing, at least that's my take away looking at most programs launch benchmarks.
>>the program launching almost always bottlenecks in the 300-400mb range
Depends on the program, and it's not only raw speed that matters for many of them. A 5MB binary that loads 300 .dlls from its directory will not require much bandwidth but it will require a drive that manages a great amount of IOPS. Similarly for a program that initializes a bunch of databases on startup (like a browser).
Just because you can read a 400MB file in 1 second doesn't mean you can read 4000 100KB files at the same amount of time.
It's mostly games with packed resources that are depended on sequential reads.
yea I know, I go rule of thumb, pretty much no site is able to show programs reading or launching in a way that makes sense to most people, all you can really go with is that 3-400mb threshold seems to be a parity point across everything, where drives that cant sustain more then that start showing up worse in real world benchmarks and drives that are better, and I mean just 450 or 12000 read (multi nvme raid 0) all seem to have same real world numbers, at least on a consumer and workstation level, where nothing really takes advantage of better (outside of very high bandwidth video recording, at least on what normal consumers may do)
once you start talking about servers and the like, the people managing them should know what they are looking for as an important aspect of the racks load.
If it doesn't spin it's not worth my time. Mechanical parts should always be the choice of those able to service them. You'll appreciate being able to recover most of your files in the case of a failure, and being able to buy 10x as much storage for the same price as the flash memory toy-drives kids like so much.
Only if your time is free, because you're going to have to spend extra time waiting for your HDD to seek.
For mass data storage they are pretty bad choice. Expensive, fast random access rarely used, will die due to usage. Just get a bunch of hdds into a raid block, and maybe a caching ssd for them.
SSDs will make a difference when they support dual (or even quad) pathing. IE there is more than one way to access the data on the disk.
Mainframes have had this for over 50 years. Mechanicall hard drives with multiple, independent actuators and heads. With an SSD this should be a no-brainer.
Easier to recover data from broken hdd than ssd.
inb4 what is backups
Thou will not have 100% backups at all times.
going to last a lot longer than any hdd and the price difference at this point is marginal
>sadly
>i do not regret
those are contrary statements user.
u just got meme'd
You dense nog. The "SSDs are a meme" is a fucking meme. Use you goddamn head.
Checkmate, I make a backup every 30 minutes
Yeah, but what about speed? Daily usage feels much faster in a SSD. If your CPU is newer than 2011 and you have >=2GB of RAM, it's the most important factor for most usage scenarios.
Ofc, if you open Chromium with many tabs, each running a full web application, it'll hit the RAM limit but should be fast otherwise. I recently replaced a hard drive for a customer with a heap WD 120GB SSD and the machine was pretty fast. It had a i3 530 and 2GB of RAM, running Windows 8.1. Office worked just fine, Chrome too.