SSD...Worth it?
- Thread starter DodgerKing
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 118
- Views 12K
Comparing the price/GB numbers today considering the premium charged for the "spinning metal":Thai floods could be the best that could've happened to SSD acceptance...
- OCZ Octane, one of the cheapest, $369/256GB=1.44 $/GB
- WD Black, 2.5", 7200rpm, one of the more expensive, $120/500GB=0.24 $/GB
I.e. SSD is 6 times more in the $/GB metric.
Diogen.
Which is why I have decided to wait a couple more years at least, for the prices to go down even more. The extra cost is just not worth the very minor, if noticeable at all, difference in performance
The $/GB metric isn't everything.
It will get harder to compare those two technologies for real life use.
Next year you won't be able to find any HDD under 1TB, most likely.
And even with the new OSs (Win8 as an example), you don't need more than 50-100GB for the system disk.
And that might be some $50 next year (SSD) and becomes an impulse purchase.
Therefore, unless you are talking either very cheap PCs (where $50 makes a difference)
or netbooks/ultrabooks with space for just one 2.5" drive, getting an SSD will be a no-brainer.
For some it already is...
Diogen.
It will get harder to compare those two technologies for real life use.
Next year you won't be able to find any HDD under 1TB, most likely.
And even with the new OSs (Win8 as an example), you don't need more than 50-100GB for the system disk.
And that might be some $50 next year (SSD) and becomes an impulse purchase.
Therefore, unless you are talking either very cheap PCs (where $50 makes a difference)
or netbooks/ultrabooks with space for just one 2.5" drive, getting an SSD will be a no-brainer.
For some it already is...
Diogen.
First, it is not $50 as I do not currently need a hard drive, I was just thinking of upgrading. I would be the cost of the SSD drive. Since the upgrade will not make a difference in the performance of my PC, there is no point in spending money on it right now.
Second, if I were to build another PC or if my hard drive on this one crashed, it will cost me much more than the price of a SSD as I would need to buy and SSD AND a hard drive. What would be the point of that now when a hard drive by itself will suffice?
IOW, it is much more than a $50 difference.
Second, if I were to build another PC or if my hard drive on this one crashed, it will cost me much more than the price of a SSD as I would need to buy and SSD AND a hard drive. What would be the point of that now when a hard drive by itself will suffice?
IOW, it is much more than a $50 difference.
Hey, with PC specs like these, I'm not surprised you started looking at the "weakest link"...
That must have been $1K+. Adding a 60GB SSD for $100 wouldn't break the bank.
Would you notice the difference / would it pay off? That depends...
Diogen.
Why would it need to be even close to $1K. Here are my specs and the total costs were $350 and I just reused my 1TB drive and case.
And this is with the onboard video. That is the only piece that I may still upgrade if I decide to start playing a few games.
Attachments
They went quick and were not that great of a deal. It was only around $15 less than I could buy local.
Less than $1kHey, with PC specs like these, I'm not surprised you started looking at the "weakest link"...
That must have been $1K+. Adding a 60GB SSD for $100 wouldn't break the bank.
Would you notice the difference / would it pay off? That depends...
Diogen.
GA-880GMA-UD2H Gigabyte motherboard with 2 10W USB3 ports (I am able to charge my iPad through my computer and keep charging devices when the computer is off) and 6 USB2 ports
AMD hexcore 3.00 GHz processor (I prefer AMD as it performs just as well as Intel for my needs for a fraction of the cost)
16 gigs DDR3 PC3-12800 RAM
Radeon HD 6770 graphics card
Good performance without spending a lot of money.
Last edited:
it was twice that before the flood and we dont know when (or if) the spinning rust prices will go down.
it was 24 times that last year.
the differential will continue to shrink over time.
SSD or whatever replaces them doesnt need price parity, they just need to get 256 gb in the 75-100 range .
that is enough for most people.
Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk
No it wasn't.
Check the numbers before you start applying a factor 2 to everything...
This thread of 2 years ago for example...
Diogen.
Intel SSDs seem to be the most reliable. Here is a report from some data centers using SSD. Note they mainly only trust Intel:
Investigation: Is Your SSD More Reliable Than A Hard Drive? : SSD Reliability: Is Your Data Really Safe?
Investigation: Is Your SSD More Reliable Than A Hard Drive? : SSD Reliability: Is Your Data Really Safe?
From the article
Intel SLC, i.e. over 6 $/GB. Just about what it was almost 3 years ago.
What is interesting, even Intel understood that you cant get far with those.
And when upgrading their X25 line they picked the Marvell controller.
Just goes to show it's not a one horse race anymore...
Diogen.
Last edited:
The 500 series has the Marvel controller, the rest of the drives have intel controllers.
Since the article Intel has come out with new MLC based enterprise SSD drives that cost a lot less than the SLC ones.
by its nature, i.e. 1bit per cell , slc its not going to drop as quickly as mlc will.
did anyone release product based on the Intel/Micron 3bit per cell technology?
Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk
did anyone release product based on the Intel/Micron 3bit per cell technology?
Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk
Correct.
But only the SLC ones are labeled as "shining standard".
And in the MLC class anything running Marvell has a chance to compete...
Diogen.
Hopefully, SLC vs MLC will be a moot point when Memristor-based SSDs come to market. With a very simple crossbar architecture, they should reach parity with current SLC chips in a few years with a greater number of available write cycles and faster access times.
