Інсталювати Steam
увійти
|
мова
简体中文 (спрощена китайська)
繁體中文 (традиційна китайська)
日本語 (японська)
한국어 (корейська)
ไทย (тайська)
Български (болгарська)
Čeština (чеська)
Dansk (данська)
Deutsch (німецька)
English (англійська)
Español - España (іспанська — Іспанія)
Español - Latinoamérica (іспанська — Латинська Америка)
Ελληνικά (грецька)
Français (французька)
Italiano (італійська)
Bahasa Indonesia (індонезійська)
Magyar (угорська)
Nederlands (нідерландська)
Norsk (норвезька)
Polski (польська)
Português (португальська — Португалія)
Português - Brasil (португальська — Бразилія)
Română (румунська)
Русский (російська)
Suomi (фінська)
Svenska (шведська)
Türkçe (турецька)
Tiếng Việt (в’єтнамська)
Повідомити про проблему з перекладом
Правила і настанови обговорень
Поскаржитися на цей допис
Samsung, WD, Crucial are all fine, I've used those brands, no complaints. PNY, Seagate, Sandisk are probably fine to. When you look up current models do they have abysmal reviews? If they do, don't buy them. If they don't, do you think every reviewer is a moron for some reason?
Oh, I didn't say that. I just know that some brands tend to be much cheaper due to not having as much recognition, and I don't wanna risk a brand that might not be as reliable. I know Samsung, Crucial, PNY, Seagate, WD, and Sandisk are all fine. I was more curious what's considered actually "cheap" for a SATA SSD. I'm guessing 2 TB SATA SSDs USED to be around $150-$200, and THAT was expensive.
That's why seeing them now for $79 sounds like a better deal than any 3 or 4 TB HDD for $60. My OS is already on an NVMe SSD. And although I currently have a 2 TB HDD installed (it's down to 680 GB now though), I wanna expand my storage going forward with SSD drives. Especially if more games start demanding SSDs as a minimum. I don't doubt the reviews. The one I saw for the Crucial BX500 had mostly all 5 stars.
I think I'll get that one. The BX model doesn't have a DDRAM cache, so apparently wouldn't last as long. I'd rather pay the extra $20 for peace of mind.
Cheap? 4-8 cents per GB. 8-12 cents per GB isn't bad for the performance in my opinion. But I've been buying SSDs exclusively for the last ten years. And those first few purchases at over $1.20 per GB were what felt expensive for me.
Prices have been trending down for a lot of years and that's great news for budget minded users who don't want to mess around with a pittance of SSD space.
Either way, there's nothing wrong with SATA for games. I was just wondering.
That's probably the best option for a performance SATA drive from what i'm seeing glancing at pricing for the 2 TB capacities.
The Crucial MX500, Western Digital Blue 3D (SA510 is different), and Samsung 860 Evo are sort of the three big common top performers for SATA (though there's a handful others in there).
You'll definitely want to avoid the QVO, not because it's inherently bad, but because at the 4 TB and below capacities, it almost always tends to cost as much as (or sometimes more than) the drives I just mentioned, all of which are vastly superior to it. And looking up prices now, that's still the case. I have no idea what Samsung is doing with it other than banking on its brand name tax and consumer ignorance, but taking a low end (not even mid-range) SATA drive over a performance SATA drive at the same cost is... questionable to say the least. It even costs more than the Evo at times.
MX500 > Blue3D > 870 Evo is the way pricing favor them right now at 2 TB. I'd suggest any of these three drives equally so take whichever is the cheapest.
Prices have dropped quite a bit lower than that.
The prices you just mentioned for cheap currently encompass everything up to high end NVMe (well at least at the 2 TB price point). Performance SATA drives and mid-range NVMe are commonly around 4 to 5 cents per GB, and performance NVMe can be found around 6 cents per GB. Anything 8 to 12 cents I would find absurdly high in the current market.
Apologies for not breaking that down penny by penny though....
We would need 11th gen Intel in order to dual wield nvme drives because we would have enough CPU lanes and chipset lanes for both.
I wasn't breaking it down penny by penny. It's quite clear the point I was making was that even upper performance drives tend to fall well within the price range you said was cheap, so I was implying that what you were saying was good for performance drives is actually quite overpriced even for them.
I thought maybe you were simply unaware prices had dropped to the levels they did even for performance drives and was trying to be informative, but do go off I guess.
Here's the thing you know when I mentioned buying SSDs for over a dollar a GB? All SSDs are cheap now in my estimation. But even when they were more expensive, like I dunno, the 8-12 cent range I think that's still a good price for the performance. I didn't really think I had to spell it out at the time.
I mean maybe if I had said 4-7 cents and could point to something like a 990 Pro being 6.5 cents per GB you'd have judged me sufficiently informed. But I guess that one cent made all the difference. Such a small margin... if only there was a word for people concerned with insignificant details.
*shrugs*
It doesn't matter if you found it cheap enough once upon a time. That's great and all, but it's still overpriced relative to now. And you were being asked what is considered cheap now. Answering that by saying prices well above norm are worth paying for seems odd then, no?
Look, your statement read to me as though maybe you missed they had gotten even cheaper, so I was trying to be informative. It's not an attack on your intelligence or a presumption that you're ignorant just to point something out thinking you might be unaware of it, because the tech world is ever changing and that goes double for SSD pricing lately, and we're not all up to date on everything. If you're not unaware of current pricing, the fine that's my mistake, but then in that case I'm a bit confused why you answered like that.
If someone looking to buy a given thing asks what's a cheap price for it, why would you answer by saying pricing well above actual norms is worth paying for? Maybe you would find it worth paying for but that seems pretty irrelevant as an answer to the posed question, no? I mean I hope you can at least see why your statement led me to think you were unaware of current pricing.
From what I remember, the phantom slot on a lot of 10th gen boards was for PCIe 4.0 that wasn't implemented until 11th gen.
I suggest CMR hard drives is cost/GB is the priority.
As for speed & performance, then a quality nvme.
The sata interface is designed for hard drives.
My experience is of using qnand flash SSDs.
They seem ÓK', but their cache setup means write speeds become dismal after the SLC cache is filled, to worse than hard drive performance.
It seems the manufacturers can be a bit cagey with the actual specs, as the priority is the make a large capacity as possible for the minimal cost. this has been ongoing situation since SSDs were available.
This is at the cost of actual performance & longevity.
No HDD is good enough, fast enough to run the latest games properly.
HDDs should be used for storing loose files; not for running apps/games off of them.
Look at Samsung 870 EVO or QVO 2TB and 4TB. Very good prices on these lately.
HDDs are a real PITA for Gaming because you have to set aside time to fully defrag the HDD all the time. With SSDs you never have to waste any time doing any of that.