Unsure if a SSD IS WORTH BUYING?

[reveilleun]

How fast are they compared to a normal HD?

[Coffee]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Velmarshal:

You said that already, but forgot to mention that people have a lot less RAM than SSD space, and just to install a game like PS2 would require 12Gb of space, not exactly practical.

You can still install all your game on a 1-2TB hardrive (even WD Caviar Green) and still getting 10X faster loading and performance than on a SSD when you use FancyCache.

And with the such low price of the Ram those days, you pay WAY LESS by using Fancy Cache for having performance 10X better than an SDD

[Velmarshal]

Opprinnelig skrevet av 😺₁₃₃₇ εvαηεϟcεηcε ₁₃₃₇😺🏁:

You can still install all your game on a 1-2TB hardrive (even WD Caviar Green) and still getting 10X faster loading and performance than on a SSD when you use FancyCache.

No you don't.

[Coffee]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Velmarshal:

Opprinnelig skrevet av 😺₁₃₃₇ εvαηεϟcεηcε ₁₃₃₇😺🏁:

You can still install all your game on a 1-2TB hardrive (even WD Caviar Green) and still getting 10X faster loading and performance than on a SSD when you use FancyCache.

No you don't.

With FancyCache, yes you can.

[Velmarshal]

So you want to tell me that a game will load ten times better than an SSD while it's physically installed on the HDD?

[Coffee]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Velmarshal:

So you want to tell me that a game will load ten times better than an SSD while it's physically installed on the HDD?

Look how FancyCache is working. Yes it will.

[Velmarshal]

Theoretically, as it operates, it's still bottlenecked by the HDD, but does offer improvements for accessing frequently accessed data. By caching it in the RAM memory, though one flaw there, power goes out or your PC restarts for whatever reason and whatever was in the cache is completely gone, because as soon as power goes out, RAM memory gets wiped. (I personally wouldn't trust a single file to that system, but that's just me)

So the improvement in games would be situational, mostly when you walk between same levels over and over in single player games, or when you play same maps in multiplayer, though after the restart data has to be cached again and even then its bottlenecked by the HDD.

Benchmark numbers are pretty, true, but those same benchmarks read/write the same sector, so the speeds you see are actually RAM speeds not your HDD speed. For example if you start transfering a movie from one drive to another first time after you turn on the PC, it will transfer those files at HDD speeds, if you try to transfer that file back, it will do it faster since the data blocks are cached in the ram itself.

Similar feature that already exists on the windows is called ReadyBoost, but its optimized for reading/writting files, and not blocks of data, which is more efficient.

So to answer my own question, the games will benefit with repeated loading of the same levels.

[Coffee]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Velmarshal:

Theoretically, as it operates, it's still bottlenecked by the HDD, but does offer improvements for accessing frequently accessed data. By caching it in the RAM memory, though one flaw there, power goes out or your PC restarts for whatever reason and whatever was in the cache is completely gone, because as soon as power goes out, RAM memory gets wiped. (I personally wouldn't trust a single file to that system, but that's just me)

So the improvement in games would be situational, mostly when you walk between same levels over and over in single player games, or when you play same maps in multiplayer, though after the restart data has to be cached again and even then its bottlenecked by the HDD.

Benchmark numbers are pretty, true, but those same benchmarks read/write the same sector, so the speeds you see are actually RAM speeds not your HDD speed. For example if you start transfering a movie from one drive to another first time after you turn on the PC, it will transfer those files at HDD speeds, if you try to transfer that file back, it will do it faster since the data blocks are cached in the ram itself.

Similar feature that already exists on the windows is called ReadyBoost, but its optimized for reading/writting files, and not blocks of data, which is more efficient.

So to answer my own question, the games will benefit with repeated loading of the same levels.

It's acting differently that REadyBoost. And also 10X faster than block of data.

[Velmarshal]

Opprinnelig skrevet av 😺₁₃₃₇ εvαηεϟcεηcε ₁₃₃₇😺🏁:

It's acting differently that REadyBoost.

I already said that.

Opprinnelig skrevet av 😺₁₃₃₇ εvαηεϟcεηcε ₁₃₃₇😺🏁:

And also 10X faster than block of data.

I won't even comment on that.

[OlafrTheOgre]

I would boot Windows from an SSD and store all your files on a HDD.

[Coffee]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Velmarshal:

Opprinnelig skrevet av 😺₁₃₃₇ εvαηεϟcεηcε ₁₃₃₇😺🏁:

It's acting differently that REadyBoost.

I already said that.

Opprinnelig skrevet av 😺₁₃₃₇ εvαηεϟcεηcε ₁₃₃₇😺🏁:

And also 10X faster than block of data.

I won't even comment on that.

FancyCache run ALL my thing faster than using an SSD. No matter what.

[_I_]

ramdrive is alot faster than any hdd or ssd

installing games on a green or 5400rpm drive will slow down their load times alot

[ganz normaler capsl9ck]

dude i cant subscribe how much faster my system is, since im running my os on ssd. buy it - its defenitely worth it. i cant even use it under sata3, cuz im still on p35-chipset (only sata2). its like a refreshening-holiday for every system. believe it.

[Seawolf9er]

Quite a bit faster if you go with some of the newer boards (Z77 or Z87) they also have Small SSD add on slots where you can couple yoru SSD and your HDD for better performance . I have a M4 256 GB SSD (i do alot of overclocking and mods to my PC in regards to OS) So Quick boot times are a must ( on my 4770k now boot in like 2-3 seconds) PC boots faster then my monitor turns on :) so for gaming depends on the titles some work well with it some you would not notice a thing . Keep in mind to SSD are Rated for so many Cycles In regards to (formats Deleted files) Trim fixs alot of this but they can be a pricey componite to fail on you if you format your drives like i do. (arma 2 OA runs great on an SSD Shogun Boots up a bit quicker)
Titles need fast access to are stored on my SSD and other titles that i have not noticed a differnce get stored on my seagate 7200 3TB HDD, plus with my new motherboard i can set my pc to turn on first thing in the morning so its ready should i need to do something.

[puru]

Solid-state drives are not going to replace hard drives yet, not until their price drops and they match HDDs in size. But if for you speed gain is crucial and spending more money is not a big issue, SSDs are a way to go.

[StarGoyle]

I use a pair of OCZ Vertex 4 256GB SSDs in a Raid 0 array and yeah I don't reget the investment at all. My system boots up signficantly faster and with games it does help out with load times in my experience. Probably not worth the investment though if you're strictly looking for a game drive but I would definitely pick up a pair and raid them together for overall system use at the very least.