I'm sick of the pro-SSD shilling. Reminds me of used car salesmen.
If it were up to you people, 5400rpm would still be the standard for HDDs because *insert bullshit opinion here*.
The same people who are shitting on SSDs spend stupid amounts of money buying WD reds, running them in raid 0 for muh speed and when the first drive fails after 1 month of use you just sit behind your computer as if it's still working trying to cope.
>But muh HDD
I've got over 2 tb of storage for media but everything I want to open quick I have on my SSD. I just upgraded all of my computers with SSDs because I just couldn't get used HDDs and slow everything.
It uses less power than a hdd and gets the job done quicker, resulting in even less energy consumption.
SSDs are shilled for good read/write speeds, but 2bh a good western digital black can offer very decent sustained r/w while offering better value/GB. The main advantage of the ssd that mechanical drives don't stand a chance against is seek times. It's everything loads so much faster. I've seen my scorpio black sustain read speeds of almost 200MB/s, boots up in around a minute, maybe a little less. My crucial mx100 still boots in less than 20 seconds even though it's definitely not 3 times as fast as a western digital black.
Remember, it's the seek time, especially when you factor in hard drive fragmentation, that gives SSDs their main advantage.
Faster than hard drives
More expensive per unit storage
Smaller max capacity
More resistant to being dropped
More energy efficient
Much faster seek times
Need to be powered up occasionally to prevent data loss
Nigger why do you insist on talking when you obviously don't know what THE FUCK you're talking about? I don't get it with you idiots, if you're stupid at least shut the fuck up.
Blacks aren't even the fastest WD's even blues are faster. I have a black for over 8 years and the switch to a SSD is fucking huge.
Dude get your shit together. They're brilliant for boot drives, and they make *everything* quicker. I managed a full Windows wipe & reinstall in less than 10 minutes, and the one in my daily rig gets to the desktop in 25 seconds.
There is zero going back after trying one, they're that good. 10/10 would "meme" again.
I have an older WD Drive and boot into Windows 10 (with 500GB Used) in 1 Minute. Literally 30 Seconds Different. When I did a clean install last week it took 15 Minutes plus another 5 to install Updates.
So you saying it barely makes a difference, makes me less inclined to turn off the power and plug it in :^)
Well you are right my man. They're faster for booting windows/programs, I don't think anyone has ever claimed something else, so if you don't want a faster booting of windows/programs you don't get them.
Great boot time and a good speed boost over a mechanical hard drive. No need to find the fastest shit just get the ones everyone gets. Its only a small difference relativly speaking. Good for laptops.
Fuck that m.2 or pci connection shit. The only people who even see the speed difference are people transferring large files. Not many small ones. So basically ignore that shit unless you work in video or something.
Why bothering holding back arent we right at price parity now?
>blues faster than blacks
If you're buying the latest generation of each, blacks are faster. Neither of them is the fastest WD. Probably Velociraptor or WD SAS Xe are fastest.
If you don't turn it on once every few months, especially in warm and humid environments you risk data corruption.
Most people will be fine with once every 6 months but they've tested it and in the right conditions it's as soon as 3 months.
SSDs have amazing performance but really shit data retention compared to hard drives.
>good ones will last a long time, bad ones will die in weeks
>cost more per gb, up to the user whether that's justified or not
>generally ideal setup is 7200rpm 1-3tb drives for media, 250gb good SSD for boot drive + programs
Is this worth a buy?
>Random Read/Write (IOPS): Up to 75/12 IOPS
Would this be annoying for everyday use?
>calling people talking about ssd's "shilling"
are you fucking retarded?? there's no reason to not own an SSDs for at least 5 years now. OS sized SSDs have been sub-$100 for at least that long
I guess if you're only buying a 1TB the blue may beat the black. That's the only capacity where the blue might win in performance - though this guy's benchmark results really don't line up with WD rated specs, so who knows whether he did it right anyway.
Compare the 2TB blue vs the 2TB black or any of the larger sizes and you'll see the black wins easily. Who buys a 1TB today anyway?
>As for you, you can go fuck yourself you retarded bangwagoner.
lmao, he just repeated what I said.
"Blacks have always been faster"
Also, he has fucked testing modules. http://hdd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/WD-Blue-1TB-2012-vs-WD-Black-1TB-2013/1779vs1822
Like I said, there's a minimal difference but black still wins by 3%. Not worth the $20 markup though.
>guy implies he can't get an SSD for 50 bucks
>show him a $50 SSD by SanDisk
>"that's not the 850 EVO xDD"
>850 EVO goes for about $60
Seriously end your life, your mom will get over it and nobody else will miss your stupid ass.
also the black has a dual-core processor, which allows for better load-balancing between multistreams of reading and writing.
I'm not sure how a simple synthetic benchmark could illustrate this though, but I'm sure you feel it more during actual use.
don't even bother with the HDD for media, it's been shown now that unless you're doing 20GB of reads/writes a day with your SSD it has a lifespan of probably 8 years or more. Even if you are it'll still last 2-3 years.
Trying to construct an argument over "I can load muh gaym faster" doesn't contribute to the discussion since, believe it or not, not everyone likes to play games here, let alone new games which are shit for the most part.
If you want to shill SSDs on the basis that you can cut up 20s of loading time to engage in time wasting activities I suggest you go to /v/.
On the other hand, OSs, basic applications, and heavy work-related applications like ArcGIS, Rhino, Premiere, etc. are better run off an SSD.
ah so we begin the "let's imply things about the guy I don't agree with" downward spiral. I'm out of here.
I'm tired of posting normal text pasta. Have some greentext instead
>many times faster than a hard drive disk
>responsiveness means programs boot faster and the system is generally faster
>consumes little power, good for battery life
>no moving parts so it can't really scratch itself and die with a little push
>increasing capacities will soon leave HDDs behind, Toshiba is planning for a 128TB drive on 2017
>very reliable, knows exactly when it's going to die
>it will probably die after you do
>more expensive than the competition
There's other technical stuff like virtual memory, but it's another advantage. One thing that I want to mention is that apparently it doesn't retain data if it isn't used for a few weeks. I think it's bullshit considering I just grabbed an old Intel 520 SSD with everything intact. There's also Mushikin planning for a 4TB drive at $500 which is damn impressive considering 1TB drives like the 850 PRO cost $400 last year.
Yes, I didn't spell Mushkin correctly. HDDs won't go away anytime soon, I have loads of them, but I'd like for SSDs to take over even for archival purposes.
What? So you were really into SSDs but you just don't like the "muh geymz" argument?
Plus, I run circuit simulations to make a living and SSDs do make a difference here. During the design process it's very annoying to wait for stuff to load, or sim results to be written. It's not viable for longer sims though (2-3 day to week long) because you're going to wait for results anyway. And you can store whatever results you want to store in a dedicated storage with whatever security and reliability standards you have.
Spinning is so much cooler than not spinning.
The same stance applies to everything that anons on /g/ shill, except /tpg/ because they're pretty much literal used car salesmen with business laptops instead
Being said my MX100 runs mint like a charm on my T61p
When will the SSD meme meme end? SSDs are superior and nowadays as reliable if not more so than HDDs. Fact.
What everyone should be asking is if m.2 and PCIe SSDs are worth it over SATA at this moment. I've got the hardon for m.2 right now because of the form factor in all honesty.
Get an SSD if you do at least one of
* Run Windows
* Play vidya
* Know you need it for some other I/O bound task
If you use a sensible operating system and don't game, the speed increase from an SSD is only slight IME
>Winfags think >60 second boot time is good
Installing an SSD cut my boot time from 11 to 6 seconds, so it wasn't really worth the investment IMO
Just save your money and use a proper OS instead of buying expensive hardware
/g/ is a bunch of retards. Why the fuck wouldn't you get an SSD? There are plenty of benchmarks and even MORE plenty of user reviews about SSD's.
the "ssd is a meme" meme is srsly dumb as fuck and shouldn't even exist. Are people that stupid?
Nvm we are in /g/ ppl are really that stupid
1.) if you can't immediately tell the speed difference between an SSD and even the best HDD, you're probably not on the right board
2.) if a Samsung 850 Pro seems expensive to you, you're definitely poor (e.g. a teenager or young adult w/o a real job)
SSD's are only useful if you are gaymen or if you actually reboot your computer. Otherwise they are more expensive per GB and loading your music player or browser in 1 second instead of 3 isn't worth it.
>no mechanical parts
>no wasting time on seek-ing to data
>lower power usage, better efficiency
>extremely fucking fast
>even faster in raid 0
my current setup has 2 SSDs in hardware raid, with about 1 GB/s performance in both read and write. (and my old hdd for backup)
Tech-savvy buyers who might be worried about SSD lifetime decreasing even as SSD capacity skyrockets should have their fears assuaged by the ridiculous number of writes the tested drives endured; the drive that survived the longest survived more than 2.4 petabytes worth of sustained writes
Your trusty HD would probably fail before that.
No moving parts
Moving parts always eventually fail
Honestly I got a sandisk ultra ii 750 gig SSD for $100 at a bestbuy last month, so I wouldn't even consider price to be a huge issue. You can get decent SSD drives on sale for 25% more than a HDD now. Quit being cheap and join the crowd.
While we're at it, are seagate and wd stocks plummeting "because cloud"? Don't storage services have to buy hdds, too? Are people just downloading a file three times instead of storing it because their connection is faster? Will the 4k resolution 3D3 VR revolution require massive local storage?
Upgrading the RAMtoday, I realized my laptop had an extra bay for HDD/SSD.
I like to play video games on this laptop, on linux and windows.
Should I buy a SSD or a hybrid disk?
Should I put my OS on it, or rather the game files?
Pic from Heimatland.
Ssd's in my experience have always failed before a hard drive has
And of course having the r/w limit on them is annoying
I still use my HDD's for all of my programs (excluding web browsers and such)
And I'm planning to get an extra ssd to use as cache for my slowest mechanical drive
>SSD good but flawed right now
>HDD good and less flawed right now
>He believes that
>Not knowing the god tier engineering that went into the HDD
Pro tip faggot. No consumer product has "god tier engineering". That's why they're consumer products.
Also SSDs are equally fast whether the read is sequential or not. Reads needing to be sequential is yet another disadvantage of HDDs
>He believes the internals of every SSD look the same.
>He believes the board for an SSD is still this size inside of it.
If you're gonna shitpost at least try not to make yourself technologically illiterate, grandad.
>He thinks SSD's are used in the data center
Nigger I'm thinking about buying a laptop SSD to replace my 250 Gig in my G62 just as a fun project to do and having a faster startup doesn't hurt either. While I'm at it I'm thinking about changing heat goo and giving it a proper cleaning for cooler temps.
Also have recently put 8 Gigs up from 4 and I'm happy with the difference.
Am I doing anything wrong?
It's worth mentioning a lot of people buy SSDs and don't want to reinstall, so they clone it over and stick with their shit 90s software that doesn't support trim and they don't see nearly enough of a boost and then call SSDs a meme.
I'm on the fence about buying one of these. How much of a difference in load times does it make? 100$ is a lot to spend to get 20 second boot times vs 1 minute boot times. If I get the little 250GB one, I'd probably be putting my OS's and some programs like photoshop on it. Will that really save me significant amounts of time? I'm a poorfag, so I have some skepticism as to whether the difference is worth it, but I'm open to being sold on the idea.