Does having your OS on an SSD actually make it run faster, or

>>57989622
you get faster boot times. That's about it.

>>57989637
So you don't get faster access times, faster installs, faster loads across all software, faster transfer speeds or lower latency?

>>57989622

Defrag it every day for maximum profit!

>>57989660
Not noticeably. I mean yeah, you'll see it in a benchmark. But heavyweight software still has a startup time, and lightweight software it's too little difference to see. Desktop use isn't so heavy on random access that its a night and day difference. Unless you're a normie with three dozen programs all set to start at boot time that hammer the drive for five minutes. But in that case switching to an SSD isn't how you should go about fixing that.

>>57989660
Very fast installs. Installing old games takes seconds. I installed Startopia a few days ago and it was 15 seconds tops.

>>57989981
did you then install it to a spinning-disk drive to compare how much of the install speed was due to the SSD?

>>57989713
>Unless you're a normie with three dozen programs all set to start at boot time that hammer the drive for five minutes.

Can't stand that shit on other's computers.

>>57989713
>Not noticeably.

Bullshit. I've always been an HDD advocate convinced that SSDs are a meme for people with more money than sense, but I bought an 850 EVO last year just for shits since I had money to burn and was planning on a fresh install anyway, and I'm never going back. Compared to an HDD, any action is damn near instantaneous. SolidWorks startup no longer means a smoke break.

File: 1477776178559.jpg (151KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1000x1000px

>>57989622
slightly faster boot (but who gives a shit if your boot lasts 10 seconds longer???) and that's it.

cons:
- space (unless you can afford paying huge premiums for SSD)
- SSDs age fast. you can overwrite a single cell only thousands of times before it goes to shit
- they fail catastrophically. ALWAYS. that means your data will be lost forever and there's no chance you'll ever recover it
- depending on which one you buy, write speeds will be 1/5th of read speeds which means it'll suck shit when you save shit.

other than that, they're like regular disks (expensive ones at that).

I just bought a large Hitachi disk because I'm sick of all the SSD shit I mentioned above.

>>57989622
File reads are faster, file writes are faster, therefore file caching is faster, loading programs is faster, etc...

My biggest complaint with SSDs is that they use firmware, to try and mimic HDD block sizes.

It's pure shit. Screw the firmware bullcrap.

File: 1473908552530.jpg (1MB, 3000x2250px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2250px

>>57990267
this exact hard drive is great in freenas

So reading this thread, are SSD's really worth it if you don't give a shit about faster boot times? I mean is the difference really that big? I was thinking about putting my OS and a couple games like Skyrim on it when I build my computer but I also want to save a few bucks.

>>57990267
>He doesn't use a SSD
into the trash

Yes, retard.

>>57989622

Getting an SSD will make your system incredibly fast (compared to HDD) and you won't need to defragment it ever again.

>>57990340
Yes, the difference is massive. Don't listen to these plebs.

>>57990340
people these days build their gaymin rigs without HDDs
you can get a 512GB SSD for like 200$ these days and install all your games in it.
for FHD vids and lossless music, you can just add another 1tb hdd

>>57990416
more like $130

15 second boot instead of 90 seconds
Copying folders of many small files has the same improvement
Game load times are usually 30-50% faster

File: 7bD5M7A.jpg (166KB, 696x1000px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 696x1000px

>>57989622
faster file transfers and faster boottimes

everything overall runs faster. the only downside is ssds don't last as long as hdds. if you get sdd expect to fail after a couple of years. it's not something you want if you want to keep your files.

>>57990445
The new Samsung 960 will not load your games or boot any faster than a normal ssd. Still, ssd>hdd

>>57990461

ssd*

>>57990461
I would like to read more about ssd's not lasting as long as a mechanical drive. Any sources?

i would recommend getting a 10000 rpm hdd over a ssd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyEIPRDymsY

>>57990267
Its not 2012 anymore, I think all those things you listed are irrelevant or non-existent in current SSDs

>>57989713
>Not noticeably. I mean yeah, you'll see it in a benchmark. But heavyweight software still has a startup time, and lightweight software it's too little difference to see.
Bullshit.

>>57990499
>2012

>>57990499
Post something not shit-tier from 2012, please

>>57990499
also that's a hella slow boot time for an ssd. mine is pretty much instantaneous after the bios and that's not with fast boot enabled

>>57990499
are you deaf m8?

>>57990461
That's the part I'm worried about the most. Any chance you have something that I can read up on about it?

>>57990340
It's worth it as everything is faster, installs, load times, etc. I was never really into SSDs until I bought a laptop with an SSD and then I realized holy fuck, I can't go back to HDD. Ended up putting a 1TB SATA3 SSD in my latest desktop and forgoing mechanical drives entirely. (also have 3TB of mechanical drives in my NAS)

>>57990582
http://ssdendurancetest.com/

>>57990593
>>57990584
Interesting. Is PNY a reliable company to buy from? I was thinking of getting this

http://pcpartpicker.com/product/7v38TW/pny-internal-hard-drive-ssd7cs1311240rb

>>57990584

wait until your sdd fails after a couple of years and then you won't feel like buying one again
how much did the 1 tb ssd cost? 300 dollars?

>>57989660
It is a lot faster, it's only unnoticeable when you do RAID or use NVME drives. Also does anyone know if it's possible to put your OS on a RAM disc?

>>57990697

300 dollars is a lot of money. you could buy a laptop with that. i would not pay that for another ssd

>>57990640
Pretty stong contender on the budget side. Has features that more expensive ssds have

>>57990697
I have hdd's that didn't last a year. I really don't think that's a very strong argument.

>>57990697

ssd*

fuck!

>>57990697
recent SSDs really don't have longevity issues
if you get a MLC SSD, you'll get equal or better life span
if you get a TLC SSD, you'll get like 3~5 years depending on usage
but TLC is fine for normies and gaymers

Why is it posters who shit's on ssd's are always poorfags?

>muh ssd fails meme
>all these people suddenly acting like HDDs never shit the bed

If you're going to bitch about SSDs, at least pick an actual argument.
Today's SSDs will outlive any HDD unless filled to 95% of capacity all the time.

>>57990790

because i have 3 hdds and none of them have failed. i bought 2 of them in 2009. lasted 7 years. my ssd failed after a 2 or 3 years

>>57990716
> it's only unnoticeable when you use NVME drives
what
why

File: boot-bare.png (11KB, 480x384px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 480x384px

>>57990832
lol, you don't know?

>>57990826
you should have bought it from a reliable company
such as intel, samsung, micron, sandisk

File: load-vs.png (12KB, 480x384px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x384px

>>57990875

>>57990895

well, it was a crucial ssd. are they shit?

>>57990904
probably

my samsung 840 boot drive is 4 years old and has written almost 30TB of data

literally 0 issues

>>57990904
well crucial = micron
i don't have any experience with ssds in 2009, but yours should've been shit if it was a tlc
tlc ssds have become reliable recently

>>57990875
>>57990897
this has the nvme drives performing better than the SSD, though

>>57990904
Get out of here with your anecdotal bullshit. The fact that 50% of today's servers have flash memory in them should tell you where we are headed.

File: 840 evo.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>57990895
>reliable
>samsung

File: 1qd-seq-read.png (14KB, 480x432px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x432px

>>57990960
My god, you are really dense.

>>57990986
the samsung evo 840 had issues, yes
but their product were reliable before that and are reliable now

File: SAY GOODBYE HELLO.jpg (63KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 960x540px

>>57991007
>they are reliable except for that time when they weren't reliable

>>57990998
sequential read speed isn't the limiting factor in most of the things you do with your computer

>>57990998
that shows the same thing. So how is running the OS off of an SSD an "unnoticable improvement" when the SSD is nvme.

>>57991040
Of course it's not. Synthetic tests are never indicative of real world performance. This is why the boot times were two-tenths of a second faster. People just look at graphs and see the high numbers nvme can throw out. It's impressive, but misleading.

>>57990267
I will give you space, though I only have a 128 for my OS and that's about it and still have like 70 gigs free all the time.

SSDs don't age fast with proper maintenance and keeping it mostly empty. The more space to do straight writes, the better. Besides, it more than a thousand writes to one cell. More like ten thousand if not more in some cases.

When an SSD fails, it's rarely spectacularly. And if it's from age, you should still be able to read from a NAND gate because it's only the resistance preventing you from writing that fucks shit up. Still, you may end up with fragmenting anyway, since some nand gates may prevent a write on a large file.

Rewrites without trim are the problem, not pure write speed. Basic write speed is still really fast.

I must have taken the bait...

>>57989622
I have my os and programs on an ssd.
The most noticeable things are gimp and kate.
Gimp on linux use to take about 5-10 seconds to load, now on the ssd, its up and running in 1-2 seconds.
Kate wasnt that bad, but it did take a second to start, now its jut loads instantly.

On mechanical drives, the farther away you get from the center of the disc, the slower it gets.

I like the ssd for doing stuff that kills the ssd, like making files, editing files, compressing/decompressing files, and compiling programs that take years otherwise.

File: 1t-media-read.png (13KB, 480x432px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 480x432px

>>57991050
nvme is great for sustained read and writes. The problem is nothing ever is that easy. You hit your hd many different ways. Here you can see they are only 2x as fast in this task as 4k seq, where they were over 4x times as fast. And remember, your games are only going to load about six-tenths of a second faster.

>>57989713
I've done the comparison side-by-side. You're fucking idiotic.
"Heavyweight software" is all software, these days. Chrome, Spotify, Skype, Office--and their free counterparts (Firefox/lolnottoxtoxdoesn'tevenfuckinghavevoicechat/LibreOffice) are likewise enormous programs with large startup times.
Not so on an SSD. The load times are under a second.
You're fucking retarded, and I think I'm being trolled.

>>57990267
"Slightly" meaning "a factor of 2--AT LEAST."
You're so fucking retarded.
No, they don't "age fast." Modern models are reliable for hundreds of terabytes written.
Your data always 'fails catastrophically,' retard. You don't know what a hard drive failure is--you only know of the unreliability induced over time.
An SSD is like an energizer battery -- it provides proper lifetime support until it shows signs of deterioration, and then dies.
An HDD loses performance over time, starts introducing quirks, corrupts your fucking data ten times while you try to keep using it, and then finally crashes the fucking heads.

Writes are still enormously faster than HDDs, even if you buy older models that have high read/write ratios.

Jesus christ, you're so stupid.

>>57991180
>your games are only going to load about six-tenths of a second faster.
Bullshit, the ssd made total war playable, i went from 1:30-2 minutes per battle to 13-20 seconds. Shits amazing

>>57991209
they're also programs that you tend to start once and leave running. Same argument as to why boot time doesn't really matter that much. SSDs make something faster that happens infrequently.

>>57989622
You won't get annoying click and spin noises on your laptop. It was a big consideration for me.

>>57991257
I didn't fucking say that. 6/10ths was in reference to nvme vs ssd.

>>57991278
Oh, sorry then, i completely missed the point.

>>57991260
That's incredibly incorrect. You don't leave Office fucking running. Skype still has to load shit into memory during launch (because yes, it's shit), and Chrome/Firefox are not "always on." You really don't understand how most people use their computers. I fix them for a living, and see actual usage.

Also, even during 'infrequency,' it's not something you want to fucking waste time waiting for. If you want to launch a program and load it, waiting has an enormous mental cost that is associated but separate from a simple fucking benchmark.

>>57991319
>arrive at work
>start computer
>start browser
>do various tasks in different tabs, opening and closing them as required
>never close browser until I shut down the computer when I left for the day
>do much the same for MS Office

this was every day at my last job.

>>57991344
>my usage is everyone's usage
sick fucking opinion my dude

>>57991366
>I choose to open and close applications all the time even though I don't actually need to
>wahh why is this slow? I need to buy more hardware to make this faster!
at least my opinion isn't retarded

>>57991383
>keeps every application open forever, just to avoid the hilariously slow reload times, even with prefetch enabled
>wahhhh why is this so slow? why do my applicatoins freeze? I need to buy more RAM to make this faster!!
The hardware is always involved. You're not fucking exempt. You're simply making a tradeoff.

>>57991319
You work at a shop where the last retards still using a computer are getting their shit fixed. This guy bringing up what he does at work is a much more common use case compared to the people you deal with. One day you might get a real job and find this out yourself.

>>57991468
I don't work "at a shop." I work everywhere, in multiple areas, and do consultant work from people with brand new machines that still have shitty setups (4GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB HDD, lol) to people with Late 2006 Macbooks (double lol).

This thread failed to mention that UEFI can make boot times even better, as BIOS boots are fucking tar.

One day, you might understand that I do more work than you've ever fucking dreamed of. I work with different machines every day and do enough freelance work that I have just as much experience as that cocksucker that double clicks his fucking quick launch icons.

>>57991538
>everywhere, in multiple areas
>inb4 nice redundancy, who are you A FAGGOT BDDDDDDD
clarification: I work in every social sphere, you autistic cunts

File: cf6.png (340KB, 506x658px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 506x658px

>>57989622
Once you SSD, your computer will be smoother than mayonnaise.

>>57989622
> OS on an SSD
> actually
>make it run faster
> or is that just a meme?
> actually
> ACTUALLY

Actually, it's a meme to make you look retarded. In fact, actually, SATA is a meme.

tr00 1337z PATA, frood

Fucking blazes the shizz off SATA & SSDs.

Actually for realz an shit.

>>57989622
In short, yes.

faster boot times, programs less likely to become I/O bound, with the cpu twiddling its thumbs waiting on larger files or shit cached on disk to load into ram so it can mangle it.

programs load faster. Downloads are a bit faster if you have a fast connection (gigabit).

>>57989981
what the fuck are you talking about startopia installs in seconds on an HDD as well, its like 50mbs, its a decade old.

>>57990697
>wait until your sdd fails after a couple of years and then you won't feel like buying one again
I'd buy one again in a heartbeat to avoid using a shitty mechanical drive. I got my 1TB for less than $300, and you say $300 like it's a lot of money, it's not.

File: WD master race.jpg (113KB, 620x663px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 620x663px

>>57989622
I never used a SSD, I heard they were overpriced pieces of junk so I went with two of these for my latest build.

>>57991811
dubs confirm retard

the only downside to ssds is the price

>>57991811
caviar black drives are fairly good, IIRC the blues are actually somewhat faster but have a shorter warranty. If you need shitloads of storage and are on a budget you can't beat spinning metal.

but ~$100 for a 256gb ssd is a worthwhile upgrade you should look into.

>>57989622
Recent build my father a computer with a 250gb Intel ssd to replace an old Dell. It hits the Password Screen in under 15 seconds and every program can be opened immediately. there is not waiting.

Essentially it dumps the program on your ssd into the Ram super quick. After that, its your CPU and Ram working together. So if you switch between programs a lot you will be more productive.

>>57991859
>the only downside to ssds is the price
>ignores the write limit that SATA drives do not have

>>57990340
So let's take Skyrim. If you're going to mod it, and use dyndolod, doing it on an HDD would take you about an hour. An SSD takes just over twenty five minutes.

>>57991964
>write limits
You'd have to fill up, wipe the drive about a dozen times a day for 5 years straight with most drives to have any major issues.

how much fucking porn do you have stashed?

File: 1427574931618.jpg (33KB, 451x451px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 451x451px

>>57989622
You can use it as L2ARC or SLOG and perform dedup for less of a hit to memory and disk speed.

But I doubt anyone on /g/ actually uses any good file systems anyway.

>>57989622
An ssd for me would save me less than a minute for every reboot i do. Takin into acount that at most i reboot once a week it would be a negligible difference for the cost and other inconveniences associated, like reduced life time, harder to recover data in case of failure, and more limited maximum size per drive.

>>57992055
>using dedup
no I'm not stupid enough to make my fancy filesystem into a dog-slow thing that requires insane amounts of RAM.

>>57991964
>MUH WRITE LIMIT

The retard mantra.
Even the shittiest SSD will typically last for several hundred TB's worth of writes.

File: Not bad.gif (997KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

997KB, 480x270px

>>57991906
I might get one to put my OS on for faster boot times and what not, but i'm not paying 300+ for a TB SSD just to hold my games obviously.

>>57990697
SSDs these days have warranties up to 5 years, by that time new SSDs will be cheaper, faster and more reliable

File: 1437117263375.jpg (12KB, 210x240px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 210x240px

>>57992089
I've adopted a strategy.
Every time I spin up a VM I create one virtual disk for the OS and place it on a deduped dataset with the others.
Gzip for infrequent accessed materials that can take the cpu hit and lz4 for hot VM disks.

Sha512 of 7.0 rc2 seems to handle dedup quite a bit better and you can also use some new checksums that are significantly faster.

>>57992162

250 GB is more than enough for system and 5-10 of even the massively bloated recent games.
Obviously not enough to hold your entire Steam library, but great for the games you actually play at the moment (Stalker CoP and FO4 loading times were reduced by an order of magnitude, just to name a few).

>>57992181
this smells like evil tuning to me

>>57992162
You can get a 1TB ssd for ~$200.
also, you don't need
> MUH TURRAHBEETS
for an os. You can install programs on other drives, and move your user folders to other drives as well.

>>57990267
kek

>>57991383
>I use a browser and an office suite that isn't constantly writing to/reading from disk
>I use software that doesn't dynamically load libraries for execution from disk
>I use a browser that doesn't write to/read from disk during tab switches
>I use a browser that doesn't cache websites to disk for when I open and close facebook 90 times in a fucking two hour period

No you don't.
Get an SSD.

>>57990267
>- they fail catastrophically. ALWAYS. that means your data will be lost forever and there's no chance you'll ever recover it
nigger, if it ain't backed up in at least two places, it aint fucking important.
> - depending on which one you buy, write speeds will be 1/5th of read speeds which means it'll suck shit when you save shit.
(citation needed) Maybe the first generation ssd's, but modern current ssd's have write speeds at ~90% of the read speeds.

For all of you retards:

Boot time is definitely a plus when using a SSD as a main drive, but that's not the main reason people own them. What's good about them is responsiveness, most if not all programs get a significant boost when used on a SSD since waiting times diminish. They're even better on laptops since they don't have the classical moving parts of a HDD and consume less power meaning more battery life for your mobile device. Also, they're cheap as fuck now, it's $CURRENT_YEAR.

>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

Loads quicker. I dual boot Win7 and 10 with each OS having its own SSD. Works nicely.

>>57992279
yeah and all that stuff typically happens in the background. Writes just go straight to the HDD's cache unless you're writing more than 64 or 128MB. And if your browser is doing that on every tab switch then it's being retarded. Limit or disable the disk cache.

Who opens and closes the same time once every minute anyway? Leave the tab open.

>>57992295
>>>increasing capacities will soon leave HDDs behind, Toshiba is planning for a 128TB drive on 2017
Call me when SSDs cost $30/terabyte like HDDs do.

>>57992132
~2PB iirc

>>57992245
>You can get a 1TB ssd for ~$200.
It's not that cheap yet m8.

>>57992413
ah, $250ish, been looking at sales recently.

>>57992413
1TB for 100 burgers would be great.
I'm hoping Crucial makes a comeback and lowers prices even further.

>>57992462
they're getting pretty damned cheap. Lil slower than the samsungs, the long write slowdowns are kinda lame.... but overall not bad.

File: Stuff.png (92KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1920x1080px

>>57992245
I know you don't need terabytes to hold an OS, I need 2 TB hard drives to hold my work related files and my games.So far both of them are getting up there.I was saying I would get a small SSD to hold my OS for faster boot times and what not.

>>57992462
There were 750gb mx300 SSDs from Crucial for $99 on amazon for black friday for a couple of hours.

Once some new series get released in 2017 and the 2.5" 6GB/s drives gets less coverage than nvme m.2 or pcie SSDs that promise like ~30GB/s as opposed to sata 6GB/s then people will flock to that gimmick and 1TB 2.5" SSDs will probably be a lot cheaper.

>>57989713
>Not noticeably

Until you do literally anything that involves loading something more complicated than a web browser

>>57992510
Yeah, I'm pretty salty I didn't get one of those. They were mad cheap.
Here's to lowering prices happening, I'd like to buy a TB SSD soon.

>Samsung has consumer 4TB drives out
Damn nigga. The preposterous thing is the price.

>>57992233
I wouldn't personally tune to edon-R or skein for my daily driver but Sha512 is more secure and runs better, being a 64 bit words, on 64 bit hardware.
Kind of surprised ZoL wasn't using it before.

Other than that it's all clever use of datasets and virtual disks.

>>57990340
Its worth it Greg

>>57992534
Most normies don't do anything more complicated than starting a web browser.

I bet most of /g/ doesn't either, aside from vidya gaymen

if you boot from a USB, how do you move the OS to an SSD?

>>57992503
good plan, basically what i'm doing. I just get annoyed at tards crying bout mah terrahbytes when they're using 100gb (40 of which is goddamned browser cache)

File: FEED ME.jpg (52KB, 504x566px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 504x566px

>>57992588
I feel ya, I can only imagine some stupid goyim paying for this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16820147566 when they only use 100GB.

>>57992683
i've actually seen people that retarded.

socket 2011 i7, some $400ish asus board, 2 titan x, pair of 1tb samsung evos, 32GB of ram. Complicated fucking watercooler setup.

>I can't let down my WoW Guild.

I have two almost identical i7-2600k desktops running Windows 10. One is mine and one is my wifes (we both gaymer). I have an Samsung 850 EVO I bought last year and she still has the same 1TB HDD from when I originally built them. It's a night and day difference.

/g/ is an echo-chamber.

I work in a datacenter and have seen my fair share of disk failures. I would take an SSD any-day over an HDD if money was not an issue.

When we get a huge order of HDD's there is always a handful that are DOA.

These are enterprise drives though, consumer stuff may not be the same.

>>57992838
>I would take an SSD any-day over an HDD if money was not an issue.
I think anyone would. The only real problem SSDs have is that they're still too expensive.

>>57992858
not really.

if you wanna have everything on one drive, maybe. Motherboards have multiple sata connections though, and most cases will accommodate several drives. $100 for a 250gb ssd for your OS and commonly used programs and $70 for a 1tb drive for bulk storage isn't too bad. Unless you just need 4tb of storage, its really not that bad.

I still have a Samsung 830 in my laptop for gayms - it was the OS drive in my laptop before this. My current OS drive is an msata ssd raid. The OCZ SSD I bought before that is the OS drive in the waifs laptop.

5 years of SSDs as boot drives and I've lost only one and it was RMA'd. Luckily it was in my raid.

The longevity meme is overstated.

>>57992872
Well that datacenter anon would probably really love if all his servers had drives as fast as his SSD servers. Only reason they don't is because SSDs are so expensive per terabyte. And so they implement all sorts of tiering and complexity in order to manage that.

You'd do the same, if you could get a 2TB SSD for $70 you'd buy one and have done with it, and not worry about putting your OS on one drive and bulk data on another. And you'd never have to think "Geez, can I fit this game on my SSD, or does it need to go on my HDD? What about these photos I'm editing, it'd be nice if the storage was fast, but they're awfully big..." etc

>>57992584

bump. no one will teach me

I'm an early adopter of ssds and have been running them on my computers for 4 or 5 years. My first one was a 120GB. I bought it so I could speed up my desktop performance and not have to wait 5 minutes for civ 5 to load. They're amazing and it can be painful to switch over to a computer with a HDD when you're used to it. I've never had one fail on me. The failure meme is ridiculous. For consumer use these drives are great. HDD fail after aging too. I've had a hard drive failure in my laptop once but never had an ssd failure.

With that said your critical files you need should always be backed up regardless of whether you run a HDD or an ssd

>>57989622
It's much faster. Traditional HDDs are painful to use after using an SSD.

everything is faster. boot times, loading times, it feels painful to not have one after having used a computer with one in it.

File: IMG_1673.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>57992760
Ikr, I have seen plenty of those jerk offs.I think I only payed like 500-600 for my whole build, it plays games just fine at max settings.

>>57992838
is the Difference between Enterprise and Standard Desktop HDD that the Desktop variety try to correct errors while the Enterprise just roll with it or shut down because they assume its in a Raid Setup?

>>57992953
clonezilla. write this to a usb and follow the instructions with both disks attached. use disk-disk mode.
http://clonezilla.org/downloads/download.php?branch=stable

>>57993026
generally as enterprise disks increase in rpm, the size of the disk should be smaller. it's much safer this way. and yes, desktop disk controllers (on the hdd board itself) generally have error correction. the ideal setup is to move error correction to a raid controller. since most desktops don't have dedicated raid controllers, it's included right on the hdd. a proper dedicated raid controller will have it's own memory slot, it handles large arrays.

>>57993125
rather, the capacity of the disk should be smaller.

Yes! Video rendering and other media related stuff is so much faster since I've been using SSD's. Totally worth it.

>>57993022
Dear god there is so much wrong with this image i dont even know where to begin

>>57989713
Keep telling that yourself

>>57989713
Photoshop takes 1/3 the time to start up, get a better SSD.

I have an optical bay drive caddy in my laptop. I put an HDD in there, and an ssd in the main sata port. HDD for storage and logs, SSD for my software and home folder, I just symlink my common storage folders like docs, downloads, desktop and media right into my home folder.

>>57990716
>Also does anyone know if it's possible to put your OS on a RAM disc?
They call it disk not disc, get a PCI-E battery backed RAM drive, it works just like a normal drive.

>>57993213
Explain?

>>57993248
>cable management
>Stock AMD cooler
>AMD processor with a 970
>1 stick of RAM
>time bomb house fire PSU

>>57993248
he's saying he's autistic and he would be embarrassed if all 0 of his friends saw his undressed cables through his side panel window illuminated by his homosex LEDs

>>57989622
Actual read/write speeds mean nothing. Just about everything you do has less delays because SSD doesn't have to mechanically move anything before it even starts any io operation. Boot time is just a bonus.

>>57989622
>falling for the SDD meme

>>57993244
you'd use a ramdisk as a cache. it's generally not a good idea. you'd be better off squashing your own ramfs and re-doing it every time you want to update/install software. the battery is too likely to fail. in the end, neither is worth it. just stick with nand.

File: 7835234.gif (2MB, 350x310px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 350x310px

>>57993291
do you have any actual opinion or supporting argument, or do you just really like using the word meme?

>>57993343
He asked, didn't he?
Also, three years with the same battery, no problems here.

File: What.png (298KB, 600x512px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 600x512px

>>57993273
I only have shitty cable management because of my shitty case.I am upgrading to a 8350 with a Evo 212 soon.I can only afford AMD because I am on a budget.1 stick of 8GB does me just fine.My PSU never gets hot nor have I ever had any problems with it?I do want to build an Intel rig when I got the cash.But for now, it games just fine at max settings and does what I need it to do.

>>57993393
I hope you're either taking regular backups or you don't care about the data on there.

Are Crucial's MX300s worth it? I can buy two of their 525GB SSDs for a little bit under the price of their 1TB SSD. They'd be $150 CAD each, so $300 for a little over 1TB of storage whereas their 1TB SSDs are about $320 - $350. Is that a good deal?

>>57989622

Short answer: Yes

Longer answer: Given that there's no lag time for the drive too seek out your data, pretty much everything works faster. Sometimes it's only a little bit, sometimes it's pretty significant. The difference is extremely apparent whenever you have to use a PC with a mechanical drive. They'll seem slow to you forever once you get used to having an SSD.

Another bonus is that they're silent. After replacing my WD Velociraptor with one, my room seemed almost eerily quiet. Having nothing but a faint fan hum coming from my case was a huge deal to me, as my old drive was rather loud.

>>57989622
Yes you do. An hhd has a max of 6gbps where as an ssd has 10 gbps or more. The reason hhd is slower is because it relies on mechanical parts to move the platters that need to be read.
You will notice the difference when loading programs from disk to memory

File: 1466411952543.png (136KB, 622x626px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 622x626px

>>57989713

>>57989680
kys

>>57989622
Yes it does, you're getting memed in this thread. The faster overall performance is often because the page file is now on an ssd, which windows quite appreciates. There's also faster load times for programs and foot times should also be faster

>>57991702
It's 500mb, I remember it taking a few minutes on my old win 98 as a kid.

I'm looking for a decent SSD thats around 240 GB

What brands do you recommend anons? Aside from the obvious samsung of course.