Was considering buying an SSD specifically a Crucial C300 64GB for use as a boot drive, but was wondering whteher it would be worth it. YOu see i already have ny Windows 7 boot time down to 30 seconds from power on and boot time is something that really dosen't bother me i hardly notice it. Basically what i'm asking is anyone using an SSD as a boot drive do you notice any other benefits other than shorter boot time? Does the system feel more responsive etc.
Responsive ? In one single word, Yes. When you install an OS on a HDD, its fresh for a couples of days. With a SSD ? Its fresh days after days after days after days.... For exemple, photoshop start in 3 second. Good Point: The temperature, the absence of Noise, Snap
A system with an SSD is infinitely more responsive. Use a rig with an SSD then try to use a computer without one... you get bored fast trust me waiting for things to happen. My gaming machine has only my SSD in, so theres no bottlenecking ever waiting for another drive.
Ph4ZeD the looks of it I'm going to have the same PC as yours more or less soon and thought about going SDD. If I went SDD would I notice a difference with gaming/OS boot up. Is there any good articles/reviews of a difference between SD/HD around that some one could link me please?
I assume that Photoshop is on the SSD? Does having the OS and drivers have any effect however minor on say games that are on another hard drive?
Whilst you've got to be very mindful of static data (ie programs/bits of the OS that are installed & almost never, if ever, change) as this effectively locks cells reducing the available number for wear-leveling - for example, if you had a 64GB SSD (available space ~60GB) & 50GB of it was effectively static, you've only 10GB (plus a small amount of over-provisioning on a C300) that will be written to over & over again; reducing the lifespan quite dramatically depending upon usage - 'if' you put the pagefile on the SSD then this will improve anything that uses it; inc reasonable sized games (ie not exactly noticeable if you moved solitaire to a HDD). Having said that, whilst the C300s will be quicker than most HDDs for fairly small random writes (solely d.t. reduced latency/access time), esp the 64GB model is comparatively dreadfully slow at writing compared to many other SSDs with a max (sequential) write of only 70MB/s - that becomes lower irl. Okay, all SSDs have their pros & cons, however the pathetic write speed this is one of the key reasons why i use a mix of SandForce (the Vertex 2 - very fast, with higher iops than the C300 which will matter more than 'headline speeds' for an OS drive, but with limitations when writing compressed data - so great for the OS, apps & game installations) & Indilinx (the Vertex Turbo - not quite as fast as the V2 except it has non of the limitations with compressed data - so great for the pagefile, temp files, Adobe scratch folders, multimedia processing, etc) SSDs in R0 arrays instead. Edit - a quick double-check of something for another question & it appears that Corsair actually agree with this - Explaining the need for a 40GB Sandforce drive, Corsair's vice president of marketing Jim Carlton said the "aggressively priced" drive is "quite simply the ideal boot drive for any Windows 7 desktop PC."
After watching this video: I'm considering using an SSD for my boot drive too... But first, please give me some advice, whether I should only install the OS on the SSD or should I also install my work related apps (video editing apps) on the SSD?? Thanks before...
Buying a decent SSD, then anything that you can put on one will at least show improved loading speeds &, if they need to use a pagefile, improved operational speeds. Beyond that, as said earlier in this thread, different SSDs have different characteristics & so it's important to think about your actual software usage - for example - - if you're using stuff that significantly needs to write temp files (for example some Adobe usage) &/or significantly uses the pagefile (forgetting Adobe again, i know that, as a recent example, StarCraft2 apparently requires one even with reasonable amounts (8GB) of memory) then having slow writes will have an impact. - likewise, if you wanted to use the SSD for converting/editing massive or large numbers of media files then you ideally wouldn't go for either a 64GB C300 or a Sandforce based SSD as the writes would let you down on either (though a SF 'should' still be faster). - separately, you need to think about the total amount of stuff you want to install - as said earlier, static files effectively lock cells reducing the amount available for wear-leveling & reducing both the performance & lifespan of the SSD unless there is a significant amount of free space (despite the 'bitching' about the 50/100/...GB SF based SSDs, allowing a decent amount of unused space is really important on any SSD - if the one you went for doesn't have the extra OP then you can simply create a smaller partition & this will have the same effect). - you also might want to think about running a raid 0 array for improved speeds & slightly reduced cost compared to buying a single large SSD. - & you also need to budget in for any additional cards - ie the C300 needs a half decent SATA controller (the Highpoint one that bittech recommends only being useful for a single SSD - for 2 SSDs then it's shonky; not least as it doesn't have h/w raid, but also that the bandwidth isn't high enough) / using an on-board ich9r/ich10r controller you lose a large amount of the extra benefits from the SF for a subsequent SSD after 2 SSDs in an array (there's not enough bandwidth) / etc... Yeah, so the short answer is - "yes a decent SSD will improve things" - & the long one is "do your research based upon what you actually want to use it/them for."
No problem - yeah, once you've thought about your actual usage, expected lifespan (ie when/if you'd look to add extra ones for r0 arrays &/or have the cash to replace entirely) & budget then it's possible to give more tailored advice &/or make personal recommendations... ...well, it is possible to spend a hell of a lot of money (if you've got it kicking around) & get a really great SSD setup that (forgetting MLC vs SLC as the latter are vastly more expensive) will only be outclassed when new SSDs that properly utilise the 6Gb/s sata interface come onto the market. Still, 'if' you have a budget large enough (& a spare 2.0 pcie 8x(+) slot) then the lsi 9260 cards will provide a comparatively huge amount of 'upgradability' as they're designed to work with both 6Gb/s SAS & SATA in raid arrays (& 'should' only be outclassed by either a 16x or pcie 3.0 solution - neither of which are that likely to happen short term). Plus as you don't *have* to buy things like the fastpath key or battery until they're absolutely needed... Okay, the battery will allow a safer use of the write caching (which 'can' make a noticeable difference with speeds), but the fastpath key is only of value once you have enough SSDs in an array to be actively & regularly breaking (ie r-l, not artificial benchmarking) the 80,000 iops mark... Oh, & perhaps should have added into the 2nd point (it was in an earlier post though) that the reason why you wouldn't naturally go for a SF drive for multimedia conversion (or editing directly on it) is that the writes are much slower than the headline figures when dealing with compressed files d.t. the DuraWrite technology (which compresses data written in r-t to improve the longevity of the SSD)... Okay, still faster than the 64GB C300, but a reason why i use a (ss'd to 60GB) 120GB V Turbo alongside my 4xV2 R0 array.
I`ve just installed the Crucial C300 256mb in my dell M1730 and boot times have gone from 2-25 (got alot of stuff !) to 43 secs this has to be the best purchase I`ve made.
& your point is? Well, this is way over the odds for the OPs pricing/wants/question & so, whilst the write speeds of the 256GB C300 are much better than the 64GB... ...it's just kind of useless information for this thread - other than showing off that you've got the cash to buy one possibly? Okay, perhaps that's slightly 'the pot calling the kettle black', though i do also try to add some useful information as well in & amongst... Oh, & a quick check of the M1730's specs & you've stuck it on a ich8m controller that is only 3Gb/s SATA compatible so you've definitely bandwidth limited the thing... Can't remember if there's a further drop off for the mobile controllers vs the desktop ones though... ...&, as a quick update, since it appears you can R0 two drives in the M1730, you'd have gotten much better performance by buying 2 half sized drives (whether C300s or another decent make) & almost certainly saved some money.
I have the c300 64 GB as my system drive and I have to say the low write speed is almost never an issue. Installed the system, some of my most used programes and that's pretty much it. The write speed has limited use on a 64 GB drive anyway. IF it was the 256 GB model then maybe there it becomes a bit more important, but the 256 is blazing fast thanks to more NAND working in paralel. I'd say for budget (below 100 pounds and 30-64 GB capacity) SSDs write speed < various types of read speeds.
lol - seen it before (maybe a year & a half ago) but still made me smile... ...though not for the reasons you might think. Well, it's not the actual performance but the shonky way they've used their SSDs in this experiment - assuming you've got at least a 200MB/s read per SSD (don't know what the actual drives they used were), you'd need no more than 10 of them to get a 'best case benching method' result of ~2000MB/s... if instead you assumed that they could do ~250MB/s(+) each (using a 'best case benching method' naturally), with 2 decent pcie 8x controllers & they could have been ~4000MB/s &, of course, with 3 (to use all 24) then ~6000MB/s. Still, it's mostly a bit of fun (but, whilst completely OOT, prefer the older nVida hairdryer/leaf blower/... promotional video), though DO NOT run a normal defrag on any SSD (as shown in the video) as it's pointless - simply helping to wear the thing out. Not sure whether you're responding to my 'slightly' caustic reply to someone typing irrelevancies about having a 256GB C300, but... ...the write speed's only *a* factor in the reasons for not going for a 64GB C300 - very importantly, since on board 6GB/s controllers aren't great yet (until the ich11r materialises then... ...& there's still no info on that yet), 64GB (less if you're sensible & add extra OP d.t. 'locked cells' - things which are installed & never change -> a small number of cells which are used over & over again / large numbers of cells on small drives aren't available for wear leveling & replacement for cells with failed blocks or maintaining speeds with trim/gc) is pretty small for an OS, x number of apps & (possibly) a few games. As such, many people are likely to need/want (at least) a 2nd SSD to get a larger capacity &, since the 'bittech recommended' HighPoint thing is both bandwidth limited with 2 SSDs in non-raid & cannot do raid, you're looking at either spending some proper money to get something that is actually decent, using even more 2.0 pcie slots (which many 1x ones aren't) to stick more of the shonky HighPoint things in or replacing the SSD entirely for a new larger one - none of which are particularly cost effective for more than the extreme enthusiast after that 'ultimate speed' despite the expenditure. (or a spendthrift like myself who need to buy him/herself 'tech presents' fairly often & there's not a decent enough upgrade path elsewhere yet) Conversely, sticking something like a 3Gb/s SF based SSD on a ich9r/ich10r controller & you can add a 2nd with no bandwidth limitations at all - &, of course, vastly faster writes than the 64GB C300 since most of the specs (the 4K ones don't afaik) scale almost linearly for SSDs in R0... ...so, whilst the 256GB C300 is as fast as they come atm for a single drive (with an appropriate controller naturally), you can get much faster results & it'll be cheaper using decent smaller drives in R0. [edit] oh, & just for clarity, you 'could' stick 2x 64GB C300s on a ich9r/ich10r/etc# but you're then losing almost all of the read speed advantage of them over something like 2x SF based SSDs d.t. the controller's bandwidth limitations & will have much slower writes... ...not least since, whilst admittedly the SFs obviously slow down when writing compressed files (though still quicker than the 64GB C300), the C300 doesn't recover well/quickly from write intensive applications which 'may' be a reason for increasing total capacity. [#& the reason for talking about the intel controllers is that many/most(?) amd/nvidia/marvell/etc controllers aren't actually up to spec, being designed prior to SSDs being mainstream & HDDs not being able to saturate the bandwidth - if you're board uses one of them you'd need to do some research before thinking about raid]
