News OCZ SSD vs. VelociRaptor

[CardJoe]

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/07...velociraptor/1

HotHardware has shared the results of a performance test between the OCZ Core SSD and the high-end WD VelociRaptor mechanical drive - and the results may surprise you.

[knyghtryda]

space is still too small and price is still too high for SSD to be considered even at enthusiast level. I think once they can reach $1/GB levels (like the raptor), they'll have something that many people would want to pick up. Considering most storage is at $.25/GB or less at this point, I would seriously have to consider whether spending $300 on 300GB is worth it whereas I could get 2TB for the same price in a "standard" 7200rpm drive.

[wuyanxu]

apart from speed, CPU and memory performance will also bottleneck you system. eg. i've experienced about the same loading speed on TM Nations Forever when i put it on RAMdisk. me thinks it's the other parts.

for desktop use, you really want a 32GB SSD for Windows, 150GB Veloci-Raptor (they are making one) for page file and games, 1TB drive for data.

[alexandros1313]

I really like SSDs (in theory of course, I don't have one). Using an SSD promises smooth gameplay without stuttering (due to speedy access times) which would be excellent. I'd like for Bit-Tech to include a section in their SSD reviews, where they describe the subjective experience of playing games with an SSD. I really want to know if having an SSD improves smoothness of gameplay. Could someone from the bit-tech staff tell us about it?

[BlackMage23]

nice performance gains if you have the dosh to spend on one and want to wait the hours that it would probably take to install windows on one.

[TheCherub]

I think that is actually a more tempting proposition than people have so far mentioned. The only issue with these things is their size / value. However, most people that run something like a Raptor for their primary hard drive then run a 500Gb / 1Tb hard drive for data. This makes the size of the primary hard drive much less of an issue, and it reduces it down to a pure speed / value ratio. Given that Scan have the OCZ drive at about £10 cheaper than the Raptor, it doesn't look quite so expensive.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Is it just me or is it a bit odd to compare a 64Gb disk to a 300Gb disk? Does the size of the mechanical disk not give it a disadvantage, as in would a lower capacity VelociRaptor (if such exists) not perform better than the big one?

[iwod]

For people who dont know the OCZ core series is now very affordable. Most people buy the Raptor not because of its capacity but its speed. While 64Gb is only slightly faster. Two 32GB SSD Raid 0 would only be slightly more expensive but a huge gain in performance. Not to mention the price will drop much faster then HDD.
Intel has promised a 200MB/s Read SSD this year. Although we have yet seen any news from it.

[mclean007]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

Is it just me or is it a bit odd to compare a 64Gb disk to a 300Gb disk? Does the size of the mechanical disk not give it a disadvantage, as in would a lower capacity VelociRaptor (if such exists) not perform better than the big one?

Not at all - all other things being equal, a higher capacity disk will outperform a lower capacity disk, because of the difference in data density. Think of it like this - the read / write heads on a 7,200 rpm drive "see" one track of the disk platter(s) in 1/7,200 minutes (1/120 seconds), so the more data you pack into that track, the more data you can read or write in 1/120 seconds, so the faster the drive will perform.

[impar]

Greetings!

Originally Posted by wuyanxu

apart from speed, CPU and memory performance will also bottleneck you system. eg. i've experienced about the same loading speed on TM Nations Forever when i put it on RAMdisk. me thinks it's the other parts.

Agree with you.
The sinthetic tests that make for the bulk of HDD reviews usually dont represent the actual drive performance in real tests.


PS:

Originally Posted by mclean007

Not at all - all other things being equal, a higher capacity disk will outperform a lower capacity disk, because of the difference in data density.

But, if you only factor the initial 64GB of the HDD, you get a better perfromance average than from the entire HDD.

[TheCherub]

Originally Posted by mclean007

Not at all - all other things being equal, a higher capacity disk will outperform a lower capacity disk, because of the difference in data density. Think of it like this - the read / write heads on a 7,200 rpm drive "see" one track of the disk platter(s) in 1/7,200 minutes (1/120 seconds), so the more data you pack into that track, the more data you can read or write in 1/120 seconds, so the faster the drive will perform.

Surely, given that solid state drives work in a completely different fashion to conventional drives, this isn't really relevant? I would still argue that there is a worthwhile comparison to make, as you are effectively comparing two system disks (as opposed to data disks).

[Denis_iii]

once 64GB SSD is sub 100quid I'll def get one, faster boot times and load times well worth the cost. If WD did a 65GB Raptor I'd consider it as want a small fast system drive for windows apps n games and 64GB is plenty as I never had more then 3games installed.

[Omnituens]

Currently I have a 74GB Raptor OS+apps drive, the velociraptor as my games drive and a 1TB lollerdrive.

I was thinking of having the OS on a SSD, but I forgot that you can change the location of the pagefile. Price is the only thing stopping me now really.

[mclean007]

Originally Posted by TheCherub

Surely, given that solid state drives work in a completely different fashion to conventional drives, this isn't really relevant? I would still argue that there is a worthwhile comparison to make, as you are effectively comparing two system disks (as opposed to data disks).

Yes, absolutely. The original question to which I responded was "would a lower capacity VelociRaptor (if such exists) not perform better than the big one?" so I was just clearing that up, but of course with SSD the concept of platter density doesn't exist.

[Firehed]

File copy times really don't mean a whole lot. The biggest advantages to SSDs over spinning platters are (effectively) zero seek time and greatly improved physical durability. You can't set up a clean system and just do file copying benchmarks and come to a conclusion - the improvements should really start to manifest themselves after several months of use when you start to get some heavy disk fragmentation.

Give me some useful benchmarks in areas that I actually care about and we'll talk. You know - how fast apps open, how snappy my day-to-day interaction is, etc. It's certainly more subjective overall, but so is my experience with using the computer so that's what I really care about.

[ParaHelix.org]

Originally Posted by knyghtryda

space is still too small and price is still too high for SSD to be considered even at enthusiast level. I think once they can reach $1/GB levels (like the raptor), they'll have something that many people would want to pick up. Considering most storage is at $.25/GB or less at this point, I would seriously have to consider whether spending $300 on 300GB is worth it whereas I could get 2TB for the same price in a "standard" 7200rpm drive.

I agree with you

[leexgx]

SSD would not suffer slow downs like hdds do after time

speaking of page file if you got 4gb of ram its very unlikey the page file is ever going to be used

its Vista auto Defrag and system restore that do more to the drive

[crompers]

The technology is great, but i think i'll wait for the market to level out a bit before i spend. Also i view anything below 120GB as useless in this day and age.

[DXR_13KE]

magnetic hard drives have been with us for how much time? how much was that amazing fast 10GB hard drive at the time?

give this technology time and it will ass rape current magnetic data storage with.... something long and wide.... either in speed, either in survivability.

[airchie]

Originally Posted by knyghtryda

space is still too small and price is still too high for SSD to be considered even at enthusiast level.

I would have to disagree with that.
Enthusiast will spend out on SLi 280s just cos they can.
Why would they not spend out on raided SSDs?
Cost is obviously no major concern for them.

Plus, I'm a student and I'm getting an SSD into my laptop ASAFP.

Originally Posted by impar

But, if you only factor the initial 64GB of the HDD, you get a better perfromance average than from the entire HDD.

I think that would make it worse.
I'm not 100% but drives fill from the inside tracks outwards.
Since the outer edges of the disk pass the head faster then the inner rings the performance is greater.
But your theory is right, only use the last 64GB of a mechanical HDD and the performance average would be better.
Hang on, now I think of it, HD-Tach's graphs show the drive getting slower and tailing off so I'm probably speaking rubbish above.

Originally Posted by crompers

Also i view anything below 120GB as useless in this day and age.

It depends really. If its your primary drive and you have no external storage then yeah.
If you have a 2TB raid5 NAS then not so much.

I can't wait to get an SSD (or two raided) into a gaming laptop in the future (once I start working).