Looking at SSD drives for my build. I layed back while prices were nuts and haven't checked into it since. I know there was always talk about TRIM and such. As well as some drives would eat up space that you couldn't get back or something like that. I'm looking for a good fast drive around the 60GB range for an OS drive with Win 7 X64 Ultimate. I've read something in the past about Win 7 having some file that keeps growing and eating up space with no way to stop it from happening. I haven't really noticed this on my laptop of the game rig while tinkering with it so I'm not sure about that if its true or really a myth. My game rig is currently setup with one OS drive that is split in half. Consisting of one partition of Win 7 and one Win xp. I want to be able to migrate or what have you the win 7 install to the ssd and keep it intact as well as basically move the xp install to the location of where win 7 will be leaving thus leaving the once occupied xp space for overflow applications and such that aren't used on a regular basis or for something else. I don't know if the above is achieved via partitioning software or if there is some tool that comes with the SSD drive. So any help would be greatly appreciated in this matter. I have way to much time invested in installing games with win 7 to have to start with a fresh OS install and start from scratch all over again. Currently the game box hasn't been really used for anything, but installing games and organizing them. Since it is PSP in my sig its a work in progress and still being build. Just the physical computer hardware went up and running months ago to get it ready for the actual buildup and completion. I was looking at the following drives and don't really notice much of a difference or really any difference other then the IOPS what ever that is. They are all the same speed warranty etc. They all support TRIM. Not all of them state the controller they run off though and I know that has some effect on things also. I'm just lost with the whole SSD thing.
I am on my way out the door to work, but have a quick look at this Crucial C300 64GB review. That's the drive that immediately sprang to my mind and the review is quite detailed. It will hopefully give you a sense of capabilities to look out for. EDIT: also check out the SSD buyer's guide for more information on SSDs.
Forget the conclusion as the end of the SSD buyer's guide as that's based upon prices that are no longer accurate & the Corsair Reactor R60 is kind of unavailable now as they've switched to using the SandForce (SF) controller. For ~60GB drives then you've really got 2 main choices atm - either the C300 or one of the SF based ones (the Vertex 2, Corsair F60, etc...) (note any speed figures are best case artificial ones unless otherwise stated) The main advantage of the 64GB C300 is that it has a max read throughput of 355MB/s - this however requires a 6Gb/s SATA interface to achieve & the recommended Highpoint Rocket 620 both adds to the total cost & has the huge flaw of only being useful for 1 SSD as (a) the throughput is insufficient for 2 (b) it doesn't support hardware raid. it also requires a 2.0 pcie slot which many people have found means using one of the 16x slots (since many boards have 1.0 1x pcie slots) which may limit the possibility of running multiple graphics cards. The main other disadvantage is the write speed which has a max throughput of 70MB/s. The SandForce based SSDs however are 3Gb/s SATA drives with the max read throughput being 285MB/s & the writes at 275MB/s - so the advantages are compatibility with (esp) intel chipsets (you can stick 2 in a R0 array on either a ICH9R or ICH10R & they will scale properly) so no need to buy a 3rd party card & faster writes. However, the write speed is hugely dependent upon the type of data you're trying to write - the less compressible the data (ie media files) the slower they will write... Even at their worst though (writing nothing but compressed data), irl they will outperform the writes on the 64GB C300 by a good 10-20%. Brand-wise, my preference is for OCZ (not least as they have more 'experience' with the SF controller & provide excellent support) but they may be slightly more expensive than the alternatives - though i think NewEgg & the like in the US tend to offer some decent cashback offers on them from time to time. Then you need to think about your actual usage - both in terms of the info above & how much stuff you actually want to install. Well, any data written to a SSD that does not change effectively locks those cells semi-indefinitely (until things are uninstalled/deleted/replaced/etc) which is the case with much of the OS & most programs that you're going to install. This means that it is only the remaining space plus any over provisioning (OP is typically 7% of the total space) that can be used for wear-leveling... ...leaving too little space & both the longevity of the drive will reduce drastically (as you're writing again & again to the same ltd no of cells with your changing/temp data rather than across the whole drive) & the write speeds will quickly fall (as trim/GC/etc aren't instantaneous). This probably leads into what you were referring to by "drives would eat up space that you couldn't get back", where the original Vertex 2s had dramatically increased OP as a way to force the end user to take account of this; for example, the 50GB 'orig' & 60GB 'e-ver' are identical drives other than the firmware increasing the OP in the former (& a different sticker on top). Anyway, best practice would be to increase to OP on any SSD other than the orig V2s by under-partitioning the drive. As to moving the Win7 installation around then, whilst not free, Acronis True Image is what lots of people recommend (basically backing it up & then 'recovering' it to the SSD)... ...& then (since Disk Management in Windows only allows the end of the partition to be shrunk/extended) either you could do the same with your XP installation, or look at something like Acronis DiskDirector. Beyond that, once you've actually got an SSD there's a range of tweaks that can be applied - this is probably as good a guide as any & is not specific to OCZ SSDs.
Well the C300 drive/s would not be what I'm looking for. That just seems like a cluster of hell to get into just to get one to work properly. Not to mention they are probably 300+ which is why I stayed away from SSD drives to begin with until now. I would be willing to pay $130 AMIR for a decent 60-64gb one now. Although you watch when I get one shortly after the 90+gb ones will drop to the same price. Never fails when I hold out for hardware this long they finally really make a good deal on them after I finally pull the trigger. What you described above is mainly what my concern was with the space issue. As to what would go on it. It would basically be Win 7 some benchmark apps maybe a couple small editing apps for games like Nascar Racing 2003 Season and FSX but other then that....... Now of course some games install files here and there. Which I'm not even close to finishing installing all them. So they would probably write settings files and profiles etc. That would really be all the access of the drive. Start run a game or two shut down. With the benchmarking being after it goes under water and then that would be it. Once you get to your limit there is no reason to bench anymore. Unless you change hardware and want to bench that. So to sum it up the drive would just be used for an os install and for running games. Other then that it would be a paper weight when the computer is off. LOL
60gb for 130 dollars your in dream land for about the next 3-4 years i just dont see SSD prices dropping as fast as hard drive prices did. Till SSD is classed as needed and every pc is sold with one as standard then they will always be considered a luxury item and as such will always be priced as such. Cheapest decent 64gb drive is upwards of £120 everything below that is waste of time and money the intel one id personally buy if i wanted one around this side is £170 The cheapest one for more than a boot disk is around the £230 mark been the corsiar c300 space is still the main issue with SSDs and is likely not to c hange for a very long time
I must be dreaming then: OCZ Agility Series OCZSSD2-1AGT60G 2.5" 60GB SATA II MLC $126 after MIR which will be $100 AMIR after 10am Pacific time today for the slower version OCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD2-2VTXE60G 2.5" 60GB SATA II MLC $135 AMIR for a faster drive OCZ Agility 2 OCZSSD2-2AGTE60G 2.5" 60GB SATA II MLC $138 AMIR Highest Score for a SSD ever tested by ThinkComputers "Which has been some time now" Am I missing something here? Maybe you need to move to the states so you can get decent prices? Gskil also has a couple drives of the same speed as the above OCZ for around $150USD I mean its not rocket science. 30gb drives were $300+ not long ago. OCZ is always having rebates on their drives which in turn means they really aren't as expensive to produce anymore. Gskil drops rebates every now and then as well as Patriot and Corsair. It wasn't long ago the above OCZ drives were $249-$279. Which I'm talking max of 6 months. SSD Prices are dropping like rocks over here. Now what it would be nice to see is a LLTW on an SSD drive considering its condensed memory modules and nothing more with no moving parts its a given that should be offered. Especially since system ram has been seeing LLTW for years why the same justice isn't given to SSD drives I don't know.
Yeah, stuff's just hideously expensive over here with the import duties & VAT (GST equivalent) & whatnot, & many people forget that, in the US, you can by everything for tuppence... ignore the Agility drives as the saving is really minimal for the drop in performance compared to the V2s (or equivalent)... & the smaller sized V1s (& Turbos) had much lower speeds than the 120GB ones so they're not ideal for your budget... ...hence why i've got 2x 120GB V Turbos (as they were the best option at the time - & in fact are still pretty awesome drives that have major advantages for some use types) along with my 4x newer 50GB V2s. i guess the choice is to either buy (at least) 2 ~50-60GB drives for a R0 setup (faster, 'should' be cheaper than a single ~100-120GB & helps to alleviate the locked cells issue by having more space to install things) or to really prioritise what you install onto one of them - definitely moving the user files, temp folders, desktop, etc, etc off them in favour of space for other software. SSDs do have a LLTW - the mainstream OCZ V2s are certainly 3 year with (i imagine) most other companies being much the same, which is kind of the same as most mainstream HDDs... & yeah, prices will always fall over time/you get better tech for the same money - the next 6 months or so & there 'should' be some really good 6Gb/s drives coming through that will better utilise the bandwidth than the C300 does, but then it's upgrading either the mobo (esp since most on board 6Gb/s SATA things aren't great yet) or buying a decent 3rd party card to take advantage of them.
@ PocketDemon Well I was actually looking at the OCZ Vertex or Agility 2 drives. They are right at the same price anyway. In no means was I trying to imply I wanted the older series V1 OR A1.
i mostly understood what you meant - well, i'd ignored the A1... it's simply that the V2 has vastly higher iops than the A2 (that "Highest Score for a SSD ever tested by ThinkComputers" is kind of misleading advertising) &, whilst the A2 is usually slightly cheaper ($10 or so - though strangely not from your pricing), it's not worth saving that comparatively tiny amount. &, completely separately & simply for info (just that old tech doesn't automatically equal shonkiness vs the newer models), the 120GB V Turbos are much better 'if' you'd happened to want to use the SSD for something like multimedia encoding/editing/batch processing,etc since the writes are quicker than either the 64GB or 128GB C300s (only slightly slower than the 256GB one) & without the limitation of the SF based SSDs with compressed files... Well, 2 in R0 of them would be ~20% more expensive than 1 256GB C300 (based on current UK pricing) but offer up to ~50% faster reads, & up to ~95% faster writes without the need for anything more than an ich9r or ich10r on board controller - hence they still command something of a premium.
For like the last 6 months the rig has been setup with a main OS partition for Win 7 and what ever else for 78GB. Its occupying 43.32GB and has been for several months. Leaving 34.6GB free. Now I'm sure I can junk a bunch that is on here if I go looking. Like original test apps and what not. Could be traces of games I decided I didn't want which uninstall never fully takes all the profiles etc out. So I would have to hunt around in the win 7 file structure for those things. Based upon what I've been taking up all this time and what I could actually cut out I think a 60-64 gig drive is plenty. Correct?
in theory for normal use then yes this would be fine (as limiting to <~50GB would give you a decent amount of OP - personal preference is to limit the partition size, but that's just me), but in practice it will depend upon how much other data & what type of data you actually write to it... again with the over explanation probably... At ~45GB of predominantly static data#, this will leave ~18-19GB of actual space on a 60GB V2, with ~13-14GB available (there's the same metricised GB values that are used with HDDs when selling SSDs) - some of which you won't see as all SSDs have ~7% of OP; though the 50GB/100GB/... v2s have ~20% of OP... hence you simply would buy the cheaper out of the 50GB & 60GB E version if that's the SSD you went for... [#for simplicity, i've assumed that all of the ~45GB is static data below - much of it will be almost entirely, though you'll have temp files & whatnot that won't, & there will be odd files updated via patches or whatever infrequently that will 'lock' other cells whilst releasing the originals] ...this remaining space (again ~19GB based on your suggested usage) then (1) represents all of the cells that are available to be written to on a day-to-day basis for wear leveling purposes (ie writes will be shared between visible free space & the OP area so that the 'non-locked cells' are equally used), (2) provides more free cells that have been pre-erased by whatever garbage collection method (or trim - though afaik the SF drives don't use trim) to maintain write speeds & (3) provides extra blocks to replace any in which cells fail. So, the lifespan of any SSD will be based around the no of writes that each cell can take before breaking down of these available cells - if you write 500GB of temp data a day then it will last 100x fewer days than writing 5GB per day. Now, because the DuraWrite tech in the SF controller based SSDs is designed to compress data as it's written in order to increase the lifespan (any 1GB file will appear to take up 1GB of space though), the type of data written to the remaining area on a day-to-day basis will use different numbers of physical cells based on its compressibility (ie a 1GB txt file is vastly more compressible than a 1GB mp3 & so will use far fewer physical cells), which again will affect longevity. Yeah, so that's kind of the main background info to it that you need - well, i obviously don't know what level of day-to-day writes & the type of data that's being written on your machine, but hopefully there's enough info there to both decide whether a ~60GB SSD will be sufficient for your needs &, if you do go for a SF based SSD, the type of data that might be best suited for writing to it for day-to-day use... Well, whilst a failed drive through overuse would be replaced by OCZ up to 3 years of purchase - there's the huge hassle of having to RMA it & reinstall from backups & whatnot... Oh, & i should perhaps add that many/most(?) articles about SSDs fail to take into account the importance of a decent level of OP for the 3 reasons given earlier (hence the more +ve reviews you'll no doubt find for the E versions of the V2s than the originals based around the increased space/decreased cost per GB) but, when you're looking at a comparatively small drive where the vast proportion of the cells are likely to become 'locked' semi-indefinitely, they are mis-advising people... ...though of course check the validity of the arguments for what i'm saying, feel free to dispute things if you want &, above all, make your own decision that you're happy with.
My eyes are rolling around in my head with all that. I don't know what games would write to the ssd when started if anything. I would think it mainly gets stored with the system ram and cached there. If that is the case there wouldn't really be any day to day use other then what ever windows will be doing with it. Considering once all games are installed (mind you these are all on different sata hds) there isn't going to be anything written or used purposely on the ssd. Downloads (ie patches updates) are all saved to a different drive on a different pc. Of course when opened they will extract to a temp folder, but mainly I don't update games unless I have problems or its required for multiplayer. As this is a game computer it is used for just that. Gaming. Nothing more nothing less. I have a laptop that is setup like a desktop with external mouse and keyboard as well as monitor. So all the heavy work and internet use is done via it. I also don't download patches and such via the game rig. I always use the work horse and install the patches etc via network. So the game rig is only on when I'm playing games. Mind you I still have a ton of games to install from: Racing/Driving, Stratagy, Action, Adventure, Sports, as well as some flight games. Right now there is only FSX with a ton of addons, Fia GTR2, SC2 and a few other strategy games as well as all my shooters. So I have my work cut out for me, but haven't had the chance again to sit down and dig through all my disks to see what I want to install. So that process has been at a stand still. When I get my case from the powder coaters that will get even worse as I have to assemble it and install everything as well as finish any sleeving I haven't finished at that time. Oh yea and test the water loops before the hardware even gets put in the system. So yea I have alot to do before I can even begin to think about sitting down to work on installing more LOL
it's actually really simple once you get your head around the basic principles but, as with many things, there's always a learning curve... ...well, once you've actually got one then, whatever the brand/model this gives a very good run down of the tweaks to Win7 to optimise things. (i have to double check on OS reinstallation to make sure i've not forgotten anything as it's quite a list - oh & remember that it's predominantly a tech support forum so, if you have a look around, there's an artificially vastly high number of people with issues compared to the actual proportion with problems from the people who've bought SSDs) Anyway, not knowing that you had a 2nd machine for internet, etc use (i do the same thing btw, though the better machine is also for multimedia editing, hq creative work, etc), then had to give more general advice... ...but solely using it for the OS & games then you won't have most of the writes going on that you would if it were more general purpose. So, other than the potential total space issue (can you install enough games on just one to not be annoying or would 2 in R0 be better? - not least as it's much more efficient to only set it up once than decide to add a 2nd at a later date - well, i could easily get through >250GB on the OS, apps & game installs, but have to limit it to nearer 160-170GB on a nominal 200GB array (ie 4 V2s @ ~50GB each), though that's just me), it sounds as though it's largely going to be update installation, (generally) small game saves & pagefile usage that will be the major day-to-day writes to the SSD(s). That being the case, you're in a much better situation than most - though, depending on the games you're playing, you may need to really take into account the pagefile usage; well, i've read that something like StarCraft 2 is very heavy on it even with decent amounts of memory installed. Okay, you could move the pagefile to another drive but that would have a knock on effect on speeds. Oh, & of course another way to minimise day-to-day writes would be to move the Windows temp folders (ie those used for expanding most installations), etc off of the boot drive & onto a HDD partition - obviously much slower, but since the temp folders will almost exclusively only being used for installations in your case then it'd be a one time hit rather than a potentially more continual slowdown of r/w speeds.
Well games aren't going on the ssd. So the large size or raid isn't a neccesity. My page file is set to manual now anyway and rather large at that. So I believe that is also where some of that occupied space is currently that I mentioned earlier. Considering when you manually set a swap file size it takes that space out of the available mention. So therefore I'm taking up less space then you thought I was anyway. LOL
Ah - i assumed you were aiming to put the games on the SSD... Well you'd written - "My game rig is currently setup with one OS drive that is split in half. Consisting of one partition of Win 7 and one Win xp. I want to be able to migrate or what have you the win 7 install to the ssd and keep it intact as well as basically move the xp install to the location of where win 7 will be leaving thus leaving the once occupied xp space for overflow applications and such that aren't used on a regular basis or for something else." - in the first post (which is talking about currently only having 2 partitions & the games obviously have to be somewhere for Win7) & - "So to sum it up the drive would just be used for an os install and for running games." - in your second post (which again it talking about games being installed on the SSD)... ...hence my assumption. Not to worry though. &, jfyi, a pagefile on an SSD won't continue to use the same cells as more data is written to it & other data moved back into physical memory leaving free space - the OS has no idea where data is stored on SSDs as that's the job of the inbuilt controller (you don't have ordered physical locations in the same way as you do on a HDD - the reason why a normal defrag is completely pointless on an SSD; other than to wear it out more quickly if you so chose)... if you do keep the pagefile on it (though it's recommended to have at least a 200MB one for error reporting/etc) then fixing a min size of 200MB & a max of whatever you think's appropriate works well since there's not the same issue of fragmentation &/or access speed in dynamically increasing the size that you get with HDDs.
Well the first post I never mention where the games were and that 2nd quote all I mention was for running games not installing them. LOL Its all in context. I have 3 Sata Hard drives dedicated for just game installation. Some time I may swap them all out for a 2tb drive, but the large drives scare me with all the bad problems they had when first released. Installing a sh%t load of games takes time and I don't want to do it all over again. Using the tested and true drives I have through 4 builds now suits me just fine. Well ever since I read a performance thing many years ago I've always manually set the page file and with doing so the guide said to match the min and max therfore allowing the system to fully utilize the alloted space at all times. Now I guess from what you said above that isn't the same anymore? Man if only I had been following the SSD tech since they started talking about it I would already understand this sh$t and know what to get and do. :-(
As said, not to worry about the confusion... Well, once you get the SSD bug then you'll be buying more & sticking your favourite games on there too Very simply, for your usage, something like the 50/60GB V2 will work with the kit you've got & you can stick more in without buying anything else (unlike the 64GB C300 where the Highpoint card has its major limitation of only being suitable for one drive & the alternatives add much more to the budget - you could get 2 more 50/60GB V2s & have the majority of the cash for a 4th one in change for the cost of a hald-decent 6Gb/s raid controller) - though after 2 on a ich9r/ich10r controller they start getting bandwidth limited. With a 50GB then use it all, or with a 60GB then partition it to ~50GB to add the extra OP to keep it running smoothly (just buy whichever's cheapest). Follow the guide (2 posts back) to optimise Win7 for it (esp things like not indexing/prefetching/deleting the hiberfil.sys, etc), move the temp folders to a HDD & leave the pagefile on there with something like a 200MB to 6-8GB range (it will only use what it needs). Then enjoy it &, as & when you next upgrade the machine, on board 6Gb/s SATA should work slightly better & there'll be newer & better SSDs out... & yes, you're completely correct that with HDDs then you should manually set the pagefile to a fixed size since it remains in a static physical location, but that's not the same with SSDs since the physical location will continually change when new writes occur as the controller will prioritise the use of clean blocks & will use wear leveling so that it's not the same ltd number being used continually.
With that being said an OCZ V2 60GB would probably be the best bang for the buck then with the prices I listed several posts ago.
isn't that what i just wrote??? "Very simply, for your usage, something like the 50/60GB V2 will work with the kit you've got & you can stick more in without buying anything else..." Yeah, it's simply that some places 'may' be selling the 50GB V2 cheaper as 'the market' is foolish & doesn't properly understand the need for OP - either way, limiting the partition size to ~50GB to force extra OP (esp with keeping the pagefile on there which i am recommending based on your stated usage)/stop yourself getting carried away with installing things would be a good idea. You 'could' also look at the Corsair F60 as that may be marginally cheaper - though imho OCZ are the better choice d.t. their longer relationship with SF, experience with the controller, support, fw updates, etc...
