Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 16 Nov 2010.
Not interested. The write performance is too low, and I still haven't forgiven Intel for not providing the firmware update with TRIM support for the G1 SSD's.
When there is an SSD big enough to hold my steam directory AND isn't £lol, give me a call.
Write performance seems very low compared to drivers from Crucial, Patriot and OCZ especially considering the price.
Meh, SandForce-1200 is already ahead of Intel stuff, and we have SATA 6Gbps stuff too.
I didn't sell my G2 160Gb because of the size of the drive, because the write speeds are really bad comparing to other drives.
I was going to sell it and buy a Crucial C300 but I read (in another great site) that that drive has (or had) lots of problems with firmware, and I don't want a troubled drive
Junction points and steam backup are your friends.
But you can now buy really old, slow SSDs, RAID them, get better performance and more space, and it'll still be cheaper.
Phil "Boots Win7 in 13 seconds" Rhodes
I'd buy an SSD for an OS partitiion, but they are way over-priced for me at the moment. My F3's are fine
It's all done through command prompt really, although there are some programs around to do it too. XP uses junction points, Vista/7 also have a symbolic link.
Not sure why people want fast writes, what is it you do a lot of that hinders you write-speed wise? Intel X-25M has been excellent for me, and still beats quite a few sandforce drives in the 4KB read test.
hard drives are currently the main bottleneck of computers. they're terribly slow compared to what everything else can do. personally, i don't care enough. even if you have a gaming computer, loading speeds are still faster on the crappiest of hard drives than from reading from the disc on a console. hell, even computer disc drives are faster than the ones on consoles.
but for those who want real disk performance, ram drives are the best. thankfully me being a linux user, i can do that for free and very easily. windows users either have to buy a drive for that or buy a program, both of which aren't nearly as fast.
Erm... he's asking why people want fast write speeds (ie why they need them), given that write speeds aren't as important as reads in terms of snappiness - the main use of an SSD. Also - you essentially make no relevant point in that post. Just pointing that out.
oops you're right, he did say write. in that case, that is a good question, because most of the time you don't need high write speeds except for servers.
and my point from my previous post was (referring to read speeds) that hard drives are currently what slows down computers the most. most of your waiting time while opening a program or booting up your computer is due to the hard drive. i was also pointing out that if we moved into ram drives instead of solid state drives, we could have even faster read and write speeds. an actual drive composed of ram uses a battery to keep it going while the computer is off or unplugged, which i think is a worthy sacrifice for that much speed. the problem is, windows users can't easily or cheaply do this.
I keep being seduced by the performance of SSD's but £175 for 120GB drive is too much cash - I have set myself a target buy price for 120GB SSD of £120, anything more than £1 per GB is far too much money imo.
Here's hoping the smaller 25nm refresh helps them reach that goal.
SSD manufacturer's take note - your mainstream audience has spoken
I am expecting for a 160GB-200€ mark.
I just hope this will bring down the price on the fast 64 GB drives. i current run a 73 GB SCSI and it's nowhere near being full.
Separate names with a comma.