Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    900
    Quote Originally Posted by corbain View Post
    Finicky, I'm well aware that SSDs cost more per GB than a regular hard disk, but as i've stated many times already in this thread the SSD isn't there to boost games performance, that would be a side benefit.

    The SSD would give the PC that zippy quick feeling like an Ipad, where applications open instantly. The OS would be installed on the SSD, and most desktop applications. If there's any room, then steam mover can be used to put a couple of games on as well.

    My mum has kind of fallen out of love with her PC a little, and now uses her Ipad as the go-to device for browsing, surfing etc. I'm trying to make her PC feel as responsive and quick as her Ipad.

    By your argument Finicky, it would seem that SSDs are a waste of money, whatever your budget.

    When I upgraded to an SSD, i can honestly say it was the best upgrade i've ever done. I put this link up earlier, but Alec really says it better.

    http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011...year%E2%80%A6/
    Sorry for RPS isn't an authority on pc hardware... next you'll probably link a toms hardware article:p

    If your pc takes that long to load programs like word or your browser (seconds for me) or explorer (instant) then perhaps your HDD is damaged , more than 85 percent full (hdd performance also tanks incredibly hard if it's full, thankfully you get 1TB of it rather than 64 GB) or full of malware and bloat or you simply have a 5400 rpm one like a WD caviar green, or an older gen one.

    I've used laptops with SSDs and while certainly more snappy, the difference compared to a modern HDD is meaningless in practice.

    Any non-soccermom malware infested well maintained pc with a modern 7200 RPM hdd with high platter density is already very very snappy.

    The only benifit I could potentially see if when moving large files between two SSDs...

    It's important to understand how windows 7 works:
    It will precache all of your commonly used programs into ram during boot up, and switch out what isn't needed to make room in the background.
    After the initial boot up, most of your stuff will be loading from (well rather already be in) the RAM, NOT from the HDD , when you open it, so again here HDD speed is often irrelevant after the initial boot up sequence. More ram will see a benifit here, as the more RAM windows detects the more stuff it will keep precached for you as you multitask.

    Why wouldn't your mum not be WAY more put off by constantly being shy for storage space , having to uninstall games to make room for a new one and not having any space for video?

    Her facebook and browsing and skype or whatever IM tool she uses and email client and steam and whatever else will be instant after the initial boot up due to how windows works, so again you are spending all this money on a tiny amount of storage just to get a faster boot sequence, faster installs (negligable amount of time spent on these) , and slightly faster loading times in games which are already super short anyhow.

    Me thinks all the SSD fans just haven't used a modern high density HDD like samsung spinpoint f3 1GB (1GB version has 500GB platters and is faster than the 500GB versions)...
    Or they don't know how to partition their hard drive (making your first partition the boot sector means the outside of the platter (faster reads there) is reserved for your OS and program files meaning faster boot up)
    Modern HDD's are faster than the 10k rpm raptor drives from 5 years ago and faster than 2 older 7200 rpm drives in raid 0..

    Well that or they have a pc full of crap and like 20 things spamming up their task bar when they first boot up. + having to rationalise having spent 100-250 euros on an SSD + forgetting what their old HDD was like after a fresh install.
    Last edited by Finicky; 23-08-2012 at 02:15 PM.

  2. #22
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Sakkura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,341
    OP: Just don't buy your new graphics card before the new AMD price cuts make their way to retailers.

    Also, try not to listen too much to Finicky. He seems to have some sort of personal issue with SSDs. Or he's just never heard of hard faults.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,069
    Quote Originally Posted by corbain View Post
    Whichever hard drive we opt for will cost approx 50
    I thought you wanted to recycle the "storage" HDD as the main(and only) hard drive.

    If you're planning on buying a new drive either way then sure, go for the SSD.

  4. #24
    Network Hub corbain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Englandshire
    Posts
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by Mohorovicic View Post
    I thought you wanted to recycle the "storage" HDD as the main(and only) hard drive.

    If you're planning on buying a new drive either way then sure, go for the SSD.
    Yeah, the 1 TB storage hard disk would be used for bulk data, and as primary steam volume.

    Again, because it's an older disk (prob around 4 yrs old) i would rather not use it as the OS drive.

    Thanks for all the advice everyone. I will present the options to my mum, trying not to be biased. Honestly, I thought the main discussion here would be whether to go with Intel over AMD, not SSD vs HD- but you've given me some food for thought.

    I'll update here what we went for when (if) I get the green flag.

  5. #25
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    900
    Quote Originally Posted by Sakkura View Post
    OP: Just don't buy your new graphics card before the new AMD price cuts make their way to retailers.

    Also, try not to listen too much to Finicky. He seems to have some sort of personal issue with SSDs. Or he's just never heard of hard faults.
    I don't have anything against SSD's, their benifits are just hugely overstated, or rather the snappyness of a decent HDD is understated.
    A modern HDD doesn't need 'fixing' it's already plenty fast enough for general use.

    The size of an SSD is nice in a laptop (which usually gets a shitty 5400rpm drive anyhow) but other than that ...

    edit: and now OP, you claim that you are using the old HDD afterall? You said you wouldn't be using it.
    That changes things, if you can reuse the old hdd but it is unfit as boot drive (pretty rare scenario) , and considering current silly HDD price inflation then sure, knock yourself out.

    Again that is not what you initially claimed though.
    You yourself said you'd have to be managing 64Gb of disk space., not 1064Gb.
    Last edited by Finicky; 23-08-2012 at 02:44 PM.

  6. #26
    Network Hub corbain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Englandshire
    Posts
    169
    Finicky, I did say in my original post that the storage hard disk was one of the parts being recycled, and that the new SSD or HD would only be for the OS + apps with any leftovers for the odd game.

    When i talked about managing the data, i meant more in terms of moving "my documents" to the storage drive and using steam mover to manage games storage location, and generally just having to be wary of the limited space on the C drive.

    Essentially there will be an approx 50 budget for a new hard drive/SSD- it comes down to a question of space vs speed

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by corbain View Post
    Well I seem to be in a minority here- I was under the impression that most games were far more limited by your GFX card than your CPU these days.
    It's as it's always been, it varies from game to game. But since I got an i5 2500k I don't ever have to worry about the cpu bottlenecking the pc. Coupled with my 6870 I get incredibly good framerates in everything I play, only occasionally having to lower settings from high.

    Defo worth noting I only run at a resolution of 1680x1050.

  8. #28
    Lesser Hivemind Node Shooop's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    'Merica
    Posts
    912
    I do hope you're keeping your HDD though. The SSD is nice, but you'll only reap any benefits from it if you're putting your OS on it. And that takes up a substantial amount of real estate - something you don't have a lot of with only 64GB.

    A SSD would speed up your game load times, but that's it. There is absolutely no other advantage to having one if you're playing games.

  9. #29
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    900
    @ corbain my bad then it was a misunderstanding on my end.
    As shoop says the ssd will really only be as boot drive though , but since in your situation that is all you need (large but old and slow existing hdd) then yeah there is no harm in getting a small SSD. (until your old HDD craps out:p then you get to buy a new one)

    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousOrange View Post
    It's as it's always been, it varies from game to game. But since I got an i5 2500k I don't ever have to worry about the cpu bottlenecking the pc. Coupled with my 6870 I get incredibly good framerates in everything I play, only occasionally having to lower settings from high.

    Defo worth noting I only run at a resolution of 1680x1050.
    Tbh if you happened to own an old c2q 9xxx cpu or a phenom II and matching cheap motherboard you could have gotten significantly much higher framerates (or the same framerates at much higher settings ) by buying a better GPU with the money saved from not getting an expensive intel mobo and cpu.

    Bang for buck gpu's scale much higher than cpus after a certain point (any decent tri or quad core being that point)
    Last edited by Finicky; 23-08-2012 at 09:40 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •