Poll: Are you running an SSD in your primary desktop?

You’ll have to excuse me if I have SSDs on the brain, because I’ve spent the last couple of months testing a stack of pure solid-state goodness. I can’t shake the notion that, for a performance-oriented enthusiast’s PC, there’s really no better place for the operating system and applications than on a multi-channel flash array. Don’t get me wrong; mechanical hard drives are great for mass storage and systems that can only accommodate a single drive, either due to space or budget constraints. For even a mid-range PC, though, there’s a compelling case to be made for investing in an SSD.

So, have you? That’s the subject of this week’s poll, which asks whether you’re running an SSD in your primary desktop PC. You can cast your vote after clicking the comment link below or over in the right column on the front page.

Our previous poll tackled multi-monitor setups, asking voters how many displays were hooked up to their primary PCs. The majority of voters (55%) indicated that they’re only running a single monitor. 36% have a second screen, while 6% sit in front of a three-way setup. A small handful of users are rocking more than three displays, and 55 voters are apparently basking in the glory of more than six.  Me?  I have a couple of Dell 2408WFP panels hooked up to my desktop rig, plus two more screens dedicated to test systems.  No SSD in the desktop yet, but that’s the next upgrade.

Comments closed
    • moritzgedig
    • 9 years ago

    For the money I could get 4GB of RAM plus a new HD.

    I have an rather old computer* but I just don’t need anything more, for more speed I should probably change from MS Vista to MS W7, before making changes to the HW.
    I will get one, but not within the next year.
    * Athlon64 X2 4400; 2GB

    • dogchainx
    • 9 years ago

    Yes, 4x120GB Vertex hooked into an LSI 9260-8i. Overkill? Probably, but so is 12GB of DDR3 and a 4.4GHz i7 920 CPU.

    • Mr Bill
    • 9 years ago

    Running two X25-M G2’s one for boot one for data. Makes Adobe lightroom fly for my digital photos. 1-2 second render times. I’ve run U320 SCSI for a long time. This is quicker for about the same cost (if you consider controller cost).
    AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE@3.2GHz DDR3@1600 NB@2400 | MSI 790FX-GD70 | 4 x 2GB = 8GB OCZ Platinum DDR3 | Intel X25-M G2 | Asus Radeon HD 4770 | BenQ FP241VW 24″ LCD Monitor | Antec Neo HE 550 | Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus | WinXP64 SP2

    • mrksha
    • 9 years ago

    Windows 7 would be unbearably slow without a SSD imo.

    80GB X-25M G2 here

      • Firestarter
      • 9 years ago

      It’s not. If you have enough RAM and enough CPU/GPU power to comfortably run Aero, it’s faster in general use than XP.

        • grantmeaname
        • 9 years ago

        I have 3GB and a 2.0GHz C2D, and it’s downright /[

    • Waco
    • 9 years ago

    Bought a 128 GB G.Skill Falcon last summer and don’t think I’ll ever be able to move back to a mechanical drive…

    • darksynth
    • 9 years ago

    wrong reply! doh

    • darksynth
    • 9 years ago

    I use an 80 gig intel G2 for my C:

    Raid 1 setup for games and a raid 5 array for storage space.

    • Rectal Prolapse
    • 9 years ago

    Instead of upgrading to an Intel Core-i7 machine I opted to install SSDs in RAID onto my circa-2006 Intel 965 C2D E6400 machine. I’m glad I did – it runs much faster than the faster machines at work that have mechanical drives.

    I do a lot of heavy multitasking (10-20 tabs in Firefox, several Explorer windows, unrarring 40+ gigabyte archives, remuxing of video/audio).

    Burning a Blu-ray while copying a 40 gigabyte file was nearly impossible with mechanical drives – the disc thrashing got so bad that the 256 megabyte buffer I assigned to the burner software still emptied out! This never happens with my SSD setup.

    • Sniper
    • 9 years ago

    256gb Corsair Nova here… My boot up time on my quad core q9450 + 6gigs of ram went from about a minute (when everything finishes loading) to about 17 seconds last I clocked.

    • ShadowTiger
    • 9 years ago

    Against the SSD for your OS argument, when I first installed my Windows vista basic it finished booting and loading all of the services in 30 sec. Now it takes over twice as long, 2 years later. If i just reinstall a fresh windows copy it will give me a greater speed boost than buying an SSD.

      • Ethyriel
      • 9 years ago

      So your argument against an SSD is poor administration of your computer?

      • Sniper
      • 9 years ago

      Jumpin jupiters

    • iatacs19
    • 9 years ago

    I have an intel X-25M Gen2 and it’s pretty fast for certain things, but in general it’s not that impressive. I do appreciate the 0db noise more than anything. Maybe by Gen4 these things will truly be revolutionary.

    • Vaughn
    • 9 years ago

    Intel 160GB G2 Since Dec 09.

    SSD+HD Combo is unbeatable right about now.

      • continuum
      • 9 years ago

      Yep, same here. Laptop is also an Intel G2 160GB.

      Things may not be out and out faster all the time, but overall system responsiveness is so much faster with a good SSD, it’s not even funny.

      For bulk storage, I have a RAID6. =)

    • Anemone
    • 9 years ago

    I just need Intel durability (proven over years not months) and 300gb minimum. When those two come together I’ll probably upgrade if the price isn’t horrible. And by horrible, I don’t consider the current 160 prices all that bad. Each generation they have roughly given 50-100% more space for the same price. So one more generation and I’m in.

      • dmjifn
      • 9 years ago

      I agree, I think the prices seem fine. A year or two ago, I said my bite point would be $3/gb. Now I have to admit that I just haven’t bought one because I’m cheap and too lazy to migrate my software.

    • Firestarter
    • 9 years ago

    I don’t understand why everyone keeps saying that the cost per gigabyte must be somewhat close to that of mechanical drives. That would make sense if the performance for daily tasks was also somewhat close, which is definitely not the case. Considering that the hard drive has long been the worst bottleneck of the PC and that the performance of the HDDs never improved as much as the rest of the ecosystem, investing a few extra dollars to dramatically improve the performance of a PC is a bargain.

    What some of you guys are saying is that you’d only buy a 256 gigabyte SSD if they cost about as much as a 2TB HDD. If you really had 2TB worth of data to shuffle around instead of a 2TB stockpile of pirated porn and blurays, you’d already have invested in SSDs.

      • Vasilyfav
      • 9 years ago

      The majority of people are irrational and ignorant idiots, yes, even the tech savvy ones.

      They’d rather operate based on their pre-conceived misconceptions, than to rationally judge a decision.

      • Krogoth
      • 9 years ago

      Modern game collections can easily eat up GiBs of data. Those cheap, small SSDs end up getting filled too quickly. While, the more spacious SSDs easily run $399+ if not more.

      Are they worth it because they can shave a few seconds out of your load time? That’s the real question here.

        • OneArmedScissor
        • 9 years ago

        So…don’t fill one with games and leave those on the mechanical drive you *[

          • Krogoth
          • 9 years ago

          You just defeated one of the main reasons in getting a SSD. ๐Ÿ˜‰

            • Vasilyfav
            • 9 years ago

            No, he didn’t because storing games you don’t play isn’t a reason for getting an SSD.

            Try again though.

            • SomeOtherGeek
            • 9 years ago

            Totally wrong, man. Seriously. Since I bought my X-25M G2, the over all system performance has greatly improved. From load up times to just opening up app is unbelievable. I tried putting a game on it and yes, it was faster, but not that much faster to justify wasting the space.

            I guess, see is believing. You’ll just have to find out for yourself to justify it.

            • HisDivineShadow
            • 9 years ago

            Painting fences is fun. If only you’d try it and then you’d know just how much fun it is! Heeey, here’s a brush for only $200+… Seeing’s believing and painting’s believing, too!

    • bthylafh
    • 9 years ago

    I’ll consider it when they get cheaper. The extra performance would be nice, and the reduced noise and power consumption, but SSDs are still too expensive for me.

    • flip-mode
    • 9 years ago

    Can’t justify the cost in my home computer. When they get to $100 at decent capacity (160 GB) then it will be time.

    • Prototyped
    • 9 years ago

    I was recently handed down a 74 GB Raptor. It’s substantially better at distributed I/Os than my old WD5000AAKS. It’ll do for the foreseeable future.

    Until GB/ยฃ catches up with spinny platter drives, it’ll be spinny platter drives for me!

      • Dashak
      • 9 years ago

      For me, GB/$ only needs to come down to twice that of a mechanical drive before I buy. And it needs to come in 320GB varieties or more.

      My Steam folder uses over half my 640GB Caviar Black, so maybe I’ll even wait for 500GB capacities.

      P.S. Does anyone know why they don’t make them in 2.5 or 3.5″ form factors?

    • ante9383
    • 9 years ago

    Yes, as of 2 weeks ago I am running a Corsair Nova 128GB SSD, and I am very happy with it.

    I chose it due to TR’s recommendation in a recent SSD review.

    Thanks, TR!

    • jplayer01
    • 9 years ago

    I have an SSD in my laptop (great performance, zero noise). It’s great … worlds better than the 5400rpm drive which was in it before. And seeing as how it’s not a gaming laptop, I don’t really need much space (got one of those 40GB Intel SSD’s).

    I think I’ll wait before I get an SSD for my main PC though. Too expensive per GB.

    • NeelyCam
    • 9 years ago

    80GB G1 on my CULV lappie, and 80GB G2 on my fanless desktop – almost half of the latter is operating as an MP3 server for Squeezebox.

    Me likey snappy PCs

    • DrDillyBar
    • 9 years ago

    3.5TB in 2 drives.
    Call me when they’re reasonable at 500GB.
    Edit! I do really dig PCIe SSD’s;

    • jonahkirk
    • 9 years ago

    I run an 80 gb Intel G1 in my main desktop. I use hdparm off a linux live cd to do a manual garbage trim when needed. I also have a 1 tb. mechanical hard drive and a 5770, all running on my antiquated AMD Athlon X2 3800 with 3 gb. ddr400 running win 7 64bit. I was going to upgrade, but bought a home server instead. I have to say, with the intel drive this thing seems dang fast (as long as I’m not doing much encoding) and with the 5770, I can play just about anything on my old 21.5 inch 1680 x 1050 monitor.

    • dragmor
    • 9 years ago

    Not in my desktop, its a 5 year old shuttle with a NF3 chipset, but I do have a 128GB indilinx drive in my laptop.

    • Ethyriel
    • 9 years ago

    Kinda. I just threw a 160GB X25-m G2 in my aging Thinkpad X61s. The laptop was really starting to feel slow, and I’ve tried replacing it twice over the last year, but both attempts have failed. When I saw the SSD open box at Newegg for $325, I jumped on it, and it really brought new life to the Thinkpad. My boot time went from 17 seconds Grub to GDM to 9 seconds, and Gnome itself loads in a couple seconds. Larger apps like Firefox and Open Office had their load times cut in less than half. Everything is just so snappy, I’m even happier with the crappy screen drawing performance of the Intel graphics. Even though it has no direct effect, my general annoyance level is much lower.

    So my desktop will have a Sandforce drive in it when I upgrade to a 6 core Phenom later this year. And probably a handful of X25-v for virtual machines, seeing that it’s more a testing/learning platform than a desktop.

    I really don’t get all the bitching about capacity. Since you invariably make the argument that mechanical drives are dirt cheap, what’s stopping you from getting one or three for your data storage? You shouldn’t store your data on the same drive as your OS anyway. Honestly, the X25-m is such a huge step up even over my Velociraptor in a much faster system, you guys simply don’t know what you’re missing.

    • albundy
    • 9 years ago

    just got 8 500gb drives pulled from a lacie NAS rack server that was tossed out at work. its gonna be a very long…long while when ssd can beat that in raid 0 and storage size! call me when ssd’s start to measure in TB.

    • yuriylsh
    • 9 years ago

    Yes, Intel X25-M 80GB (G2) which I’ve been using for the last several months. Extremely happy with it, it’s one of the most noticeable upgrades in my experience. All the ‘heavy’ data reside on the home server (built from spare leftovers after upgrades, with Windows Home Server installed on it), so the free space is non-issue for me .
    I would disagree with people who say it makes sense only for server-like workloads, for me the biggest advantage of the drive is responsiveness of the system /[

    • ChrisDTC
    • 9 years ago

    Yes. 2 32GB Samsung enterprise drives in a RAID 0.

    • FuturePastNow
    • 9 years ago

    Yes! 80GB X-25M G2.

    33% say yes on the poll, so far. I’m surprised that it’s so high.

    • sawickig
    • 9 years ago

    Geoff, author of this article said:

    for a performance-oriented enthusiast’s PC, there’s really no better place for the operating system and applications than on a multi-channel flash array. Don’t get me wrong; mechanical hard drives are great for mass storage and systems that can only accommodate a single drive, either due to space or budget constraints. For even a mid-range PC, though, there’s a compelling case to be made for investing in an SSD.

    yes, and yes, and yes, I cannot agree more.

    SSD expensive ? who said that progress is cheap ? how many of you who complain about SSD price blew 10 times that on video cards ?

      • Krogoth
      • 9 years ago

      The problem is that most “enthusiast” systems don’t run workloads on their I/O where SSDs would shine. Mainstream HDDs could do the job fine for far less $$$$ and having far superior capacity.

      SSDs make sense in some cases where you could utilize their advantages; silence, low-power consumption, resistance to physical trauma, superior multi-user/multi-tasking performance.

        • Waco
        • 9 years ago

        Even though they don’t “shine” with standard gaming/whatever workloads they are still a very noticeable upgrade. Even my GF bitches when she has to use her own computer (which has a 1 TB WD Black) after using mine with an Indilinx SSD for a while.

    • madmanmarz
    • 9 years ago

    3 cheap SATA drives in RAID0 + Readyboost gives me all types of speed. When they are more reliable and around 1$ per GB, I’ll consider one or two.

    • mbutrovich
    • 9 years ago

    160GB X-25M G2 in the MBP, and 64GB WD SiliconEdge in the desktop.

    • sircharles32
    • 9 years ago

    Last choice.

    They’re still way too expensive, and seem to be much more temperamental than mechanical hard drives. Also, I’m not to crazy about the 2.5 inch form factor.

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 9 years ago

      The “Deal of the Week” SSDs are still *[

    • Ardrid
    • 9 years ago

    I just built a new box and, while I was very tempted to pick up an SSD, I decided to go with a 300GB VelociRaptor. The $/GB is just not high enough for me yet, and I’d prefer not to be uninstalling apps when I get near the limit of the 80-120GB drive I’d have likely purchased. That said, I’m going to be very interested when Intel introduces their smaller and cheaper NAND. If they can price a 300GB drive close to $300, or preferably under, I’m definitely there. The insane performance increase would be worth the $100 premium over my new Raptor.

    • Bauxite
    • 9 years ago

    160 G2 in desktop
    80 G2 in a culv “netbook”

    I plan to keep upgrading the main desktop sys in the future and handmedowning the drives through other systems in turn.

    • Synchromesh
    • 9 years ago

    Laptop: Runcore MBA LIF 64GB SSD
    Desktop: Intel X25-M 160GB G2

    My VelociRaptor 300GB is for sale now. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • DancesWithLysol
    • 9 years ago

    I’m running a SSD in my primary desktop and laptop. Over a year ago I purchased one for my laptop and it made such a massive performance difference I immediately ordered one for my desktop.

    Laptop: OCZ Vertex 120 GB

    Desktop: Intel X25-M 160GB (G1)

    SSDs are the 3D accelerator of hard drives. When I hear people say that they aren’t interested in SSDs because it doesn’t make much of a difference vs mechanical drives it made me think of people 12 years ago who claimed that Voodoo 2s didn’t provide a substantial improvement over software rendering. In both cases the upgrade was expensive and worth the money.

    • nightmorph
    • 9 years ago

    I run /[

    • sawickig
    • 9 years ago

    invested in sweet NAS box built by myself – 7TB+ 10x1TB WDC in RAID6
    boot disk SSD, OS CentOS 5
    from this point going forward all my other machines, including primary box and HTPC are SSD only and used for boot disk only
    advantages are numerous, data on the network so it is “same data everywhere”

    SSDs fail ? so do HDDs, fail rate is not the problem, longevity may be, so I tuned all my OSes to write minimal data to boot disk

    net result ? no HDD related noise and heat in my machines, no headaches with cooling as I tend to run low end of TDP on CPUs and undervolt them too, sweat peace an quite and performance very good as most likely you are never CPU bound but IO or memory, with RAM plentiful and cheap these days SSDs were the last piece to the puzzle

    I missed IO performance of my box I had in the past that was all SCSI, yes even CD burner thanks to Yamaha, only now with SSDs I am back at similar level some 10 years later

      • indeego
      • 9 years ago

      Frankly the tuning programs/suggestions (i.e. turning off indexing, system restore, 8.3 filename disable, other than the obvious like defrag off,) I find to be silly. Treat all your disks as if they can/will die at any moment and back them up. Losing features like System restore or system indexing in my mind is just as detrimental as losing speed. I don’t do the tweaks on my users systems and using Intel SSD optimizer we’re not seeing failures or anything that would indicate drives will die within their 3 years warranty.

      Next up is the death of optical. We simply won’t be putting them on new machines after July. Man I don’t even know why we keep buying desktops, but Management likes to keep their plebeians closeg{<.<}g

        • Sunburn74
        • 9 years ago

        Man I don’t understand all this worry about SSD lifespan. Doesn’t intel rate their MLC ssds at 100gb of writes a day with 5years guaranteed? I may barely do 1gb of writes a day honestly. I know I do less than 1GB of writes a day because I had a ramdisk setup to offload some writes (temp files, internet browser files, etc) and it filled up at a rate of… oh about 1gb every 2-3 weeks or so. Thats not to say that millions of tiny writes aren’t being created and destroyed, but honestly I doubt I’m carving anywhere near my 100gb of writes a day limit.

          • sawickig
          • 9 years ago

          you guys did not understand or i was not clear
          i turn stuff of that is useless not that it impacts SSD, if SSD goes bad I have a spare and I am back in business in 30 minutes without re-instali but re-imaging it
          i did turn stuff off when i used HDDs exclusively, again because it was useless
          in SSD case useless stuff wears SSD off faster and if you need windows indexing to tell you where your resume is or letter to your grandma then you have a bigger problem ๐Ÿ™‚
          restores ?
          i ghost c:periodically and if something gets foobared i restore from there
          i have been doing this for living ๐Ÿ™‚ for 17 years already ๐Ÿ™‚
          when a computer built by me but used by a person totally not computer savvy and that person foobars it by virus, malware or whatever restore takes 5 minutes on the phone ๐Ÿ™‚
          boot and from grub for DOS select boot to FAT32 partition where ghost exe is and where last full ghost image of c: is, mind you i built comps the way that user data is always _NOT_ on C: even if comp has single disk
          run restore.bat and you will back in business in 5 minutes
          sure beats the heck from windows restore whichever windows u use
          try to walk your granny on the phone through windows restore ๐Ÿ™‚ heh ๐Ÿ™‚
          anyhow, i make living like i said tuning comps, not small windows boxes but large machines with 60TB of disk and 1TB of ram and 32-64 cores ๐Ÿ™‚

          point is SSDs are it, they may not fit your model as in $/GB and total space you may need but if money is not an object you want your local disks to be on SSD, if you have not tried get Vertex 30GB or Intel X25-V 40GB and take it for a ride, only $100 bucks but what a thrill ๐Ÿ™‚

            • Sunburn74
            • 9 years ago

            I thought win7 auto detects SSDs and by default turns off defrag, indexing, prefetch and superfetch?

            • OneArmedScissor
            • 9 years ago

            It does.

            He’s trying to tell us that he’s the most anal retentive person on the face of the planet. :p

            Turning off system restore just sounds silly to me. Reboot in safe mode, click no on the self explanatory pop up to make it open system restore, select a day on the calendar a few days back, and you’re done.

            I’m pretty sure my grandma could actually handle that, and it doesn’t even take 5 minutes or screw with anything you’ve installed or changed other than what just borked.

            • Waco
            • 9 years ago

            I honestly have no clue why anyone would turn off Superfetch…just because SSDs are “fast” they are still many orders of magnitude slower than RAM.

    • Fighterpilot
    • 9 years ago

    As usual….Krogoth are disappoint.

      • Krogoth
      • 9 years ago

      I am critically looking at SSDs. The current batch are still workstation and server drives. I am preventing people from making the foolhardy decision on spending hard-earn $$$$ on dubious returns when the technology still has plenty of room for growth.

      In other words, wait until $$$$/GB ratio improves while transfer rates improved to the point that SSDs are decisively faster than HDD at mainstream loads.

        • Thue
        • 9 years ago

        The returns are not dubious! The only question is whether you will get better returns by waiting.

        • OneArmedScissor
        • 9 years ago

        Wtf do the transfer rates matter? They’re already outlandish. Even 5,400 RPM drives of today can transfer “too fast” for almost anything people would be doing.

          • Krogoth
          • 9 years ago

          Because any data has come from the HDD/SSDs before it goes into system memory. Your main bottleneck here is I/O’s transfer rate and access speed. SSDs have the decisive edge in access speed, but aren’t really that much faster at transfer rates than their HDD counterparts.

            • Waco
            • 9 years ago

            …except that those access times allow for very fast small accesses (AKA better bandwidth for a wider range of I/O access patterns).

    • Sunburn74
    • 9 years ago

    I bought 2x 80GB X-25Ms for $175 a piece over a 1 1/2 years ago and haven’t looked back. My raid setup screams. I highly recommend the purchase to anyone thinking about a SSD. It makes mundane tasks with your PC very very snappy. If you’re into instant gratification when it comes to computing (ie I click on the icon and something immediately explodes) a SSD is for you.

    Actually to be honest though, I’ve never gotten past the 60 percent free space mark. Even when I’m working, the programs I run aren’t that space intensive (a lot of scientific image processing software and some other number crunching type programs). Barring keeping 7+ games installed at the same time, I don’t see why anyone would need more than 80 gigs on a SSD (who plays 7 games at once? I play at most 3 games). Honestly the largest non game program I have is having the full Microsoft office suite installed (a little less than 2 gbs) even though I only use less than 2% of all the software that comes with it. Most programs are honestly less than 30mb each.

    • ew
    • 9 years ago

    At the rate SSDs are improving they just don’t make sense for me at the current price levels. In a year or so they’ll be twice as fast and half as expensive. I’m in no hurry.

      • Ushio01
      • 9 years ago

      That apply’s to the cpu, gpu and mechanical storage so waiting is always pointless.

        • paulWTAMU
        • 9 years ago

        Only to a point. I won’t need more than 300-500 gigs unless I start shooting HD video, so I just need to wait till 300+ gig SSDs are affordable. Waiting makes perfect sense in this case, as I have a perfectly serviceable hard drive, a fair set range of needs, and the technology is rapidly improving. It’s the same reason I’m waiting for a new GPU; mine is currently more than enough, and I know if I wait longer (until it is no longer adequate) I’ll get a better solution than if I buy now, while my current one is still working fine.

        • Prototyped
        • 9 years ago

        It doesn’t apply to mechanical storage. NAND flash and SSDs are getting cheaper faster than mechanical storage is.

    • Krogoth
    • 9 years ago

    SSDs still don’t make sense for normal desktop usage.

    They are workstation and server drives. Shame that most people think more IOPS = faster, which isn’t exactly the case. Game and mainstream application load times are typically CPU-bound with a few exceptions here and there (COD:MW2).

    • Sanctusx2
    • 9 years ago

    “in the next year.” I really want one, but I don’t want to use it as simply a startup drive. My plan is to wait till the 120GB ones are in the 200-300 range and use it standalone in my rig(or a new rig). I built a fileserver last year that I offload all my data and media to, but I still want a comfortable margin of space to manipulate files.

    • bowman
    • 9 years ago

    Last option for me. Way too expensive, and they seem to still be dodgy in the long term. Of course the reviews are gonna be sweet, reviewers use them for a month then ship ’em back.

      • Damage
      • 9 years ago

      ORLY? Nearly two years into SSD use here. Underwhelmed by the TRIM-less X25-M 80GB in my main desktop, which contributed to our conservative guide recs for a while. But very pleased with the Kingston and OCZ Vertex 128GB SSDs with TRIM support in my two Win7-equipped laptops, which contributed to the SSD rec in recent guides.

      Geoff needs to get on with it, though. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • PrecambrianRabbit
    • 9 years ago

    I voted “Call me when cost is closer to mechanical”, but really I just want it to be affordable for my set of data. If I could get, say, 150 GB for $150, I’d do it.

    • jackbomb
    • 9 years ago

    Cassettes FTW!

    Still using my 1TB Seagate w/ risky firmware.
    My next desktop will probably have an SSD and large mechanical drive.

      • Helmore
      • 9 years ago

      Still using punched cards here to load my data….

        • ew
        • 9 years ago

        Punch cards biodegrade too fast. I put all most my most precious data on stone tablets.

    • cegras
    • 9 years ago

    That’s sort of surprising, considering storage reviews at TR about SSDs were very reserved, especially with 300 GB Raptors still being recommended on the system guide.

      • NeelyCam
      • 9 years ago

      Yeah, well, don’t trust everything you read… even on TR.

      You can’t beat random read access with Raptors, and that’s what really matters

        • Damage
        • 9 years ago

        Uh, our recent guides have and do recommend SSDs. The addition of TRIM and the availability of drives with effective implementations of it have changed our view on SSDs, just as the used-state block-rewrite issues caused us to be cautious for a time. Both positions were appropriate for the state of the technology at the time, IMO.

          • clone
          • 9 years ago

          the biggest challenge facing SSD adoption is two fold……. old junk still in the retail channel and price.

          I keep reading about SSD’s I’d love to get but then price kills it and then I log online to see what I could get for possibly the right price and it’s all outdated trash.

          if they can offer up a state of the art 128gb SSD for $250 or less I’ll jump on board… till then I’ll wait.

          p.s. no OCZ for me …. have had failure & RMA problems with their product both OCZ and even PC Power and Cooling they’ll not see any more of my money.

    • lilbuddhaman
    • 9 years ago

    Same, just got mine, Vertex 2 120gb. Only thing on it is BFBC2 right now though as I’m not prepared to do a reinstall of ye olde windows yet.

      • Helmore
      • 9 years ago

      Then you’re getting little benefit out of it. Just reinstall windows, you’ll notice the improvements right away.

    • indeego
    • 9 years ago

    Yes, as of 2 days agog{<.<}g Intel 160G G2. With my core apps [re] -installed I'm seeing 70% usageg{<.<}g

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This