Are SSDs any good yet? I'm thinking about migrating my OSs to SSD, which ones does /g/ recommend
You can buy like 200GB for under $100 now.
As someone who has only filled up 100GB in the last ten years, I'd say it's about time to switch.
I gave my gf a SSD for her 2010 MacBook last weekend. She was skeptical but afterwards said she noticed a major improvement in performance, so yes, they're great and definitely no placebo like some people on /g/ keep shouting.
I have an SSD in my laptop and desktop too and they're both fast as fuck, even though my laptop is a shitty 5 year old Acer.
Get a Crucial, it's the only brand out there that can really be trusted right now.
Get a 128GB SSD, it is the sweet spot for installing your OS and programs on. 20GB for your OS and a few essential programs and you are left with around 100GB for games and other fancy programs. Sandisk ultra plus are the ssd you are looking for, their 128GB version is $50 on amazon.
As for reliability most SSDs beging to fail after 750 to 1,000TB of continuous data writing. In everyday use you might write 10GB of data MAX so that is a little over 3TB of data written each year. Unless you are a data center you can safely assume your SSD will outlive you.
Almost everything actually used has less than a 10% chance of failing this year.
Same again next year etc. until it's really old.
That doesn't mean that you won't be in the <10%, anyways.
Well, welcome to the 2010's. There's some cool stuff around. No, Half Life 3 is still not out.
The reliability difference between the worst hard drive and the best hard drive is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. No one with any actual important data ever picks up a hard drive and thinks, "This is the only storage I will need." No, it will always be backed up somewhere else. WD blacks fail just like any other hard drive.
>Intel is shit though
SSDs are probably the only area where they are good AND cost efficient.
Probably because they have competition.
I've been using a Intel 330 for the past 3 years, before that an Intel X-25V for 2 years. Rock solid, fast as fuck.
Might change to one of those new PCIe mounted M.2 SSDs though, back at CES they were demoing units which nearly hit 2000 MB/s (almost 4x the speed of SATA3).
No one with important data who doesn't deserve to be set on fire like a Jordanian pilot doesn't back it up no matter what hd they use.
SSD performance improvement is massive and the impact resistance is a bonus now that desktops are dead.
>Probably because they have competition.
I laugh because it's true.
>AMD why :(
Intel tends to be on the pricier side of SSDs but they've gotten a lot better about it. Half a decade back they were the premiere brand in reliability (really the only reliable one back then) and you would pay out the ass for it.
>tfw 98% SSD life remaining
>been using it 4 years
B-but they don't last long!
Seems like the Intel one is the fastest one, though. I've been looking into the Corsair LS line as well, which seems quite fast. But I have no idea if they're any good.
They are okay, but you better be keeping backups. To be fair you should be keeping backups regardless.
Don't worry about speed because you will never notice it (except for kingstons, they are basically not worth your time), all you should care about is reliability.
They are fine for laptops where you don't need much space, but if you are buying some shitty 128gb one just to put your OS on it to participate in ssd shill threads and benchmark dick waiving contests, don't bother.
I think the Samsung one would be a bit faster with that CPU (the 4690K is still really fast), so if you have the money to spare, get that one. Otherwise, get the Crucial. The difference won't really be that noticeable in practice.
All I can say for sure is that I got two 480GB Crucial M500s. One for my laptop and one for my desktop. While it's a good match for my crappy i3 laptop, I sometimes wonder if a 840 Pro would've been better for my (4770K) desktop.
>my computer manages to boot way faster than his
Look even with two SSDs that are a bit faster/slower than each other the difference in boot time is usually gonna be 1-2 s because most SSDs can boot into Windows in under 10 seconds. If that's not the case for either of you you both have problems elsewhere. I have a shitty computer with really old stuff in it (AMD 3-core processor) and I can boot into windows from my SSD in ~8-10 seconds.
Intels are the best, but they are expensive as hell if you want high capacity. You could get an Intel 240gb for $160, though, just to use as a boot drive.
Most people probably have more than that in their Steam directory, but honestly I put my games on an HDD and my OS on a SSD and games still run fast.
They fixed those issues already with the 840. The real problem is the fix sometimes made the drives unusable. The 850 is one of the fastest SSDs and has also had some really good sales lately. It's got a warranty. Most people replace it before the warranty is done. There's no reason to not buy shit because "something might happen." Anything might happen to any piece of hardware.
I bought a $60 128GB Sandisk SSD off of Amazon a few weeks ago. So far so good.
I've been thinking of starting a scam business where I can guarantee that I can upgrade your computer to be faster and I just clone your HDD and put it on the SSD.and the customer will see very damn obviously how much faster it boots up, but the price of buying somebody an SSD costs into my profits.
The problems came back for some people. Reportedly mostly for drives that are used very little. I'll keep off the TLC drives for some time until I've seen them be completely fine for a bit. The whole fiasco with the 840 EVO hurt my trust in them a bit.
For most Windows users, you could guarantee to make their computer run faster just by reinstalling the OS.
For family members who manage to hose their Windows install every year, I found the best solution is to partition their drive into OS and data, then image the OS partition right after I have everything nice and installed.
> find expected read / write
> subtract used read / write
> divide by expected read / write
i was doing some research on ssd's and found this really interesting tidbit
tl;dr programs are still written with hard disk drives in mind and can't take advantage of ssd's
>turn off startup programs
There you have it, runs as fast as it did when it was new. The need to reinstall Windows every once in a while is a myth made up by people who can't into maintenance.
>wtf how do you even come up with 98%?
That's the whole point about the "SSD lifespan" meme:
They have a limited number of write cycles, so you can predictably count down until they die.
Under heavy load SSD's aren't going to last more than about 40 years, 50 years tops. - that's why /g/ doesn't want them.
My last PC repair task was a certain family member's laptop. The fucking thing took literally 45 minutes to go from power on to displaying the wallpaper. I let it sit there for another 2 hours and Explorer still wouldn't load, the HDD was busy cranking away at who knows what.
Safe Mode still worked, so I ran the usual tools, disabled everything non-MS in msconfig, and the mystery process was still executing itself on a normal boot (I could still load up task manager and I watched like 10-20 phony lookalike processes jump in and out of it).
I'm sure it was just some stupid virus but I hardly ever use Windows on my own computers anymore so I'm rusty on some of the tricks. It still amazes me how badly people can fuck up their own shit
Those are the exceptions. Sure an install can fuck up sometimes and then an reinstall is needed, but I was talking about the situations when it's just been slowed down by a lot of malware. Simply removing that load makes a machine very quick. My mother's computer is a 2008 C2D with 3 GB RAM still running the original Vista install. Still pretty much as quick as when it was new, because she doesn't do stupid shit and I keep it updated for her.
I'm seriously not even trolling, but I don't understand why this is a problem for NON ENTERPRISE applications... Outside of really niche shit (which I guess some on /g/ are into), the average consumer is not going to need more than 10 years out of their hard drive before they just upgrade the whole computer or the hard drive itself because the technology has advanced in that time. Why would a consumer need more than 40-50 years out of their HDD when I don't think ANYONE uses a part that long day-to-day?
They work great if you intend to write a little more then its capacity to it and nothing more. If you do something that involves a lot of deleting and writing, an SSD for programs and a HDD for storage is the best bet.
>I don't understand why this is a problem for NON ENTERPRISE applications
It's a problem because of autism.
Some people just cannot deal with the very idea of something wearing out, even if it's going to last 200 years under normal use.
Have you forgotten where you are?
I have the one in your picture and it's fine.
Obviously, when you pay +30$ extra for a brand like intel you get a good product, because intel doesn't do shit to hurt their brand name.
Not to say that Intel aren't fuckers.
Stuck between Intel 530 and Samsung 850 EVO. I'm also considering being a cheap fuck and going with one of those $60 budget SSDs. Any suggestions?
>I'm also considering being a cheap fuck and going with one of those $60 budget SSDs. Any suggestions?
I had a cheap kingston 60gb and 2 sandisk 60gbs and all 3 of them failed after about 2-3 years, they're the only non-volatile storage I've had die on me in a decade barring a refurbished usb drive
before I get shit for buying a sandisk ssd - it was in 2012~, I had assumed that their (well earned) reputation was for earlier drives - how wrong I was
850 EVO. i finally made the jump to SSD two or three months ago and got the 850 PRO - it's been a beast and is humming along awesomely.
once you install, just make sure to install and run Samsung Magician to get updated firmware and do all the maintenance goodness.
Ehh any reasons why? Also, considering that it has a 30-40 dollar premium over the budget SSDs, would it be worth it anyways? I keep reading that in real world applications, the average user won't see any meaningful difference etc etc. But then there's the issue of longevity. I'm a fuckin retard when it comes to SSDs so if anyone could enlighten me I'd appreciate it.
It took me a few hours reaching that conclusion when I got an 850 evo last month. I don't remember the specifics of why I chose it :/