Looking to get an SSD

[Fragsman]

I heard that the life is less compared to traditional drives. But there is no problem with dropping the drives down, since there are no moving parts inside it. It's just Flash chips on a board.

 

 

---

 

Atleast the game loading time is better. Check the FPS with fraps or something

Speed is important but also reliability.

You will want to install an SSD as your primary drive where you store most common games and documents. What would happen if you lost important data?

 

I would never buy an SSD until they become as reliable as HD. Just because I don't want to lost data. I really don't care if games open in 2 or 10 seconds since I will open them 1 or 2 times a day as much. Also with other things. We gain only little seconds and we may have a hard time loosing data. Even if it is a game ... lets see you are at 99% completion of Skyrim and SSD break... you will (400-500 hours lost)

 

Also SSD is uber expensive. It should be reliable + fast because not reliable + fast I could buy but at same price of HD.. not like now. For me is a very bad technology.

Edited September 4, 2012 by loco_frags

[Deathmineral]

For the guy who asked about games, I did try out switching Saints Row The Third, and the loading times are far better on my SSD than my HDD. What probably took about 6 or 7 seconds, maybe longer, takes about 2 or 3 seconds now. Pretty nice feeling to be playing a game and enter and exit a loading screen quickly, really helps keep the immersion in tact.

[Waco]

I would never buy an SSD until they become as reliable as HD.

SSDs are just as unreliable as HDDs. If you're just counting on your SSD/HDD not dying as your form of data retention eventually you will lose everything.

[IVIYTH0S]

SSDs are just as unreliable as HDDs. If you're just counting on your SSD/HDD not dying as your form of data retention eventually you will lose everything.

He's not as bad the regular haters of OCZ SSD's I have two OCZ SSDs which are always said to be super unreliable but I have one going on 13 months now with not one problem and my Agility 3 is almost 5 months now.

 

Keep up with firmware aka don't be a DeDeDe and any good SSD will treat you as faithfully as a good HDD will....but much faster

[Deathmineral]

SSDs are just as unreliable as HDDs. If you're just counting on your SSD/HDD not dying as your form of data retention eventually you will lose everything.

Waco is totally right, I'm not counting on my SSD to keep important data safe, I simply want a low risk of failure, but that has nothing to do with keeping important files safe. The way to do that is with proper backups.

[Fragsman]

He's not as bad the regular haters of OCZ SSD's I have two OCZ SSDs which are always said to be super unreliable but I have one going on 13 months now with not one problem and my Agility 3 is almost 5 months now.

 

Keep up with firmware aka don't be a DeDeDe and any good SSD will treat you as faithfully as a good HDD will....but much faster

Well the longest time I have a Seagate Hard Drive 15Gb was 12+ years...... (that computer is 12 year old and currently not working.. but i think is the corrupt OS. Perhaps need to format but as I don't use it anymore .. my sis used to use it.. I haven't fixed yet but... 12 years guys!!!!!!!).

I have another old 30GB Maxtor of 8-9+ years in same PC of 12 years.

Other Western Digital 7+ years 160Gb

And my current is just 1-2+ year Western Digital 1Tb

 

Perhaps in 5 years someone could argue saying "my SSD still have 7-8 years".. for now they are too new and Nobody can confirm how reliable they are..

[Coors]

My first SSD is going on strong over 3 years now. I've seen HDDs not last that long. According to SSD Life it still has another 20 years to go until it should kick the bucket. And i'd even take Waco's statement one step further and say that SSDs are slightly less unreliable than HDDs. No moving parts and less heat. I could drop it on my desk and nothing is going to happen. Drop a HDD and it could easily break. Thats two less possible ways to break.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Coors

[automaton]

I can't comment on that SanDisk drive without reading some reviews (get to it ) but I have two OCZ drives (Vertex 2 and Agility 3) and they're great. My Vertex 2 is around a year old without problems, OCZ probably has "alot of them failing" because they have to be close to, if not the biggest seller of SSDs.

OCZ memory has been in this computer, my last computer (Core2Quad system) and their PSU's in my desktop (PC Power and Cooling is owned by OCZ) and also my dad's 500W StealthXStream and none have failed to their credit as well.

 

The M4 just seems like a major ripoff, and whether the SanDisk is the king of performance or not (which would probably be unnoticeable to anyone anyway) they are a very large, well established, memory company that make quality products.

 

 

I have a Kingston SSDNow V+ 64GB and it's a sweet little piece in my HTPC, even with a E350 that little machine screams with that drive. They aren't gold medalist in reviewer benchmarks but they're still decent drives.

[Waco]

... for now they are too new and Nobody can confirm how reliable they are..

Again...if your only backup is to have a "reliable" drive you're going to lose data eventually. SSDs today have 5 year warranties...so why worry?

 

You really haven't used a computer till you've used on running on an SSD or with SSD caching.

[Tjj226_Angel]

Waco is totally right, I'm not counting on my SSD to keep important data safe, I simply want a low risk of failure, but that has nothing to do with keeping important files safe. The way to do that is with proper backups.

 

That's not totally accurate. In terms of desktop storage, it depends on the particular drive. I don't mean to state the obvious, but there are several hard drives on newegg that have a horrible failure rate. In fact there is one seagate drive that had just as many 1 stars as it did 5 stars over several hundred customers. You can compare that with a western digital black enterprise hard drive that has a pretty low failure rate.

 

So if you are comparing that crappy seagate drive against an intel 520 SSD, the SSD is probably going to show better reliability. Of course if you compare a western digital enterprise drive against a Microcenter branded adata SSD, the HDD will probably show better reliability. And if you compare apples to apples by comparing the intel 520 against the western digital enterprise hard drive, then you might have a closer battle in terms of reliability with the SSD pulling slightly ahead in total life span.

 

Lastly if you are talking about HDD vs SSD reliability in terms of laptops, then SSDs win hand down.

 

I think in the end the reliability difference between SSDs and HDSs is a personal experience. I am by far the most prone to sending things in for RMAs and I can tell you I have RMAed 24 HDDs and only 3 SSDs this year. Does that mean it is going to be the same for you, or waco, or anyone? Probably not. (speaking of which, we found a good electrician to take a look at our electrical system and he fixed a lot of issues, so I have had like 8 times less RMAs this year! )

[IVIYTH0S]

That's not totally accurate. In terms of desktop storage, it depends on the particular drive. I don't mean to state the obvious, but there are several hard drives on newegg that have a horrible failure rate. In fact there is one seagate drive that had just as many 1 stars as it did 5 stars over several hundred customers. You can compare that with a western digital black enterprise hard drive that has a pretty low failure rate.

 

So if you are comparing that crappy seagate drive against an intel 520 SSD, the SSD is probably going to show better reliability. Of course if you compare a western digital enterprise drive against a Microcenter branded adata SSD, the HDD will probably show better reliability. And if you compare apples to apples by comparing the intel 520 against the western digital enterprise hard drive, then you might have a closer battle in terms of reliability with the SSD pulling slightly ahead in total life span.

 

Lastly if you are talking about HDD vs SSD reliability in terms of laptops, then SSDs win hand down.

 

I think in the end the reliability difference between SSDs and HDSs is a personal experience. I am by far the most prone to sending things in for RMAs and I can tell you I have RMAed 24 HDDs and only 3 SSDs this year. Does that mean it is going to be the same for you, or waco, or anyone? Probably not. (speaking of which, we found a good electrician to take a look at our electrical system and he fixed a lot of issues, so I have had like 8 times less RMAs this year! )

You sure hate Seagate don't you??

I've had more WD drives go on me then Seagate, you're seeming to imply all Seagate drives are garbage which is hardly fact.

[Tjj226_Angel]

You sure hate Seagate don't you??

I've had more WD drives go on me then Seagate, you're seeming to imply all Seagate drives are garbage which is hardly fact.

 

No quite the opposite. I love seagate, and I am not a huge fan of WD (I am not saying WD is bad, I just prefer seagte's 1TB platter technology along with the lower prices ) . I am just not familiar with their higher end seagate drives, where as I have actually handled western digital enterprise drives for some small business NAS setups.

 

In fact the only reason I recall that particular seagate model off the top of my head was because newegg sent me an email yesterday for a sale they had on that model, and I was about to buy it until I saw the reviews.

 

So I am not hatting on Seagate, it just so happened that I chose particular examples that made it seem that way.