Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Neither one getting good reviews, if I was in the market I'd avoid both of those due to poor reviews.
I generally don't trust user-reviews. For the most part, people have no idea what they are talking about. Unless the reviews are full of "this died in 6 months," I generally ignore them.
Also, SSDs are hovering around $1\GB, and a few more. With the problems in Thailand, I'd say now is the time for SSD manufactures to strike and lower their prices a bit, get people interested in the speed-boosts of SSDs.
I generally don't trust user-reviews. For the most part, people have no idea what they are talking about. Unless the reviews are full of "this died in 6 months," I generally ignore them.
Also, SSDs are hovering around $1\GB, and a few more. With the problems in Thailand, I'd say now is the time for SSD manufactures to strike and lower their prices a bit, get people interested in the speed-boosts of SSDs.
Sifting through reviews is a fine art, but generally speaking I agree. SSD's also have the whole limit on the number of times you can write to them before they're fried. I generally wait for new fancy things to develop a little further before I buy in to them myself. I don't think I'll be going for SSD's until they have been around for a number of years and get a bit cheaper. I remember regular HDD's being $1 a gigabyte and deciding to wait for a while, and that's served me well so far.
That being said if a client was to give me an open budget and tell me to build them an AWESOMELY fast computer, (or if I were to have that sort of coin to just throw down) I'd opt for the SSD to install the OS on, with a traditional HDD for everything else. It's what a lot of the high end builds are running. It's always a bang for the buck deal with me though, whether it be a clients rig or my own, everyone wants value for the dollar.
Sifting through reviews is a fine art, but generally speaking I agree. SSD's also have the whole limit on the number of times you can write to them before they're fried. I generally wait for new fancy things to develop a little further before I buy in to them myself. I don't think I'll be going for SSD's until they have been around for a number of years and get a bit cheaper. I remember regular HDD's being $1 a gigabyte and deciding to wait for a while, and that's served me well so far.
That being said if a client was to give me an open budget and tell me to build them an AWESOMELY fast computer, (or if I were to have that sort of coin to just throw down) I'd opt for the SSD to install the OS on, with a traditional HDD for everything else. It's what a lot of the high end builds are running. It's always a bang for the buck deal with me though, whether it be a clients rig or my own, everyone wants value for the dollar.
Intel SSDs are guaranteed for 5 years at rewriting 100gb of data per day. In general usage, studies show that modern SSDs should last 30 years with average daily use.
Now that SSDs are dirt cheap and have been around for years... it's a good buy, imo. All my computers have SSDs.
Sifting through reviews is a fine art, but generally speaking I agree. SSD's also have the whole limit on the number of times you can write to them before they're fried. I generally wait for new fancy things to develop a little further before I buy in to them myself. I don't think I'll be going for SSD's until they have been around for a number of years and get a bit cheaper. I remember regular HDD's being $1 a gigabyte and deciding to wait for a while, and that's served me well so far.
That being said if a client was to give me an open budget and tell me to build them an AWESOMELY fast computer, (or if I were to have that sort of coin to just throw down) I'd opt for the SSD to install the OS on, with a traditional HDD for everything else. It's what a lot of the high end builds are running. It's always a bang for the buck deal with me though, whether it be a clients rig or my own, everyone wants value for the dollar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest
Intel SSDs are guaranteed for 5 years at rewriting 100gb of data per day. In general usage, studies show that modern SSDs should last 30 years with average daily use.
Now that SSDs are dirt cheap and have been around for years... it's a good buy, imo. All my computers have SSDs.
From what I recall, the MTBF for an average SSD was something like 1.5 million hours, where as the MTBF for a consumer-level HDD was something like 700,000 hours.
Sifting through reviews is a fine art, but generally speaking I agree. SSD's also have the whole limit on the number of times you can write to them before they're fried. I generally wait for new fancy things to develop a little further before I buy in to them myself. I don't think I'll be going for SSD's until they have been around for a number of years and get a bit cheaper. I remember regular HDD's being $1 a gigabyte and deciding to wait for a while, and that's served me well so far.
That being said if a client was to give me an open budget and tell me to build them an AWESOMELY fast computer, (or if I were to have that sort of coin to just throw down) I'd opt for the SSD to install the OS on, with a traditional HDD for everything else. It's what a lot of the high end builds are running. It's always a bang for the buck deal with me though, whether it be a clients rig or my own, everyone wants value for the dollar.
True and agree. SSDs are seemingly great for their read speed anyhow. Their write speeds are about the same as a good RAID-0 configuration using 2 high-end HDs. The write speeds between the 2x 300GB Western Digital Raptor drives and a 60GB OCZ Vertex II SSD drive was negligible.
Also, with time and use and also by installing more stuff on the SSD drive, it became noticeably slower. This happened with 3 different SSD drives using less than 40% of their full capacity even so there must be something true to this observation.
Most common configuration I am seeing around (also as my current work PC), SSD drive is used as a boot drive + OS install. Applications can be on it as well but every other database, personal document, etc. in on the 2nd much larger (1TB+) SATA drive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
