HEXUS Forums :: 24 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Posted by AdamAnubis - Tue 09 Jun 2009 16:58
I think aslong as they're quieter and the same speed as a HDD, then I'd be willing to pay a bit more for the silence/rigidity of them. Other than that, don't see the point of paying a premium for the bragging of having ‘slow’ SSD drive.
Posted by borandi - Tue 09 Jun 2009 17:50
The R/W for the 30GB is better than a lot of solutions out there under the budget range. At least they're not using a JMicron controller :)

The cheapest SSDs are going for just under 2GBP per GB. So the 30GB model for 55-70 squids?
Posted by nvening - Tue 09 Jun 2009 20:44
if they were that price i think i would go for one :)
Posted by cordas - Tue 09 Jun 2009 20:54
I recon I would start seriously consider buying a SSD at around the £100 mark for 60/64GB, thats assuming it was quick and reliable. Yes i could run a lot less for system drive, but I would also be thinking of having any games i wanted to play installed on that drive for the lightening quick level loads, so 60GB is really the minimum size I would go for.

Hopefully SSDs of that size or greater will be going for less than £100 by xmas, if not i am fairly sure they will be by this time next year.
Posted by miniyazz - Tue 09 Jun 2009 22:17
Keep an eye out on the Kingston then, at £105 for 64GB it's not to be sniffed at. But we're still waiting on cache/controller, don't know how good it is yet. And the Corsair is good, despite slower read/write speeds.

What everyone here seems to be missing (including the author, Parm) is that once read/write speeds pass a certain point with SSDs (a little slower than mechanical HDD sequential read/writes), for most applications there will be no performance loss when compared to SSDs with faster read/writes. It's the access times and IOPS that make SSDs so much faster than HDDs; the only time very fast transfer rates are needed is when handling huge files (and, to a small extent, loading large game files into RAM). Loading lots of small files, such as when booting Windows or loading most applications, will show a huge difference between mechanical HDDs and almost any SSD, but the difference between say the Corsair 128GB (£170) and the 120GB Vertex (£340) is small. The IOPS is what counts, and both these SSDs have very high IOPS.

Yes you get slightly more performance from the Vertex compared to the Corsair, but nowhere near as much as you'd expect just by looking at transfer speeds, and certainly not £170 worth.
Posted by 0iD - Tue 09 Jun 2009 22:26
As with any new tech, as production processes get refined, streamlined & numbers increase price will inevitably be pushed down. Another 6-8 months & perhaps prices will be on a par with HDD's.

At the end of the day it's still an emerging tech & in it's infancy. Early adopters will look back & wonder why they spent so much :)
Posted by tarqueen - Tue 09 Jun 2009 23:19
Think I'll wait to see what intel's 2nd round of efforts are like before going for an SSD. The tech seems to be progressing so quickly at the moment it doesn't seem like a good investment unless you've got money to burn.
Posted by Funkstar - Wed 10 Jun 2009 09:41
cordas
Hopefully SSDs of that size or greater will be going for less than £100 by xmas, if not i am fairly sure they will be by this time next year.
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?SAM-SSD64M :)

Not the best performer, but it's all relative. It might get beaten by the high end SSDs, but it will blow a regular laptop drive out of the water and will hold its own against a regular desktop drive.
Posted by borandi - Wed 10 Jun 2009 10:12
Funkstar
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?SAM-SSD64M :)

Not the best performer, but it's all relative. It might get beaten by the high end SSDs, but it will blow a regular laptop drive out of the water and will hold its own against a regular desktop drive.

Hmm though I'm upgrading an OS/System drive from a 150GB Raptor to an SSD. SSD would excel with the random access time, but the Raptor would chew through on sequential read and writes. Also the size difference. A 64GB would be nice as a system drive, but for 100 notes I'd prefer something a little faster than 90/70.
Posted by scaryjim - Wed 10 Jun 2009 10:29
The Article
in the meantime, how much would you be willing to pay for a decent mainstream SSD?
I'd baulk at paying much more than £1 per GB. If they can make a 32GB drive for ~ £40, or 64GB drive for < £70 then I might start biting.

Otherwise, I'm quite happy to stick to large mechanical drives for the time being - I'm the biggest bottleneck for most of my PC usage, and if my computer's a bit slow starting up that just gives me time to make a coffee ;)
Posted by Funkstar - Wed 10 Jun 2009 10:30
borandi
Hmm though I'm upgrading an OS/System drive from a 150GB Raptor to an SSD. SSD would excel with the random access time, but the Raptor would chew through on sequential read and writes. Also the size difference. A 64GB would be nice as a system drive, but for 100 notes I'd prefer something a little faster than 90/70.
And I think we will see that in the next 6 months. I was just pointing out that you can get a decent and usable SSD for less than £100 right now.

This past year has seen the performance of SSDs rocket, but the prices haven't really come down to consumer levels until now. I guess we will not start to see more vendors releasing value lines to make up the lower end of the market. So while I would love to have a £500 monster with insane transfer rates, maxing out a SATA-300 connection, I just couldn't bring myself to spend that kind of money. So for me (and I'm betting many others) while I will happily pay more for an SSD than a spindle based drive, something along the 80-100p/GB is what I'm looking at.
Posted by Saracen - Wed 10 Jun 2009 10:55
Personally, I have no great problems with the performance levels of decent hard drives. It's all very well having devices that are, on paper, a lot faster because of negligible access times but the question is …. what difference will it make for me, in real usage?

It's the same question as for other component options. What would DDR3 do for me over DDR2, and at what price? What benefit do I get from a more expensive processor, and at what price? Even what benefit do I get from an OS upgrade, and at what price?

And personally, I don't care what benchmark results say, unless it results in real world benefits to me, and I certainly don't give a flying fig about what we used to refer to as “bragging rights”.

SSDs may well be the technology of the future. Goodness knows it's been promised for long enough, and it looks like we might finally be getting there. But, for me, we aren't there yet. The price premium, in terms of cost per GB, is still FAR too high for me. By virtue of me being pretty satisfied with the price and performance of hard drives, I won't be prepared to pay much of a premium for SSDs. Produce a 1TB SSD with decent performance and an acceptable read/write life at under £100, and my interest will pick up. Until then, I don't see the cost/benefit advantage. So I guess I have a while to wait yet. ;) :D
Posted by scaryjim - Wed 10 Jun 2009 11:03
Saracen
Produce a 1TB SSD with decent performance and an acceptable read/write life at under £100, and my interest will pick up. Until then, I don't see the cost/benefit advantage. So I guess I have a while to wait yet. ;) :D
You have impressive patience for a frequenter of tech forums ;)
Posted by shaithis - Wed 10 Jun 2009 11:32
Saracen
Personally, I have no great problems with the performance levels of decent hard drives. It's all very well having devices that are, on paper, a lot faster because of negligible access times but the question is …. what difference will it make for me, in real usage?

It depends on what you class as a difference that's worth it.

For me, starting my PC and being in Windows with everything loaded in a few seconds, is worth it.

Double-clicking the Photoshop CS4 icon and having the program being instantly usable, is worth it.

Basically, if you do not like waiting, SSD is worth it.
Posted by borandi - Wed 10 Jun 2009 11:44
SSDs work if you use applications which require a lot of random reads/writes. Booting an OS, loading Photoshop CS4, loading games etc. are all beneficial if you have an SSD. If you write email or use MS Word, then no - you're not going to see an advantage.

And I think we will see that in the next 6 months. I was just pointing out that you can get a decent and usable SSD for less than &#163;100 right now.

This past year has seen the performance of SSDs rocket, but the prices haven't really come down to consumer levels until now. I guess we will not start to see more vendors releasing value lines to make up the lower end of the market. So while I would love to have a &#163;500 monster with insane transfer rates, maxing out a SATA-300 connection, I just couldn't bring myself to spend that kind of money. So for me (and I'm betting many others) while I will happily pay more for an SSD than a spindle based drive, something along the 80-100p/GB is what I'm looking at.

I totally agree with you. I saw a huge leap in performance from a regular HDD to the Raptor, and now the prices are coming down, I'd love to get an SSD if the advantages are there and it hits the right price point. For me, that's around &#163;1.40 per GB, so this 30GB model at ~&#163;40 would be nice. But that being said, small platter HDDs still don't go under the &#163;35 mark, due to the base cost per item. Hopefully an SSD base cost is lower.
Posted by Saracen - Wed 10 Jun 2009 14:16
shaithis
It depends on what you class as a difference that's worth it.

For me, starting my PC and being in Windows with everything loaded in a few seconds, is worth it.

Double-clicking the Photoshop CS4 icon and having the program being instantly usable, is worth it.

Basically, if you do not like waiting, SSD is worth it.
Oh absolutely, it's a personal evaluation of what's worth it. What's why I put the “me” bits in bold. I don't really care if my PCs start in 5 seconds or several minutes, because I turn them on in the morning and sort out a few bits and pieces. I might not go back for half an hour. And I'm certainly not bothered enough to spend a large sum of money getting CS4 to load a few seconds faster, because I only do that once or twice a day, and even then, only on days when I'm using CS4.

If an SSD was making enough of a difference, for my workload to be saving me lots of time while using Photoshop, I might justify it to myself. If it changed CS4 from frustratingly slow to a pleasure to use, I'd justify it because that affects workflow and state of mind all the time I'm using it.

Other people's mileage, clearly, will vary.


scaryjim
You have impressive patience for a frequenter of tech forums ;)
Maybe it comes with age and perspective. I've done the “upgrade to bleeding edge technology” thing, and did it for years. Bear in mind, as a technology journalist, I spent years having access to most computer technology before the public did, and in some cases, before the public knew it existed. I've had tours round codelocked labs at Apple in Cupertino, looking (under NDA) at technology that wasn't announced for a year or more. When HP first released the colour laser, I had one on my desk for about three weeks when, according to their press manager, there were two in the country. I've had golden sample processors from Intel and AMD, I've had tours round Epson's clean room facilities in Japan, and chats about forthcoming technology from boardroom level down to the development managers, in Japan. I've had dinner with Lexmark's CEO in Lexington several times, been taken to California for pre-launch briefings on numerous occasions, been invited to parties by IBM's Chairman, met Bill Gates and spent quite some years attending Comdex twice a year. I've even been invited to dinner in Downing Street (some years ago) by the Chancellor when he was hosting some (technology) industry event or other.

In other words, on the new tech front, been there, done that. I've been incredibly fortunate in some of the opportunities I've had, and had a great time doing it. But it does mean I'm a lot harder to impress with new technology these days. My “wow, that's new and great” gland is worn out. I am, if you like, a bit jaded. So, I want to know, before I spend lots of money, “What do I get for my money?” And if the answer isn't good enough, I don't spend.

When I was prepared to spend lots of money staying on the bleeding edge was when successive generations, or upgrades, could have major impacts not only on how long something took, but whether it was feasible at all. For instance, upgrading an x86 to a 286 (and increasing RAM) made AutoCAD usable for my needs at that time, whereas the old wireframe demo of the space shuttle used to take several minutes to redraw, and that's in wireframe mode, not rendered.

Or, much later, I bought a new processor and more memory because it made voice recognition (dictation) software a practical proposition in a live environment, and that saved me a lot of time when I was doing a lot of writing. And time is money.

So yeah, it's about what it costs and what real benefits you get. If starting Windows and saving a minute or two justifies it for someone, then it does, for them. But not for me. If CS4 starting virtually instantaneously rather than taking a few seconds is worth it to people, then it is. But not to me. And I'm not enough of a gamer to care about level load times.

So it's not really about patience. It's about value for money. If I've got a few hundred quid and spend it on a large fast flash drive, I can't spend it on a new lens for my camera, or a long weekend away with the wife. And I'd rather have either of those, or a good few other things, than save those few seconds at load time.

As I said, different people will have different priorities and value sets. But for me, SSDs aren't yet anywhere close to being value for money, and I'm quite content to potter along as I am, until they are.

It's a bit like cars. Am I prepared to spend &#163;40k or &#163;50k on an M3? Yup, and I did. Am I prepared to spend &#163;120k on a Porsche Turbo? Nope. I tried it, loved it and was impressed as hell ….. but not another &#163;70-&#163;80k worth of impressed. But if Porsche ever get it down to &#163;40k …. :D
Posted by Terbinator - Wed 10 Jun 2009 22:35
Been looking at some of the cheaper SSD's available at the min, but having the lower R/W speeds seems to defeat the object of having a SSD drive in the first place :(
Posted by Funkstar - Thu 11 Jun 2009 09:34
Terbinator
Been looking at some of the cheaper SSD's available at the min, but having the lower R/W speeds seems to defeat the object of having a SSD drive in the first place :(
Random access is still way ahead of spindle drives, then you have lower power requirements, less heat and less noise. They are also a lot more rugged. So even cheap slow SSDs have their advantages.
Posted by mercyground - Fri 12 Jun 2009 12:59
I am really tempted by one but the prices are too high at present.

I am still a fan of 2 drive systems. 100ish gb of boot and then somewhere about 1tb of storage does me fine. If i could get a SSD for similar price as my 1tb Samsung (£70) I'd proberbly go for it.

I'm using windows 7 now and if they sort the TRIM command issues out and get that working it will be damn well worth it.

This machine “pauses” as the HDD sleeps now and then so not having that would be nice. (oh and not having the machine go off into “sleep land” where it wont wake up would be nice too. (I suspect drivers but as 7 is still beta I guess i'll have to wait for that one to get solved.)
Posted by scaryjim - Fri 12 Jun 2009 16:10
Saracen
Maybe it comes with age and perspective…
That was a lovely insight into someone's experience and motivations - thanks for sharing it. I'm sitting at work with a big grin on my face. Great way to start the weekend!
Posted by antd - Sat 13 Jun 2009 16:54
This is great value and I will be buying one of these very soon.
Posted by jeffery - Thu 18 Jun 2009 06:27
Funkstar
Random access is still way ahead of spindle drives, then you have lower power requirements, less heat and less noise. They are also a lot more rugged. So even cheap slow SSDs have their advantages.

i believe becasue the agility uses the same controllers(Indilinx) as the ocz vertex ssd it would be possible to use the same firmware as the vertex on the agility making the agility perform very well. this would be great considering the cheaper cost of the agility. however i could be mistaken.
Posted by Funkstar - Thu 18 Jun 2009 10:41
jeffery
i believe becasue the agility uses the same controllers(Indilinx) as the ocz vertex ssd it would be possible to use the same firmware as the vertex on the agility making the agility perform very well. this would be great considering the cheaper cost of the agility. however i could be mistaken.
That sounds a little like “motherboard X has the same chipset as motherboard Y, so the firmwares are interchangable”.

If you manage to do it and it doesn't break, I'll be amazed. If you do then see a speed increase, I'll be even more amazed.
Posted by jeffery - Fri 19 Jun 2009 01:01
Funkstar
That sounds a little like “motherboard X has the same chipset as motherboard Y, so the firmwares are interchangable”.

If you manage to do it and it doesn't break, I'll be amazed. If you do then see a speed increase, I'll be even more amazed.

I agree it, sounds silly, but i know the vertex and agility are the same however the agility uses cheaper chips. the reason why ocz dont use these best firmware on the agility is because no one would buy a vertex if you can buy the same for less(agility).

their summit series will replace the vertex, and the agility we replace the, apex, core, corev2 and solid. in the furture wen old stocks are replaced they could even bring out a agilityv2 or agility ex(being agility with updated firmware) or whatever they want to call it, but until then they would need to clear stocks.

the reason why i say agility will replace those series is because best performance for your money.
in every day activities the agility performs every closely to the vertex. only when you open or load large files does the vertex have the upper hand.

once again i could be competely wrong, im new to this.