SSD? Anyone?

Thats the smallest sticker ever too. I think its supposed to go on your bumper rather than your case. Yes.
 
Found out something really nice about the ocz vertex ssd, you can do a little trick to make trim work in raid. So you dont get performance decrease over time even in raid mode, thats just perfect. Now i just need the money for 2 30gb ssd and laugh at windows booting in 2 seconds. Ok it might be more, but it should be very fast. For the trick, you just have to search a bit the ocz forum and everything is explained there.
 
Found out something really nice about the ocz vertex ssd, you can do a little trick to make trim work in raid. So you dont get performance decrease over time even in raid mode, thats just perfect. Now i just need the money for 2 30gb ssd and laugh at windows booting in 2 seconds. Ok it might be more, but it should be very fast. For the trick, you just have to search a bit the ocz forum and everything is explained there.

IIRC all the new OCZ Vertex drives (after firmware 1.0) have the trim function built into the firmware.
 
but if you read again my post i am talking about a trick for making trim work in raid.
 
If I was to install my OS, applications and Games I think I'd need 1 120GB drive or perhaps 2 60GB drives. Obviously this would be pretty damn expensive. Instead of this, If I just installed my OS and Applications on to an SSD and then the games onto a normal SATA2 drive I'd only need to get 1 SSD (such as the 60GB OCZ Vertex). Am I right in thinking about the only dramatic change I'd see with games on a SSD is faster loading times?
 
^ I only had one game installed when I had the ssd on my desktop, I didn't noticed much difference other than it loading a little faster. So far the most dramatic difference for me seems to be the ability to launch a whole bunch of stuff the same time (I/O performance?)
 
The only thing your computer does with hard disks while gaming is loading, and that will be faster.
 
you are better to put only yours apps and the os, for game, if you really want faster load time, get a velociraptor from wd. The big advantage of the ssd are not the read and write time but the seek time ( or latency if you like more) which is about the same as your ram since its sort of the same thing. Thats why it make a big difference with the os and apps load time. I think for me a 60gb would be enough as all my apps, os and 1 game take about 25gb of space, so with 60gb i would still have a bit of place for the 3-4 games i have in mind of getting.
 
^ or from one of the reviews of the RAIDed drives, probably even max out SATA3 if they decided to make it a SATA3....crazy
 
^ or from one of the reviews of the RAIDed drives, probably even max out SATA3 if they decided to make it a SATA3....crazy

If you RAID them up you get multiple SATA channels so you get added bandwidth.

There is a SATA3 anyways, SATA 6.0 Gb/s.
 
If you RAID them up you get multiple SATA channels so you get added bandwidth.

There is a SATA3 anyways, SATA 6.0 Gb/s.

oh no, I mean one of the new 3.5" drives (I think from OCZ), what they did was basically take a few 2.5" drives and put an onboard RAID controller there, from the outside it still looks like a single 3.5" drive connected via a single SATA channel.


*edit* This is the drive I am talking about, anyone got 4 grand I can borrow? lol
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227502
 
Last edited:
i have something better for you.Just go check the spec of the ssd.
870mb/s read and 780mb/s write and cost less than the coloseus
Also for my last post,it was from my point of view cause at the moment they cost way too much if you are only looking for big read and write speed with decent capacity. Velociraptor are a bit slower but have bigger capacity at a better price especially if you raid. But yeah i did know that ssd can be bottlenecked by sata2 and that in 1 or 2 they might even bottleneck sata3.
 
SSD's are the new CD-ROM's. Remember when you got a 2x CD-ROM back in the day? And the day after you bought one they released a 4x? Then a week later they released a 6x? Then they did 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 36, 48 and then Kenwood (why Kenwood of all companies?) decided to put an end to this nonsense and released a 72x drive. Yes. It was mentally fast, but noone could see the point anylonger. Also it was quite expensive and made by linking together four heads witchcraft, the actual speed of the drive was 18x constant, and it didnt like anything put the purest aryan pressed silver CD's.
 
Last edited:
SSD's are the new CD-ROM's. Remember when you got a 2x CD-ROM back in the day? And the day after you bought one they released a 4x? Then a week later they released a 6x? Then they did 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 36, 48 and then Kenwood (why Kenwood of all companies?) decided to put an end to this nonsense and released a 72x drive. Yes. It was mentally fast, but noone could see the point anylonger. Also it was quite expensive and made by linking together four heads witchcraft, the actual speed of the drive was 18x constant, and it didnt like anything put the purest aryan pressed silver CD's.
It was more about faster drives not being possible without the CD exploding. The 52x speeds were right on the limit of what CDs could take, which is why Kenwood came up with the slower spinning speed/multiple laser thing. At that point CD drives were fast enough and making any faster drives would have been much more expensive.

It's pretty much the same thing with HDDs right now too. Making faster drives at this point is not really practical. Spinning the disks faster will make more noise and make the disks more prone to breaking under pressure. Making the disks more dense doesn't work that well either, since the reading arm has to be able to keep up as well.

SSDs on the other hand are nowhere near their peak yet. So it's not really surprise that they are getting better daily.
 
Top