Getting a new internal drive... speed?

[Russ]

So I'm looking to buy a new hard drive on Black Friday this year (since that's usually the best day of the year to buy).

I already have several TB in external storage, I prefer that for my media anyway, since I can plug it into other computers easily.

So my main desire is speed. Startup speed is one priority, but I also want fast load/access to my high-RAM games like WoW and Starcraft 2.

Are there HDDs that compete with SSDs in this area? I much prefer the bigger storage of disk drives, and the longer lifespan is definitely a plus.

But if SSDs are just that much better, then I could bite the bullet. I haven't kept up with the hardware scene in several years though, so I definitely need advice on what's "good/popular" these days.


I've never had a 10k RPM HDD before, are those still the fastest non-SSDs? Which one's the best/most reliable?

 

[OldSchool]

If you are looking for speed do not even consider a standard HDD, not even a 10K drive, especially if you are just talking a single drive. Yes, SSDs are that much faster and everything you have heard about them is true, the difference in performance is like night and day. Not just because of the raw transfer speeds, but the significantly lower seek times make for a difference that you can sense while using it.

I would recommend an Intel X25-M G2 (or any of the re-branded versions), you should find plenty of deals on them in the coming days as the G3s will be out soon....

 

[Russ]

If you are looking for speed do not even consider a standard HDD, not even a 10K drive, especially if you are just talking a single drive. Yes, SSDs are that much faster and everything you have heard about them is true, the difference in performance is like night and day. Not just because of the raw transfer speeds, but the significantly lower seek times make for a difference that you can sense while using it.

I would recommend an Intel X25-M G2 (or any of the re-branded versions), you should find plenty of deals on them in the coming days as the G3s will be out soon....

Looks great performance wise, but pretty pricey, that's for sure. :X

I wasn't planning on spending $250+ just to get a workable amount of space.

 

[Dangman]

I've never had a 10k RPM HDD before, are those still the fastest non-SSDs? Which one's the best/most reliable?

For consumer grade hardware, 10K RPM Velociraptor drives are still the fastest non-SSDs. But not by much. Many modern 7200RPM drives (like the Samsung F3 500GB, Samsung F3 1TB, Western Digital 500GB Blue) perform about the same as current Velociraptor drives in terms of read speeds, write speeds, sustained transfer speeds, etc. The only real advantage those 10K Velociraptor drives have are the better seek times than normal 7200RPM drives. Even then, those seek times are still significantly lower than some of the cheaper SSDs out there.

Looks great performance wise, but pretty pricey, that's for sure. :X

I wasn't planning on spending $250+ just to get a workable amount of space.

You could do what's becoming the more common setup: A SSD large enough for the OS plus critical apps (Somewhere around 60GB to 80GB) and a fast hard drive (like the 7200RPM drives mentioned earlier) for large sized applications and data. Not as fast as a pure SSD setup but still faster than going with just those Velociraptor drives.

 

[SJetski71]

You could do what's becoming the more common setup: A SSD large enough for the OS plus critical apps (Somewhere around 60GB to 80GB) and a fast hard drive (like the 7200RPM drives mentioned earlier) for large sized applications and data. Not as fast as a pure SSD setup but still faster than going with just those Velociraptor drives.

Ya, he could always add in more SSD drives as they get cheaper and faster. He could then delegate the older SSD for games+programs and use the newest SSD as his OS drive.

 

[[LYL]Homer]

120gb Sandforce controller based drives from several different manufacturers have been on sale in the last few weeks at just under $200 which is a great deal for a current drive. Any BF deal under $180 would be [H]ot and probably the most bang for the buck in this size category. OldSchool and Danny have solid suggestions too.

What is your budget and how much space do you need for OS + apps?

 

[Ravenor]

HDD wise, i would say Western Digital VelociRaptor Drive

SSD wise, i would say any Sandforce Drive.

 

[Red Falcon]

HDD wise, i would say Western Digital VelociRaptor Drive

SSD wise, i would say any Sandforce Drive.

Yep, this is a good decision. WD Raptors are great for seek time, especially for a 10K rpm drive.

Anything higher though, definitely do a SSD.

 

[vraa]

Intel SSD

 

[Russ]

Intel over Sandforce?

 

[[LYL]Homer]

Try this: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1565259

 

[Russ]

Now wait a second, I was looking at the newest SSD review on Anandtech, and it seems like there's a competitor that ends up head and shoulders above the rest: Corsair Force drives.

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4020/34081.png
(From this review.)

And a quick search on newegg reveals this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233125&Tpk=Corsair Force F120

$165 after MIR for 120gb.

Now, on that review, you can see Intel ties or beats the Force in random/sequential Reads, however the Force has FOUR times the random Write speed, and twice the effective sequential Write speed.

Am I missing something? Is Write speed not that hugely important? Seems like the Force would be the choice of champions, assuming there's no benchmark "cheating" going on or there are no problems with the controller.

Unfortunately I bought an Intel X-25M G2 120gb this weekend, but I'm thinking of returning it for that Corsair Force assuming it's the real deal. Would be approximately a net cost of $30 due to Newegg's restocking fee.

 

[pyr02k1]

Look at it this way ... how often do you really write to your drive? And by write, i mean massive, large file writes and not the standard OS writes. Really, it isnt a huge amount and not enough to make it a big deal. On drive to drive transfers of large media files, it's a different story.

I have an OCZ Vertex 2 50g that I got brand new for an arm and a leg when they came out. Love it but wish I'd of gotten the 100 or waited for the 120. The force drives rock and I would have gotten one had it not been for the price gap at the time. I avoided the Intel only because of the Write speeds, and wish I hadnt as I could have picked up the 80G for the same price as the OCZ at the time with the deal they had on it at a local retailer.

A friend of mine in Northern Cali was running 4 arrays in one system with SSDs in raid 0. At the time it was 2 Vertex 120G, 2 Vertex 2 50G, 2 X25-M 80G and 2 Force 60G. So far, the only drives he had fail were the original Vertex 120G drives. One failed, he RMA'd, then the second failed on the new array build, so he RMA'd that one, just to receive a drive that wouldnt activate properly. All of the other drives have been going solid for around 6 months now on his file server. He actually runs the 2 Force drives mirroring the data on the vertex 2 drives and the vertex 120s mirroring the data on the intels. The goal is prevent data loss, but he also gets to test them under load playing games, streaming video to his bedroom, living room and 2 kids rooms as well as to his laptop. The point of that story is to say that its all read performance in his case, minus the original writes. He noticed the write performance being an issue only when copying data TO the X25s, but the other 3 were fine. Overall though, he's happy with all but the original Vertex and wouldnt hesitate to recommend any of them.

As to benchmark cheating ... I severely doubt it. The drive is just fast. The next gen of SSDs coming around will likely be in the 400MB/s or so range and will be focused on Sata III. That and I know my Vertex 2 will do around 20MB/s below what the rated speed was when I bought it, and thats still 250MB/s+

 

[Damar]

Look at it this way ... how often do you really write to your drive? And by write, i mean massive, large file writes and not the standard OS writes. Really, it isnt a huge amount and not enough to make it a big deal. On drive to drive transfers of large media files, it's a different story.

Exactly.

After everything is installed on an SSD, you're going to spend far more time reading data from it than writing data to it (for most typical users).

I'd go Intel simply for the quality and support they've given their SSD line from the start (and the performance is pretty rockin too).

 

[john4200]

Now wait a second, I was looking at the newest SSD review on Anandtech, and it seems like there's a competitor that ends up head and shoulders above the rest: Crucial Force drives.

...

Now, on that review, you can see Intel ties or beats the Force in random/sequential Reads, however the Force has FOUR times the random Write speed, and twice the effective sequential Write speed.

Am I missing something? Is Write speed not that hugely important? Seems like the Force would be the choice of champions, assuming there's no benchmark "cheating" going on or there are no problems with the controller.

Unfortunately I bought an Intel X-25M G2 120gb this weekend, but I'm thinking of returning it for that Crucial Force assuming it's the real deal. Would be approximately a net cost of $30 due to Newegg's restocking fee.

You need to look at the rows that have "(Random Data)" in the name to get an idea of how the Sandforce drives perform on realistic data. If you look at the ones without that annotation, it is measuring the speed when you write a string of zeros, which the Sandforce controller compresses and so you get unrealistic numbers.

The Crucial C300 will beat the Sandforce SSDs on sequential and random reads, and reads are more frequent than writes for most users. If you want consistent, high performance, go with a Crucial C300. If you want reliability and optimized worst-case performance, go with an Intel X25-M.

Also, do not confuse the Crucial C300 with the Corsair Force.

 

[vraa]

I'd go Intel simply for the quality and support they've given their SSD line from the start (and the performance is pretty rockin too).

This is why I picked Intel
I've bought memory and stuff from Crucial before and they are great, it's just I *FEEL* that Intel has a stronger reputation and better support

Of course I tell my sales rep I only want AMD processors.....

 

[Russ]

Also, do not confuse the Crucial C300 with the Corsair Force.

Ah right. Yea I do confuse Crucial with Corsair when typing sometimes. I haven't bought memory from either for years, so I forget sometimes. Sorry!'

I've always liked Crucial, but disliked Corsair. Ever since the 939 generation when I first built a computer for myself. Corsair was the "cheap/not so good performance" company, Crucial was the "good price AND good performance, plus really great performance if you spend some more" company when it came to RAM.

Look at it this way ... how often do you really write to your drive? And by write, i mean massive, large file writes and not the standard OS writes. Really, it isnt a huge amount and not enough to make it a big deal. On drive to drive transfers of large media files, it's a different story.

I have an OCZ Vertex 2 50g that I got brand new for an arm and a leg when they came out. Love it but wish I'd of gotten the 100 or waited for the 120. The force drives rock and I would have gotten one had it not been for the price gap at the time. I avoided the Intel only because of the Write speeds, and wish I hadnt as I could have picked up the 80G for the same price as the OCZ at the time with the deal they had on it at a local retailer.

A friend of mine in Northern Cali was running 4 arrays in one system with SSDs in raid 0. At the time it was 2 Vertex 120G, 2 Vertex 2 50G, 2 X25-M 80G and 2 Force 60G. So far, the only drives he had fail were the original Vertex 120G drives. One failed, he RMA'd, then the second failed on the new array build, so he RMA'd that one, just to receive a drive that wouldnt activate properly. All of the other drives have been going solid for around 6 months now on his file server. He actually runs the 2 Force drives mirroring the data on the vertex 2 drives and the vertex 120s mirroring the data on the intels. The goal is prevent data loss, but he also gets to test them under load playing games, streaming video to his bedroom, living room and 2 kids rooms as well as to his laptop. The point of that story is to say that its all read performance in his case, minus the original writes. He noticed the write performance being an issue only when copying data TO the X25s, but the other 3 were fine. Overall though, he's happy with all but the original Vertex and wouldnt hesitate to recommend any of them.

As to benchmark cheating ... I severely doubt it. The drive is just fast. The next gen of SSDs coming around will likely be in the 400MB/s or so range and will be focused on Sata III. That and I know my Vertex 2 will do around 20MB/s below what the rated speed was when I bought it, and thats still 250MB/s+

Exactly.

After everything is installed on an SSD, you're going to spend far more time reading data from it than writing data to it (for most typical users).

I'd go Intel simply for the quality and support they've given their SSD line from the start (and the performance is pretty rockin too).

You need to look at the rows that have "(Random Data)" in the name to get an idea of how the Sandforce drives perform on realistic data. If you look at the ones without that annotation, it is measuring the speed when you write a string of zeros, which the Sandforce controller compresses and so you get unrealistic numbers.

The Crucial C300 will beat the Sandforce SSDs on sequential and random reads, and reads are more frequent than writes for most users. If you want consistent, high performance, go with a Crucial C300. If you want reliability and optimized worst-case performance, go with an Intel X25-M.

Thanks for the intelligent responses, you guys have alleviated the buyer's remorse I was feeling after seeing that Anand graph!



Case closed. I'll take my X-25M G2 and be happy with it. I don't feel the need for a 3rd generation SSD considering the age of the rest of my hardware (especially the SATAII controllers on my mobo).