HOT! 30 GB OCZ Technology Agility SSD $87 AR FS

96redformula said:
Isn't it useless to just put your OS on it. I mean installing Mass Effect 2 Alone is like 15 gigs, wont the programs/games on another hard drive still slow it back down?
Click to expand...

Maybe use a different address to get two rebates with two drives. You'd have a nice little Raid 0 setup there.
 
96redformula said:
Isn't it useless to just put your OS on it. I mean installing Mass Effect 2 Alone is like 15 gigs, wont the programs/games on another hard drive still slow it back down?
Click to expand...
lol. people always bring this up.

basically for improved load times and snappy response on most used programs. storing big games on bigger hard drives would be fine as in game performance isn't affected much if at all by an ssd. at the moment the only games that matter to me are counterstrike source and borderlands. so those are the only ones on the ssd. i'm usually first one in on a map change for css, and i load borderlands up before my buddies do. it's not much, but knifing people in the back as they spawn can be pretty satisfying too, deuchbaggery move as it is.
 
96redformula said:
Isn't it useless to just put your OS on it. I mean installing Mass Effect 2 Alone is like 15 gigs, wont the programs/games on another hard drive still slow it back down?
Click to expand...

you can use mklink (symbolic links) in vista or win7 to store large files and dirs on another disk or disks... I did this with my recent win7 install on a 64g ssd... all my music and video files are on a 640gb raid1 vol and I just linked to them from the ssd. all my play lists in itunes worked perfect. you can do the same with game data also.. kind of a hassle, but a very doable work around.

as for the gaming value of an SSD.. obviously it's an expensive medium to store games on, but those .1ms random reads really help some games.. I run lotro off an ssd on my gaming rig and I am always the first person through a door when I tail gate someone into a shop or pub... load times into new areas are lightning fast.... load "hitching" when moving between areas is almost non existent. it really smoothed up the game for me in ways that any amount of gpu horse power wouldn't.
 
OOS now. I was debating whether to get one or not... guess I don't have to think about it anymore.
 
The Vertex models are faster but this is still a decent deal.
[slowest to fastest]
Agility -> Vertex -> Vertex Turbo -> the new Vertex 2 Pro whenever those come out
 
revenant said:
you can use mklink (symbolic links) in vista or win7 to store large files and dirs on another disk or disks... I did this with my recent win7 install on a 64g ssd... all my music and video files are on a 640gb raid1 vol and I just linked to them from the ssd. all my play lists in itunes worked perfect. you can do the same with game data also.. kind of a hassle, but a very doable work around.
Click to expand...

That doesn't help with load times. In fact, it'll probably slow it down since the OS now needs to the follow the link to actual file first before reading it. His point is a valid one. With a 30GB SSD, you have room for the operating system and some often used applications. You can forget about putting anything else on it. It's really just way to reduce the barrier to entry for those who want to switch to SSDs, but can't justify/afford their price premium.
 
IMHO the only thing you really need an SSD for is the OS.
Any computer (no matter how many cores or how many GB of ram) runs like crap for the first minute+ on any platter drive because of all the stuff Windows has to load; even if you're running Velociraptors or Blacks in RAID0.

Move to SSD, the time cuts drastically. A couple dozen seconds turns into 2-3 seconds.
Can't say the last time I said "man, this game is loading slower than shit!", but I have sure twiddled my thumbs and given the evil eye waiting for all the background apps to load on systems using platter drives after the initial boot to desktop.

Again, IMHO the only thing people need an SSD for is the OS anyway. Running apps on a separate platter drive still cuts load times because there's less overhead on the drive since it's not thrashing to fart around with Windows files while you're trying to load your game or an app out of [Adobe] CS.
 
i have thin clients that run my home automation client that I would love to have these in...

no moving parts means higher MTF and less heat


also would be great for my HTPCs that record directly to my WHS with a reg hack
 
nsx241 said:
That doesn't help with load times. In fact, it'll probably slow it down since the OS now needs to the follow the link to actual file first before reading it. His point is a valid one. With a 30GB SSD, you have room for the operating system and some often used applications. You can forget about putting anything else on it. It's really just way to reduce the barrier to entry for those who want to switch to SSDs, but can't justify/afford their price premium.
Click to expand...

I will also add, this is primarily a work around to solve the issue with space on a small SSD where you need to run a more lean configuration, not improve performance.. the load times will only be limited to the time it takes to read from the other disk really.. the OS just knows the file or directly is at the other end of the pointer.
 
nsx241 said:
That doesn't help with load times. In fact, it'll probably slow it down since the OS now needs to the follow the link to actual file first before reading it. His point is a valid one. With a 30GB SSD, you have room for the operating system and some often used applications. You can forget about putting anything else on it. It's really just way to reduce the barrier to entry for those who want to switch to SSDs, but can't justify/afford their price premium.
Click to expand...

For the files linked, yes. But otherwise the symbolic links in Vista and 7 do not affect anything else. I use symlinks for my /tmp folder, Sony Vegas project folder in My Documents and the log files for WoW (but not WoW itself). These are all stored on a seperate 500GB mechanical drive. Everything else loads up incredibly fast and the symlinks are virtually invisible.

With 30GB, you wont be able to put games, but you could definently put Windows and Program Files folders on there and thats the majority of your "interaction" with a computer.
 
Granted this is sub $100; price/GB is a big NO for me.
I would rather spend more on a larger drive and get more of my money's worth. I really want an ssd, but I think I am going to wait to see what the new drives bring to the table within the upcoming months
 
tempted to raid 0 with my vertex drive. think there'll be any issues? lol.
 
96redformula said:
Isn't it useless to just put your OS on it. I mean installing Mass Effect 2 Alone is like 15 gigs, wont the programs/games on another hard drive still slow it back down?
Click to expand...

Not really, SSD can have an impact on game load times but it's usually not earth shattering (you're lucky if they halve load times on some games), the biggest impact or performance boost from a SSD will come thru your OS and most-used apps... 30GB is plenty for Windows 7, Office, Photoshop, etc. Even if you install a few dozen power-user apps you're unlikely to use more than 15-20GB, usually. Obviously larger SSDs give you more leeway and/or allow you to squeeze a few games in.

For the time being, the vast majority of desktop users will be using their SSD for their their OS/apps and some games and larger HDDs for data anyway, that's not likely to change over the next few years as price of SSDs won't fall fast enough to make HDDs obsolete anytime soon.

P.S. IMO the best use for symbolic links is to temporarily shift directories off your HDD and unto your SSD, like say for instance, whatever game(s) you're currently playing most... Using sym links you shift them around w/o screwing up the install. Once you've beaten or gotten tired of it you simply move it back and delete the symbolic link. The OS itself uses several junction points and symbolic links for many user folders (by default) and it's completely transparent to the user. Libraries are really a sort of a user-friendly implementation of the same concept (for data folders at 'least).

I don't see the point in using symlinks to move your Documents/Music/Etc. folders tho, when you can simply tell Windows to change the location of said folders (right click, Properties, Location tab, etc.). You can however use 'em to move certain large program data folders that may reside within your User folder, if you're really cramped for space (or really paranoid about the write cycles the SSD will go thru, usually unnecessary imo). I wouldn't move the entire User folder off the SSD either tho as that kinda defeats the point of having one, to an extent.
 
ShiShKaBoB said:
Would make a nice USB3.0 enclosure drive.
Click to expand...

OCZ was showcasing a pre-packaged portable USB 3.0 SSD drive recently weren't they? I wonder how a DIY solution would work (assuming that DIY USB 3.0 enclosures start to show up soon), would the controller be able to pass TRIM commands thru or would you have to rely on GC? Would it fare any better than e-SATA? I've seen tests where the extra connections or controllers involved in e-SATA enclosures/docks will actually bottleneck a SSD severely (by several dozen MB/s under the 3G SATA cap)... Can't say I've tested it myself, I might try it out w/my X25-V this week when I take it out to do some testing, I've got a cheap lil' 2.5" enclosure that has USB and e-SATA.
 
SSD for the OS drive FTW.

Wouldn't have it any other way.

Right now you can't look at it in terms of $/GB.. you're paying for a certain user experience rather than the storage space alone.

In my mind, the user experience of Windows 7 on a solid state disk is worth more than the $150 I paid for the 30GB Vertex I currently have. It's a benefit I see every time I power on my machine and every time I open an application.
 
Laptop drives FTW. Jumped on one of those 40gb Intel drives a while back.

Win 7 Pro + Office + Programming + general purpose applications = 20 gb

IMO with media players so prevalent, there's little to no reason to keep your music on a laptop if it's not your main computer. I also keep most all my documents in the cloud (Dropbox, 2gb storage for free) so I don't need much extra space for that.

Thus, 30 or 40gb SSD's are great for laptops used for work purposes only.
 
OS + apps only on SSD is 110% worth it. My X-25M was the biggest performance leap I've seen since core 2 duo.
 
I bought a new ocz agility 120, installed os and call of duty modern warfare 2 on it. I didnt notice any faster load times with the game. It benched faster obviously, but no seat of the pants improvement except boot time. I never shut off my pc, so that doesnt really matter to me. I sent it back for a refund. My 640 black seems just as good in my experience, but much cheaper and larger. Maybe the new drives coming out will be enough to make me give it another shot. I was expecting a "wow" factor improvement, and would not have noticed if someone secretly swapped my current hd with a ssd. Just my disappointing experience.....
 
Last edited:
First off, there's no 160GB Agility, it's a 120GB... Second, there's absolutely no reason why the game would bench faster on a SSD, unless you meant the system benched faster on HDD-intensive benchmarks... But yea, a SSD isn't worth it if gaming is your primary use for the rig... It's not gonna make an earth shattering difference on load times (if at all, on some games)... MMORPGs are where you'd see the biggest impact by far (since they tend to load far more stuff at a time than any other game).

SSD are at their best when you're multi-tasking heavily, for instance, rather than having to leave apps open to avoid load times you can make much better use of your RAM w/a SSD since stuff tends to load much quicker even in the middle of a workload. If you don't ever use any heavy apps (Outlook, Photoshop, etc.) which take 10s+ to load at times ('specially after they've been in use for months) then a SSD definitely isn't gonna give ya any huge improvements. (tho it still makes the OS feel snappier in general, imo, but it's not worth the cost right now for that alone)
 
my bad, 120gb. the game didnt load faster. the ssd benched on hd pro faster....the experience wasnt night and day as others have stated. It didnt provide more wow factor than a cpu platform upgrade. the boot time was faster for me. If I didnt run a hd benchmark, I would not know that anything changed. Not worth the $300 plus for sure....people must be coming from a crappy, slow hd, that are amazed.
 
Last edited:
I've got a few games on my 60GB - Dragon Age and Guild Wars.

For Dragon Age, it's helpful - loading screens when leaving houses, switching areas, going to camp, etc. Lots of loading.

But for Guild Wars? It's not like you load levels from the HDD very often. Once per instance, really. One loading time every hour or so isn't worth using the SSD space. In fact, next time I need space that is being bumped to D:\
 
JohnnyNapalm said:
What are people doing with these little baby drives?
Click to expand...

A 30GB SSD is overkill for most Linux installs. The machine I'm on now has a 30GB root filesystem and it's only 30% full. This isn't a bare OS install either. Every program I use is on this machine.

Games are a Window's box.
 
Last edited:
dccmadams said:
my bad, 120gb. the game didnt load faster. the ssd benched on hd pro faster....the experience wasnt night and day as others have stated. It didnt provide more wow factor than a cpu platform upgrade. the boot time was faster for me. If I didnt run a hd benchmark, I would not know that anything changed. Not worth the $300 plus for sure....people must be coming from a crappy, slow hd, that are amazed.
Click to expand...

WD6400AAKS... not exactly crappy or slow. Boot times dropped a lot, my desktop is ready instantly, and programs launch at lightning speed. It's not a mind blowing, life changing upgrade like most people make it out to be, but it's pretty big. I get aggravated using mechanical drive OS installs on other computers now.
 
amazing indeed...my desktop is ready instantly also. i dont turn the pc off. codmw2 loads at the same lightning speed as my 640 black. maybe your intel ssd owns the ocz agility i bought.
 
I moved from owning one or two of every generation of Raptor/Velociraptor to 2x30gb Vertex in my desktop. Then, bought a 120gb vertex for my laptop to replace a 7200rpm Scorpio black.

The difference on hte laptop is astounding.

The difference on the desktop is substantial.

Even 60gb fills up fast with Windows 7 and a couple Steam games. I had two 500gb older drives in RAID 0 on the desktop previously, and game loading times feel about 1/2 as long as they were.
 
Last edited:
I guess codmw2 doesnt count as a game that takes advantage of it's amazingness.
 
I don't think anyone will ever see night and day differences unless coming from a very old machine on a 5400rpm drive. Its just like anything else; there may be a slight difference, but nothing huge.
just like on the bench's, they say 15, 20 pr whatever %, but in reality thats not ever much at all.

Similar to when the raptors first came out. I jumped on it and bought one, then tried raid. some things were slightly faster and some were slower than the older 7000rpm drives.
even now my 640blacks, there may be a small differnnce compared to the older drives, but nothing spectacular. Benchmarks don't mean squat either; real word is way different than on paper/screen.

I think for the evg user ssd's will not make a big difference like most claim and they are just paying premiums atm. I really want to get an ssd to compare for myself, but just cannot warrant the costs right now, plus sata III is around the corner along with newer drives w better performance. I kind of want to see what the newer drives bring to the table before I buy unless an unpassable deal comes along.

$2.9/gb is way too high, $2/gb would be about my starting point
 
Yeah just waiting for them to hit a reasonable price/size ratio so I can put 40-60 GB drives in all my htpcs. For the quietness and low power consumption and quick boot straight into 7mc. Until then it's 2TB drives to archive and stream my bd collection.
 
INFRNL said:
I don't think anyone will ever see night and day differences unless coming from a very old machine on a 5400rpm drive. Its just like anything else; there may be a slight difference, but nothing huge.
just like on the bench's, they say 15, 20 pr whatever %, but in reality thats not ever much at all.

Similar to when the raptors first came out. I jumped on it and bought one, then tried raid. some things were slightly faster and some were slower than the older 7000rpm drives.
even now my 640blacks, there may be a small differnnce compared to the older drives, but nothing spectacular. Benchmarks don't mean squat either; real word is way different than on paper/screen.

I think for the evg user ssd's will not make a big difference like most claim and they are just paying premiums atm. I really want to get an ssd to compare for myself, but just cannot warrant the costs right now, plus sata III is around the corner along with newer drives w better performance. I kind of want to see what the newer drives bring to the table before I buy unless an unpassable deal comes along.

$2.9/gb is way too high, $2/gb would be about my starting point
Click to expand...

It was night and day for me. I moved over from a relatively new 500GB Maxtor.

I love the SSD. I've got the desktop up in 45 seconds. And that's really 45 seconds. Firefox is up and I'm surfing probably 3 seconds after the desktop loads. Anything you launch on startup of the machine starts instantly - no waiting for the HDD to finish thrashing before you can actually click on the windows button or start doing stuff. No press-the-windows-buton and it comes up, and then vanished because you've pressed it too fast, or waiting even longer for it to stop thrashing because you launched a program. I can boot up and be at the Dragon Age menu in probably under a minute. If I want, I can click Media Monkey, Firefox and whatever else, and they start faster than I can click them.

Everything launches instantly, multiple apps at once play nicer at once, etc. No waiting. I think SSD is fantastic. I don't think this tech would have helped in the single core era. But now? It makes the whole PC feel much faster. I can't wait until the 120GB drives get cheap enough to drop in my Touchsmart laptop. It would be nice to have a sub-1-minute-to-internet boot time like my desktop, and my wife's new Toshiba laptop.
 
Last edited:
Upgrading to SSD has been my most noticeable upgrade in the entire time I've owned computers.

100% recommended to anyone looking for a massive day-to-day perceived performance improvement.
 
Got 4 of these... on Intel ICH10R controller, getting 500MB/sec reads, 300MB/sec writes (sequential). Pretty hot stuff.
 
AVT said:
Upgrading to SSD has been my most noticeable upgrade in the entire time I've owned computers.

100% recommended to anyone looking for a massive day-to-day perceived performance improvement.
Click to expand...

didnt see it....I do wish it were true, maybe next generation will do something for me.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top