Velociraptor or SSD for OS Drive now???

Do I need to buy a new motherboard to take advantage of SSDs?

I'm fine with my Gigabyte P35-GA-DS3L and C2D E8500!
 
mtx said:
Do I need to buy a new motherboard to take advantage of SSDs?

I'm fine with my Gigabyte P35-GA-DS3L and C2D E8500!
Click to expand...

No, although you'll want to be running in AHCI mode if at all possible (for performance reasons). That motherboard should be fine.
 
Crosshairs said:
My post was in response to this post
Go over to Storage Review and look at any of the benchmarks and you will quickly see that the VelociRaptor will beat almost any drive in any test, except an SSD ....which is what I said in my response
Click to expand...
No - StorageReview stopped being relevant circa two years ago. It only has a single 15k / 2.5" drive listed. It doesn't even have the current two-year-old WD1500HLFS benchmarked, but rather lists the four-year-old WD1500ADFD.

Here is WD1500HLFS:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1345595
Access time: 7.1ms
Avg transfer: 104MB/s
Max IOPS: 279

Here is last-gen Seagate ST973402SS 2.5" / 15k / 74GB:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/enterprise-hard-drive-charts-2010/benchmarks,105.html
Current-generation drives w/150GB platters are quite a bit faster.
Access time: 5ms
Avg transfer: 97MB/s
Max IOPS: 360

You can pick up last-gen 2.5" / 15k drives on ebay for $50 BIN. The velociraptor @ $50 is completely barren of value and no reasonable person would allow it on or near a vagina under any circumstance.
 
I don't know what your looking at but the first Raptor listed is the WD300BLFS, which is the same drive as the 1500BLFS/HLFS....the specs are the same minus the capacity.

The benchmarks don't lie....The Raptor is exactly what I said it was.....


And are you really showing us that a 15K drive is faster than a 10K drive?
Well who would have thought :rolleyes:

read the post again from the top......and show me where I said the Raptor was faster than a 15K drive......and then show me where the OP asked about a 15K drive.
 
Installed. 56GB after formatting. Windows is taking up 24GB already, damn.....
 
I thought the discussion about raptors were already in the past.. I guess everyone agrees that a SSD is a better choice.

I had a raptor and it's been the worst hardware purchase. It added little performance and a boat load of noise and heat. The new raptors might be improved, but still somehow expensive. I wouldn't buy one unless you can find a smoking hot deal..
 
mtx said:
Installed. 56GB after formatting. Windows is taking up 24GB already, damn.....
Click to expand...

Disable/Delete the hibernation file. Resize pagefile tomproper size.
You'll probably get 8-10GB back...
 
thefreeaccount said:
........

You can pick up last-gen 2.5" / 15k drives on ebay for $50 BIN. The velociraptor @ $50 is completely barren of value and no reasonable person would allow it on or near a vagina under any circumstance.
Click to expand...

The only thing you are forgetting is that (as far as i know ) all 15K drives are SAS and as such you will need a expansion card or at least a mobo with SAS ports which few and far between (normally more expensive to)

Also, the drives you listed were 150GB vs 74GB, considering the performance difference is not that great i think that for hte same $$$ you might as well get a Raptor.

Now back on topic

SSD as much faster than a HDD but you get very little capacity and they cost a lot, for the money i think i would get the Raptor and just save for a good SSD, 40-60GB will fill up really fast.

at full price its a totally different story, the only reason for a Raptor is if you want a high performance drive in a 2.5" form factor , which is why i have a 600GB Raptor and a SSD (i have not more 3.5" bays left) .
 
mtx said:
I'm just worried that 300GB SSDs will be sold for $0.33/GB in 7-10 months. Because if that's the case, I can wait the 7-10 months.
Click to expand...

lol is this a joke? most ssd's are going somewhere between $1.50/gb and $2.00/gb you're expecting nearly an 80% price drop in the next year?

i've got a 120GB ssd on my computer but the only thing installed on there is the OS, ms office, and adobe PS. games, music, and almost every other application is installed on my 2.0TB WD black drive.

you can get a 600GB WD velicoraptor drive for $250 which puts it at $0.41/gb if i had to do it over again i'd probably consider doing this instead of an ssd since i can install almost all my applications on this drive. for the same price i paid for my drives i could have 480GB more storage albeit with a hit in performance
 
Last edited:
thefreeaccount said:
WD1500HLFS is over two years old. Try any current-gen 2.5" / 15k drive and you will quickly realize that the velociraptor's barren, limp penis leaves you wanting.
Click to expand...

thefreeaccount said:
...You can pick up last-gen 2.5" / 15k drives on ebay for $50 BIN. The velociraptor @ $50 is completely barren of value and no reasonable person would allow it on or near a vagina under any circumstance.
Click to expand...

well the sexual innuendo with inanimate objects aside (if that floats your boat). the raptor drives still have their uses.

i still use one (same 150GB model) not as a boot drive, have SSD for that. they are excellent for games and those larger program installs. they still have decent performance (tho i'd argue the current 450/600 are a little too expensive).

the other bonus is that they are very reliable. i've had every model except the latest gen (36/74/150) and they are all still working. more than i can say for my 6mth old WD 2TB black FASS which is dropping sectors atm (fighting WD on getting a replacement).

i'm always wary about purchasing 2nd hand drives tho. don't trust em. unless you trust the source and know the drive is error free, then i'd stay clear.
 
here are my thoughts so far. ive installed w7 on the corsair f60 and i have not noticed much of a performance difference. the untweaked f60 boots up w7 as fast as my tweaked wd5000aaks which seems to work fine now because it hasn't crashed in 24 hours. i feel like i just wasted $134 CAD (-$25 MIR if it ever comes) for nothing. mind you I got an excellent deal on a 'clearance' model, but i think the SSD just isn't for me. i can afford to wait the extra 2-3 seconds if it means saving $134. i enjoy the silence, but i don't i have the time to appreciate and use the computer anymore so what the heck is the point for me....just a terrible impulse buy by me :) inspired by all the hype that's going around here. IMO i'm way better getting a 640GB black or the 150GB velociraptor which is just as "fast"...

edit: I hope I didn't offend anyone with this post, and I really really feel bad for wasting everyone's time (asking for advice and not following it). Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but the difference hasn't been night and day like some have claimed!
 
Last edited:
There is more to a SSD than boot time. Try doing some video editing and rendering using a SSD vs any HDD, you will see a noticeable difference. Loading multiple files and/or programs becomes a snap, where as a HDD will have troubles doing this if it isn't a 10K or 15K model.

If you didn't need this speed, or have a use for a SSDs functionality, then yes, you wasted your money and our time.

No, the Black and VelociRaptors are not just as fast, far from it. With boot time, perhaps, but for other things, hardly.
 
Yes SSDs aren't for everyone but many people just shout "go for the SSD" everywhere these days.
 
Use the SSD for a while. Then go use a friend or someone's pc with a spinning disk. That's when you'll appreciate the SSD, but also want to slash your wrists while waiting on their pc.
 
[LYL]Homer;1037289258 said:
Use the SSD for a while. Then go use a friend or someone's pc with a spinning disk. That's when you'll appreciate the SSD, but also want to slash your wrists while waiting on their pc.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much what happened to me. I stuck the SSD in my dual core laptop and was unimpressed. About a week later, my hexacore desktop developed a strange problem with "stuttering" and very slow overall performance. I spent a couple of days troubleshooting my overclock and almost ended up buying a new power supply before I realized the cause.

A single component that can make a 2.5Ghz core2duo feel significantly faster than a 3.5Ghz, 6-core athlon is justifiably hypeworthy.
 
I guess I could keep it, but the 55GB is really killing me. All I need is Photoshop, Office 2007, and that's already taking up 25GB heh.
 
Just return it and get the Raptor then, save some $ and wait for cheaper SSDs with a decent capacity (or just stick to the Raptor if it's sufficient).
 
I would never recommend getting a raptor, especially if you don't notice the SSD, you will never notice the raptor, except that it is hotter and louder (well the old ones were anyway).

If you do end up swapping, go for something big 1-2TB as at least you will have a use for it in the future (mass storage or backup drive) if you get something faster later on.
 
There is nothing wrong with the new Velociraptors. They run fairly cool in their heatsync-mount and they are very quiet.
 
Well I have 9 days left to decide whether I want to keep it or refund for a 5% loss (restocking fee). SSDs are better but I don't know if it's worth paying the premium. The biggest difference I noticed was vastly improved file decompression times, but I run them automatically overnight anyways so no big difference to me.
 
mtx said:
I guess I could keep it, but the 55GB is really killing me. All I need is Photoshop, Office 2007, and that's already taking up 25GB heh.
Click to expand...

Why install photoshop/office to it? Office opens pretty instantly off a mechanical drive, and photoshop does too. Neither of those programs need to stream program data constantly off the disk. Both of those programs add up to using 2gbs that can be used to other things.
 
DeathPrincess said:
Why install photoshop/office to it? Office opens pretty instantly off a mechanical drive, and photoshop does too. Neither of those programs need to stream program data constantly off the disk. Both of those programs add up to using 2gbs that can be used to other things.
Click to expand...

So you suggest just W7 and Games on the SSD, everything else on my WD 5000AAKS Blue and WD Green?
 
Still, if you don't find the SSD MUCH more comfortable than a HDD I would recommend just getting the Raptor and saving some $ (although I don't know how noisy/quiet the 150gb version is)
 
Red Falcon said:
If that's all the more you need, 60-64GB SSDs can be had for around $100-120 now.

Definitely go for a SSD and spend the extra cash, it will be worth it. Those old Raptors don't even compare to the 500GB and 1TB Green drives now, let alone 7200RPM drives or SSDs.
Click to expand...

The Caviar EcoGreens (GP and GP-AV series) were a decidedly welcome shocker. I bought mine (and have since recommended and installed a few for others as older-PC upgrades) for reasons of price. However, in the case of older SATA interfaces (3.0 Gb/sec or slower) the GP and GP-AV isn't so hobbled by the slower spindle speed or smaller cache. I've had mine for a year now, and I'm pleased as could be.

The problem now is that the Caviar Black line has had a major refresh since I got my GP-AV (retail @ BB). The 1 TB and larger Blacks now have 64MB on-drive cache as standard (this applies to both the SATA 3.0 and SATA 6.0 interface models) - I can actually understand this, as it makes things simpler in terms of deliveries to retailer/e-tailers (and in terms of warranty replacement). Throw in sales (generally, at least one Caviar Black size has been on sale every week) and you can find Black for little more than the price of Green of the same size.

Now, if I had a motherboard or complete desktop with SATA 6 interfaces that did not include an SSD, I'd seriously consider one. However, with SSD pricing remaining high on a per-GB basis, improving SATA magnetic hard drive performance, and falling prices for SATA 3.0 drives, SSD becomes harder to justify at the mainstream level (and utterly silly for HTPC builds or mixed-use upgrades).
 
Proneax said:
if he doesn't notice the ssd why pay the price premium for the raptor?

also, lol:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1610771
Click to expand...

The biggest reason for the Raptor's price premium is the intended use - RAID setups (primarily desktop RAID). No Caviar drive is really suitable for RAID of any sort, and RE4 (or even RE3) is pricier than Velociraptor on a per-GB basis - worse, the smallest commonly-found RE3 or RE4 drive (even e-tail) is 1.5 TB, which is decidedly overkill for desktop RAID.

While SSDs have faster performance than desktop RAID, they also have less in the way of data protection than RAID (which was designed primarily with redundancy/failover in mind). If data protection (failover protection in particular) is important, than SSDs are a bad choice. If it is of primary importance, than SSD is actually the worst of choices, compared not only to desktop RAID, but even a single magnetic hard drive.
 
If data protection (failover protection in particular) is important, than SSDs are a bad choice. If it is of primary importance, than SSD is actually the worst of choices, compared not only to desktop RAID, but even a single magnetic hard drive.
Click to expand...


:confused:

Aren't SSDs more reliable than hard drives? Hard drives have UREs and expected annual failure rates > 2%. And you can use them in raid 5 if you want. Although I would not and just make at least 2 backups of everything that I believe is important.
 
drescherjm said:
:confused:

Aren't SSDs more reliable than hard drives? Hard drives have UREs and expected annual failure rates > 2%. And you can use them in raid 5 if you want. Although I would not and just make at least 2 backups of everything that I believe is important.
Click to expand...

My limited experience is that hard drives normally give you some warning before they fail (bad blocks, slow data rates, noises, etc), and so fail somewhat gracefully, but the SSDs I've had fail all failed completely with no warning and with no data recovery possible. But maybe I've just had bad luck with SSDs.
 
drescherjm said:
:confused:

Aren't SSDs more reliable than hard drives? Hard drives have UREs and expected annual failure rates > 2%. And you can use them in raid 5 if you want. Although I would not and just make at least 2 backups of everything that I believe is important.
Click to expand...

No they aren't, and when they fail it's often impossible to get your data back while it's almost always possible with HDDs (though usually for a pretty insane price)

http://www.presence-pc.com/tests/fiabilite-disque-dur-ssd-23371/ (can't find the English version of it but there should be one seeing it's Tom's Hardware French site)

Proneax said:
if he doesn't notice the ssd why pay the price premium for the raptor?

also, lol:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1610771
Click to expand...

$55 for a Raptor isn't a big "premium" seeing how it's more responsive and has more IOPS than 7200 drives (but slower sequential speeds than most I'll give you that).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top