While we're still comparing PCIe SSD epeens we don't have:
Price? If you have to ask, you shouldn't even be thinking about it.
Back on topic. Yes the SSD's do show better specs on paper, but to the average user or even advanced user those specs/benchmarks won't be noticeable. It's like saying 16gig of ram is better than 8 gig.
Dude what are you on about? Have you even used a system running on an SSD made in the past 3 years? Boot time, application launch time, file transfer time, IOPS, almost all meaningful measures of performance
, practical or synthetic, are higher on SSDs. That should read “to the average user, and especially advanced users, those specs/benchmarks are really noticeable.” Unless maybe you're looking at the wrong specs …
Of course, the price per GB is higher as well, but if your system is already decently specced and not really in need of more RAM, processing power or graphics performance, an SSD is a no-brainer for your next upgrade. Even then, for many people I know the next upgrade I’d recommend for them would be an SSD, particularly since few of them do anything that needs >8GB of RAM, or an i7 — an SSD would be the most noticeable improvement they can get. Especially when they're available on many sites at a <$100 price point, and current price drops on them are more common and much more significant than with HDDs.
Have a look at http://www.anandtech.com/show/2829/20
. Then look at the following graphs:(Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5729/western-digital-velociraptor-1tb-wd1000dhtz-review/3)
Compare that with these graphs (The Intel 320 is in both):(Source: http://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index/6143?cPage=2&all=False&sort=0&page=6&slug=ocz-agility-4-256gb-review)
Your head's gotta be pretty deep in the sand for you to think that kind of performance gap doesn't matter. That, or you've never actually used one before.
There are good reasons to still be using 3.5"/2.5" HDDs, or even a Velociraptor. That in no way invalidates the crazy kind of performance boost an SSD brings to the game though, and one thing way more senseless
than saying the average person won't notice any
difference is refusing to buy SSD on a decently specced system because of such uninformed misperceptions
raid trim still is flakey as hell (more like non-existent)Now it exists
(*on select systems*). Seems to work pretty well, although will need more extensive testing for conclusive results.
Actually, Raptors can compare to SSD -- longevity and space. Their seek times are about half that of a normal HDD, and their read rate is about 33% more (or so I think), so they are definitely better than HDDs. On the side of SSDs, they will have several times the space and, best of all, they will keep running at their original speeds after your SSD has been used up.
They can, but not as favourably as one might expect. 256GB SSDs go as low as $189 for a Vertex 4, while the “new” 300GB VR200M (the 250GB model is an older raptor) now goes for $110 in some places, though you might be able to find it slightly cheaper from retailers that don’t offer free shipping. On Newegg it’s a pricier $159 though.
Though they do have lower seek times and higher sequential read speeds than typical desktop HDDs, the fact is that at this point, SSDs still have seek times at least an order of magnitude lower
(almost two orders of magnitude optimistically) than the Raptor
, and even in heavy-write scenarios
they still manage to stay around 60% or below.(Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4253/the-crucial-m4-micron-c400-ssd-review/2)
When it comes to longevity, the Raptors certainly have a better reputation, since they’ve been around longer than just about every consumer SSD line. Having a 5-year warranty helps too, although some SSDs are starting to have that as well—Intel 320 being one particular example. SSD reputations are also steadily (and quite quickly) improving, but bad news travels faster than good news. Most SSD issues I hear are from one of these categories:
1) Old, really outdated impressions of early SSDs, which had no TRIM support terrible write amplification, and really terrible write latencies after heavy use.
2) Enterprise users who write tens or hundreds of GB on a daily basis.
3) Complaints about firmware issues on early Sandforce controllers
All valid issues, but how many of these apply to the typical consumer? The Vertex 4s are running on OCZ’s new and improved Indilinx controller, and there are now many models not running on Sandforce: Samsung, Intel, Crucial, etc. They don’t have much of a reliability reputation yet, but that’s to be expected of new products—one can’t really assess reliability of a product that hasn’t been in the market beyond its warranty lifetime, right?