Discussion Forums > Technology
So who's made the leap to SSD?
sdedalus83:
When I can get a pair of 64GB drives in the 250/200 class for about $75 each, then I'll jump.
fohfoh:
--- Quote from: sdedalus83 on June 07, 2010, 06:22:37 AM ---When I can get a pair of 64GB drives in the 250/200 class for about $75 each, then I'll jump.
--- End quote ---
Sounds like quite a while. Probably at least 1.5-2 years down the road. (Which is a long time for technology)
The X25 @ 40GB was flying around for about 120 recently AFAIK, 80 GB at like 240
Corsair or someone was offering 64GB for about 140/150 or so.
Either that... or some kind of boxing day deal.
mgz:
--- Quote from: fohfoh on June 07, 2010, 05:42:36 PM ---
--- Quote from: sdedalus83 on June 07, 2010, 06:22:37 AM ---When I can get a pair of 64GB drives in the 250/200 class for about $75 each, then I'll jump.
--- End quote ---
Sounds like quite a while. Probably at least 1.5-2 years down the road. (Which is a long time for technology)
The X25 @ 40GB was flying around for about 120 recently AFAIK, 80 GB at like 240
Corsair or someone was offering 64GB for about 140/150 or so.
Either that... or some kind of boxing day deal.
--- End quote ---
since im kinda lazy would someone like to clarify the difference between the MLC (cheaper) SSD drives and the SLC(notably more expensive when coming from brands like intel )
see
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167025 MLC
vs
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167013 SLC
and if memory serves i read a couple years back that SLC was far more preferable for OS use and MLC was better for general storage use(like thumb drive type situations) if someone would care to explain would be sweet because im pretty lazy and the information is good for those who are looking to purchase these drives.
fohfoh:
MLC is like a duplex. Each cell has 2 inhabitants. If the duplex burns, 2 inhabitants die.
SLC is a detached home. Each home has 1 inhabitants, if the home burns, only 1 inhabitant dies.
I think...
But MLC has more storage per area. (Again duplex vs detached home). But not as reliable.
xShadow:
--- Quote from: fohfoh on June 07, 2010, 05:42:36 PM ---
--- Quote from: sdedalus83 on June 07, 2010, 06:22:37 AM ---When I can get a pair of 64GB drives in the 250/200 class for about $75 each, then I'll jump.
--- End quote ---
Sounds like quite a while. Probably at least 1.5-2 years down the road. (Which is a long time for technology)
The X25 @ 40GB was flying around for about 120 recently AFAIK, 80 GB at like 240
Corsair or someone was offering 64GB for about 140/150 or so.
Either that... or some kind of boxing day deal.
--- End quote ---
The wait time is kind of irrelevant when you're not looking for insane performance from the hard drive anyway. As it is now, mechanical drives are just so much more money efficient that even with SSD's lower failure rate they're not worth it.
Let's put things into perspective:
Here is a good, solid, reliable 1TB hard drive, spinning at 7.2k RPM (which is a decent speed); I could have easily went with something much cheaper for the same capacity, but I believe that is unrealistic as a consumer choice:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152185
Price: 80 dollars
Capacity: 1TB
So, we have 1024 gigabytes. Technically, that's going to be a bit less when formatted, but that's true with any drive, really, so I'm going to just scale it down to 1000 gigabytes as a small correction.
Divide 1000 gigabytes by 80 dollars, you have 12.5 gigabytes per dollar.... and this isn't some cheapass drive that isn't going to last you. This is a solid drive that will probably last you at least a year or two.
Then, let's look at SSD drives... specifically the one you mentioned:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167025&cm_re=x25-_-20-167-025-_-Product
To be honest, this one looks like it's a slower version... but whatever, let's analyze it nonetheless.
Price: 118 dollars
Capacity: 40 gigs
Divide it up: 0.339 gigs/dollar
Final analysis:
Divide 12.5 gigs/dollar by 0.339 gigs/dollar:
36.87
In other words, conventional hard drives give you 36.87 times as much per dollar in comparison to the SSD.
What does this say? Well, for one, if you're investing in an SSD, your incentive should not be reliability. Reliability is rather irrelevant when you could buy 37 drives with the same capacity for the price you just bought that SSD for, and the chances of them all failing (you could back up your main drive 37 times) is probably more astronomically low than an SSD failing... well at least if you invest in a decent brand... you know, one that doesn't have 37 drives all failing within a year or something of the sort. So, even if one drive fails every year, you have 37 years worth of hard drives, because they will all last at least a year. I know this is purely theoretical, but nonetheless...
That makes an SSD's advantage in the reliability arena completely irrelevant. The only reason you could possibly want to buy one is speed. That's it. There's no other excuse. As for me, I'm quite satisfied with my computer's speed, and I would prefer to invest in a better graphics card or something of the sort while "dealing" with not-so-fast loading times and whatnot. Maybe some folks just have a thing for spending money on bleeding edge performance. I don't have that kind of money.
I'm sure you folks already knew this somewhere in your heads, but I just decided to crunch the numbers to really put it into perspective. Just wanted to get it out there in writing.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version