Discussion Forums > Technology
New Workstation Rig
kitamesume:
^ try asking ppl why defragmenting a SSD is a no no, should get you your answers.
Edit: well there is still a debate about setting page file on SSD is a "no" or "yes".
rkruger:
--- Quote from: TMRNetShark on September 16, 2011, 12:35:33 PM ---What? Why not? An SSD is just like RAM, the only difference being the that I/O interface is a little different. :P
--- End quote ---
What gave you that idea? The techology is completely different.
Most SSDs are based on non-volatile NAND-flash technology, that can only handle a limited number of writes before it wears out.
Most RAM today is volatile DRAM, that uses capacitors to keep the bits in a known state until they lose power.
kureshii:
--- Quote from: TMRNetShark on September 16, 2011, 12:35:33 PM ---What? Why not? An SSD is just like RAM, the only difference being the that I/O interface is a little different. :P
--- End quote ---
._.
bloody000:
--- Quote from: Tatsujin on September 15, 2011, 10:25:25 PM ---
--- Quote from: fohfoh on September 15, 2011, 03:55:53 AM ---
--- Quote from: TMRNetShark on September 14, 2011, 01:14:41 PM ---
--- Quote from: AceHigh on September 14, 2011, 10:35:26 AM ---Windows OS is sure as hell not cheap when it is not sold as OEM. Good choice on the 64bit, we customers have to move away from 32bit ASAP, so that developers will have more incentive to make programs/games for 64bit.
--- End quote ---
They really don't yet? O.o
I would definitely say that 75% of the PC gaming crowd has already moved to 64-bit... maybe when Windows 8 comes around.
--- End quote ---
True. Because you have to be fucktarded if you're trying to run Crysis with 2GB RAM.
32 GB might be a little bit tiny for a boot drive. Depends how you use it though. On a standard drive, I rake up somewhere close to 25GB based on OS. I don't know how far I'd go if I began loading more programs onto it.
I picked up a kingston SSD NOW 100 for 90 bucks about a month ago. Makes my old C2D look like a retard. xD Even an SSD without the highest specs is a hell of a lot better than the conventional drives. :)
--- End quote ---
50 and 60 GB isn't enough for your primary OS partition - I realized that mistake few years ago but I'm so lazy to switch to a bigger hard drive. The HDD where the OS is located is divided into 4 partitions, one of them belongs to the OS. I shouldn't have divided it and should have used the full 200 GB for it. I only install mandatory programs on it. All games are installed on a completely separate HDD and partition (faster speed) to load up games and lessen pressure on the main HDD with the OS.
That SSD stuff is making me drool. I want to get a 120 GB at minimum.
--- End quote ---
Don't tell me you are still using "my whatever" to store files.
TMRNetShark:
--- Quote from: kureshii on September 16, 2011, 03:28:32 PM ---
--- Quote from: TMRNetShark on September 16, 2011, 12:35:33 PM ---What? Why not? An SSD is just like RAM, the only difference being the that I/O interface is a little different. :P
--- End quote ---
._.
--- End quote ---
Clearly no one got my sarcasm.... ::)
ANYWAYS, Life Endurance on an SSD today is meaningless. Why?
Cause SSDs today have a write endurance of well over 5 million write cycles... That means if you constantly "writing" on your SSD, you would never be able to write enough on your SSD for it to fail in your computer's natural life. (or so they say... continue reading)
Why?
Your harddrive doesn't write constantly, but it writes a lot, right? In an SSD, when you (re)write even 1 bit, you are essentially rewriting an entire block, right? So a 256 KB block is changed all to just change 1 bit... a waste it would seem, right? You just took up one of those "endurance" cycles away because of that. Let's look at your average SSD that has a endurance "life cycle" of 3 million. That's 3 million times that your SSD can write before blocks start going boom. What if you were writing at the constant speed that an SSD can write at until it dies? That's 3 million times the capacity of the harddrive (so let's say 64 GBs) and let's say that 70 % of those blocks last until the "3 million life cycle endurance". At the constant writing rate of 165 MB/s, that 70 % of those blocks will last 26 years. That's if 1 bit was being changed or the entire harddrive was constantly being written on day in and day out for 26 years.
"Yeah, TMR? Then why are there so many examples of people's SSD's failing less than a year after they were bought?"
Well, to answer your question... It's either that SSD companies are lying to us about having write cycle endurance limits in the millions (where we thought the technology was at) and the reality is that the write cycle limits are only as far as 100,000 write cycle endurance (which puts it at a theoretical ~314 days limit before it goes bust under the same conditions as the 26+ years example). OR "that if a failure ever does occur, it will not occur in the flash chip itself but in the controller."
So theoretically, with the numbers we are given... SSD's SHOULD last 20+ years. What we are actually seeing is quite different though... and I doubt everyone's "SSD's controller" is failing because they used it wrong. ::)
Would I buy an SSD? I'm not convinced one bit by the technology.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version