CoX on a Solid State Drive?
By
Call Me Awesome,
Posted on: 2011-01-10 14:39 in ALL ACCESS Gameplay Technical Issues Bugs
Quote:
You are confusing what SATA-II and SATA-III can and can't do.|
Originally Posted by NewScrapper
So, judging from what I've been hearing and reading, at the very least I should cough up the $120 to get a 64GB SSD to hold Windows 7 if nothing else. The one thing I'm still not clear on yet, though, is whether I should get something SATA-II or get the Crucial SATA-III.
SATA-IIs seem to have slower read maximums and faster write maximums than SATA-IIIs. Which is more important -- the SATA-II's faster write potential, or the SATA-III's faster read potential? |
Unlike a regular hard drive, where there isn't a lot of difference between drives with the same spin rate and platter density, SSDs are of various designs using various controller chips that have been evolving rapidly over the last two years.
The Crucial C300 series is the only one I know of with a SATA-III interface (I'm expecting that to change shortly) and to showcase this speed they (either Crucial or Marvell which designed the controller) optimized the read performance to significantly outclass every other 1.8"/2.5" SSD out there. However the way they chose to design the drive meant that their smaller sized versions aren't as fast writing as their largest and in the case of the 64MB one, its lack of write performance sticks out like a sore thumb. That's a fault of the drive's design or the controller, not SATA-III.
Before the Crucial C300 came along, the generally accepted fast SSDs, other than Intel's, were ones that used the SandForce 1200/1500 controller. Well at CES SandForce showed off their new controller, one that is SATA-III compatible and it's read and write performance was impressive, 500MB/s read/write speeds. Drives using this controller should be available in a few months.
So you have to ask yourself a few questions. First does your motherboard come with SATA-III? Second is what is more important, read or write speeds. Unless you are running a SQL database that is frequently being updated, read speed is more important than write.
Just remember a couple of things. Hyperstrike is running a RAID 0 array of SSDs so his performance is well above what you will see with a single SSD. Second, while objective performance tests do show lower boot and game level load times, but I'm not sure how much of the subjective claims about SSD performance is simply a byproduct of trying to rationalize the money spent on one and how much is real.
Father Xmas - Level 50 Ice/Ice Tanker - Victory
$725 and $1350 parts lists --- My guide to computer components
Tempus unum hominem manet
Quote:
Precisely.|
Originally Posted by Father Xmas
Just remember a couple of things. Hyperstrike is running a RAID 0 array of SSDs so his performance is well above what you will see with a single SSD. Second, while objective performance tests do show lower boot and game level load times, but I'm not sure how much of the subjective claims about SSD performance is simply a byproduct of trying to rationalize the money spent on one and how much is real.
|
SSD's aren't some magical panacea. They'll help ameliorate some issues where disk performance might be adding to a problem. But it's not like you're going to stick one into an old P42.8Ghz machine with a gig of DDR and an integrated Intel video card and have it start performing like an i7 system with an SLI GTX580 setup.
Anyone expecting this please look in the mirror and begin laughing.
Hard.
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.
Since all I'd be using the SSD for is the operating system (at least at first, for simplicity's sake), I would guess the SATA-III is the best bet...although I'm not seeing it on NewEgg for $120 as previously advertised -- I snoozed, I loozed, I guess. Worst case scenario I'll make sure whatever motherboard I get (most likely this one) is SATA-III compliant so that I can stick a SATA-III SSD in my PC someday, when the price on the larger-sized ones seems more reasonable.
I can install Windows on a hard drive and boot from there at first, then install an SSD later and boot from there from then on, right? No issues with that? Not saying this is what I'll do...I still might plunk down on the Crucial...but this is an option, right?
In case anyone wants to chip in on my latest parts list, I've got a new thread at:
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=250119
Next gen SSDs were getting announced at CES earlier this month. I'd wait for general availability on them before buying. At the very least it'll drive down prices of 1st gen stuff.
Heads up! NewEgg is selling the Crucial SATA-III 128GB SSD for $234 with promo code until 1/22! Plunking down NOW!
Quote:
Believe that's the 2nd gen Sandforce. From benchmark standpoint, it's a good amount of improvement.
|
Originally Posted by Rhysem
Next gen SSDs were getting announced at CES earlier this month. I'd wait for general availability on them before buying. At the very least it'll drive down prices of 1st gen stuff.
|
Quote:
And would you believe that one of NewEgg's ShellShocker deals this week was the 64GB version for $99? I would have waited had I known, but that defeats the whole ShellShocker idea, I guess. Still, at least now I've got room for more than just Windows 7 and CoH if I need it.
|
Originally Posted by NewScrapper
Heads up! NewEgg is selling the Crucial SATA-III 128GB SSD for $234 with promo code until 1/22! Plunking down NOW!
|
While reading through this thread, I thought to myself "128GB? That's kinda small. Wonder if they make 1TB Solid State drives?"
I google and get my answer.
$3,300 dollars for a 1TB Solid State drive. 
Oh well. I'm more than happy with the 2TB that I have inside my rig (Spread across 2 SATA II drives,) but still.....
http://www.seventhsanctum.com/index-anim.php
Can't come up with a name? Click the link!
Can't come up with a name? Click the link!
Yea, SSDs are $2-3 a GB. Normal 7200RPM hard drive with a large capacity and 32 or 64MB of cache, under 10 cents a GB.
I think I still have my first 20MB hard drive somewhere in a closet. I also remember when $1 a MB for a hard drive was a bargain.
I feel old.
GET OFF MY LAWN!!!
Father Xmas - Level 50 Ice/Ice Tanker - Victory
$725 and $1350 parts lists --- My guide to computer components
Tempus unum hominem manet
So, judging from what I've been hearing and reading, at the very least I should cough up the $120 to get a 64GB SSD to hold Windows 7 if nothing else. The one thing I'm still not clear on yet, though, is whether I should get something SATA-II or get the Crucial SATA-III.
SATA-IIs seem to have slower read maximums and faster write maximums than SATA-IIIs. Which is more important -- the SATA-II's faster write potential, or the SATA-III's faster read potential?