Feel the Need for Speedy SSDs

[Hooch Tan]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/6gb-s-ssd-hdd,2603.html' target='_blank'>http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews...d-hdd,2603.html</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"This is the second part of our 2010 spring SSD roundup. In part one, we compared offerings from Crucial, Intel, OCZ, Solidata, and Toshiba. Now it&rsquo;s time to add some newcomers to our revamped testing suite. With Windows 7 and a SATA 6Gb/s add-in card from Highpoint (utilizing a Marvell controller), we&rsquo;re ready for drives able to deliver 300 MB/s and more of throughput."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/dht/auto/1271268761.usr20447.jpg" style="border: 0px solid #d2d2bb;" /></p><p>SSDs are not a standard item for most computers but they are becoming a lot more common.&nbsp; With their rising popularity, more companies are entering the market, and test results are showing up with some interesting figures.&nbsp; Overall, SSDs are considerably faster than what can be accomplished with the age old traditional hard drive, some even exceeding 6Gb/s!&nbsp; However, there is a wide variance in performance between each drive, and there are a lot of other considerations such as power draw and extended use.&nbsp; The choice between them is not as easy as one could make with hard drives.&nbsp; Still, SDDs, short of the really, really tiny ones, are priced for enthusiasts, not regular joes.&nbsp; I would wait another generation, maybe two before taking the plunge.</p>

[Jason Dunn]

Overall, SSDs are considerably faster than what can be accomplished with the age old traditional hard drive, some even exceeding 6Gb/s!

Faster than hard drives? Yes, most of them - but the 6 GB/s is the SATA standard, not the speed at which the SSD operates...Tom's Hardware is a bit misleading there. Most SSDs operate in the 200 MB/s range, give or take depending on model and Flash memory type.

I agree that SSDs are still too pricey for mainstream use - hell, I think they're too pricey for enthusiast use, at least THIS enthusiast...I won't switch to an SSD for my primary drive in a desktop computer until I get get a 256 GB SSD for around $300 CAD. I'm hoping that by the end of 2010 that will be a reality...

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Same here Jason, though I might get one for one of my notebooks after Intel does another die-shrink for their flash process. I hear that next one is going to halve prices yet again.

[Hooch Tan]

I agree that SSDs are still too pricey for mainstream use - hell, I think they're too pricey for enthusiast use, at least THIS enthusiast...I won't switch to an SSD for my primary drive in a desktop computer until I get get a 256 GB SSD for around $300 CAD. I'm hoping that by the end of 2010 that will be a reality...

A dual HDD setup could be a consideration, where programs and the OS could reside on the SSD and data, such as videos, pictures, work files and the like could sit on a more traditional drive. That might be a reasonable compromise. In that case, a 128GB or possibly even a 64GB SSD could be all that is needed.

Personally, I'm never in so much of a rush that I need the benefit of SSD. Storage capacity is much more important. Then again, I don't live in the cloud.

[Jason Dunn]

A dual HDD setup could be a consideration, where programs and the OS could reside on the SSD and data, such as videos, pictures, work files and the like could sit on a more traditional drive.

I've thought of that, but for me, I don't see much point in an SSD unless I can fit all my documents, photos, etc. onto it. Launching a program fast is great, but the real speed gains are accessing data fas, and if that data is on a hard drive...what's the point? :cool: