SSD's don't make a difference

This doesn't make grapes taste any better.

You guys know that the guys saying sdds don't matter are just forcing a meme right? If you fags stop getting baited so hard, the threads will stop. It's probably the same fag who makes those ram meme threads.

>They're are cripplingly poor Brazilian Favella niggers
>They're are
>t. cripplingly poor & illiterate Brazillian favelado

It's okay to be wrong, user.

It's a classic shitposter meme here.

Probably made by the same guy who makes qBittorrent troll threads.

SSD doesnt make significant difference if you dont use software that has massive library dependencies, that is a fact. Windows more recent than Server 2003 it makes a massive difference, but that is simply because of said libraries and generally poor design.
Reducing boot time from 20 seconds to ten seconds is just not worth it either.
The controllers in SSD can also fail without giving any warning beforehand. HDD on other hand give warning signs before crapping out almost without expection.

For us that have waited for data to load from c cassette generally do not give a flying fuck about saving couple of seconds.

Poorfags

The only reason I'd upgrade to an SSD is for better boot times... Lol

Is there like a graph or something of SSD price per GB dropping ? Want to see if I should wait some more or buy now for my laptop, since I'd need to get ~250gb

>speed decreases 40% in the first 6 months

it's good for other stuff too

SSD are exceptional at games, dramatically drops the loading times down

>completely biased, baseless claim by someone who inexplicably is in love with dying technology

For some reason 2.5" laptop HDDs are really finicky and unrealiable compared to 3.5" HDDs, which makes SSDs a nice addition to a laptop

SSD are awful. I only trust my data to my hoard of IBM Deskstar 75 GXP spinners, which are so reliable i don't have to back up.

>6000
2009 called, theyre 60k now.

>0.5% failure rate
And actually good and not chink SSDs have way less.

>20ms
Is less than 8ms now.

>6 hours
20TB SSDs maybe.

g8 b8 m8

mfw ssd speed actually increased due to driver updates.

mfw SSD goes from 500MB/s write to 117MB/s write after 5 minutes

mine are

SSD's are way better.

HOWEVER, the problem is that too many people buy shitty SSD's from unreputable companies because they're too stupid to do any research and then have problems with them on down the line.

If your SSD is not from Samsung, SanDisk, Crucial or Intel, you are playing with fire.

FPS stays the same no matter how much you spend on a SSD

I bought an ssd from Toshiba.
Does that count as playing with fire?

Mushkin replaced by faulty ECO2 SSD for free once I emailed their customer service rep. They even paid for shipping both ways.
You also forgot to mention Kingston (except for their shitty bait-n-switch V300), Toshiba/modern OCZ, and SK Hynix

SSD's being a meme is a meme

anyway you shouldnt base any decision involving money based on memes, look at manufacturer spreadsheets or atleast google a bit

Crucial has fucking bombed on me twice.

First C300 series with BSODs and dropping off the controller due to firmware issues.

Second with a crucial mx something 64gb that fucking caused an entire PC to get thrown in the trash by an ex because it had a firmware bug where after a full year of on-time, every hour added to it's SMART data would freeze the drive for a full 10 minutes, causing BSOD if it was the system drive. Firmware update would have fixed it, but the entire PC was disposed of because no tech shop could figure out it was the SSD breaking things.

I keep eating shit though because I'm using an Crucial MX200 256gb right now.

>Can't tell if they're idiots, shitposters or just shilling.
Take your pick. People legitimately arguing against them have never owned one and/or do not work in anything related to computer science.

Don't take IT advice from your gym teacher.

OCZ is a company with SSD's so shitty that they went bankrupt and had to be bought out by Toshiba. So probably maybe.

I have heard...promising things about the OCZ-branded RD400. Definitely wait and see, though, considering their past.

You're talking about drives that came out over 4 years ago. The MX200 series is solid.

This is what Cred Forums believes SSDs are for.

Try not buying an SSD from China.

>64gb
Capacities this low haven't been offered in years. Along with bigger drives comes massively improved stability and reliability.

It was a Crucial BX100

>SSD's don't make a difference
Top fucking kek

Also, what are the SSDs owning?

>Also, what are the SSDs owning?
HDDs

People still think SSD right now are same as first gen SSDs.

Current SSD > Current HDD manufacturing process.

Outside of laptops SSDs aren't really worth the price:performance difference for the general population yet.

Prices are dropping fast though few more years and it'll be SSD all day every day.

tell me when its not a thousand dollarydoos for a 2tb

It's not in the US:
amazon.com/Samsung-850-EVO-2-5-Inch-MZ-75E2T0B/dp/B010QD6W9I

They're worth it for the OS partitions and games partition. For storage, HDD beats in value.

You could get ~500GB SSD for

For business and gaming they're worth it. They're kinda pointless in walmart prebuilts.

extremetech.com/computing/236260-samsung-plants-to-slash-ssd-prices-to-hard-drive-levels-by-2020

In time....

OCZ also made AMD branded SSDs, with a name so synonymous to shit its no wonder

>with their only argument being "the boot time isn't that much of a difference".

What idiot seriously said this?

The now 2 gen old 840 EVO withstood 2.4 PB of writes before failure in a long term test, the worst performing drive (Kingston) took 600TB

No person is ever going to use the same SSD for that long unless they're incredibly poor and keep the same PC for 12 years.

What is with this claim? I keep seeing this and yet the 3 SSDs I've ever used haven't lost any speed in that time.

In fact my current 850 EVO is almost 1 year old. When I got this (my first SATA3 saturating SSD) I gave it a benchmark and got ~540MB/s read/write speeds

Today, I get ~532. That's 1%, well within margin of error. After a year of use. When I keep hearing I lose 40% in 6 months.

Boot time is the Cred Forums goto for benchmarking drives. It's the same as arguing how hard you can pee.

>BX

You made the conscious decision to not only buy a fucking poorfag Crucial SSD, but also their poorerfag budget line.

I don't think they're even worth it for games and OS partitions. The difference isn't such that I'm like "yeah man I'm glad I paid all this money for 250gb!"

>I don't think

Luckily no one really cares and will take your opinion to heart.

>SSD backups take about 6 hours

What kind of bullshit is that? Even a 2TB SSD wouldn't take 6 hours operating in SATA I mode.

>stupid fucking people will be the death of us all

It's not even opinion it's more like it literally isn't going to make a difference during general use to anybody who isn't a complete autist

It will matter when the pricing comes down but for now SSD is for laptops, autists and too much money fags

Can't afford a $60 ssd? The difference is noticeable unless you're only using the computer as a facebook machine.

SSDs make facebook faster because temp files get put on ssd and load swap faster

The difference isn't really noticeable.

>few seconds
>OH MAN so glad I dropped 100+ bux on 250gb

You can pee harder if you use your fists to put pressure on your bladder.

>falling for the ssd meme
Even if the $/gb of SSDs fall below HDDs. I'm still going to get a hard drive because of the reliability, vastly superior data retention and the godly mechanical sound.

>OH MAN so glad I dropped 100+ bux on 250gb
Are you illiterate? You must be since you're unable to afford a cheap ssd. Get back on the fryer, there are customers coming.

But I literally have an SSD and the difference isn't worth the cost

Your sentence was really dumb btw

>Your sentence was really dumb btw
You'd get it if you had graduated high school.

Here's your (you)

Don't forget that HDDs still have rotational velocidensity, which SSDs don't have.

hey the mx300 is the fucking best

BX100 > BX200
MX200 > MX100
I have the MX300, it's not bad for TLC-based SSD

that was true with older ssd models but I don't see that issue now with newer models.

>and here i have a hdd, a device that performs at a speed fast enough that any general task on a modern computer will suffer no delays and be completely responsive
>and here i have an ssd, it's like 100 times as fast

I'm changing from 6yo 160 gb filled to the brim hdd to ssd in a few days

will I be btfo by the speed of that thing?

I just bought a Q300 Pro from Toshiba because it has a 5 year warranty and the benchmarks seem to be pretty good. I hope you're wrong about them, for my sake.

>He hasnt had atleast a TB for the past 6 years
user, I....

I used a 256 raid 0 ssd array for 3 years, and that was all my storage.

>For us that have waited for data to load from c cassette generally do not give a flying fuck about saving couple of seconds.
And your opinion does not matter on this.

Technology is progressing faster than you're comfortable with, so you shit on new technology.

It really is nice to have an OS that is snappy, to be able to load programs in a split second and to have lower power consumption at the same time.

Would I be fucking up by getting an A-Data SSD?

SSDs are nothing more than a Cred Forums meme. No one seriously uses them in industry because of the extremely limited number of writes. Also they cost a fuck ton more per gigabyte, and do not have the capacity to hold the entire operating system and applications for a modern computer workstation. The speeds are barely faster than 10000 rpm drives, especially when you consider the fact that most of your hard drive accesses are going through RAM caches anyway, you aren't going to hit the actual disk every time. The only thing SSDs have is *slightly* faster bootup times. But bootup is less than 1% of computer use time, so it's not really a metric worth optimizing for. Just hibernate your PC instead of shutting it off, or grow some pateince and wait the 10 extra seconds to boot up with a normal hard drive.

Poorfags gonna poor.

This is kind of a dumb graph, though. "SSD backups take about 6 hours" doesn't make any sense. What actual speed is it operating at? How much data? This graph sucks -- so many of these numbers are totally impacted by details left out.

I say this as someone who uses a Samsung 850 PRO as her main boot disk

enjoy
>Paying more/GB is
>Having your filesystem corrupted by fundamentally flawed drive design
>being barely faster than an HDD in real world tests
>being fooled by a bunch of tests that either exaggerate minor differences, test conditions that could never happen in real use, or outright lie to you

I can tell you i don't really give shit if my computer boots up 30 seconds slower of faster for my everyday use

>Work in large, well known Datacenter
>Literally buy enough SSDs per month to fit on a pallet
>Buy only a couple hundred HHDs in comparison

Confirmed for not nothing anything.

Fun fact: for 90% of the average computer usage, SSDs don't make a difference. You SSDtards are like applefags.

Source: I own two laptops, one of them with an SSD.

Where do you live?
Do you have a bf?

This is probably true if you never turn it off and never open any application other than a web browser.

If you're doing anything remotely interesting- in fact, even if you're just doing basic office work- the instant access/negligible seek time is a godsend.

Even then, these days I want as immediate as possible response from every program. Uncompiled programs I use at work are a complete directory nightmare with sometimes millions of separate files floating around, which is copied or extracted too an hdd takes orders of magnitudes longer than an ssd, even over the sata2 on my home desktop.

EMMC is better than hdd these days as well. Not that my backups and media storage isn't on hdds.

Don't be creepy

Post feet

Why not use a human brain if they are said to be able to store petabytes of information?

they are hard to come by these days

Toshiba invented NAND and 3D NAND so I think they probably know a thing or two

I like the blatant hypocrisy of this. I'm sure you did it intentionally, but still.

Why would storage services affect your framerate? It only affects booting and loading times if you are primarily gaming.

>~500GB SSD for

lol at people thinking ssds aren't a very nice improvement to mechanical drives

OCZ got bought out by toshiba and they're a completely different company now. They make good SSDs now, using toshiba NAND.
Why Toshiba kept that awful fucking branding is beyond me- if they sold SSDs as 'Toshiba SSDs' people would be fine with it. Not like people don't know toshiba, but they do know OCZ's legacy of garbage.
Shame since OCZ SSDs are decent.
Now, anyway

Benchmarks aren't real world usage kid. In real usage, there's file caches in all modern operating systems, which make the differences even more negligible for most things except extreme cases (big file copies and reads) and boot time and first time load of applications.

Pretty sure only people who thinks SSDs aren't better than HDDs can't afford to have one

keep rationalizing your poorfag drives then mate

In the meantime I'll enjoy everything loading instantly

I just use the best, OP. I sorry for having standards.

SSD don't have good way to secure delete.

Can you please come up with an shittier argument for why
>HDD > SSD
Is true?

Actually they do, it's called "secure erase".

> Our results lead to three conclusions:
First, built-in commands are effective, but manufacturers sometimes implement them incorrectly. Second, overwriting the entire visible address space of an SSD twice is usually, but not always, sufficient to sanitize the drive. Third, none of the existing hard drive-oriented techniques for individual file sanitization are effective on SSDs.
>Eight of the drives reported that they supported the ATA SECURITY feature set. One of these encrypts data, so we could not verify if the sanitization was successful. Of the remaining seven, only four executed the “ERASE UNIT” command reliably.
usenix.org/legacy/event/fast11/tech/full_papers/Wei.pdf