The future of SSDs

Depends on the type of backup.

I never said it was smart value wise. I was saying just in terms of how it works. Of course it is stupid to back up to an SSD due to cost, but cost aside I don't see it being much worse than an HDD. But you are really wasting money if you bought an ssd to back up shit too.

How exactly were you refuting what I said then?

I wasn't disproving your point. Your point is right, I was saying I was not referring to the cost in the point I was making about how SSD's themselves are not necessarily bad for backing up in comparison to HDD's in terms of reliability and chance to fail. Initial cost was never a factor in my post for a reason.

Also quoting doesn't necesarily mean I don't agree with you.

I want an SSd but i don't want to spend the money on it? what should i do guys? Your the answer.

I want a Lamborghini but I don't want to spend the money on it.

What are you asking?

Steal one.

@C_Rule: This boy just might be on to something......hmmm

@FelipeInside: aye save your money big guy.

This thread gave me the extra motivation I needed to buy a 500GB Samsung EVO. Thanks lads.

I've heard good things about the Samsung EVO Series. Good choice. Enjoy.

@PredatorRules: you use SSDs for boot drives and the programs you use most. you dont use them for storage.

i like to use a 60 gb ssd as a cache. specifically on an h77 chipset in my gf's pc.

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/smart-response-technology.html

the main thing i like about it is how the intel software looks after everything. noticeably faster.

A friend of mine tested using an SSD as cache but then noticed the results were so small in speed increase that it wasn't worth it..?

You can use it for storage as well if you have the money. SSDs now come up to 4TB, I don't think the manufacturer or the company aimed for you to store OS and some small programs to fill 4TB...

Honestly a 250 gig SSD is great even for a gamer. Mine has 90 gigs free, and it contains my OS and the few games I will regularly play (Dota, Civ5, CSGO, TF2, etc...)

I understand that someone used to using a primary mechanical drive for their OS and your programs will think they have to have 1TB or at least 500 gigs, but you really don't need all that space. It's fine to have a smaller drive for the convenience of bootup of your most used applications. I used to have that exact same mindset but have adapted perfectly fine. Steam and Origin even let you easily install on multiple hard drives so you shouldn't have an excuse. They are affordable and make the pc experience much more enjoyable. At this stage I wouldn't even consider them luxury but simply a core staple of a gaming rig.

A link please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqM8kZOsdck

My bad it was 2TB, but we're getting there =)

As I predicted from the beginning, the SSDs 1TB-4TB would be standarts for any home PC while the PCIe SSDs would be used for gaming and video editing and other heavy duty programs.

That is a few more years from now. Unless something drastic happens with SSD prices.

Unlikely gamers will ever really adopt PCIe SSDs, not if current trends continue. Any performance gained from a PCIe SSD isn't worth the loss of a PCI slot.

Look at the ASUS RAIDR, for example, all it has is high sequential reads and writes. If you were to instead by a 500GB EVO, you'd save yourself ~$50, get double the capacity and a better performing drive.

Never used my PCIe slot for anything but my soundcard which is today pointless, so basically even if you have a 50$ MOBO it always comes with 1-2 additional PCIe slots, so you never even lost anything.

Asus RAIDR is 240Gb at 800Mb/s for 350$ while the Samsung EVO 250Gb is at 500~ Mb/s for 170$ so basically you go win win by small with the EVO because you get extra 10Gb and the price/performance ratio is with the EVO side.

I'm planning on getting a 120GB samsung EVO in a few weeks.

Good choice.

With the prices now, why not 180 or 240GB?

@horgen123: 250GB is twice the price of the 120GB and the 120GB will fit windows and most of my applications. There are other things I'm planning on buying soon (e.g. headphones) and I'm a student so I can't go round spending loads of money.

well, she used to be one of the last to load up a level in BF4, now she is always one of the first to load up. also the reboot time is much faster.

and yeah, anything that isn't cached will load slow.

but seriously - it think it's a great option because pairing a ~60 gig ssd with a big hard disc is inexpensive. we haven't measured anything, but we've both been really happy with the results. specifically it's a 2gb 7200 rpm seagate paired with a 60 gb kingston ssd.

and again to reiterate that it requires no management. pretty good considering i put this set up into a n00b's pc i mean woman's. lol!

This guy has apparently never used an SSD. There is no place for a 10k or 15k hard drive with SSD. SSD will thrive because they are fast, lower power and don't have any moving parts.

Large HDD will stay around, but the majority of people are fine with 256gb or 512gb SSD instead of a 3tb or 4tb drive (which is only useful if you are a professional with a lot of data or have lots of movies or something)

I think we will see more SSD that run on PCIe (or thunderbolt which has it internally) because the latency is so much lower than SATA and the potential speed is higher.

I think that HDD and SSDs coexist for a long time if not forever.

What? you're saying that if someone would offer you a 4TB SSD you wouldn't take it? you seriously wouldn't replace your slow HDD to SSD?

You have what I said completely backwards.

What I am saying is that if the average consumer has the choice between a 4TB drive and a 256gb ssd for the same price, that consumer would be better off with an SSD. There are cases where people need that 3 or 4TB, but most people don't.

I haves SSDs for my OSes/some programs on my Desktop/Tablet/Laptop/HTPC and some 3TB hdd for my moves/music/storage.