[Rick James]

Which and why?

[Know Nuttin]

which SSD?

[Aynjell]

I wouldn't buy a 150GB Velociraptor, or the RaptorX. They're both slower than the 300GB Velociraptor. And the 300GB Velociraptor is priced only 50$ more than the 150GB Velociraptor. If you can't afford it, you'd do well to wait until you can. Not only is it faster due to higher density, but it's also got twice as much storage. 2 150's are faster than a single 300, but two 300's are much faster than 2 150's, and total cost difference is only 50$ a drive. To me, it's sort of a no brainer there.

Secondly, the SSD's are actually slower than the 300GB VR so far that I've seen. And the storage capacity is worthless in today's gaming machines. I couldn't even fit all my steam titles on it, let alone very many games. Not even with XP installed.

Also, SSD's are still a growing market, with many issues. All I know about them off the top of my head is the 300GB VR is faster than most of them out there, except the super expensive ones, and there are a lot of issues when it comes to setting them up so they actually get the speed they're rated at, and with the Micron controller, so I hear, they're prone to time outs and wierd stuttering issues.

My reccomendation is to get the 300GB Velociraptor. They're fast alone, but my raid 0 array is blistering fast. Granted, it's 500$ worth of hard drive...

[{PGA}AfterShock]

yeah I've been hearing alot about the huge perf loss after very minor usage which only increases after you use it and the remedy for restoring the drive to factory specs isn't feasible to be done on a regular basis, though still faster than todays mechanical drives it's nowhere near what all they hype advertises and the limited storage capacity just makes it not worth the huge $$ increase, when the issues are fixed and the capacity and $ reach more reasonable levels then I would look into them but with what is available today I wouldn't invest the money nor risk critical date on one

[ou_phidelt]

The answer can vary greatly depending on which SSD you are looking at. Their are couple threads here on this exact subject. Take a look and do some reading and see what fits you the best. Personally if I was building a rig today it would be an Intel 64GB SSD and a 1TB for data. But that certainly is not going to be the optimum set-up for everyone.

[tom10167]

Like who? Aside from price it seems like the best route.

[tuskenraider]

Originally Posted by Aynjell

I wouldn't buy a 150GB Velociraptor, or the RaptorX. They're both slower than the 300GB Velociraptor. And the 300GB Velociraptor is priced only 50$ more than the 150GB Velociraptor. If you can't afford it, you'd do well to wait until you can. Not only is it faster due to higher density, but it's also got twice as much storage. 2 150's are faster than a single 300, but two 300's are much faster than 2 150's, and total cost difference is only 50$ a drive. To me, it's sort of a no brainer there.

The RaptorX is obviously slower than the newer drives, but it still a respectable performer. The two VRaptor drives are basically the same in performance. They both use the same density platters, cache, etc. The 300 uses two platters vs. the 150's one. So what tests have shown evidence of the 300 being the fastest? Matter of fact, my 80GB VRaptor is faster than both the 300 and 150 due to what is beleived to be a short-stroked platter evidenced by the 6.3ms access times vs. the 7ms access times of the bigger brothers. STR is also about 5-6MB/s higher.

[mercalf]

What are you using it for? If the drive is for boot/main programs only - SSD all the way...

However, if you plan on reading/writing to a drive a lot (and want more space) you need the Velociraptor.

[Aynjell]

Originally Posted by tuskenraider

The RaptorX is obviously slower than the newer drives, but it still a respectable performer. The two VRaptor drives are basically the same in performance. They both use the same density platters, cache, etc. The 300 uses two platters vs. the 150's one. So what tests have shown evidence of the 300 being the fastest? Matter of fact, my 80GB VRaptor is faster than both the 300 and 150 due to what is beleived to be a short-stroked platter evidenced by the 6.3ms access times vs. the 7ms access times of the bigger brothers. STR is also about 5-6MB/s higher.

I get 7ms, but roughly 370mbps max transfer.

[doz]

Originally Posted by {PGA}AfterShock

yeah I've been hearing alot about the huge perf loss after very minor usage which only increases after you use it and the remedy for restoring the drive to factory specs isn't feasible to be done on a regular basis, though still faster than todays mechanical drives it's nowhere near what all they hype advertises and the limited storage capacity just makes it not worth the huge $$ increase, when the issues are fixed and the capacity and $ reach more reasonable levels then I would look into them but with what is available today I wouldn't invest the money nor risk critical date on one

Where did you see this? Have you used a SSD? So many people are bashing them without even using them. I have a GSkill w/out stuttering and without data loss. Hell, Ive crashed this thing on my SSD as much as I did on my HDD and Ive had 0 data loss when trying to overclock whereas with my HDD, Id get corrupted files now and again.

Price is the only problem for them right now, and my 64gb was VERY reasonable. 2 will cost just a little mor than a 150gb rapter and will smoke it.

[Aynjell]

Originally Posted by tuskenraider

The RaptorX is obviously slower than the newer drives, but it still a respectable performer. The two VRaptor drives are basically the same in performance. They both use the same density platters, cache, etc. The 300 uses two platters vs. the 150's one. So what tests have shown evidence of the 300 being the fastest? Matter of fact, my 80GB VRaptor is faster than both the 300 and 150 due to what is beleived to be a short-stroked platter evidenced by the 6.3ms access times vs. the 7ms access times of the bigger brothers. STR is also about 5-6MB/s higher.

Also, in my system both my 300's have a quicker access time than my 74GB Raptor that's sitting on my desk. Only use it has to me is an emergency disk with XP on it. The results below are during what I'd imagine was an indexing, because it kept going before and after... and it caused some ugly dips.

[Aynjell]

Here we go, after the indexing stopped. 380mbps, and 7.1 access times. It gained .1 (higher, as in it's a bit slower) in access times in raid. But the read speeds are incredible.

[tuskenraider]

Originally Posted by Aynjell

Also, in my system both my 300's have a quicker access time than my 74GB Raptor that's sitting on my desk. Only use it has to me is an emergency disk with XP on it. The results below are during what I'd imagine was an indexing, because it kept going before and after... and it caused some ugly dips.

I don't know what you're screenshot proves. It should be common knowledge Raptors are slower than VelociRaptors? I guess the OP should clarify Raptor or VRaptor as I'm assuming VRaptor. While trying not to get too much OT, an 80GB VRaptor will outgun its bigger brothers by a small margin for reasons I stated earlier. And as far as quoting burst rates, well, that's just a small(worthless, really) measue of your controller and cache speeds, and isn't going to tell you anything about drive performance.






The OP should know that any VelociRaptor will get you equal performance. Buy based on size requirements. I say avoid the Beta testing program all the manufacturers have allowed the retail public to participate in. I certainly wouldn't be running SSD's on a system where data integrity and reliability are a must. The hobbyist's can have at it.

[Shiggity]

Velociraptor if you don't feel like running into any of the SSD issues.

SSD if you have the patience to deal with that stuff. If you can muster the patience to deal with a few SSD bugs here and there, the performance is well worth it.

I usually don't suggest SSD's to people who are building for the first time or don't know a lot about hard-drives. Not talking down to the OP or anything, but that's just my feelings.

[Aynjell]

Originally Posted by tuskenraider

I don't know what you're screenshot proves. It should be common knowledge Raptors are slower than VelociRaptors? I guess the OP should clarify Raptor or VRaptor as I'm assuming VRaptor. While trying not to get too much OT, an 80GB VRaptor will outgun its bigger brothers by a small margin for reasons I stated earlier. And as far as quoting burst rates, well, that's just a small(worthless, really) measue of your controller and cache speeds, and isn't going to tell you anything about drive performance.






The OP should know that any VelociRaptor will get you equal performance. Buy based on size requirements. I say avoid the Beta testing program all the manufacturers have allowed the retail public to participate in. I certainly wouldn't be running SSD's on a system where data integrity and reliability are a must. The hobbyist's can have at it.

I'm still saying that the drives I have are faster than the 74's. There was a noticeable difference in performance when I upgraded. Maybe the 80GB version is different, I have a 74. *shrug* I know some OEM's had different versions... either way, I'm arguing that you're wrong on the raptor vs vraptor statement. The slight improvement in access times doesn't go near as far when it comes to the average read speed of the drives. A 1TB caviar black is a better drive than the 80GB raptor, or 74GB for that matter.

[tuskenraider]

Originally Posted by Aynjell

I'm still saying that the drives I have are faster than the 74's. There was a noticeable difference in performance when I upgraded. Maybe the 80GB version is different, I have a 74. *shrug* I know some OEM's had different versions... either way, I'm arguing that you're wrong on the raptor vs vraptor statement. The slight improvement in access times doesn't go near as far when it comes to the average read speed of the drives. A 1TB caviar black is a better drive than the 80GB raptor, or 74GB for that matter.

You're discussing Raptors and I'm discussing VelociRaptors. We already know any VelociRaptor is faster than any Raptor. You stated your 300GB VelociRaptor is faster than all other versions of VelociRaptors, which was the point I was proving false. FYI: There are 80GB and 160GB versions of both Raptors and VelociRaptors available through Dell and offered with their products.

[Aynjell]

Originally Posted by tuskenraider

You're discussing Raptors and I'm discussing VelociRaptors. We already know any VelociRaptor is faster than any Raptor. You stated your 300GB VelociRaptor is faster than all other versions of VelociRaptors, which was the point I was proving false. FYI: There are 80GB and 160GB versions of both Raptors and VelociRaptors available through Dell and offered with their products.

So you're telling me that screenshot is from 2 80's? All the reviews I've seen of the 300's show them as faster than the 150's, in and out of raid. If that's only 2 80's, I'm calling shenanigans.

But then again, intel raid setups are usually absurdly fast for one reason or another.

[tuskenraider]

Originally Posted by Aynjell

So you're telling me that screenshot is from 2 80's? All the reviews I've seen of the 300's show them as faster than the 150's, in and out of raid. If that's only 2 80's, I'm calling shenanigans.

But then again, intel raid setups are usually absurdly fast for one reason or another.

Yep, 2 80GB VelociRaptors. I've had plenty of NVidia boards to know the RAID is not the best. But while STR is usually poorer in benchmarks vs. other chipsets, access time is unaffected no matter what the controller.

[MadMan007]

In a way I don't know what any of the screenshots prove for real world use. HDTach/HDTune is the HD equivalent of 3D06 for gaming. Anywho for the OP, HDTach aside, I say SSD or bust. VRaptors aren't huge improvements (real world) over high density 7200RPM drives that can be had for a fraction of the price. At the same time SSD may still be having teething issues and they are still in the early adopter phase of pricing. (factor capacity in to pricing) That's just imo if I was considering this, and yes I've thought about it a few times over the last months but you're free to put your money where you want, I just think that expensive drives of either type aren't a great purchase atm.

[Aynjell]

Originally Posted by MadMan007

In a way I don't know what any of the screenshots prove for real world use. HDTach/HDTune is the HD equivalent of 3D06 for gaming. Anywho for the OP, HDTach aside, I say SSD or bust. VRaptors aren't huge improvements (real world) over high density 7200RPM drives that can be had for a fraction of the price. At the same time SSD may still be having teething issues and they are still in the early adopter phase of pricing. (factor capacity in to pricing) That's just imo if I was considering this, and yes I've thought about it a few times over the last months but you're free to put your money where you want, I just think that expensive drives of either type aren't a great purchase atm.

When they come up with an SSD drive that gives the performance it should be giving, and has a controller that doesn't have performance or consistency issues, and actually give these enough RAM to breath and provide a consistent load and read time (load and read should be much more similar than what I'm seeing with a lot of these drives).