Desktop computer

[guncrasher]

bingo, you nailed , it's possible for the ssd to write 64 years worth of data, not actually be in use for 64 years. like you first mentioned.

see to me that's two different things and goes back to reviews are misleading and don't really tell you all the problems which if you pay attention to user reviews you may find.

remember the headset that had some great reviews as the sound was awesome, but it was found out later that after hours of use the dye in the pads would turn your ears blue?  only discovered in user reviews.

semp

[MrRiplEy[H]]

bingo, you nailed , it's possible for the ssd to write 64 years worth of data, not actually be in use for 64 years. like you first mentioned.

see to me that's two different things and goes back to reviews are misleading and don't really tell you all the problems which if you pay attention to user reviews you may find.

remember the headset that had some great reviews as the sound was awesome, but it was found out later that after hours of use the dye in the pads would turn your ears blue?  only discovered in user reviews.

semp

This doesnt change the _fact_ that Gyrenes information was wrong and his approach was downright slanderous.

Having said that, SSDs will not make your ears blue. And there are only a couple of links which report bad experiences while millions of users myself included are using them daily with zero problems. I have several SSDs both at home and work use.

[guncrasher]

This doesnt change the _fact_ that Gyrenes information was wrong and his approach was downright slanderous.

Having said that, SSDs will not make your ears blue. And there are only a couple of links which report bad experiences while millions of users myself included are using them daily with zero problems. I have several SSDs both at home and work use.

dude, gyrene was right on and trust me on this, I dont like gyrene.  he said that sub par ssd will actually slow down your computer which you had failed to bring up on your first post regarding ssd's.

only problem gyrene had was that he used the words "white lie" while in reality is more like a misleading statement you made.

like your info on the samsung drives was a bit misleading.  you failed to notice that it doesnt work well with amd cpu's which also the tester "failed" <very sarcastic font>  to mention.  while it does work faster than a regular hd I would still be upset if I paid 600 bucks for something that only works 30% as fast as it should.

you also mention that they last "64 years" which is also misleading.  they can do 64 years worth of data but for sure wont last 64 years of continuous use.

as for the hd not making your ears blue, well guess what they wont make my car last longer either as per your example.

anyway back to the original question for the op.  for somebody on a budget having a ssd drive is just wasting money that could better be used on better ram/cpu/video card.  I have 2 regular hd's and the 7 seconds that it takes for ah to load is not the end of the world.

a lot of us see using ssd's as a waste of money because we dont get a return on our investment.  it's not like getting a better joystick or using a better cpu or graphics card that will make your game better.  waiting a few seconds longer is not worth 600 bucks.  and rippley I am not saying you wasted your money either, we just see things different.  kinda like choosing between amd and intel.


semp

[MrRiplEy[H]]

dude, gyrene was right on and trust me on this, I dont like gyrene.  he said that sub par ssd will actually slow down your computer which you had failed to bring up on your first post regarding ssd's.

only problem gyrene had was that he used the words "white lie" while in reality is more like a misleading statement you made.

like your info on the samsung drives was a bit misleading.  you failed to notice that it doesnt work well with amd cpu's which also the tester "failed" <very sarcastic font>  to mention.  while it does work faster than a regular hd I would still be upset if I paid 600 bucks for something that only works 30% as fast as it should.

you also mention that they last "64 years" which is also misleading.  they can do 64 years worth of data but for sure wont last 64 years of continuous use.

as for the hd not making your ears blue, well guess what they wont make my car last longer either as per your example.

anyway back to the original question for the op.  for somebody on a budget having a ssd drive is just wasting money that could better be used on better ram/cpu/video card.  I have 2 regular hd's and the 7 seconds that it takes for ah to load is not the end of the world.

a lot of us see using ssd's as a waste of money because we dont get a return on our investment.  it's not like getting a better joystick or using a better cpu or graphics card that will make your game better.  waiting a few seconds longer is not worth 600 bucks.  and rippley I am not saying you wasted your money either, we just see things different.  kinda like choosing between amd and intel.


semp

Gyrene was as wrong as someone can factually be. He bases his stance on a false prenotion (that little amount of 'knowledge enough to make him dangerous') that TLC chips have a lower p/e cycle limit while disregarding that the EVO has an SLC and ram cache combined with very advanced wear leveling algorithms which were revised for the EVO series. He simply doesn't know what he talks about, end of story. Anandtech then again usually does.

Which one would you encline to believe, Anandtech or Gyrene81?  

Please show me the review that wrote about the AMD problems. If the AMD problems would be true, again there would be wide spread complaints. I don't buy it - show the evidence. It's funny that you talk about misleading white lies and continue to talk about the hdd 'not working with AMD CPUs' when in fact it has nothing to do with CPUs. It has to do with the chipsets which are inferior in many AMD motherboards. Only the Intel built in SATA6 ports deliver the maximum i/o potential along with a few add-on cards. This coincidentally means that if you plug in a quality PCI-E Sata controller to an AMD motherboard it fixes the 'problem' like magic.

It's an AMD problem, not related to SSDs or Samsung especially. You should know by now that AMD has dropped the ball years ago on the desktop section. Well, they barely can compete with Nvidia anymore either. On high-end solutions Nvidia has no competition.

The last comment about 64 years shows me that either you REALLY don't understand the scope of the discussion here or you're trolling. Therefore I'm not going to waste my time answering your posts anymore.

It's obvious you have zero experience on using a SSD as a main drive because you wouldn't talk like that once you experienced first hand how much faster it makes your computer feel. Believe it or not.

Edit: TLC/SLC

[MrRiplEy[H]]

double post

[guncrasher]

Please show me the review that wrote about the AMD problems. If the AMD problems would be true, again there would be wide spread complaints. I don't buy it - show the evidence. It's funny that you talk about misleading white lies and continue to talk about the hdd 'not working with AMD CPUs' when in fact it has nothing to do with CPUs. It has to do with the chipsets which are inferior in many AMD motherboards. Only the Intel built in SATA6 ports deliver the maximum i/o potential along with a few add-on cards. This coincidentally means that if you plug in a quality PCI-E Sata controller to an AMD motherboard it fixes the 'problem' like magic.

It's an AMD problem, not related to SSDs or Samsung especially. You should know by now that AMD has dropped the ball years ago on the desktop section. Well, they barely can compete with Nvidia anymore either. On high-end solutions Nvidia has no competition.

dude you imply that there's no evidence of a problem with amd chipset (meant that instead of cpu's) ask for evidence to back up my statement then you yourself provide the evidence. and provide a solution.

and it doesnt matter who's fault it is, if it is samsung's or amd's.  the problem still a problem.  but more important that review should have mentioned it, if it was an impartial and complete review.

and also I didnt say an ssd wouldnt make a difference in speed, I said it's not a good return on my investment. just a difference on what a return on investment is.  saving a few seconds here and there on what I do wont really save me any time.  to you it makes a difference and that's cool, to me it doesnt and that's cool too.  I would rather spend the 600 bucks from that ssd in getting a sim pit.  and to you that would probably be a waste of money.


semp

[MrRiplEy[H]]

dude you imply that there's no evidence of a problem with amd chipset (meant that instead of cpu's) ask for evidence to back up my statement then you yourself provide the evidence. and provide a solution.

and it doesnt matter who's fault it is, if it is samsung's or amd's.  the problem still a problem.  but more important that review should have mentioned it, if it was an impartial and complete review.

and also I didnt say an ssd wouldnt make a difference in speed, I said it's not a good return on my investment. just a difference on what a return on investment is.  saving a few seconds here and there on what I do wont really save me any time.  to you it makes a difference and that's cool, to me it doesnt and that's cool too.  I would rather spend the 600 bucks from that ssd in getting a sim pit.  and to you that would probably be a waste of money.


semp

Dude show me the evidence. Show it. I know for a fact that AMD has problems with its SATA6G implementation so logically I assume it must have something to do with that if such a problem even exists. But show me that review, then talk. The cheapest of the EVO line is a little over 100 bucks. Again you fail COMPLETELY to understand the technical aspects. The smallest of the drive can theoretically wear out in 8-16 years due to having the 3-bit MLC it has. It is very likely that _other_ parts in the drive will fail before the 8 years has passed. Just as it's likely that any conventional HDD would fail before that 8 year mark. What exactly there is that you don't get?

You're just biased against SSDs because you have no experience on them.

[guncrasher]

Dude show me the evidence. Show it. I know for a fact that AMD has problems with its SATA6G implementation so logically I assume it must have something to do with that if such a problem even exists. But show me that review, then talk. The cheapest of the EVO line is a little over 100 bucks. Again you fail COMPLETELY to understand the technical aspects. The smallest of the drive can theoretically wear out in 8-16 years due to having the 3-bit MLC it has. It is very likely that _other_ parts in the drive will fail before the 8 years has passed. Just as it's likely that any conventional HDD would fail before that 8 year mark. What exactly there is that you don't get?

You're just biased against SSDs because you have no experience on them.

holly cow.  you are hard headed arent ya?  I use my computer to play aces high and wot and to pay bills. that's it, sometimes I make aces high movies but rarely.  to me spending 100 or 600 bucks so my computer can boot in 5 seconds instead of 30 or to load aces high in 2 seconds instead of the 8 seconds it does now, is a waste of money.  I save basically no time.  so to me it's not a good return on my investment.  to you saving that time maybe worth it and a good return on your investment and that's cool too.

does that make sense to you now?

as for the review, look it up on newegg. on the 1tb ssd.


semp

[MrRiplEy[H]]

holly cow.  you are hard headed arent ya?  I use my computer to play aces high and wot and to pay bills. that's it, sometimes I make aces high movies but rarely.  to me spending 100 or 600 bucks so my computer can boot in 5 seconds instead of 30 or to load aces high in 2 seconds instead of the 8 seconds it does now, is a waste of money.  I save basically no time.  so to me it's not a good return on my investment.  to you saving that time maybe worth it and a good return on your investment and that's cool too.

does that make sense to you now?

as for the review, look it up on newegg. on the 1tb ssd.


semp

Link to the review. Newegg consumer complaints department is NOT a review it's some single persons rant that can be true or false. I couldn't care less if you can't see the value of an SSD in your personal use. It does not make SSDs bad, unreliable or anything else you and Gyrene have implied. For 100 bucks a SSD is the single biggest speed improvement anyone can have to their pc. Even if you run it through a SATA3G it will still wipe out any regular HDD in performance.

Even on newegg 84% of consumers gave it (128gb) a full 5 stars, only 1 negative review lol.

The Newegg consumer reviews are a good example as to why you should NEVER listen to laymans verdict of a product. There were satisfied customers who reported having installed the drive to usb2 external enclosure because they didn't have a sata cable at hand... Which will make the drive totally useless, slower than a regular internal hdd. People make idiotic mistakes like this, especially the ones who rant later on how bad the products are.

Back to the topic: The original poster can now have one more reason to invest to Intel hardware instead of AMD in his new computer - possible SSD performance problems on AMD motherboards.

[save]

This doesnt change the _fact_ that Gyrenes information was wrong and his approach was downright slanderous.

Having said that, SSDs will not make your ears blue. And there are only a couple of links which report bad experiences while millions of users myself included are using them daily with zero problems. I have several SSDs both at home and work use.

 I would never have something else but SSD as OS drive again.

I store backups for my deskop 3 SSD drives on the mechanical drive I have  left.
Once you get used to the speed of a good SSD you never go back.

[Brooke]

You guys are making me interested in learning more about SSD's.

What are the benefits for having your OS on it?  Is there really much that takes any time to load off a normal HD?  For me, it seems the longest is waking from hybrid sleep and launching that first browser window, but after that, things seem pretty snappy.  For typical usage, what is sped up a lot for the user?

[save]

For me for the OS, its from 18-20 seconds down to 6 with Samsung SSD,after you typed userid/password with 6GB/S SATA.( I do have some unnecessary programs ,loading though)
AH loads in about 1/3 of time 7200 rpm 3GB/S (mine can not use 6GB SATA).
BF3  normal map take 10 seconds to load instead or whopping 45 seconds

i7 930 O/C to 3.60ghz
7870 graphics card
12gb ram
Win7 Pro 64bit.

If you have 3gb SATA you will double time to load stuff ( tried if it really  would have same effectiveness, it did)

[MrRiplEy[H]]

For me for the OS, its from 18-20 seconds down to 6 with Samsung SSD,after you typed userid/password with 6GB/S SATA.( I do have some unnecessary programs ,loading though)
AH loads in about 1/3 of time 7200 rpm 3GB/S (mine can not use 6GB SATA).
BF3  normal map take 10 seconds to load instead or whopping 45 seconds

i7 930 O/C to 3.60ghz
7870 graphics card
12gb ram
Win7 Pro 64bit.

If you have 3gb SATA you will double time to load stuff ( tried if it really  would have same effectiveness, it did)

Even with 3G sata you can get a PCI-E SSD card. 2gb/s throughput is even faster than SATA6G. http://www.thessdreview.com/our-reviews/mushkin-scorpion-pcie-ssd-review-480gb-wicked-performance-great-price/?ModPagespeed=noscript

[save]

You have to be careful what pci-e version you are using, and on some older motherboards you might end up with bandwidth loss on either the graphics performance, or slower data throughput, again depending on pcie version, and even more so if you are using SLI/Crossfire

[MrRiplEy[H]]

You have to be careful what pci-e version you are using, and on some older motherboards you might end up with bandwidth loss on either the graphics performance, or slower data throughput, again depending on pcie version, and even more so if you are using SLI/Crossfire

That's true. But then again one should not buy high-end hardware to that old computer in general. Using PCI-E 2.0 a 32-lane PCIe connector can support throughput up to 16 GB/s aggregate. It was introduced in 2007 so your computer needs to be pretty ancient to become a real bottleneck. In the case of AMD chipsets the need for PCI-E based solution still exists (in theory at least) because they have a slow SATA6 implementation.