Desktop computer

[guncrasher]

if you are trying to save some money, you dont need an ssd.


semp

[MrRiplEy[H]]

How does a ssd compare to a regular drive 
.

It will make most operations feel like your computer got turbocharged. Harddrives are one of the biggest bottlenecks of modern computers, they're responsible for most of the waiting times.

One example: Load BF3 level on regular hard drive: half a minute. Load same level on SSD: 5 seconds.

[gyrene81]

i love seeing Ripley post "little white lie" generalizations , the one thing he does well. knows just enough to be dangerous....

How does a ssd compare to a regular drive 
.

an ssd can load software faster than a mechanical drive, but you can also get a slow ssd too. if you buy a cheap low end ssd it won't last as long as a mechanical drive or a good ssd, it can be slow too. the thing with ssd's is the price per gigabyte of storage is very high compared to mechanical drives, and you have to be careful about the components being used. if you're going to buy an ssd, it pays to do some homework, but if you're watching your initial build costs you're better off getting a good mechanical drive to start off.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

i love seeing Ripley post "little white lie" generalizations , the one thing he does well. knows just enough to be dangerous....
an ssd can load software faster than a mechanical drive, but you can also get a slow ssd too. if you buy a cheap low end ssd it won't last as long as a mechanical drive or a good ssd, it can be slow too. the thing with ssd's is the price per gigabyte of storage is very high compared to mechanical drives, and you have to be careful about the components being used. if you're going to buy an ssd, it pays to do some homework, but if you're watching your initial build costs you're better off getting a good mechanical drive to start off.

I don't love seeing your personal attacks. If you can prove something I said as wrong, prove it or I will report you. Now, as with harddrives there are good and bad products on the market. SSDs are superior in performance as long as you stay away from sub 100 dollar products. Every benchmark proves it and my personal experience too. It seems you don't have experience with SSDs and are acting on your own prejudice.

The one thing I agree with you is that SSDs are still expensive gigabyte by gigabyte. But if the budget can allow it, they're well worth their price. New SSDs such as Samsung 840 Evo's are very affordable already.

[gyrene81]

it was just a typical example of the "little white lie" generalizations you are known for. it's not a personal attack, it's simply the truth. your choice on how you take it.

i would stay away from the samsung evo drives...they use tlc nand and if you do a little research you will find, slc or mlc nand have better long term performance and reliability.

[Bizman]

What about this here

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1CAEB

You seem to have raised your budget... And yes, no RAM yet. The calculator you've found seems quite nice for telling alternatives for shopping places and their shipping costs. I wonder how much the total price including shipping costs would vary by either finding the cheapest vendor for each part or getting all from the same place.

[wpeters]

Could u give me a rundown of parts that i would need. I am wanting to get into computer modeling of planes houses and so forth. What do you recommend

[gyrene81]

Could u give me a rundown of parts that i would need. I am wanting to get into computer modeling of planes houses and so forth. What do you recommend

the list you made looks pretty good just to get you started. add some ddr3 1333mhz (you could go faster but, not needed with that hardware), and a good 500gb-750gb hard drive (wd caviar black are some of the best).

you have a monitor? i saw a really good asus 24 inch on sale for under $200 yesterday...can't remember where though.

if you have money to spare...this is what you would be looking at (includes ssd primary drive)
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1CUlL

[MrRiplEy[H]]

it was just a typical example of the "little white lie" generalizations you are known for. it's not a personal attack, it's simply the truth. your choice on how you take it.

i would stay away from the samsung evo drives...they use tlc nand and if you do a little research you will find, slc or mlc nand have better long term performance and reliability.

If you did a little research you would know that they are stress tested to see if they match the promised write endurance. One of such testers (http://www.anandtech.com/show/7173/samsung-ssd-840-evo-review-120gb-250gb-500gb-750gb-1tb-models-tested/3) is reporting an average of 8 years life span in typical desktop use where 50Gb per day is written for the smallest and weakest of the drives. 8 years is more than most regular HDDs are going to give you.

The 1 terabyte model should last for 64 years in typical desktop use. Yeah read that again: 64 years. So your information about the endurance of the EVO series is completely wrong.

You're completely ridiculous for even mentioning SLC as it's super expensive and only feasible for corporate use.

Now PROVE that I'm wrong or I will report your personal attacks. So far it's been 100% hot air and opinions on your part, I posted links to back up my point.

Keep in mind that all of this is based on 1129 p/e cycles, which is likely less than half of what the practical p/e cycle limit on Samsung's 19nm TLC NAND. To go ahead and double those numbers and then you're probably looking at reality. Endurance isn't a concern for client systems using the 840 EVO.

Geez, this moron at Anandtech should have asked Gyrene first before posting this in public! 

[guncrasher]

If you did a little research you would know that they are stress tested to see if they match the promised write endurance. One of such testers (http://www.anandtech.com/show/7173/samsung-ssd-840-evo-review-120gb-250gb-500gb-750gb-1tb-models-tested/3) is reporting an average of 8 years life span in typical desktop use where 50Gb per day is written for the smallest and weakest of the drives. 8 years is more than most regular HDDs are going to give you.

The 1 terabyte model should last for 64 years in typical desktop use. Yeah read that again: 64 years. So your information about the endurance of the EVO series is completely wrong.

You're completely ridiculous for even mentioning SLC as it's super expensive and only feasible for corporate use.

Now PROVE that I'm wrong or I will report your personal attacks. So far it's been 100% hot air and opinions on your part, I posted links to back up my point.

Geez, this moron at Anandtech should have asked Gyrene first before posting this in public! 

and yet they cant actually prove that they will last 64 years. it's cool to test in a controlled environment like they do, but seriously 64 years?  the ssd is designed to last 64 years? 

how long did they test it for?  1 day? 2 days?  a week? a month? 64 years?

or did they just write a bunch of data until it broke down within a couple of "minutes" <sarcasm font> then decided that based on the amount of data written it should last 64 years, but perhaps within a couple of years some part in the ssd will will fail just due to average humidity in the average home then your 64 years becomes 64 weeks  .


semp

[guncrasher]

something that caught my attention in one of the reviews.

I contacted samsung about my IOPS random read and IOPS random write only getting about 35% of the speed they are supposed to and about my drive NOT waking from sleep at all unless I completely cut the power to my computer and turn it back on that way.

Samsung would NOT provide support for me they ONLY said this:

Dear Customer,

Thank you for contacting Samsung SSD Support regarding your concerns and inquiries. You mentioned you have an AMD processor and chipset. The reason I mention this is because Samsung SSDs do not work correctly with machines that contain AMD chipsets. Our SSDs are recommended for use with Intel chipsets and because of this you will see performance issues with your SSD. Now concerning your second issue, the AMD chipset may also be responsible for the sleep mode problem that your having. If your looking for maximum performance from your SSD, the best environment would essentially be a windows based machine with a Intel processor and chipset.


semp

[MrRiplEy[H]]

something that caught my attention in one of the reviews.

I contacted samsung about my IOPS random read and IOPS random write only getting about 35% of the speed they are supposed to and about my drive NOT waking from sleep at all unless I completely cut the power to my computer and turn it back on that way.

Samsung would NOT provide support for me they ONLY said this:

Dear Customer,

Thank you for contacting Samsung SSD Support regarding your concerns and inquiries. You mentioned you have an AMD processor and chipset. The reason I mention this is because Samsung SSDs do not work correctly with machines that contain AMD chipsets. Our SSDs are recommended for use with Intel chipsets and because of this you will see performance issues with your SSD. Now concerning your second issue, the AMD chipset may also be responsible for the sleep mode problem that your having. If your looking for maximum performance from your SSD, the best environment would essentially be a windows based machine with a Intel processor and chipset.


semp

The SSD requires a very fast SATA6G support and i/o controller in order to reach its maximum potential. The Intel solution is one of the only ones that can provide this. The wakeup problem is most likely unrelated to the Samsung as there aren't widely spread complaints about it. And before Gyrene spouts again something: yes, even at 33% the SSD is still a lot faster than a HDD would be.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

and yet they cant actually prove that they will last 64 years. it's cool to test in a controlled environment like they do, but seriously 64 years?  the ssd is designed to last 64 years?  

how long did they test it for?  1 day? 2 days?  a week? a month? 64 years?

or did they just write a bunch of data until it broke down within a couple of "minutes" <sarcasm font> then decided that based on the amount of data written it should last 64 years, but perhaps within a couple of years some part in the ssd will will fail just due to average humidity in the average home then your 64 years becomes 64 weeks  .


semp

Read the review please, then ask questions with sarcasm fonts. Unlike you the reviewers are doing the stuff for a living. In fact, read a whole load of reviews, especially the ones where they spent brutally writing hundreds of terabytes of data as fast as the device can take it (meaning literally weeks of non-stop writing/erasing 24/7). The drive contains S.M.A.R.T interface through which analyzers can monitor the cell wear - stressing the drive and comparing this to the wear levels quite accurate expectations of life can be made.

Read also the part where they explain that due to the limited amount of data any typical user writes in a day, the larger the drive is the longer it takes for the cell write limit to be even theoretically reached. On a terabyte drive this is, as you correctly read, 64 years. It's most likely that the SSD will fail to an another sort of electrical problem way before the TLC sells become a problem.

SSDs are not vulnerable to any 'humidity' or such that are present in a normal apartment any more than any regular hdd would. In fact they're rated to operating conditions that far exceed any mechanical hard drive (through shock proof operation).

[guncrasher]

Read the review please, then ask questions with sarcasm fonts. Unlike you the reviewers are doing the stuff for a living. In fact, read a whole load of reviews, especially the ones where they spent brutally writing hundreds of terabytes of data as fast as the device can take it (meaning literally weeks of non-stop writing/erasing 24/7). The drive contains S.M.A.R.T interface through which analyzers can monitor the cell wear - stressing the drive and comparing this to the wear levels quite accurate expectations of life can be made.

Read also the part where they explain that due to the limited amount of data any typical user writes in a day, the larger the drive is the longer it takes for the cell write limit to be even theoretically reached. On a terabyte drive this is, as you correctly read, 64 years. It's most likely that the SSD will fail to an another sort of electrical problem way before the TLC sells become a problem.

SSDs are not vulnerable to any 'humidity' or such that are present in a normal apartment any more than any regular hdd would. In fact they're rated to operating conditions that far exceed any mechanical hard drive (through shock proof operation).

then please do explain to me why the reviews have drives that are supposed to last 64 years are already failing for some users after a couple of weeks?

and you know which reviews are important to me?  those of regular people who have bought the hardware and installed it on their systems.  those reviews really are a real test of any hardware in the real world. this is where you really find those "little problems" that professional reviewers dont tell you it's a problem.  for example that those ssd's wont last "64 years" or perhaps be as fast <very sarcastic font> using an amd processor.  or you mean to tell me that they only tested it on intel cpu's?

not that I disregard all those reviews by people who get paid to write one but I am skeptical of some who for example claim an ssd drive will last 64 years.  when I am pretty sure only the metal case is the only thing designed to last for decades. 

then again I do have a regular hd that I dropped when it was new and there's a piece of outer plastic missing.  was told it would probably fail in a couple of weeks and it is still going strong.



semp

[MrRiplEy[H]]

then please do explain to me why the reviews have drives that are supposed to last 64 years are already failing for some users after a couple of weeks?

I have had regular HDDs fail on me in two weeks. Manufacturing faults can hit any electronical device at any time. Also if a user has a bad power supply, that can kill devices surprisingly. There are millions and millions of SSD users and a few reports of early deaths. You do the math.

If you listen to the 'reviews' of the angry 'regular' consumers who have had a bad hardware sample and base your opinions on them you'll never buy any device. Ever.   One example: I drove 200 000km with my first MB, a 1996 E-series before I retired it for my wifes use. It already had 105 000km on it when I bought it. She drove another 20 000km with it during the following 4 years. If you read reviews you see that according to consumers the car is horrible. Steaming furious anger from consumers that got 'ripped off' and 'MB quality sucks' and whatnot. The reality is that during the 200 000km I never had a single fault in the car. Not one. The first burned BULB was at 260 000km, a Xenon headlight. And when my wife used it, I had to have the interference suppressors on spark plugs replaced, cost of 60 euros. That's it. I would never have bought that car if I would have seen the reviews lol.

In the reality I seriously doubt if I can buy such quality again - and this is considering that I currently drive a W204 MB.

The article and many others like it show that gyrenes misinformation about the endurance of EVO drives is just that, misinformation. Fear of unknown.

not that I disregard all those reviews by people who get paid to write one but I am skeptical of some who for example claim an ssd drive will last 64 years.  when I am pretty sure only the metal case is the only thing designed to last for decades.  

I'm sorry but if you can't understand the concept of p/e cycles and drive capacity combined with wear leveling algorithms.. I can't really help you. As I said the drive is going to suffer from some sort of electronical failure BEFORE the TLC is killed through writing. It does _not_ mean the drive will last 64 years but it DOES mean that you have to use the drive that long to 'burn' it.

The anandtech article I posted came to a completely opposite conclusion for the endurance of EVO series compared to the one of Gyrenes. As you see we're still waiting for his proof... silence is screaming.