Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions
DrMrManGuyJr
0
May 31, 2018
In my opinion, SSD's are pretty expensive. I have a 2 TB 7200RPM HDD, and it runs as well and as fast as my 280 GB SSD that came with it. I got my computer at around 300 thanks to Cyber Monday. Anyways, all I'm saying is I would prefer a hard drive instead of an SSD, but others wouldn't. With an HDD, you have more space for significantly less the price, and it's been more reliable than most of my SSD's I have had in the past. All in all, $60 is a good price for an SSD, but don't expect much space, which you seem fine with. SSD = Western Digital, Hitachi, or a good old Samsung Evo, as pcboyz said. HDD = Western Digital or Hitachi (cheap, MUCH more reliable, and better overall compared to other HDD's).
Freewifi
5
May 31, 2018
DrMrManGuyJrA good SSD is a night and day difference from an older mechanical HDD. If you buy a nicer SSD from Samsung or another reliable brand you'll see why people love them. I don't know how the dude above me can say with a straight face that his HDD runs as fast as his SSD.
Chippies
0
May 31, 2018
DrMrManGuyJrYou seem to be misunderstanding the difference in speed between HDDs and SSDs. When copying large files, HDD can easily match an SSDs, and when comparing a high quality HDD to a cheap SSD, even exceed the speed. The huge advantage of an SSD over an HDD is in quick access of randomly placed small files (which is what your OS and applications do all the time). An SSD will speed up your OS response by a huge amount and while there's no point in replacing your storage drives with SSD's, having an SSD for your OS and main app drive is a huge boost in performance and overall responsiveness of the system.
Edit: To everyone telling me how dumb I am, 1) I was giving them the benefit of doubt that maybe their HDD *does* run as fast as their SSD and 2) back when SSDs were new and not nearly as fast as they are now, if you migrated your OS from HDD to SSD, it was possible to see HDD speeds on large transfers match those of SSD. The technology was new and especially the migration software had its own issues back then. Just to clarify - I don't believe that an SSD is slower than an HDD. I can't believe that a single sentence that wasn't even the focus of my post managed to steal the whole conversation.
ASpatha
76
May 31, 2018
ChippiesThat is flat out untrue. The only way this could work is if another part of your system is a bottleneck. I have ssds that out perform 10krpm hdds in both access and large file transfer. That said I always have a solid state and a mechanical. Mechanical for file storage.
Chippies
0
May 31, 2018
ASpathaIt's true that SSDs are faster in every way, I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt, because I have seen benchmarks where HDDs can match (or almost match) a small SSD (smaller SSDs tend to perform slower) in large file transfer, but you are right - SSDs in general, outperform HDDs in every way and having both is the best of the both worlds, because HDD capacity is cheap, so they are still useful for file storage.
ASpatha
76
Jun 1, 2018
ChippiesThe only way HDDs beat SSDs is cost per GB but give it 15 years. I have to point out how ridiculous my laptop is. It has 2 SSDs in a PCI express installation set up in raid 0. Plus it has a mechanical 1TB drive. The speed of that 1TB of SSD is the most ridiculous thing I have ever experienced. I remember when I had 2 15k rpm drives in a machine and thought those where fast. Its a major difference.
hyperlinked
304
Jun 21, 2018
ChippiesI have no idea how you can believe that except that you must have only owned really awful SSDs. I used to shell out for the Velociraptor 10k rpm drives and even those were left in the dust the day I got a Samsung EVO SSD. There are some things where system bottlenecks kept the performance close to being on par, but copying large files was not one of them.
PRODUCTS YOU MAY LIKE
Trending Posts in More Community Picks