Overclock.net banner

Debating on what the best size for an SSD is.

672 views 19 replies 13 participants last post by  MapRef41N93W 
#1 ·
So I am in the process of upgrading my current PC. I've been debating on how much I should spend on an SSD. I could opt for a SSD for my OS only which should still result load time performance increases on my mechanical HDD because the SSD would be handling the OS so there would be less overhead when loading games/other stuff.

I'm wondering whether or not it would be worth it to get a 512gb SSD and load some games to it as well or if I should just stick the OS on the SSD and leave the rest to the Mech Hard drive.

I'm not obsessed with load times and i don't generally have a whole bunch of complaints, but I figure if I'm going to upgrade other stuff I would like to weigh how much smoother things will run with the SSD.
 
#2 ·
The amount of benefit games get form an SSD varies form side to side. I's tested a numbed of games. Some really load faster form an SSD while in other cases there is no discernible difference in speed.

I'm of the general opinion that its not worth installing games on an SSD though I do have a few games installed on my 250GB that have annoyingly long load times (that are then cut down a bit by sticking them on the SSD).
 
#3 ·
The decision really boils down to whatever you decide you are willing to spend. Whether you decide to put the OS only on it or also put some games on it, be sure to allow for at least 2-25% extra space over the formatted size (the formatted size will be roughly 92% of the advertised size).

An SSD will speed up boot and program loading times but will not speed up programs or games. Still, I will never own another PC without an SSD boot drive (my one drive notebooks have a single SSD for the OS, programs, and data).
 
#7 ·
I'd go with a 256GB SSD and buy a 2TB HDD for game storage with the money you save.
For the games you really like install them on the SSD and then install the rest of your whole Steam Library on the mechanical drive where space isn't a concern, and performance isn't top priority.

Any game where you have to "ready up" in doesn't benefit from an SSD, because all you're doing is getting to the ready up screen quicker and then waiting for other players. MMOs and "huge" games with maps that load as you explore do good with them, and mostly all single-player games benefit a lot because you never run into a situation where you have to wait for another person using a mechanical drive.
 
#8 ·
Consider the SSD can last you a long time (5-10 years). So you may want to opt for a larger SSD for two reasons:

1. You will be needing a lot more space 5 years down the road
biggrin.gif

2. In general, the larger the SSD, the more NAND chips the I/o is spread across, the better the performance. You may benefit from this performance down the road.

So as big as you can afford, and the higher end you can afford IMO.

Now don't hold me to this if there is some game-changing technology down the pike. But I don't think there is anything significant.

.
 
#9 ·
256-512GB SSD
WD10EZEX 1TB Blue (games)
1-3TB HDD (media)
 
#11 ·
For general use an SSD can be immensely snappier if your coming from a spinning HDD.
FPS's with large land sizes benefit a ton. Went from a 3 HDD raid-0 which read around 240mb/s to a 840 EVO and saw large improvements loading arma and battlefield games. Planetside, world of tanks, anything with tons of stuff to load.

As for the size, my 250gb gets full quite quickly if I install a few of those games though it doesn't matter if you've got enough SATA3 ports. They are rapidly getting cheaper and bigger.
 
#12 ·
I was also debating on whether I should get a 256 or 512 gb SSD. But I think it's worth paying the extra money for the 500gb and that's what I'm going to do. Now the question for me is, should I go with the Samsung Evo or Kingston's HyperX (These are the only ones I can find locally) considering I'd save some money if I went with the HyperX.....
thinking.gif
 
#14 ·
Once I went SDD the spindle drives all left my system, just to much slow down in daily use. I found that if I stopped hoarding I suddenly did not need a lot of space. I can live pretty comfortably on a 240 with the OS< the apps I need and a few high quality games as well as a few simpler games. To do this I started doing a few things.
  • No more storing music. I use online streaming services and if I need my music offline I have it on my NAS or an external HD.
  • No hoarding movies, as with above I found that I do not need my movies on my system. I can stream most stuff I want and if not I own or rent via web or DVD. Anything else is piracy so why bother?
  • Only games I play are now kept. If I stop playing a game I backup to me NAS or external HD and then remove from the HD. Install times are minor if I decide to go back.
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crouch View Post

I was also debating on whether I should get a 256 or 512 gb SSD. But I think it's worth paying the extra money for the 500gb and that's what I'm going to do. Now the question for me is, should I go with the Samsung Evo or Kingston's HyperX (These are the only ones I can find locally) considering I'd save some money if I went with the HyperX.....
thinking.gif
Although I've had good luck with Kingston's RAM and camera cards, their SSDs haven't had so stellar of a reputation. Of the two, I would go with the EVO (I actually prefer the Samsung Pros although I've been happy with the EVOs I have).
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald View Post

Although I've had good luck with Kingston's RAM and camera cards, their SSDs haven't had so stellar of a reputation. Of the two, I would go with the EVO (I actually prefer the Samsung Pros although I've been happy with the EVOs I have).
Gonna have to disagree, I have 6 Kingston SSDs in my rigs at home and never had a failure or an issue. Plus in the torture test at Techreport, the Kingston Hyper X SSD was one of the droves still going at the end.
 
#17 ·
You'll get very little in-game performance increase from SSDs unless the game streams a lot of data during gameplay. However, most games will show BIG improvements in loading times as you start the game up.

There are other things to consider about SSDs as well. They use a fraction of the electricity and also produce a fraction of the heat of standard HDDs. They are silent as well. Also, since they have no moving parts you aren't likely to damage them by bumping the system or moving it around while it's running.

Personally I'm switching to a pure SSD system. It's not the most cost effective if storage space is your only concern, but in my case heat, sound, and unrestricted airflow through the system are high on my priority list so the added cost is worth it to me.
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mopar63 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald View Post

Although I've had good luck with Kingston's RAM and camera cards, their SSDs haven't had so stellar of a reputation. Of the two, I would go with the EVO (I actually prefer the Samsung Pros although I've been happy with the EVOs I have).
Gonna have to disagree, I have 6 Kingston SSDs in my rigs at home and never had a failure or an issue. Plus in the torture test at Techreport, the Kingston Hyper X SSD was one of the droves still going at the end.
Reliability is not the issue so much as is lower performance and changing internals after test reports had been published.
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald View Post

Reliability is not the issue so much as is lower performance and changing internals after test reports had been published.
The changed internals was only a single low end model, not heard of this happening with the Fury or Hyper X. As for performance the only place you will tell the difference is benchmarks.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top