SSD vs HDD

[freezerz]

I understand SSD faster than HDD, but I'm curious about how this speed translate into actual daily usage benefits.

I read that SSD starts OS faster, faster BIG file transfer etc. But to me these are small non-consequential benefits. You only start your system maybe once a day, how much is an extra 20-30 seconds wait? Also how often do an average user transfer 20-30gb files to reap the benefits?

From reading HWZ, seems most people are upgrading their system with SSD, but looking at brand name full system, majority are still using HDD. Is it due to price difference?

HDD wins hands down in term of price per GB, and most of today's are 7200rpm. And today's increased Internet bandwidth means most users are downloading more contents. Our take-everywhere mobile phones camera means we are taking more high resolution photos and full HD videos. So won't it seems more logical to get the bigger, cheaper HDD when the benefits are more tangible?

Maybe some specific users may constantly require the high speed of SSD, but does the average home users reap the full benefit?

Personally, I'm all for HDD until the cost and capacity of SSD can match. To me, it seems most SSD buyers are upgrading just because this is the newest and latest. But is it cost effective? Don't mean to diss SSD users, just trying to discuss and understand. Hope we can have a healthy discussion without getting flame...

 

[denilson]

I understand SSD faster than HDD, but I'm curious about how this speed translate into actual daily usage benefits.

I read that SSD starts OS faster, faster BIG file transfer etc. But to me these are small non-consequential benefits. You only start your system maybe once a day, how much is an extra 20-30 seconds wait? Also how often do an average user transfer 20-30gb files to reap the benefits?

From reading HWZ, seems most people are upgrading their system with SSD, but looking at brand name full system, majority are still using HDD. Is it due to price difference?

HDD wins hands down in term of price per GB, and most of today's are 7200rpm. And today's increased Internet bandwidth means most users are downloading more contents. Our take-everywhere mobile phones camera means we are taking more high resolution photos and full HD videos. So won't it seems more logical to get the bigger, cheaper HDD when the benefits are more tangible?

Maybe some specific users may constantly require the high speed of SSD, but does the average home users reap the full benefit?

Personally, I'm all for HDD until the cost and capacity of SSD can match. To me, it seems most SSD buyers are upgrading just because this is the newest and latest. But is it cost effective? Don't mean to diss SSD users, just trying to discuss and understand. Hope we can have a healthy discussion without getting flame...

I think the main reason is that everything feels faster, it is a better spending money on a ssd upgrade than going from i5 to i7 for most people. If you want to know more details, it is the random read/write performance that is really the main differentiator compared to HDDs.

Give it a try.. SSDs are so cheap now and it has been around for > 5 years

Once you use a computer with a SSD you won't go back, HDD based systems are painfully slow for me now

 

[ykgoh]

Some people don't need so much space and they prioritise speed and responsiveness over capacity. That's all. Different users look for different things.

Some people eat nasi lemak, some eat chicken rice. No right or wrong.

 

[freezerz]

I think the main reason is that everything feels faster, it is a better spending money on a ssd upgrade than going from i5 to i7 for most people. If you want to know more details, it is the random read/write performance that is really the main differentiator compared to HDDs.

Give it a try.. SSDs are so cheap now and it has been around for > 5 years

Once you use a computer with a SSD you won't go back, HDD based systems are painfully slow for me now

I guess the processor has advanced to a point where every processor is more than sufficient to run today's OS, so now the bottleneck is IO? I began using PC during the XT days, and my PC can run almost every version of DOS. Only when Windows was released, we seems to be upgrading our CPU with each version. Guess we have come full circle.

Some people don't need so much space and they prioritise speed and responsiveness over capacity. That's all. Different users look for different things.

Some people eat nasi lemak, some eat chicken rice. No right or wrong.

I strongly believe SOME users will reap the full rewards of an SSD system, my point is the normal everyday user. A lot of them are getting NAS to store their mountains of photos, videos, music etc. At the same time, they are getting SSD PCs for just web browsing, Youtube, Netflix, MS Office. Do these activities really need that kind of increased speed?

I know NAS and PCs are for difference purposes and complimentary to each other. But the fact that they are getting extra storages mean that they need that extra TBs, so why not spend less money to get more storage for the PC too?

 

[Entry Level PC]

Self *** self song.
Like people drive satki sport cars when speed limit is still 100km/h.

They got $$$ to burn and want their pc to load faster so they buy ssd lor.

 

[Allanlee82]

most ppl would have 2 drive, the ssd would be used to startup os/programs/games and another hdd to store the data/image/video
the startup of ssd compare to hdd is quite a great difference for the small amount to pay. consider it an cheap upgrade over hdd, doesnt really have to get the highest end or largest size ssd, can go for as cheap at $40 for a 120GB

 

[wacko]

erm, these two options are not mutually exclusive options... to simply address your concerns, get one of each to have the best of both worlds.

 

[swat444]

A lot of them are getting NAS to store their mountains of photos, videos, music etc. At the same time, they are getting SSD PCs for just web browsing, Youtube, Netflix, MS Office. Do these activities really need that kind of increased speed?

I know NAS and PCs are for difference purposes and complimentary to each other. But the fact that they are getting extra storages mean that they need that extra TBs, so why not spend less money to get more storage for the PC too?

Im curious about this as well. Been hearing things about NAS and SSD but isn't it more mafan to manage cloud and pc.
Is it due to the lower reliability of the HDD's in general nowadays, which is why more impt stuff and heavy storage items such as pictures are getting xferred to cloud then freeing up alot of space to be using SSD?

 

[freezerz]

most ppl would have 2 drive, the ssd would be used to startup os/programs/games and another hdd to store the data/image/video
the startup of ssd compare to hdd is quite a great difference for the small amount to pay. consider it an cheap upgrade over hdd, doesnt really have to get the highest end or largest size ssd, can go for as cheap at $40 for a 120GB

Yes this probably makes the most sense. A small SSD for OS and a bigger HDD for data. I've read some more and surmised that many gamers also prefer SSD cos it load the game's graphics / data faster, lesser lag. So maybe there is a user case scenario for SSD in home PC.

 

[Krabs.]

I understand SSD faster than HDD, but I'm curious about how this speed translate into actual daily usage benefits.

I read that SSD starts OS faster, faster BIG file transfer etc. But to me these are small non-consequential benefits. You only start your system maybe once a day, how much is an extra 20-30 seconds wait? Also how often do an average user transfer 20-30gb files to reap the benefits?

From reading HWZ, seems most people are upgrading their system with SSD, but looking at brand name full system, majority are still using HDD. Is it due to price difference?

HDD wins hands down in term of price per GB, and most of today's are 7200rpm. And today's increased Internet bandwidth means most users are downloading more contents. Our take-everywhere mobile phones camera means we are taking more high resolution photos and full HD videos. So won't it seems more logical to get the bigger, cheaper HDD when the benefits are more tangible?

Maybe some specific users may constantly require the high speed of SSD, but does the average home users reap the full benefit?

Personally, I'm all for HDD until the cost and capacity of SSD can match. To me, it seems most SSD buyers are upgrading just because this is the newest and latest. But is it cost effective? Don't mean to diss SSD users, just trying to discuss and understand. Hope we can have a healthy discussion without getting flame...

not only start os and shutdown faster, the entire pc is more responsive
for example I click "start" or "my computer" , the window instantly open
last week I installed OS on a 7200rpm HDD , fresh install , the 1-2 second delay on the same task , sticks out evidently

because brands like HP DELL ACER are facing stiff competition
if they include SSD instead of HDD , the storage number drop to 120-240gb , the customer not happy
the cost also climb up slightly around $10-50, cost does not mean eventual price as they need to earn X% profit margin over $X cost , which will hurt their sales among price sensitive customer base
they will also lose the extra profit opportunity for letting the customers with genuine need for SSD to select the option (+240gb SSD +$200, when the part may cost them $100 only in bulk)

yes digital age bigger filesize , but nobody say only can have 1 storage
we can have 1 ssd + 1 or more HDD to reap benefit from both side
let the HDD store those "see 1 time and forever no see daylight" files

no , it is not a pursuit of newest/latest
the responsiveness of a computer with SSD will benefit from reducing the loading time few hundred millisecond every click
productivity UP

 

[freezerz]

Im curious about this as well. Been hearing things about NAS and SSD but isn't it more mafan to manage cloud and pc.
Is it due to the lower reliability of the HDD's in general nowadays, which is why more impt stuff and heavy storage items such as pictures are getting xferred to cloud then freeing up alot of space to be using SSD?

Well, most users use cloud storage for 2 purposes.

1 as a cheap offsite storage, so if case your hardware fails, you still have a backup of the data. But do bear in mind the data can leaked (vendor get hacked) or lost (vendor go busted).

2 to sync between difference PC / devices. So your important files are always within easy reach. But to do this, you still need physical storage space in your hardware to store those file. So in this case, you are not freeing up any space.

 

[Allanlee82]

Im curious about this as well. Been hearing things about NAS and SSD but isn't it more mafan to manage cloud and pc.
Is it due to the lower reliability of the HDD's in general nowadays, which is why more impt stuff and heavy storage items such as pictures are getting xferred to cloud then freeing up alot of space to be using SSD?

ppl have different usage for the NAS, some use it to store data/image/video/backup, some use it as a "Entertainment Server", some use it to download BT, personal cloud space
ppl normally use ssd for the processing portion, like for games, video editing
Cloud is not NAS but a NAS can be setup for your personal cloud, you do not need to have a NAS to have a cloud service, there is a lot of paid/free cloud service

 

[denilson]

I guess the processor has advanced to a point where every processor is more than sufficient to run today's OS, so now the bottleneck is IO? I began using PC during the XT days, and my PC can run almost every version of DOS. Only when Windows was released, we seems to be upgrading our CPU with each version. Guess we have come full circle.



I strongly believe SOME users will reap the full rewards of an SSD system, my point is the normal everyday user. A lot of them are getting NAS to store their mountains of photos, videos, music etc. At the same time, they are getting SSD PCs for just web browsing, Youtube, Netflix, MS Office. Do these activities really need that kind of increased speed?

I know NAS and PCs are for difference purposes and complimentary to each other. But the fact that they are getting extra storages mean that they need that extra TBs, so why not spend less money to get more storage for the PC too?

Haha even if it is for chrome and office, I can feel the difference.. Especially when opening tabs in the background.

It also depends how much data you have.. before i switched to ssd, my hdd was only 1tb haha, i just got a 1tb ssd..

 

[freezerz]

not only start os and shutdown faster, the entire pc is more responsive
for example I click "start" or "my computer" , the window instantly open
last week I installed OS on a 7200rpm HDD , fresh install , the 1-2 second delay on the same task , sticks out evidently

because brands like HP DELL ACER are facing stiff competition
if they include SSD instead of HDD , the storage number drop to 120-240gb , the customer not happy
the cost also climb up slightly around $10-50, cost does not mean eventual price as they need to earn X% profit margin over $X cost , which will hurt their sales among price sensitive customer base
they will also lose the extra profit opportunity for letting the customers with genuine need for SSD to select the option (+240gb SSD +$200, when the part may cost them $100 only in bulk)

yes digital age bigger filesize , but nobody say only can have 1 storage
we can have 1 ssd + 1 or more HDD to reap benefit from both side
let the HDD store those "see 1 time and forever no see daylight" files

no , it is not a pursuit of newest/latest
the responsiveness of a computer with SSD will benefit from reducing the loading time few hundred millisecond every click
productivity UP

Hi, don't mean to nitpick but I've never experience a 1-2 seconds delay from clicking START button to the menu showing

My office PC is a Core 2 Duo with 2GB ram running Win 7. And Windows Explorer appears within 1 second from Win+E pressed. But I agree most other apps load painfully slows, and I'll attribute that to the slooooow CPU and the barely enough RAM.

So maybe everyone's tolerance is difference. I'm happy to wait an extra 30 seconds for Windows to boot. Maybe I'll think differently after using SSD for a while. Like so many seems to imply, once on SSD you won't look back.

 

[Krabs.]

Yes this probably makes the most sense. A small SSD for OS and a bigger HDD for data. I've read some more and surmised that many gamers also prefer SSD cos it load the game's graphics / data faster, lesser lag. So maybe there is a user case scenario for SSD in home PC.

some games may give SSD users tactical advantage , like loading into the gameworld faster to select the better weapons/vehicle/options

 

[freezerz]

Haha even if it is for chrome and office, I can feel the difference.. Especially when opening tabs in the background.

It also depends how much data you have.. before i switched to ssd, my hdd was only 1tb haha, i just got a 1tb ssd..

I don't know if the chrome thing is due to SSD. I use an i7 4700 with 8GB RAM at home, and I'll open average 12-15 chrome tab and other programs. Every tab loads almost instantaneously whenever I click on them.

 

[swat444]

some games may give SSD users tactical advantage , like loading into the gameworld faster to select the better weapons/vehicle/options

COD/BF player spotterted hahaha!!! Kidding no hate xD

 

[alifffresto]

everything run faster on ssd

 

[freezerz]

Guess for those current games, this is an advantage. I'm only an occasional Red Alert 2 player. Yes a 16 years old game, stop laughing....

 

[kandinsky]

HDD wins hands down in term of price per GB, and most of today's are 7200rpm. And today's increased Internet bandwidth means most users are downloading more contents. Our take-everywhere mobile phones camera means we are taking more high resolution photos and full HD videos. So won't it seems more logical to get the bigger, cheaper HDD when the benefits are more tangible?

Maybe some specific users may constantly require the high speed of SSD, but does the average home users reap the full benefit?

Personally, I'm all for HDD until the cost and capacity of SSD can match. To me, it seems most SSD buyers are upgrading just because this is the newest and latest. But is it cost effective? Don't mean to diss SSD users, just trying to discuss and understand. Hope we can have a healthy discussion without getting flame...

I think a lot of people value 'responsiveness' even if it's not as tangible as quantity of space. So, since it's not a lot of outlay for most people (under S$100 for a 256gb ssd), I think it's something people are willing to try to see if it helps. Having tried it myself with an old 2010 laptop, I can say the difference is quite tangible. Not just bootup, but with general usage, running apps, browsing, etc. Probably more obvious if you're refreshing an old system with an older processor? *shrug*.

To be honest, if you're perfectly fine and happy with your own system, that's a good thing! There's no need to change anything about it.

You seem to be looking at this as either/or, e.g., if you use SSD, you don't use HDD anymore, but that's not the case. Most people use SSD only for OS/apps, and HDD for everything else. I've got two SSDs and 7 HDDs, lol.

As for cost-effectiveness, I don't think it's possible to quantify it as the results depend on what we each expect/demand from our machines. If you're a very chill and patient person, it's very possible that you consider any improvement in responsiveness to be "small non-consequential benefits".

For the person irritated at waiting for stuff to load, if even 3-5mins saved a day over various applications add up to a less frustrating experience, ends the day happier, it would be well worth it.