I’ve long been an advocate of migrating to a 64-bit OS and then getting as much memory as you can reasonably afford. If you have a choice between a solid state hard drive (SSD) or lots of RAM on a 64-bit machine, get the RAM. But if you can do both, even both.
My beloved ThinkPad T400 is outrageously fast with the combination. It’s been a long time since I’ve used a PC that felt this fast. It reminds me of the days when I’ve gone back and used Windows 3.1 on modern hardware where everything is so snappy. I highly recommend it.
Well I stand (partially) corrected here. I know all you posted, I unfortunately didn't look at all the benchmarks on that site I quoted. In other benchmarks a single OCZ or Intel does stand up to 4 Raptors. Ofcourse sequential read/write speeds will be higher for Raptors in raid than SSDs, but read/write speeds aren't the USP of SSDs anyway. Too bad it's what they advertize with.
About the "synthetic benchmarks" though, they are not. I forgive you for not looking on the site, because it is dutch, but there is nothing synthetic about it. In fact, they use a multitude of testing tools, for a multitude of uses (server, games, office, desktop, etc) and even have indexes which specify how much every part weighed in on the total. They even measure things like sound level, power consumption etc. In professionalism they are right up there in the top #5 of american sites. Too bad it's in Dutch so not everyone can read along. So no, they are not synthetic, they test real life usage just as much as Anantech does.
Also yes you can get better SSD performance now for the price of (Raptor) HDDs but you fail to mention the hard drive space comparison. I mentioned this earlier in my posts but it's close to a factor of 10 in hard drive space. Most people still go for volume rather than performance, but they'll get a normal 7200 rpm disk anyway, which will give you an even bigger increase in volume. All in all for me personally paying upwards of $350 just for a performance increase of boot time and loading times is not worth it. I already have my OS and games on a fast drive, and RAM for me is the better upgrade right now.
Actually, just to add the thought, I think how people look at SSDs all depends on where they come from. You have roughly two groups of people.
1) And I assume sir astral belongs to this group, is the group that has the money to spend and just wants an awesome performing system. They'll say "Sweet, if I spend the money I will have the best performance of data I/O."
2) The either poorer group or less PC-enthousiastic group will say "Hmm nice upgrade, but it's not worth the money yet for me." Also people that have no clue how PC hardware works will probably belong to this group, they just want a system that loads MSN Messenger when they want to.
Also, good news coming from the Inquirer (yes, I know, not the best source..).
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1406326/intel-34nm-nand-ssds-launch-weeks
Hopefully we'll have greener, faster, bigger and cheaper SSD's soon!
I have almost always considered playing the my-knowledge-is-superior-to-yours card as being profoundly flawed as it can almost always be disproven.
It's always better to rely on reading comprehension, thread - following and logical debate...
I agree, but I do question why you are targeting me when he was the first one to make the claim that he knew more than me. Biased any? Next time target the person that started the fight not the one finishing it. Okay slick?
This is why arguing with the general computer user is pointless.
I said that 6 gigs appears to be the sweet spot for now, and many took it to mean forever!
I said that 6 gigs appears to be the sweet spot for now, and many took it to mean that I said development would magically stop progressing and that nobody would ever code applications to use more RAM than they do now.
I said that 6 gigs appears to be the sweet spot for now, and people felt that I insulted the 64-bit advancement of technology, pre-fetch, super-fetch and dog-fetch!
Holy smoaks folks! Stop inventing this stuff!
Saying that HDD has more capacity over SSD is a red herring. The subject matter is upgrade with SSD or RAM for better performance. The subject matter is not the Price or Capacity of either SSD or HDD drives.
Most of you anti-SSD people are completely missing the point and keep going off on tangents that are not truly material to the subject of this thread. I am not discussing the capacity/cost of SSD vs HDD, stop bringing them up as some lame come back! Be a part of the real conversation, not the little awkward twerp that just arrived and starts talking about a movie in the middle of a conversation about beer!
Also, I am not advocating that you get rid of HDD from your system just because you get SSD. I am advocating that if you have at least 3 gigs of RAM, then you will get better performance right now (not forever) from your machine instead of upgrading to more RAM. And by all means keep your HDD so you can store your non-performance necessary items. Apparently the good ole average American education is still producing people that cannot properly read!
Please stop making my posts out to be something they are not!
PLEASE USE THE GRAY MATTER BETWEEN YOUR EARS!
Now this is funny. First off, you call me a general computer user. You don't know me, so stop patronizing me. You assume you are better educated than the rest of the people in this thread. That is not only ignorant, that is also arrogant.
Second, I only mentioned the word RAM once in the post you quoted, I stated that for me it's a better upgrade now. You cannot judge that, you don't know my current system specification, and for your information I currently have less than 3GB RAM. You then start a rant about us not reading correctly that you never stated that 6GB will be enough forever. Where in lord's name did I ever say you did? I didn't even speak about RAM in that post, who is making stuff up here?
You then state that the subject matter is wether a RAM upgrade is better than an SSD upgrade or vica versa. I explained in an earlier post that I never responded to that discussion, and I haven't even got a clue why the discussion went that way - according to apparantly only you - in the first place. Now who exactly is making stuff up?
I'm glad you advocate that if you have 3GB or more RAM in your system that SSD is the better upgrade. I never disagreed with this, I think an SSD will be a great upgrade for most users. I did however disagree that 512MB should be enough, but that was another person I responded too.
Lastly, why do you assume I'm american? I have no clue how you got that idea. I do agree on the failing educational system there though. It's failing here, too.
Can't we just get along? Geez...
twilightDG
I said "many" and "people" in my post. And you took it to mean that I only meant you. Lets have a quick and short english lesson. The word many indicates that I am refering to at least more than 1 person. Additionally many does not necessarily mean that I am directly targeting you. In order for you to be directly targeted by my complaint I would have had to type YOU or EVERYONE! I used neither of those words.
Now, regarding the matter of belief that I feel I am more educated than the rest of people in this thread. I do not feel that I am more educated than the rest. I am also a high school dropout with only a GED and additionally absent of any "College Degrees". I do however possess certifications in various Hardware and Softare items. Regarding you specifically. Since I had to pull over and deliver an english lesson, I at least assume that I am "better" educated than yourself in regards to #1 the english language & #2 technology. Now, this obviously resides within the scope of this thread. My knowledge regarding technology is superior to that of the average user, and generally superior to that of the average IT professional. I am the Nerds nerd! It is not enough for me to know that SSD is a better upgrade than RAM, I must know WHY it would be a better upgrade.
Am I the most knowledged technologist? No. There is always someone better, and someone ALWAYS knows something the other person does not. I am no more perfect than anyone else, but like many people I have a field that I happen to be very good at, and for me that field is technology.
If you want me to stop patronizing you, then do not make responses to my post antagonizng me. Please do respond to my posts if you have some evidence to refute my claims. Please do respond to my post when you are actually talking about what I am talking about.
Please do not respond if you are going to say that the cost is beyond what you are willing to pay, I have already stated that I can understand if pricing is not right for you and that I have no problems with that. The context of my posts are regarding "SSD or RAM" for a peformance upgrade. NOT SSD vs HDD in capacity. Now you can address the issue of SSD vs HDD in regards to performance, but it would be suicidal since I have already posted #'s where, depending upon the situation, a single SSD can out perform as many as 16 HDD's in a RAID configuration.
Once again, this is not opinion. This is FACT! If you have at least 3 gigs of RAM you WILL receive/get a better performance upgrade choosing SSD OVER adding more RAM to your machine at this time frame in the technology world! And I have posted enough links to articles to prove this.
Price is not the issue, Capacity is not the issue. I do not care if you are the worlds foremost expert on drive Geometry. You do not have a leg (or a spindle for that matter) to stand on!
LOL, my bark is worse than my bite, but I do prefer clarity over agreement.
I have almost always considered playing the my-knowledge-is-superior-to-yours card as being profoundly flawed as it can almost always be disproven.It's always better to rely on reading comprehension, thread - following and logical debate... I agree, but I do question why you are targeting me when he was the first one to make the claim that he knew more than me. Biased any? Next time target the person that started the fight not the one finishing it. Okay slick?
Jafo was not targetting you... nor was/is there any bias. The quotes he used were purely to help make his point. Sure one of them happened to contain something you said, but it was not personal, believe me. Jafo is not like that.
Ditto... in triplicate.
I know I was just talking about pure performance premium.
You get 80% of the way with just having 8 gigs of RAM on a 64-bit system. The disk caching available with that kind of RAM makes things immensely faster.
But to get another 20% of speed, SSD is the way to go on TOP of the 8 gigs. I wouldn't bother with SSD without the extra RAM though as the RAM helps more in my experience.
But can you justify the cost? I dunno. Depends on how valuable your time is.
Quick off topic - Hey, sir-astral. If you look back at my post (121), you'll see I was commenting on someone else's post. You chime in, tell me my article from 6/18/2009 (this month, 11 days ago) is too old. I provide you with a compliment (post 123) and ask a question (because I'm curious if there's a clear answer or good article out there)... you respond (post 124) by telling me you already made some posts and saying "I sit in a room chating and arguing with Professionals that have more certifications than you have letters in your name." I chime back in in post (125), indicating that I did not doubt your tech know-how based on past posts, but instead doubted your reading comprehension (as I quoted the actual compliment I paid you). Then, Jafo, an SD Staffer that I have never chatted with before (post 128), takes a shot at you for the high brow "I sit in a room chating and arguing with Professionals that have more certifications than you have letters in your name." This pisses you off... and you lash back. Anyway, final recap - I don't claim to know more than you. I work for a fortune 1000 company as a SQL developer and run a custom computer business on the side... because its my hobby. I research new technology as I get ready to buy/build new desktop PCs, and I'll probably be building a new rig for myself in a month or so. So, I'm very interested in this topic, especially if SSD is good for desktops now AND can outperform for the the current price point vs current HDs. That's all. So, please don't take any offense. None meant, and I'm sure you have valuable comments to add to the thread. As it stands, I'm going to read the whole thing to see what I missed and see if I can add something constructive as well. Cheers.
Starkers. You need some reading lessons as well. Let take this from the top.
pacov said this
"Also - I do see that you know what you are talking about re: tech from previous posts,"
Then I said this
"I sit in a room chating and arguing with Professionals that have more certifications than you have letters in your name."
Jafo decided to defend the instigator and said
"I have almost always considered playing the my-knowledge-is-superior-to-yours card as being profoundly flawed as it can almost always be disproven."
He said this in direct response to me. So in fact he was targeting me. So let me get this straight. pacov insults me by saying that I do not know anything. You nor Jafo apparently care who started the insulting, you only seem to care that I decided to respond with an insult. pacov = bully because he insulted first. I am the bullied because I defended myself from the insult. But I am the one that seems to be in the wrong. With this logic we need to throw police officers in jail for shooting criminals that are shooting at them. BRILLIANT!
And I would like to add, that I did agree with Jafo on his post I simply asked him why he felt it more appropriate to lean on the one being insulted first and ingore the one who started it. I completely agree that the chest bumping is pointless. If I really thought my knowledge was superior to everyone else's I would not have bothered to post links supporting my claims. It is alwasy important to show supporting evidence when "vs" is involved.
Yes I did notice at the time that you were responding to someone else. Which is why I only said that the articles were old. It was not meant to insult, it was only meant to be informative, so please accept my apologies if you feel they are in order.
Now, I am glad you mentioned your SQL background. I do not develop for SQL but I do manage database backup, security, and light maintenance. Right now I can say you know more than me about SQL for the most part, but I will assure you that SSD would knock your socks off if you utilized an SSD to contain your database. Unless you are doing something special you will be running your SQL in OLTP mode and not OLAP. The links I posted regarding OLTP database performance a single SSD showed absolutely stellar performance vs HDD.
Now as you know SQL devs really like to have as much RAM as possible so you can cache as much of the SQL database as possible and improve performance. But we already know that often times a single SQL server will house many databases, and just 1 database is already larger than system RAM. So when a large complex SQL query is run, you can imediately see performance start to fall because the disk subsystem is being taxed. Now since any OLTP type database rely's on DISK more than any other system resource you can see why SSD completely rules that scene.
Now, I will tell you about an experience at my company regarding an Enertia database that is about 70gigs in size. About once a month a massive financial report is run with several millions of dollars and several thousand checks. This process takes about 3 hours for the SQL server to complete, with another 2.5 hours for the client to parse all the results of the query.
SQL server is a Win2k3 R2 Quad Xeon 2.8Ghz, 8 Gig RAM, and 6x 15k SAS drives in RAID5. These drives are optimize for random IO and benchmarks around 2.7 to 3.1 MS in latency.
The client processing the data is a workstation with 8 gigs of RAM and running Win 2k3 R2 and is a Dual Core Xeon at 2.6Ghz. A pair of 10k SAS in RAID1 (mirror)
A couple of things to keep in mind. The SQL server is also serving 5 other production databases during this entire run.
We installed a single SSD on the server as a test, and fired up a Virtual machine on another SSD and gave it only 1 gig of RAM.
We ran this very same 5+ hour report on the SSD's and some jaws dropped. The SQL Server roasted the query and completed it in just over 25 minutes, and the Client processed the data in about 20 minutes.
SSD's reduced the time to run this report by unbelievalbe amounts. 5 hours down to 1. That's quite a performance increase, just by upgrading the disk subsystem.
The idea that RAM will be a better performance upgrade vs SSD has already been proven incorrect. As you can tell, not only do I have article links to backup my claims I also speak directly from experience.
In case you missed the link in one of my past posts here is the link to the article regarding SQL servers and SSD.
http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3532&p=1
No!!! I don't!
I know Jafo, and what he did was select two quotes to make his point: that pissing contests usually serve to prove nothing other than someone will eventually come along and piss farther than you.
I can assure you that Jafo did NOT target you... nor was he defending anyone. What he did was make a generalisation using two examples before him: that whatever anyone says, there will always be someone who will try to disprove it with evidence that supports their own argument/agenda. If Jafo had a problem with YOU in particular, he no doubt would have privately sent you an email or PM to explain it.
Well if that's the case, then, you can move on and leave the petty tit-for-tat behind to discuss the topic at hand, right??? I mean, how important is it, really, to always be right/never at fault??? Life's too short to be distracted/consumed by such things, right?
So now can we just get along?
Seriously... this is now my fav post ever (and sorry for hi-jacking it).
Sir-Astral - It IS NOT an INSULT to TELL YOU that I DO SEE THAT YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
Please, for the love of Pete, tell me that you are reading what I said... that the font makes that clear...
SAY THE BOLD INFO OUTLOUD! CMON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OK, maybe my comments "could" be construed by the overly sensitive as being directed at one and not all, but they were intended for all, as Starkers correctly suggested.
Too often people will dig up corroborating links/evidence to support one view or another, but the vagaries of what this Net thing is is that any opinion, whether fanciful or genuinely salient can be supported by links/evidence - just from elsewhere, perhaps. Heavens, there's links out there to believers that the world is flat....or that the Lunar Landings didn't happen, though 'popular' opinion is both are wrong....
Personal experience is probably the only dependable basis for argument, as Draginol/Frogboy [the Op] referenced via #136.
Me, I have [yet] to play with SSDs .... though am aware the hardware will suffer from its own read/write life-expectancy.... as is also the case with mechanical drives [for different reasons].... but it appears expected lifespan is 5 years or more... though it'd be difficult to verify with regards to the youth of the format. [wait 5 years and see].
Much mention is made of the impact-handling measured in 1000s of Gs which means precious little as the rest of the machine they'd be used in would be decidedly unwell at considerably lower Gs.
I have also yet to play with appropriat RAID setups, either with SATAs, PATAs OR SSDs so know when not to cast an opinion either way.
I DID comment, however, that anyone planning a new machine [now] should NOT limit themselves with hardware that affords them no scope at all for further upgrade/additions beyond what is referred to and regarded by some/many to be a current 'sweet spot'.... IE '6gig' of ram. It is standard procedure for software developers to push their development to utilize whatever can be got from current systems - making/forcing people to be on a constant upgrade process. Perfect example....compare ACAD10 with the current release of Revit. The latter's base requirements are the realm of serious science-fiction for users back in the days of Cad10.
@ sir astral
Yet you quoted my post. Normally I'd say that's not a problem but you are behaving pretty anally yourself about people quoting you and you then take it personally. So either quote the person you are talking to, or don't but stop commenting if people do the same.
You could probably teach me a lot about english american, I told you already I'm not from an english speaking country, so that shouldn't be too hard. I am however not a college dropout, but instead attended the highest form of education in a school that has no American equal, I guess it's somewhere between high school and university. So in that regard I can now for a fact say "I am better educated then you." I don't care much. You are definately better educated in the hardware department, I focus on software engineering myself. The fact is, all this matters not. I am happy to have a discussion with the baglady on the corner of the street, I respect her opinion just as much as anyone else's, I will certainly not argue with her that "I am better educated." By the way, I probably made some grammar errors in this post, please correct them with your superior english skills.
I'll tell you for the 3rd time then. I am not discussing RAM vs SSDs here! Apparantly you think that only people that want to talk about that specifically are aloud to post here. I'm sorry, I didn't know you were the owner of this board. If you'd remove all posts not about what you are discussing then you'd probably only have about 3 posts left, but please.. do go on about RAM vs SSDs, don't mind the rest of us.
Sadly I already agreed with your numbers, saying you were right. So why you must emphasize is once again is beyond me. Secondly, "Price is not the issue, Capacity is not the issue." Excuse me? I'll decide that for myself, and so will everyone else in the thread. Those arguments may fly for you, but some of us actually do have quite a large amount of gigs to store and not an unlimited income to throw at it. Once again you want to dictate what this thread is about. By all means, don't let me stop you..
You seem to feel personally offended very quickly, taking pretty much everything as a direct and I quote "insult". By the way you say someone else "started" the "insults". Whom are you referring to (OMG is "whom" right? You are better educated in english than me so please tell me!!) with starting the insults? I cannot remember anyone insulting you at all.
I will now leave this thread as it is getting more and more personal and less and less about a civil discussion. I am sure, sir astral, that you will want to have the last say in this, so by all means go ahead. To anyone else, I'm happy to keep discussing things in a new topic, but please do specify what the topic is exactly about, ie SSDs vs RAM, new SSD technology, 64-bit OSs, how much RAM you need, etc, so that we will not end up in this mess again.
Should be - 'than you', not 'then you'.
I realize you are not from America, so it is a second or third language for you. So, no insult intended - just a correction.
Myself. I can't even learn a second.
And how rich you are. I'm sure those who have money to burn these days don't think twice about buying SSD drives.
Kona...in real terms my current i7 920 with 6gig of DDR3 and GTX285 and 2.5 TB of disks was LESS expensive than my first new-bought P100 with 16meg ram 4meg Trident and 1gig drive.
I don't just mean in relative dollar values....but almost in actual dollars, too....
Granted Jafo. But for those who strugle with every day bills a SSD is still beyond our reach.
Yep. You are correct, I went back and re-read the post. I could have swore you said that I didn't know what I was talking about, which set me off.
Jafo, Pacov, & twifightDG.
Please accept my most humble apologies regarding my behavior. I feel like a huge horses A$$ now. I should have followed my own advice on reading comprehension and should have actually read the post again before I allowed my ignornant indignation get the better of me. Truly a lesson regarding being too quick to anger.
I accept the fact that it was my fault for this whole little debacle. Again, my apologies!
Yo, I was not implying that people should limit themselves in any way. Additionally it will be more expensive than necessary to obtain a machine beyond 6 gigs at this time. You can typically pickup 6 gigs for around $100. to get that extra 6 you need to spend another $100. That $100 is more than 1/2 way to a 30g OCZ Vertex. Yes, developers will take advantage of RAM as the market advances, but tell me. Within the next 4 years will you or anyone else be designing applications for desktops that would have a recommended amount of RAM beyond 6 gigs? I seriously doubt it. And I would be willing to bet that the minimum will not go beyond 3 gigs inside of 2 years at least. It has been at least 3 years since it was easy to have 1 or 2 gigs of RAM in your system and 2 gigs of RAM is still very much enough RAM for the vast majority of games and applications today.
Now I do not know much about ACAD10's requirements, but think for a moment. How many home users will be using that? I am not really against you using it as an example but trying to disprove something because an exception exists is a red herring. There is always an Exception somewhere right? So it is best to, instead, refer to the general rule. Furthermore, I would be willing to bet that if you had 3 or 4 gigs of RAM you could cut it in 1/2 and then install an SSD and you would still get better performance. You would exclaim that your user experience with your machine and applications are much better as well.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
