FreddyG Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Could someone,please, explain to me the advantages and disadvantages between these two types of disks. ( I am about to build a new computer). In simple language please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumsonly2002 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 SSD's Faster, quieter, cooler. no moving parts = durability. HDD's Affordable, cost less per meg of storage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotspot Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 As above plus SSD's easy to fit ( so small you can tape them to the wall of the case if you so desire), light weight - easier to move case around, small mass - even though they run about the same temp as a HDD their small mass means less heat in the case, so lower system temps mine have a ten year warranty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgruschow Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 And they never have to be defragged. They are good, but are they worth $2000 more.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumsonly2002 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I was fortunate and got a new 256 Samsung SSD for $500.00. It was $75.00 more than a Raptor, and some 50 megs less storage wise. Outside that, could never afford a SSD. Was saving for a Raptor raid 0 set up, but this deal came along. The HD will be used only for my new comp (when ever I get funded), with FSX & ORBX, plus Battle of Britian sim, and TDU. My second drive will be a Raptor. Apparently they are more durable, so, pay for itself in no downtime and failures? (Just guessing). Overall, i still think they are still too much $$, vs HHD's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradHosking Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 And they will be until they become more mainstream. Look at Blu-ray as an example. That's getting cheaper slowly. SSD once they sort out the Trim functions, etc will become a better way of storage and more speed advantages will eventuate. Just as an example of mainstream, the company I work for and support in IT, we have 2 users with SSDs and that's it. They are both laptop users and when you get them from Dell or Toshiba as part of the Laptop, bigger $$$$ are shilled out. We have over 1000 client PC's in the centre where I work. One heck of an average when you think about it HDD v SSD! Even with a PC refresh happening next year, we will still be using SATA II drives and maybe a few more laptops might come with SSD's but again it would be only one or two. I don't expect them to get much cheaper for about maybe another year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkemp Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 SSDs are not really an economical option for the average user, they are still in the realm of the early adopter who doesn't consider economy and has a pocket full of cash burning a hole in it. Their read speed outstrips their write speed and they last longer if the number of writes is minimised. Hence, if you get one, it would make most sense to use it exclusively for FSX/FS9 since they do a lot of reading and very little writing. At present I can get an OCZ Vertex 120 GB for a tad under $600 but my FSX folder is already nudging 60GB so that $600 isn't going to go far. These things will not come down to the affordabe price range until sometime late next year or even 2011. Next year we will see more SATA3 on the scene and that will remove the interface speed bottleneck and allow SSDs to perform at their best. Seagate have just announced a range they have dubbed Pulsar but they will only be available to OEMs for a while. There is a lot yet to happen in the SSD area before they really start to hit the mainstream proper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotspot Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 SSDs are not really an economical option for the average user, they are still in the realm of the early adopter who doesn't consider economy and has a pocket full of cash burning a hole in it. Agreed bkemp, a valid comment I think. However another aspect which must not be ignored is that some who buy an SSD for example may have to simply save harder for the privelege of getting one before they run out of time, and to do so forgo other things like using a vehicle as much or not going out so often, sending the missus out to work, letting the kids starve or whatever, without necessarily having cash burning a hole in their pocket, but I take your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dow Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I bought a 64GB Falcon. It has my FSX and Windows XP on it, all other programs remain on the HDD. Obviously my FSX install is smaller than you seem to accumulate, yet I have most of Orbx, OZx, and a dozen or so payware and freeware planes. I won't go back. loading for Windows is about 60% faster, and FSX up to 75% faster. Almost no hesitations in scenery loads now, and most of those seem related to the audio interfering in the pipeline. And... the SSD does not perform as well as when new. It started out with a max read speed of 230 MB/sec, now it is about half that except for a small section of the data that shows 160 GB/sec or more. And yet it doesn't seem to matter. Somehow the data gets loaded quicker than any of my HDDs and by a large margin. Cost was $278 as I recall. If I was looking to upgrade now I would probably get a 128GB Patriot Torqx which I believe is in the mid $500's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.