The story of my rig

If I haven't said so already, it's advicable to avoid the Samsung 840 EVO. Go for Crucial MX100 instead. Also, do not ever consider Kingston V300, it's not worth it even if it's cheaper than MX100.

Why avoid 840 Evo? It has issues that is yet not resolved. It has worse specs than the competition and is also more expensive. Basicly, you just get less.

Nope. There are a lot of interaction with storage unit too, and it will affect performance, not only direct, but indirect (busy with other stuff when you need the resources).

Well, you could say that regarding the HDD too, but it's handling data more often than just opening programs.

Then you either set it up wrong, or aren't able to notice a different in reaction time of 0.5 and 4. Or you don't know that slowness you're experiencing actually is the HDD to blame.

None of the above.

Of course you can run it, HDDs aren't retarded. They're just extremely slow. And if you were to put a computer like yours side-to-side with PC 2 having an SSD rather than an HDD, you'd get more done and clearly see that slow-downs and reaction times were much affected. The difference is much more apparent the more processes the HDD has to chew through.

There's no problems, just that it all happens much slower and you get less work done in the same time. If you haven't tried you system with an SSD, or an SDD at all, you don't have much say in this really.

Irrelevant. But yeah, Seagate generally don't have the best reliability. Hitachi (or HGST now) is the go-to brand for reliability. Western Digital is okay too.

 

It literally is not doing anything right now while I am web browsing and playing MC multiplayer... Nothing, disk access, non existant according to conky.

HDD really makes all the difference....




No such thing as setting an SSD up wrong. Its either setup, or it isn't.


Your OS is not constantly reading and writing to disk. It would be stupid to do so. Program gets loaded to RAM, it stays there, thats about it. If a program is constantly caching from disk, that program is crap. Your HDD isnt chewing through processes unless you are constantly opening them all the time. I can easily tell the difference between 0.5 and 4, the implication that I'm some sort of blind retard wasnt particularly appreciated, its simple fact that an SSD does not improve performance for general usage tasks. Christ, even antivirus scans are usually CPU limited. I click chrome on an HDD equipped system, it opens immediately. I open 10 tabs, they open immediately. The lack in difference is simply because HDD's are not problematic unless crunching through huge amounts of data.

The *ONLY* difference I have found is that I can now open eclipse and libre-office quite quickly. Thats it. Pointless.

 

You just derailed this thread. This shit goes in the "General computer talk/advice" thread.

 

SSD vs HDD is night and day when it comes to user experience. My opinion, apparently not yours. Let's agree to disagree.

 

I'm sitting here with 4 SSDs and 0 HDDs in my system and crunching on my popcorn. Such gold. SSDs pointless? Riiiiiiiiight.

 

Not pointless at all, but you'll only get faster loading times.

 

No....

In games, yes, in most situations you'd never see FPS increase, unless HDD is a limiting factor. It's possible, but very unlikely. But I'm not talking gaming situations, and neither are you I suppose. So no. But let's end this discussion here, we're not coming to an agreement any time soon, apparently.

 

Applications under normal running conditions never read/write to HDD except when loading/saving files. If you say otherwise, prove it then.

 

How about you look at your HDD LED. lol

Edit: Simple example would be icons. Most times they are used at runtime instead of being preloaded. So right in the middle of executing a program you need to load an icon -> HDD access. Myth busted.

 

Because a <10kb icon takes so long to load, right?

 

You stated "never" but 10kb is not never. It's a bit. I proved u wrong. K.

 

a 10kb icon file still counts as loading files, which therefore fits within what bluescreen states.


I have an SSD equipped system. I have an HDD equipped system. I have used hybrid systems. SSD difference being night and day? Only if you are blind as a bat and cannot see during the day. Web browsing, office work etc, makes eff all difference. As it stands I've been staring at my HDD activity light and its barely so much as flickered.


Only difference I can find on this machine. Eclipse and libre-office no longer take an age to load. Amazing. Arduino IDE also opens a bit quicker but it didnt take long before. Civ 5 sadly doesnt start on crunchbang, but I know it is supposedly alot faster to load up on SSD, not surprising when it caches such a huge number of files. Crunchbang boot time on SSD actually isnt an improvement over windows 8 boot time from HDD

 

Like an SSD is calculating graphics. I mean what else is an SSD doing other than elimitinating the only real bottleneck in current state-of-the-art systems? Ofc it's loading and saving files all the time because HDDs are bad at that. D'uuuh!

It's so easily comparable if you'd actually do work with your system rather than browsing and mailing. Because then ofc a SSD isn't doing much than booting up fast and having the browser start immediatelly. Now in an actual productive environment you'd see factor 2 to 5 in speed increase just by doing stuff like compiling a project, working on a psd file, database stuffs. You'd see your bottleneck shifting from I/O to CPU because now your CPU is actually the limiting factor.

 

Things I actually do....