My CPU & SSD theory

[Left]

I have a theory on the relation between CPUs and SSDs. It's, there are times when a workload is pretty much pure CPU, or pure hard drive or SSD. However, most of the time, it is a split workload, like in the process of booting up the computer. This means that if you happen to have a really good processor, you might be able to get away with having just a 7200RPM hard drive and still have a fast PC. On the other hand, if you have a slow CPU that sort of can't be replaced, a SSD may be exactly what you need to speed things up a little.

Personally, I have no preference between a desktop i7 with a 7200RPM hard drive, and a desktop with a desktop i5 and a Samsung 850 SSD.

 

[Wookiee]

Regardless of how fast your processor is, you will notice the difference between an SSD (even a low end one) and a HDD.

I manage a variety of computers, from 2nd Gen i3s -> 4th gen i7s (and then other variations ibetween such as 7th gen i5-Us) and the difference is phenomenal (especially when you're reimaging). The i7's all have Seagate 7200RPM drives in them, and the ones I've replaced with cheap 120GB SSDs are hands down faster for booting and loading programs.

Sure, once you're in and have your programs open you won't notice any difference. But the difference between HDD and SSD is truly noticeable.

 

[Left]

Regardless of how fast your processor is, you will notice the difference between an SSD (even a low end one) and a HDD.

I manage a variety of computers, from 2nd Gen i3s -> 4th gen i7s (and then other variations ibetween such as 7th gen i5-Us) and the difference is phenomenal (especially when you're reimaging). The i7's all have Seagate 7200RPM drives in them, and the ones I've replaced with cheap 120GB SSDs are hands down faster for booting and loading programs.

Sure, once you're in and have your programs open you won't notice any difference. But the difference between HDD and SSD is truly noticeable.

I still take the stance that SSDs are a tiny bit overrated in some circumstances. But only a little.

 

[timewerx]

Loading of memory - intensive apps like games or a huge program will be a lot faster with SSD.

 

[Sketcher]

To put it simply:

Disk Drive -> Disk cache -> RAM -> CPU. It really depends where upon this chain that the task lies. If the CPU is trying to wrestle a program that requires a faster CPU than the one you have (I experienced this back in the day having downloaded Netscape 6 on whatever it was we had - I don't remember if it was a P133 or a DX4-100), then that is where your bottleneck is. If what you are doing requires more RAM than what you have - I run into this all the time on small servers where people are trying to run many instances of heavy PHP code at once - then your system can slow way down and crash. Hence, upgrading the RAM is what you should look at. When both of these are fine for what you are running, the disk is going to be your bottleneck, because it uses a slower bus to get to the RAM, and consequently, the CPU. SSDs are not as fast as RAM independent of the bus, but they are still very fast compared to traditional hard drives. Hard drives need to spin up, the right platter needs to be found, and the data needs to be accessed from there. Traditional hard drives do have a disk cache to ameliorate this somewhat, but they as a rule will be the slowest component of your system when the CPU and the RAM are up to the demands of all the software you are trying to run at once.

 

[Left]

While we are on this subject, I wanted to ask... am I the only one who still considers 7200RPM hard drives to be fairly fast?

I mean, I've had fast and slow PCs with standard hard drives, and fast and slow PCs with SSDs.

 

[Sketcher]

While we are on this subject, I wanted to ask... am I the only one who still considers 7200RPM hard drives to be fairly fast?

I mean, I've had fast and slow PCs with standard hard drives, and fast and slow PCs with SSDs.

Depends on what you mean by "fast." A 7200-RPM SATA III drive will be faster than a 5400-RPM SATA-III drive. A 10000-RPM SATA III drive will be faster than both of them. Any SSD drive over a SATA III connection will be faster than all of them, fresh out of the box. If you put one of those drives on a USB connection, the throughput lowers considerably, meaning you have a slower experience reading from or writing to anything on that drive.

 

[Left]

I'm just saying that the difference between a 150-180MB/sec storage read speed, and a 400-500MB/sec storage read speed, can still be a little hard to notice.

Even if me saying so makes people laugh at me .

 

[elytron]

I have yet to buy a solid state drive for any of my computers. Want one for my laptop though. Which came with some spinning HDD.

Are Samsung SSDs the best one can get, at the moment? The drive I want costs almost as much as the laptop. That I want to put it in.

 

[Sketcher]

I'm just saying that the difference between a 150-180MB/sec storage read speed, and a 400-500MB/sec storage read speed, can still be a little hard to notice.

Even if me saying so makes people laugh at me .

Again, that depends on how you are using it.

If it is storage for Word documents and suchlike, you won't notice that much of a difference. If you're copying a multi-GB file - say a video file or a disk image or a very large archive - then the difference is very noticeable.

 

[Wookiee]

I have yet to buy a solid state drive for any of my computers. Want one for my laptop though. Which came with some spinning HDD.

Are Samsung SSDs the best one can get, at the moment? The drive I want costs almost as much as the laptop. That I want to put it in.

Pretty much once I got an SSD - and confirmed when I temporarily had to switch back - I would never go back to running everything off a HDD (I still have one for logistical reasons in my desktop, but most of my used games and programs are all running off SSD).

Samsung are the most popular. But if you're talking about a low end laptop, you probably won't notice any benefit from getting a higher end SSD. I quite like the budget SanDisk SSDs and have several, only ever had one die. But pretty much any SSD will be noticeable and faster than your HDD. The difference in price between a lower end SanDisk and the same size Samsung is quite significant (or at least it is on the Australian market).

 

[elytron]

My laptop came with a 500GB drive. Kind of want the same capacity as that, but in a ssd.

I will go take a better look at the SanDisk SSDs. Thanks Wookiee!

 

[High Fidelity]

SSD isn't necessary, but it's definitely a very noticeable luxury.

When they were new, SSDs were certainly a pricey luxury that people only bought small enough to at least have their OS on. Now they're so affordable you can use them for most things that are HDD-intensive, because ultimately CPU isn't going to make your HDD read or write faster.

Loading your PC, installing programs/games, loading games/levels in games, etc.

Like I said, it's a luxury, but now it's not something I'll go without in my PC because I use my PC for gaming a lot.

 

[High Fidelity]

While we are on this subject, I wanted to ask... am I the only one who still considers 7200RPM hard drives to be fairly fast?

I mean, I've had fast and slow PCs with standard hard drives, and fast and slow PCs with SSDs.

7200 isn't 'fast', really. It's the standard, really, for anything that isn't an SSD, a system for surveillance storage, or a general home use system on a very low budget.

 

[Wookiee]

My laptop came with a 500GB drive. Kind of want the same capacity as that, but in a ssd.

I will go take a better look at the SanDisk SSDs. Thanks Wookiee!

Yeah, you're going to be hard pressed to find a nice cheap one there. I think I spent about $250 AUD for my 500GB Samsung, and that was on sale.

SSD isn't necessary, but it's definitely a very noticeable luxury.

When they were new, SSDs were certainly a pricey luxury that people only bought small enough to at least have their OS on. Now they're so affordable you can use them for most things that are HDD-intensive, because ultimately CPU isn't going to make your HDD read or write faster.

Loading your PC, installing programs/games, loading games/levels in games, etc.

Like I said, it's a luxury, but now it's not something I'll go without in my PC because I use my PC for gaming a lot.

Oh definitely. I've been outfitting all the computers here with 120GB SSDs because they're not much more expensive than buying a regular HDD, and the image I'm using is only about 50GB - everyone either works off file shares or out of Google Drive (and we have unlimited storage there).

 

[nChrist]

Question - do you have to defragment SSDs from time to time?

 

[High Fidelity]

Question - do you have to defragment SSDs from time to time?

I haven't and I don't think you have to.

 

[High Fidelity]

Yeah, you're going to be hard pressed to find a nice cheap one there. I think I spent about $250 AUD for my 500GB Samsung, and that was on sale.



Oh definitely. I've been outfitting all the computers here with 120GB SSDs because they're not much more expensive than buying a regular HDD, and the image I'm using is only about 50GB - everyone either works off file shares or out of Google Drive (and we have unlimited storage there).

Yup but I think it's worth it. When I build a new PC I typically build to last 3 years minimum, so I typically spend a fair amount. A lot of what I consider hobbies are on or through my PC though, so it's a worthwhile investment for me.

I still think even a small SSD for OS is nice and affordable for most.

 

[Wookiee]

Question - do you have to defragment SSDs from time to time?

No. The reason you run it on a HDD is because the fragmented data is stored across different parts of the disk itself, so it has to mechanically seek it. On an SSD it doesn't have to seek for it in the same way.

It's also generally not a good idea to run a defragment on an SSD anyway as it may reduce its lifespan.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

But if you're talking about a low end laptop, you probably won't notice any benefit from getting a higher end SSD.

It's funny you should mention it. I replaced the hard drive on my netbook, which is what I'm on at the moment, with a solid-state, and I did actually notice a good difference in the speed. On the other hand, when I did the same thing to my desktop with the same brand of SSD, I didn't get a noticeable difference, except at the moment when the disk is starting to get up to speed, which is only maybe two seconds of difference.

Question - do you have to defragment SSDs from time to time?

Fragmentation, if you can call it that in a solid-state drive, is actually beneficial to the drive, because it diffuses the heat of the interactions over a larger area of the...disk (can we still call it a disk?).