Crysis SSD VS HDD

No description available.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• SSD
• HDD
• Crysis

[UrHideless]

I rather wait 30 seconds than paying 300$.

[CoDHut]

@UrHideless yea lol, 30 seconds more there, 30 seconds more at boot time, another few seconds waiting for programs to load, couple more seconds installing stuff - it all adds up over time. 60gb SSDs are less than $90. man up, pull your finger out and go buy one.

[UrHideless]

All you SSD fanboys, go check my channel.. I do have an SSD lol..

[MastuhShayke]

@UrHideless for one game if you are playing it constantly such as competitive starcraft or counterstrike players it can be very useful and speedy and dont make ignorant comments like this a 64gb ssd drive for just some games and os is only 80 bucks u can catch one for 60 on a sale if you dont know shit about pcs shut the fuck up

[angleisthebest]

@nanashi1o3 epic fail, since last time I checked, my 500GB Caviar Blue stomped the first gen raptors in almost everything but the access time...while being silent, unlike the noisy, crappy Velociraptors.

[angleisthebest]

@CoDHut also FYI, I'm speaking from experience, because I had an Agility 3 SSD that had these issues and almost made me doubt my P67 mobo, which has the best consumer level SATA 3 controller. OCZ themselves acknowledged the fact that Sandforce are unreliable, by making their new SSDs with slower but more reliable Indilinx Fusion controllers, touting "improved reliability" as a selling point. There's no other way to put it: Sandforce sucks, and even OCZ admit this.

[angleisthebest]

@CoDHut there's a widespread recognised problem with SF-2281 drives (all 3rd gen Sandforce SSDs) with poor reliability and stability. Lock-ups and freezes, BSODs etc. OCZ forums prove how worthless their SSDs are, because they have several stickied guides (including those by the certain guy with Tony the Tiger avatar) that blame literally everything; Windows TRIM commands, CPU power states, controllers -- you name it. Theoretical ideal-world tests aren't going to change this.

[jr540123]

@CoDHut dude some of us don't have 90 dollars hell i barley had enough to thought together this Pentium 4 gaming rig i have its shit in some game's but its better than nothing.

[CoDHut]

@angleisthebest Tests have been performed on SSDs, where over 40gb was written to a drive every day for a year, and little performance was lost over that time period. If you have TRIM enabled properly your SSD will last for a long time. Yes some do fail, but especially with the new 3rd gen OCZ's, the fail rate is almost negligible.

[CoDHut]

@angleisthebest No I understood fully what you were attempting to say, even though it was poorly explained. If you have a game that you play nearly every day, you will still see reduced load times if it is installed to a SSD, even though you may not be able to tell. You have nearly 30gbs free, why not install a 6gb game?

[angleisthebest]

@CoDHut also regarding your comment on optimum performance and reliability, that very much varies with each controller, but to date, not a single SSD out there performs at the "optimum" level for even a month. On a bad day, any SSD will have low reads/writes based on what it's doing (during garbage collection, performance will halve at least). And reliability is a massive problem right now, especially for the Sandforce SSDs, I know because I owned one.

[angleisthebest]

@CoDHut I have about the same amount of space left (29GB or something) after a Win7 64bit install + updates, and mine's a 64GB SSD. I doubt you understood what I said: what I meant was, putting GAMES on it is a stupid idea, except maybe for a poorly made MMO like WoW that streams a lot of textures constantly from the hard drive, but most games keep most required objects cached in the RAM/VRAM anyway. Almost any day to day application does see a massive performance improvement, no doubt.