Last edited by jsnipy (2008-07-17 18:38:53)
£300 in the UK, and similarly, I'm not all that impressed - would have expected solid state to be much better than that.san4 wrote:
But the SSD is cheaper, so there's no point in waiting the extra second.
Two WD velociraptors @ $300 each =$600. The 128GB OCZ SSD = $486.
$486 > $600.
That said, I'm disappointed at how slowly the OS boots with the SSD.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-07-17 18:47:05)
600 GB > 128 GBsan4 wrote:
But the SSD is cheaper, so there's no point in waiting the extra second.
Two WD velociraptors @ $300 each =$600. The 128GB OCZ SSD = $486.
$486 > $600.
That said, I'm disappointed at how slowly the OS boots with the SSD.
True, but you can add a 500GB hard drive for $80 and get 628GB > 600GB.CommieChipmunk wrote:
600 GB > 128 GBsan4 wrote:
But the SSD is cheaper, so there's no point in waiting the extra second.
Two WD velociraptors @ $300 each =$600. The 128GB OCZ SSD = $486.
$486 > $600.
That said, I'm disappointed at how slowly the OS boots with the SSD.
I think what CommieChipmunk is saying is that you can get 600 GB all at 10K RPM, as opposed to 128 GB at a slightly faster speed.san4 wrote:
True, but you can add a 500GB hard drive for $80 and get 628GB > 600GB.CommieChipmunk wrote:
600 GB > 128 GBsan4 wrote:
But the SSD is cheaper, so there's no point in waiting the extra second.
Two WD velociraptors @ $300 each =$600. The 128GB OCZ SSD = $486.
$486 > $600.
That said, I'm disappointed at how slowly the OS boots with the SSD.
In terms of raw price:capacity:performance, this is all true, and I dunno if this was san's point, but one does have to ask oneself what the point of 600GB RAID0 is.Poseidon wrote:
I think what CommieChipmunk is saying is that you can get 600 GB all at 10K RPM, as opposed to 128 GB at a slightly faster speed.san4 wrote:
True, but you can add a 500GB hard drive for $80 and get 628GB > 600GB.CommieChipmunk wrote:
600 GB > 128 GB
| boot storage | data storage | cost | (total storage) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1x128GB-SSD | 3x500GB-7.2K-HDD-RAID5 | $726 | (1.128TB) |
| 2x300GB-10K-HDD-RAID0 | 1x500GB-7.2K-HDD | $680 | (1.100TB) |
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-07-17 19:42:41)
Yep. There was a vid once and it took like 10 seconds to boot in with an SSD. OCZ doesn't have very good SSDs. The new Samsung is good or Mtron. Thats what I would get if I'd go for an SSD now.san4 wrote:
That said, I'm disappointed at how slowly the OS boots with the SSD.
The fuck do you call it then?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
"Sarta"
Bloody aussies! ;P
Last edited by Cheez (2008-07-18 02:14:46)
Brits, New Zealanders, and South Africans all do that. Any accent that's based off British English is like that. It's sort of opposite of how they never pronounce their Rs but when a word has no R in it, they pronounce the R anyway. Sort of like how Simon from American Idol calls Paula "Pauler"Noobeater wrote:
sa-ta
not aussie sarrta
Last edited by _j5689_ (2008-07-18 08:35:40)
Utterly untrue. I have yet to use the 128GB OCZ drives, but their 64GB model is way, way faster than any of the Samsung ones. In fact the OCZ 64GB drives are the fastest ones I've used and the Vista boot speed test they conducted does not seem to accurately portray how long it takes to boot using one of those drives - for starters, who the fuck sets their machine to boot from CD if conducting a boot speed test? Aussie noobs, that's who..Sup wrote:
Yep. There was a vid once and it took like 10 seconds to boot in with an SSD. OCZ doesn't have very good SSDs. The new Samsung is good or Mtron. Thats what I would get if I'd go for an SSD now.san4 wrote:
That said, I'm disappointed at how slowly the OS boots with the SSD.
Actually he didn't use raid 0 to test it vs the SSD. Just 1 Velociraptor was used in the testing and the timings weren't FASTER, just barely faster.Poseidon wrote:
This thing is a BEAST.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6820227345
It's actually FASTER than 2 WD 300 GB Velociraptors (10K RPM) in RAID0.
Maxishine (> Trubritar) tests it:
He has 2 Velociraptors in RAID0 and has mentioned so in previous videos, but even if you didn't watch those, he said "I'm going to test it against the Velociraptors".G-NOT_(:0) wrote:
Actually he didn't use raid 0 to test it vs the SSD. Just 1 Velociraptor was used in the testing and the timings weren't FASTER, just barely faster.Poseidon wrote:
This thing is a BEAST.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6820227345
It's actually FASTER than 2 WD 300 GB Velociraptors (10K RPM) in RAID0.
Maxishine (> Trubritar) tests it:
That makes little to absolutely no sense at all.the timings weren't faster, just barely faster
Okay...he only used, ONE Velociraptor when doing the testing, not two in raid-0. Also when I said, "the timings weren't FASTER, just barely faster". I meant a sec or less difference, not like you claimed, "It's actually FASTER than 2 WD 300 GB Velociraptors (10K RPM) in RAID0." and I meant to put quotations when you said "FASTER". As for proofPoseidon wrote:
He has 2 Velociraptors in RAID0 and has mentioned so in previous videos, but even if you didn't watch those, he said "I'm going to test it against the Velociraptors".G-NOT_(:0) wrote:
Actually he didn't use raid 0 to test it vs the SSD. Just 1 Velociraptor was used in the testing and the timings weren't FASTER, just barely faster.Poseidon wrote:
This thing is a BEAST.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6820227345
It's actually FASTER than 2 WD 300 GB Velociraptors (10K RPM) in RAID0.
Maxishine (> Trubritar) tests it:
Apparentely he ordered ANOTHER one of the OCZ drives as well and will test it's timings in Raid0 this week.
alsoThat makes little to absolutely no sense at all.the timings weren't faster, just barely faster
That's simply not the case. The limiting factor with SSDs is data transfer rates, and the OCZ drives have the best around (120MB/s Read - 100MB/s Write). Mtron do make a drive that is faster (130/110 - compared to their typical 100/80), but only one and it is a PATA 1.8" drive which is not the most practical for most users and costs an extortionate amount..Sup wrote:
Mtron is still better than any OCZ.
Ah, okay.G-NOT_(:0) wrote:
Okay...he only used, ONE Velociraptor when doing the testing, not two in raid-0. Also when I said, "the timings weren't FASTER, just barely faster". I meant a sec or less difference, not like you claimed, "It's actually FASTER than 2 WD 300 GB Velociraptors (10K RPM) in RAID0." and I meant to put quotations when you said "FASTER". As for proofPoseidon wrote:
He has 2 Velociraptors in RAID0 and has mentioned so in previous videos, but even if you didn't watch those, he said "I'm going to test it against the Velociraptors".G-NOT_(:0) wrote:
Actually he didn't use raid 0 to test it vs the SSD. Just 1 Velociraptor was used in the testing and the timings weren't FASTER, just barely faster.
Apparentely he ordered ANOTHER one of the OCZ drives as well and will test it's timings in Raid0 this week.
alsoThat makes little to absolutely no sense at all.the timings weren't faster, just barely faster
Right here http://i34.tinypic.com/2aqlnp.jpg
In conclusion, two Velociraptors are in his rig, but only 1 Velociraptor was being tested against the SSD.
ERM? No we don't._j5689_ wrote:
Brits... ...do that.Noobeater wrote:
sa-ta
not aussie sarrta
