or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Assassin's Simple/Beginner HTPC Buying Guide
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Assassin's Simple/Beginner HTPC Buying Guide - Page 507

post #15181 of 15900
Quote:
Originally Posted by LastButNotLeast View Post

Only?! That's half the drive. wink.gif

That's the point: performance tests on SSDs show that a drive performs MUCH faster if you are only using 1/2 a drive rather then a drive that is nearly full. With plenty of free space, your drive has more space available for performance load balancing and also minimizes the write/rewrite cycles on already filled cells. So it increases performance and lengthen's the drive's lifespan.

I'm using 52 GB of space and haven't installed any games or other applications that are storage space intensive. If I only had a 64GB drive, I'd only have perhaps 10GB of free space left (and my drive would be nearly 90% full).

Just wanted to point out that in terms of SSD, you'd rather have more space than you need rather then a drive that is nearly full. And 64GB (perhaps 60GB formatted) doesn't go as far as you might think after you install a bunch of programs and your OS, etc.
post #15182 of 15900
SSD slows down a lot when near full. Also lowers reliability.

Also smaller SSD is slower than same model but larger.

Increases reliability and increases performance are significant advantages IMO

As is future upgrade paths or extra just in case...

I like idea if 128GB half full over a 64GB near full for sure... Even if both work. One clearly works much better.
post #15183 of 15900
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

SSD slows down a lot when near full. Also lowers reliability.

Also smaller SSD is slower than same model but larger.

Increases reliability and increases performance are significant advantages IMO

As is future upgrade paths or extra just in case...

I like idea if 128GB half full over a 64GB near full for sure... Even if both work. One clearly works much better.

More misinformation. This place is full of it.

You will see about a 5-10% decrease in speed with a half to nearly full drive. This is not "a lot" or "much better".

I think some people just post things without actually thinking or researching whether or not they are true. Does a SSD slow down as it fills up? Yes. Does this slowing make a noticeable real-world difference? Probably not especially in this forum.

post #15184 of 15900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Just restart

Sorry, was that i response to me?

What would you recommend me starting at?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby2478 View Post

Only thing I'd possibly consider changing would be your SSD. I'd shoot for 128GB instead of only 64. Your drive will run faster and last longer with the more free space it has available.

For example, I have a 128GB drive split into 2 partitions: 112GB for my OS and programs (Win7 64), and an 8GB partition for Intel Rapid Start. I have no games installed and nothing crazy like a developer's suite or anything, and I only have 68GB free space.

If you plan on installing a lot of games (which chew up space), then I'd consider even going up to a 250GB or 500GB.

Thanks, i have a couple more questions if you don't mind.

Will using a SSD make that much of a difference? I'm not bothered how fast Windows loads and stuff as i wont be using it for anything PC related but i do want XBMC to run very smoothly so don't know if the SSD will affect XBMC or if the stuff i have chosen already has the speed/power to do that already.

Also Which HDD out of the 3 would you recommend and are the 300W PSU's the case's come with enough to run it all and do they have enough room to hold 2 drives at least but maybe more for upgrades?
post #15185 of 15900
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

More misinformation. This place is full of it.

You will see about a 5-10% decrease in speed with a half to nearly full drive. This is not "a lot" or "much better".

I think some people just post things without actually thinking or researching whether or not they are true. Does a SSD slow down as it fills up? Yes. Does this slowing make a noticeable real-world difference? Probably not especially in this forum.
Couldn't agree more. The real question about hard drives is whether or not they'll perform fast enough for the task(s) you're asking it to do. In the case of a HTPC, that usually means whether or not it can transfer data fast enough for you to watch a recording or an HD movie you ripped from Blu-Ray or if it can handle multiple streams from tuners to record several shows simultaneously. Even at diminished performance, just about any hard drive has the ability to do this with no problems. I never worry about specs for hard drives for this very reason. They pretty much work or they don't. If they don't then it's probably a defective drive.
post #15186 of 15900
It's not that the slower more full drive won't work acceptably...

It's that a SSD twice the size is only $20 more.

If it was twice the price I might change my feelings but for such a low cost the double capacity 128gb is the value hot spot IMO

It's not raw speed. Not that alone anyways.

Sure speed matters. Of coarse better performance matters.

But you adding more capacity, more reliability, and more speed... For not much cost.

It's all the factors that make 128>64

Plus while assassin is trying to make a point those charts are misleading and so is his idea.

A 128 is already faster than a 64gb. So a near full 64gb must vs a less half full 128.

That percentage of performance difference is greater than that chart suggests because your comparing different size and speed drives even before you start filling them up.

I'll agree the speed isn't a deal breaker. But it's not a negative. It just an extra positive benefit of the larger drive.

The major reason is capacity. For me 64 isn't enough long term with programs and natural bloating ....

I have pure office pcs that hit the 60gb drive size limits all the time with nothing but ms office installed and all documents stored on a server. Outlook or thunderbird email clients alone can take 15GB of space in just imap inbox space.

I understand the point your making and while I don't disagree on the speed issue alone I disagree in the big picture and I'm not changing my mind on 64gb vs 128gb issue.

It's clear as night and day to me I'm 100% right
post #15187 of 15900
Note: I own 20+ SSDs that are either 60/64 or 120/128 sized.

I'm speaking from extensive experience.

No one will ever regret getting a 128 GB drive over a 64gb drive. No one.

I'm sure most will regret the opposite eventually.
post #15188 of 15900
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

It's not that the slower more full drive won't work acceptably...

It's that a SSD twice the size is only $20 more.

If it was twice the price I might change my feelings but for such a low cost the double capacity 128gb is the value hot spot IMO

It's not raw speed. Not that alone anyways.

Sure speed matters. Of coarse better performance matters.

But you adding more capacity, more reliability, and more speed... For not much cost.

It's all the factors that make 128>64

Plus while assassin is trying to make a point those charts are misleading and so is his idea.

A 128 is already faster than a 64gb. So a near full 64gb must vs a less half full 128.

That percentage of performance difference is greater than that chart suggests because your comparing different size and speed drives even before you start filling them up.

I'll agree the speed isn't a deal breaker. But it's not a negative. It just an extra positive benefit of the larger drive.

The major reason is capacity. For me 64 isn't enough long term with programs and natural bloating ....

I have pure office pcs that hit the 60gb drive size limits all the time with nothing but ms office installed and all documents stored on a server. Outlook or thunderbird email clients alone can take 15GB of space in just imap inbox space.

I understand the point your making and while I don't disagree on the speed issue alone I disagree in the big picture and I'm not changing my mind on 64gb vs 128gb issue.

It's clear as night and day to me I'm 100% right

Then prove it.

I never said anything about 64gb vs 128gb.
post #15189 of 15900
For HTPC, benchmarks are nearly useless.

Over a certain (pretty low) threshold, perceived performance vs. actual performance goes completely flat. After that threshold you're increasing the cost, the power consumption, the cooling needed, etc. but not making it better.

I'd spend a lot more time looking at the quality, features of components and tasks you want to accomplish with your (HT)PC vs. performance benchmarks. The true benchmark of a component should be a set of features compared to how well the component satisfies those features.
post #15190 of 15900
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by StardogChampion View Post

For HTPC, benchmarks are nearly useless.

Over a certain (pretty low) threshold, perceived performance vs. actual performance goes completely flat. After that threshold you're increasing the cost, the power consumption, the cooling needed, etc. but not making it better.

I'd spend a lot more time looking at the quality, features of components and tasks you want to accomplish with your (HT)PC vs. performance benchmarks. The true benchmark of a component should be a set of features compared to how well the component satisfies those features.

Agree 100%. I think you and I are in the minority though in viewing avs as a htpc forum.
post #15191 of 15900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Note: I own 20+ SSDs that are either 60/64 or 120/128 sized.

I'm speaking from extensive experience.

No one will ever regret getting a 128 GB drive over a 64gb drive. No one.

I'm sure most will regret the opposite eventually.

Actually, as you know, I regret getting one at all (which, I know, puts me in the minority). I think the money is much better spent on a big hard drive for data storage and a 60GB system partition.

But we've butted heads over that already. wink.gif

Michael

post #15192 of 15900
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Agree 100%. I think you and I are in the minority though in viewing avs as a htpc forum.
Bite your tongue. I'm here primarily for HTPCs. There are lots of other forums for the rest.wink.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by LastButNotLeast View Post

Actually, as you know, I regret getting one at all (which, I know, puts me in the minority). I think the money is much better spent on a big hard drive for data storage and a 60GB system partition.
But we've butted heads over that already. wink.gif
Michael
Been there myself until I bit the bullet and bought a SSD to see what the fuss was all about. Best purchase I ever made. I now use them in all of my PCs just for the OS and apps. I use standard SATA drives for data storage. I've got far better things to do with my life than wait for PCs to boot up.
post #15193 of 15900
Ya... All three of you guys are crazy.

I'm passionate on the issue.

SSD is must have. Huge performance and user experience improvement that's obvious and highly desirable to me.

128gb is must have. 60gb is too small.
It's not just the performance issue. I can live with a slower drive cause its near full and I can live with the speed of a smaller drive that isn't as fast as a bigger one. That's not the big issue.

It's a small factor that just adds into the total equation.

But the size thing is the huge part. 128 is better. Experience has proven this to me. You don't have to move or delete and you can use the SSD for what it's for ...

Price just isn't prohibitive making 128 better value because its not much more $ . It's performance advantage taken away I'd still feel same way.

You guys are arguing with me and my opinion because its me and you personally want to disagree. You picking out the small issue of "benchmarks" and performance and fighting with me on that... Even though I basically agree with you.

Big picture. That's what I'm talking about. 128 is better and 64 is not as good. I'm not going to say performance doesn't matter cause it always does. Empty drive is faster. Bigger drive is faster. Both is even more faster.

How much you personally value that is your own discretion but I'm not wrong. It's fact.
I appreciate your trying to downplay its importance and don't disagree...

But the big picture is 128 is twice capacity for small cost... It is better choice with increased endurance and reliability. The performance is also better but even if it wasn't I'd still feel same way.
post #15194 of 15900
Thread Starter 
Except that's not at all what you were saying. You were touting an empty SSD being noticeably faster when in fact it is not.

Looks like you may be trying to recant that statement a little bit.
post #15195 of 15900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Ya... All three of you guys are crazy.
Don't listen to him, he's lying.biggrin.gif
post #15196 of 15900
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Except that's not at all what you were saying. You were touting an empty SSD being noticeably faster when in fact it is not.

Looks like you may be trying to recant that statement a little bit.

I happily admitted it was the least of all the reason a why I preferred bigger drive.

The speed penalty of a small full drive isn't a deal killer.

It's just a small factor.

But I've had both on multiple machines.
It's a reality.

I think the truth and reality is in between us some place.

It's not completely un-noticeable. We are talking 100MB sec read speed difference. That's the max speed of a WD green.

Weather or not your personal performance compass and euquiptment is going to be noticeable on that issue is debatable.
Normal user on basic HTPC I'd say no. That's your point right ???

But for somone who is used to a fast high end large SSD on a serious pc workstation - I can say with certainty a full 60 GB SSD is going to he noticeably slower real world and demonstrable in benchmarks.

Your opinion is not universally right across all users and applications. Nor is mine.

Neither of us is wrong. It's just opinions.
post #15197 of 15900
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain_video View Post

Don't listen to him, he's lying.biggrin.gif

Lol.

I'm a huge SSD speed nut. I crave it. I notice it. I appreciate it.

There no such thing as a PC that's too fast.
post #15198 of 15900
SSD or no SSD?

I have an i3 SandyBridge with a Ceton on 24x7 used exclusively for live and recorded TV in WMC.. An SSD in that box is a total waste. I like SSDs but if you are using the PC as a TV server and you reboot maybe every couple of months there is zero benefit I can find with the SSD. I had a Clarksdale with the Ceton in it before. It had an 128 GB Intel SSD and I was trying to use it as an all around HTPC plus TV server. I was always tinkering with it. The SSD made that box a joy to work with it.

I have pretty much given up for the time being on HTPC as a concept but have become very committed to the WMC based cable/OTA TV server concept. The Ceton is stable enough, the HD Homeruns are appliances and my Tivo is redundant now. A PC or a true HTPC will benefit enormously from an SSD. A TV server hardly at all.
post #15199 of 15900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

You guys are arguing with me and my opinion because its me and you personally want to disagree. You picking out the small issue of "benchmarks" and performance and fighting with me on that... Even though I basically agree with you.

If you really believe the only reason I believe benchmarks are useless for most HTPC tasks is to make some personal statement against you -- I really wish you the best of luck.
post #15200 of 15900
Quote:
Originally Posted by StardogChampion View Post

If you really believe the only reason I believe benchmarks are useless for most HTPC tasks is to make some personal statement against you -- I really wish you the best of luck.

Don't read too much into things. I'm saying its fun to argue these things against me. It's meant more playful than your seeing it as.

Please no offense was intended.,
post #15201 of 15900
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Your opinion is not universally right across all users and applications. Nor is mine.

Neither of us is wrong. It's just opinions.

Except the data I posted isn't really a "benchmark". Its a simple test showing how may seconds it takes to load the horribly inefficient resource hog that was Windows Vista.

So even with something as horrific as Vista there is only a 5-10% difference in load times. Something like Media Browser, XBMC, etc (which loads in just a few seconds) is not going to be noticeable at all.

Instead of retracting your statement you do what you normally do and try to change the subject (64GB vs 128GB in this instance) instead of saying that what you triumphantly declared as a truth using such descriptors as "a lot" and "much" when describing your perception of the difference that I was describing here was at least partially incorrect and most likely just not at all true.

In fact, the difference here is minimal in real world usage and this is just one example out of many that gets perpetuated across all of these tech and PC websites without someone who actually checks, experiments, or reports the work of others who have already tested instead of offering up baseless hyperbole that they read on some website or forum somewhere.
post #15202 of 15900
That's all wrong ^

But I'll give up.
post #15203 of 15900
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

That's all wrong ^

But I'll give up.

smile.gif
post #15204 of 15900
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

More misinformation. This place is full of it.

You will see about a 5-10% decrease in speed with a half to nearly full drive. This is not "a lot" or "much better".

I think some people just post things without actually thinking or researching whether or not they are true. Does a SSD slow down as it fills up? Yes. Does this slowing make a noticeable real-world difference? Probably not especially in this forum.


I'd rather not start a long debate, but I can't completely ignore this either

The chart only includes the higher end SSDs from their respective brands frown.gif

I've not done this sort of testing myself, but from other comparisons on that site and Toms Hardware it's pretty clear that 60 < 128 < 256 < 512 (not just mathematically smile.gif but in terms of their performance) Obviously it's frivolous to debate how much one would notice this in the real world, but check out this chart from the same site that includes a Mushkin Chronos 120GB http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/Crucial_V4/boot_data.jpg

Notice the much more "staggered" appearance of their results at <5%, 50%, 75%, and 90%. I'm actually going to add a vertex 3 60GB to a new windows build this weekend. I'll perform some boot tests at similar loadings and report my own findings, but I'd bet it's going to have a more staggered result.

If you look at that site's Vector 128 GB review, you'll see that 50, 75, and 90 are NOT staggered. Interesting appears that newer tech is going to completely debunk this notion, but I can't say that it doesn't apply at all to an old 60GB SSD since there is no relevant science to support the claim. In fact, going from 46 to 55 seconds does seem noticeable to me, and it could be worse for the "budget" models
post #15205 of 15900
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post

I'd rather not start a long debate, but I can't completely ignore this either

The chart only includes the higher end SSDs from their respective brands frown.gif

I've not done this sort of testing myself, but from other comparisons on that site and Toms Hardware it's pretty clear that 60 < 128 < 256 < 512 (not just mathematically smile.gif but in terms of their performance) Obviously it's frivolous to debate how much one would notice this in the real world, but check out this chart from the same site that includes a Mushkin Chronos 120GB http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/akg/Storage/Crucial_V4/boot_data.jpg

Notice the much more "staggered" appearance of their results at <5%, 50%, 75%, and 90%. I'm actually going to add a vertex 3 60GB to a new windows build this weekend. I'll perform some boot tests at similar loadings and report my own findings, but I'd bet it's going to have a more staggered result.

If you look at that site's Vector 128 GB review, you'll see that 50, 75, and 90 are NOT staggered. Interesting appears that newer tech is going to completely debunk this notion, but I can't say that it doesn't apply at all to an old 60GB SSD since there is no relevant science to support the claim. In fact, going from 46 to 55 seconds does seem noticeable to me, and it could be worse for the "budget" models

I see what you are saying. However...

1. I am not debating that 60/64GB is slower than a 256GB, for example. What I am trying to point out (or debunk) is this notion that a SSD slows down "a lot" or is "much" slower than a completely empty drive

2. Which segues nicely into yoru second point. Yes, I agree that 46 to 55 second is likely noticeable (again this was with resource hog Vista). However, that is from a cold boot. How many times are you going to be doing that after your initial setup? Once a week? Once a month? I rarely ever restart my machine. More to the point if a program were to open in, say, 10 second for example, that same difference would be about 1 second difference. Not noticeable. And again most programs open in considerably less time than 10 seconds which makes it even more of a non-issue.

And your point about newer tech being able to debunk this notion is completely appropriate. This is an older study with older tech which makes this even more of a non-issue.
post #15206 of 15900
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

However, that is from a cold boot. How many times are you going to be doing that after your initial setup? Once a week? Once a month? I rarely ever restart my machine. More to the point if a program were to open in, say, 10 second for example, that same difference would be about 1 second difference. Not noticeable. And again most programs open in considerably less time than 10 seconds which makes it even more of a non-issue.

That's been my point all along. Thank you.

Now I'll go away again....

wink.gif

post #15207 of 15900
I must be different because I really hate waiting for things to open .... Even if its a second.
post #15208 of 15900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Lol.

I'm a huge SSD speed nut. I crave it. I notice it. I appreciate it.

There no such thing as a PC that's too fast.
Except that you only see the speed benefit when the PC boots in the case of a HTPC. Beyond that you probably won't see a bit of difference in performance between a SSD and a standard drive.
post #15209 of 15900
That's over a billion percent inaccurate ^.

You see the speed boost from SSD over HDD everywhere. The faster the SSD the bigger the difference.

A "fast" SSD for an OS is light years better than a HDD at everything.

Opening a browser, a program , populating album art from cache, etc...
post #15210 of 15900
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

That's over a billion percent inaccurate ^.

You see the speed boost from SSD over HDD everywhere. The faster the SSD the bigger the difference.

A "fast" SSD for an OS is light years better than a HDD at everything.

Opening a browser, a program , populating album art from cache, etc...

Agreed. I find the biggest gain is with opening large libraries; especially those that use a lot of artwork and images.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Assassin's Simple/Beginner HTPC Buying Guide