SSD vs HDD for OS (poll included) - Page 4

I spent 250$ on a 74gb and $275 for 150 GB in the 2000's

WD raptors first generation.

And they were way slower than SSD with way more noise too.

Your always a negative nelly.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that every game I ever tried on SSD booted and loaded faster- less wait between levels loading- and generally a quicker and more pleasing experience. The difference was not even close and the performance increase can not be denied. This is across at least 10 different games I have played. It's generally universal considering the SSD is clearly faster and can read faster than a HDD. Any circumstance where this is not the case would be unique to a specific game design (flaw) and probably an older game requiring limited loading. Modern titles are actually being designed to take advantage of SSD.

I think for gamers SSD is even more important than for a HTPC.

While graphics performance won't improve- certainly game play and load times will. Lack of waiting alone makes it worth it.

Ask any serious gamer or in any gamer forum and they will scream the benefits of SSD for you.

Since gaming machines are not entry level budget machines I see absolutley no reason at all not to ever include an SSD in the build- or uprade.

Pretending that SSD won't provide benefit over HDD for gamers is total rubbish.

Also,

You linked an article from 2008. It's a bit outdated and none of that applies on a modern title or game machine.

Last,

The best SSD they used was a slow as dirt Intel from 4 years ago. It wouldn't stand a chance against a budget Sandforce/marvel based SSD Drive from today.

I think as a boot drive the SSD is the clear winner. I believe we proved this point already too.

It's much faster.
It's much quieter.
It's much more power efficient.

And,

At $60 for a 60GB it's probably cheaper. Even 320GB HDD's sell for that and offer little storage.

Article or not- I have two gaming machines both on SSD. I have gamed for years without SSD. I have gamed on similar machines with and without SSD.

There is no doubt in my mind that "in general" across most games- SSD will provide you a better user experience. Specifically- faster loading of the game. Faster loading of levels. Smoother and more responsive game play. Faster/better exits and restarts.

While there might exist a game that might not show very tangible benefits with an SSD- those games are few and far in between.

There is many more games (I.E Most games) that will show real benefit with SSD. The games that do not would obviously not be a game that is very dependent on loading information quickly. SSD won't improve your graphics like a video card- but it certainly will improve your game play and reduce your wait times substantially.

I can't even understand how you can be so adamant that this is not the case.

I never said it would improve all games in all situations. I said most games, and in general across the variety. It seems like the amount of games that would benefit from SSD would far out number the amount of games that don't.

Knowing that SSD's are capable of much higher performance than HDD it's almost common sense that games would load quicker and run better off SSD than HDD. It's almost idiotic to think otherwise.

I always get a laugh from you lars99. Your so quick to go against anything I say that it does not even matter if it defies common sense, logic, or well known information.

I am a long time gamer- and built my PC's for game performance for a long time. I know a lot more about this area than HTPC for sure.

It's without question that in general SSD based gaming systems deliver better performance and user experience across most games. You might find an exception to this with a specific title or for a specific reason. But- to suggest a HDD based gaming system is equal or better than SSD based gaming system- or that SSD is not superior is borderline insane.

I am not sure I should even have to go any further with this topic. It's seems like I would be beating a dead horse. In fact this horse has been dead for years.

The article you linked used MLC Nand in the SSD too, which can be known to cause hiccups.

I would conclude with the agreement that if you wanted to build a gaming system or game without an SSD- that is each individual's personal choice; But- your suggestion that it's not needed, won't improve performance, won't decrease load times, won't provide a better user experience across "most" games, and SSD is not superior to HDD is not only wrong- it's crazy.
Just because you might not like me and thus have a tendency to go against anything I say does not make the well known superiority of SSD over HDD any less significant- It just makes you look silly.

Your reaching hard on this one. It's a bit out of reach I think.

+1
Agree.

While the title of the page he cites might sound like it supports his claims- the body of the text and evidence presented tells a totally different story.


I lol-ed hard at the "Read and attempt to digest the entire article.

Here is what I saw on that page you linked:


Did I miss something in the article and link you provided?

It almost seems to prove my point much more than yours.

Perhaps my "attempt to digest the entire article" as you suggested was not effective.

You forgot,


Mediabrowser vs XBMC- what is best ??

That's always a good one.. lol.

I am a Ninja

A better solution is a 30GB SSD using the intel technolgy to speed boost a normal HDD.
But then again for $60 you could just get a 60GB and move the OS there.

Only in a laptop where you don't have a second HDD bay would it make sense to integrate them vs SSD +HDD.