With prices like these - everybody should have SSD's for their OS

CountMike · 04 Nov 2018

I have two M.2 slots in this one MB but only one is NVMe, other is SATA x4. so I'm considering a Samsung 860, 500GB for it. Same model is made in two configs, classic SATA3 and M.2 SATAx4. Or maybe to get Samsung 970 evo 500GB and move this 250GB to second M.2 slot. Anyway, 2 more SSDs here, a 240GB for games and a 128 GB for Mint. Two more HDDs with 3TB between them but SSDs to replace them would be way too much.
I also use one SSD with 128GB with USB3 adapter for larger data transfer because it's much cheaper than buying USB3 stick of that capacity and helluva faster. Those two SSDs (Kingston) were about $20 each on sale. Another $5 for USB3 adapter. 128GB USB3 stick, also Kingston is about twice that price.

Cr00zng · 04 Nov 2018

There are plenty of MBs with two PCIe x4 support nowadays and it's great utilizing them for the OS and data drives, especially for databases. The performance of the system isn't as noticeable for documents, but still, it's pretty much the best performance at the current level of hardware technology. Intel Optane M.2 has better performance, but its size and cost are the limiting factors.

My laptop is backed up to a 8-10 years old OCZ 128GB SATA III SSD in a USB 3.0 adapter. The cost of USB 3.x flash drive had come down considerably; if I'd need to start from scratch, I'd probably would go with flash drive, instead of the SSD/USB adapter route. Even if the performance is measurably somewhat lower....

Samuria · 04 Nov 2018

Just got a 480 gig scandisk for £56

CountMike · 04 Nov 2018

Samuria said:

Just got a 480 gig scandisk for £56

Didn't you mean SanDisk ?

TairikuOkami · 04 Nov 2018

I would not use SSD, even I were given one for free. I prefer reliability over performance.

Besides SSD causes SATA driver to work excessively, so it can cause a slowdown on cheap CPUs.

CountMike · 04 Nov 2018

TairikuOkami said:

I would not use SSD, even I were given one for free. I prefer reliability over performance.

Where did you get that idea ? SSDs are just as or even more reliable than HDDs, if nothing else but for lack of mechanical parts. Good make and model SSDs are rated for at least 10 years of normal use. Samsung gives 5 years warranty for their SSDs.

Cr00zng · 04 Nov 2018

TairikuOkami said:

I would not use SSD, even I were given one for free. I prefer reliability over performance.

Besides SSD causes SATA driver to work excessively, so it can cause a slowdown on cheap CPUs.

My personal experience disagrees with you. My 6-8 years old OCZ Vertex 3 SSD still works just fine. For that matter, I have never encountered an SSD drive failed and been using them for a long time, starting with 64GBs size. In the meantime, I had couple of HDDs failed within the same age range.

SSDs are faster, quiter, use less power and just as reliable if not more as HDDs. That had been my justification to switch from HDD to SSD for the last ten years or so...

Clintlgm · 04 Nov 2018

Yes, I have changed all my OS drives to Samsung SSD and my notebook has NVME M.2 500GB for OS and 1 TB Samsung 850 PRO, no mechanical drives at all. I still use WD Black hard Drives for data on all other desktops. My Wifes HP All In One I put in a SATA SSD 850 Evo, that one is running a I3 5th gen cpu and the performance was increased greatly over the 7200 RPM hard drive that it came with, I started with SSD in 2012 and have yet to have one fail in any way. I find my Spinners last longer when used for storage only. Seems 3 years was a long time for a spinner to last when being used for the OS.