Widescreen Gaming Forum

I wouldn't bother. Seriously.

Yeah its definitely not /that/ much of an improvement at all.

thanks guys, i thought it over, and it's just too much. i'm sticking to my 128GB SSD for Win7 and utilities while the 2TB for Steam and games and what not HD media/movies/pictures and stuff.

quick curious question, my 2TB HDD is 64mb cache, how does that differ from the old 32/16/8mb cache with old drives? meaning what benefit would 64mb cache would give me?

it's a Seagate Barracuda XT, one of the few hat run at 7200rpm.

In theory (and perhaps oversimplified) more cache = less 'platter bothering' for regularly accessed small bits of data. Obviously limited by how much can be fit in the cache. This doesn't really do much for games, as they're regularly ridiculous install sizes now.

To be computer boot up is extremely important, which is why Win7 is on the SSD. I calculated ut todaydeom reseting(push the rest button) to desktop or rook me 30 seconds. Is that fast enough by SSD standards?

Mine does it in 40 seconds. About 30 of those are taken by the POST I believe, and therefore not harddisk related. Just like PS, I have a Gigabyte X58.

Perhaps I should search for a quick boot option somewhere in the bios...

Quick Boot is enabled by default, X-W.

It's apparently a BIOS thing, as the later UD5 BIOSes supposedly deal with some of the POST delays... but since my system works quite well right now, I just leave it alone. I only update BIOSes if it's something serious.

Quick Boot is enabled by default, X-W.

If it was, I'll have turned it off when I had issues at first (due to defective memory). No biggie though, I just 'might' look into it at some point, but it won't be anytime soon probably ;)

Fair enough.

However, quick boot makes... oh, about two seconds difference? And does nothing for the long periods the board just sits there after identifying all devices and starting to load Windows. :)

I agree with X-Warrior: By the time my SSD bites the big one, there will be larger and faster ones for less money. It's not going to be handed down to my grandchildren.

For my own part, I have a 64 GB OCZ Agility, which was a good price for the time when I got it. My main application is World of Warcraft. I have Windows 7, WoW, Folding@home, and a few small utilities on the SSD, and they fit well, though the latest big patch overflowed and I had to swap the game folder to the mechanical HD and back. (I have a mirrored RAID array, 2x1 TB, both WD Caviar Green.)

The SSD's speed disappointed me. It is faster than a mechanical, but not up to the specs posted on OCZ's site. And while I do have enough technical competency to build my own PC, diagnosing what little part of Windows or the electronics is diminishing the speed isn't in my repertoire. Still, one of the benefits for me is that it's quiet. I hate noisy PCs.

One of the problems you run into with a SSD/MHD hybrid is that you always have to use the Custom option in installation, because your boot drive will always be the default target. This doesn't take much training, but you do have to be aware of the temporary files placed by Steam, Amazon Games, and others-- there's often a setting to get them onto another drive.

I was surprised to learn, though, that (as an earlier reader posted) ReadyBoost exercises the HD. is this true? I have a 4 GB flash drive permenantly stuck into my PC, devoted to that-- and I'm not sure it's making a great difference, but I have it there anyway. Does it in fact cause more reads and writes than it should?

bout to say for application use, SSD is great. and the write limits are in theory...and in that same theory it has been stated that it would take longer to hit the theoretical limited writes than the life of technology anyways.


Anyways, as someone that bought into the Raptor...don't bother, its really not that much faster. In most games I might get in two seconds before someone else...but...you really cannot play multi-player games by yourself.