I needed the quantity, so I bought 3TB Caviar Green. At this moment I see next to NO reason to purchase an SSD. In fact, I'd sooner upgrade the proc + mobo...so, yeah. Guess you are wrong @DMKano . I for one still prefer huge sizes of normal HDDs. I am sure there are other people with my mindset as well.
...If you need a large amount of space for files then a HDD for storage is ok. ...
Isn't this sort of the point, though? Most everyone today requires alot of storage space, especially anyone who downloads/installs games(bloody games have become enormous today) or videos. Unless, like you mentioned, someone is just doing emails and basic web browsing.
Essentially the conundrum (still) is do you want to buy an HDD for a big main drive or do you want to buy an SSD + an HDD for storage(which means at least double the cost).
For anyone who uses many programs or plays many games(or does any type of editing, etc.), you can't live off just an SSD. Buying both can cost a pretty penny extra for the average person slapping together a new PC build.
SSD won't fully appeal to everyone until they match the efficient size/cost ratio that HDDs still provide. It's just simple economics right now. Even a small SSD is ridiculously more expensive in comparison to an HDD several times the size.
It still has some glaringly obvious disadvantages on the market for the regular consumer(non-professionals).
I've been using just an SSD since 2009. Hard drives are backup devices or other bulk data storage, but not something a reasonable person wants to run real programs off of.
If you actually have 2 TB of data that you actively need, then sure, get a 3 TB hard drive. But that's pretty rare for consumer use, and isn't at all similar to having 2 TB of stuff, most of which is junk that you'll never need but is only there because you don't believe in deleting or unstalling anything. If you buy a 3 TB hard drive and only put 100 GB of stuff on it, you'd have been better off with just a smaller SSD instead.
...If you need a large amount of space for files then a HDD for storage is ok. ...
Isn't this sort of the point, though? Most everyone today requires alot of storage space, especially anyone who downloads/installs games(bloody games have become enormous today) or videos. Unless, like you mentioned, someone is just doing emails and basic web browsing.
Essentially the conundrum (still) is do you want to buy an HDD for a big main drive or do you want to buy an SSD + an HDD for storage(which means at least double the cost).
For anyone who uses many programs or plays many games(or does any type of editing, etc.), you can't live off just an SSD. Buying both can cost a pretty penny extra for the average person slapping together a new PC build.
SSD won't fully appeal to everyone until they match the efficient size/cost ratio that HDDs still provide. It's just simple economics right now. Even a small SSD is ridiculously more expensive in comparison to an HDD several times the size.
It still has some glaringly obvious disadvantages on the market for the regular consumer(non-professionals).
I agree. Don't we all need more space than we used to? I must be missing something with SSD if they generally don't offer as much storage space as HDD.
Because most computers have both? You put your OS and demanding games on the SSD, and your music and other garbage on the HD. Derp.
Yes because everyone has both. And everyone builds their own computer. And everyone wants to at least double up the cost of their hard drive....
If you're willing to spend $200+ on a CPU or video card but not willing to spend $100 on the biggest, most noticeable upgrade you can buy, you're doing it wrong. Even for lower end rigs that really aren't for gaming, I usually recommend an SSD these days.
Yeah I would definitely recommend getting one if you haven't already. There were some problems when they first came out, but the quality has gone up, price has gone down, and the size has increased to the point where HDDs just aren't really a good option anymore.
I can point out clear advantages to an SSD in gaming. Every MMORPG I play where people complain about loading screens being awfully long I have no issues with. And I always load in before my group does :-p.
The article tries to explain why SSDs have better performance than hard drives, but gets rather confused. It explains that hard drives are slow because you have to stop to physically spin to the right spot, but then forgets to include the punch line and starts talking about sequential speeds.
"That's why my WD Caviar Blue can only read and write sequential data at around 130MB/s while the MX200 can handle upwards of 555MB/s for reading and 500MB/s for writing (though in practice it's a bit slower)."
The problem with that is, sequential speeds basically don't matter for most purposes. For most real-life uses, 100 MB/s real-world performance is blazing fast. But if you need to load a lot of small things--as browsers and games commonly do--hard drives can spend most of their time waiting to spin to the right spot and chug along at 1 MB/s. That's not fast. An SSD that keeps performance in such harsh workloads well into the tens of MB/s is massively faster than a hard drive. That's why you need an SSD.
When you have a technology that is far superior in almost every way possible,, and is affordable and pretty much standard on new PCs, do you really need than article on this?
Sort of like an article telling you - why you need to retire your CRT display
You may not need it. Others do. Providing them with information that will improve their gaming experience is a positive.
As for CRTs, two years ago working as a PC field service tech I went to the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing plant in Fort Worth. Their security gate office was using an IBM XT computer with a green screen CRT monitor to print visitor's badges. Their reasoning? It still did what it needed to do and was not a security risk since it wasn't attached to an electronic network. They had plans to replace it but weren't in any rush to do so. They were acting as good stewards of the taxpayers money.
Don't underestimate the security advantages of not being connected to any network. The Internet of Things is going to lead to a bunch of completely unnecessary instances of being hacked because stuff got connected to the Internet for no good reason.
When you have a technology that is far superior in almost every way possible,, and is affordable and pretty much standard on new PCs, do you really need than article on this?
Sort of like an article telling you - why you need to retire your CRT display
You may not need it. Others do. Providing them with information that will improve their gaming experience is a positive.
As for CRTs, two years ago working as a PC field service tech I went to the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing plant in Fort Worth. Their security gate office was using an IBM XT computer with a green screen CRT monitor to print visitor's badges. Their reasoning? It still did what it needed to do and was not a security risk since it wasn't attached to an electronic network. They had plans to replace it but weren't in any rush to do so. They were acting as good stewards of the taxpayers money.
Don't underestimate the security advantages of not being connected to any network. The Internet of Things is going to lead to a bunch of completely unnecessary instances of being hacked because stuff got connected to the Internet for no good reason.
That's why I mentioned it. Sneakernet works just fine for what they were using it for.
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone." Robin Williams
I've been using just an SSD since 2009. Hard drives are backup devices or other bulk data storage, but not something a reasonable person wants to run real programs off of.
If you actually have 2 TB of data that you actively need, then sure, get a 3 TB hard drive. But that's pretty rare for consumer use, and isn't at all similar to having 2 TB of stuff, most of which is junk that you'll never need but is only there because you don't believe in deleting or unstalling anything. If you buy a 3 TB hard drive and only put 100 GB of stuff on it, you'd have been better off with just a smaller SSD instead.
I actually do have a 3 TB external HDD myself. I was just pointing out why not everyone is using SSD: cost and storage size. I don't think the average consumer goes into buying/building a computer thinking about getting multiple drives. I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly know that 500 GB or so isn't enough for me(hence why I have an external one). I don't think it's enough for most gamers, which leads back to the cost of buying multiple drives.
For gamers today, even a single game installed can take up 50+ GBs. Games have literally gotten that big. Not all of them, obviously, but it's not uncommon for a regular game to be over 30 GBs.
You may not need it. Others do. Providing them with information that will improve their gaming experience is a positive.
As for CRTs, two years ago working as a PC field service tech I went to the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing plant in Fort Worth. Their security gate office was using an IBM XT computer with a green screen CRT monitor to print visitor's badges. Their reasoning? It still did what it needed to do and was not a security risk since it wasn't attached to an electronic network. They had plans to replace it but weren't in any rush to do so. They were acting as good stewards of the taxpayers money.
Don't underestimate the security advantages of not being connected to any network. The Internet of Things is going to lead to a bunch of completely unnecessary instances of being hacked because stuff got connected to the Internet for no good reason.
You didn't take it all the way, so I will add: This problem includes internal networks, as well, not just 'net connected ones. Anyone remember the sabotage on that Iranian nuclear reactor, for instance? Granted, you have to get inside, but still...
And, as far as old technology, we all know the stories of NASA using old crap like DOS still for stability and reliability.
I still have a big 300-400 dollar CRT I bought a few years back(I don't really use it anymore, but I do have it in storage) for picture quality. We don't notice it anymore(assuming you put money into a quality monitor), but CRTs had more accurate picture. The downsides of CRT were screen flicker and size, etc.
Point being, like someone else mentioned, newer tech generally has both upsides and downsides.
In the case of SSDs, it's pretty safe to assume the costs will come down and the sizes will continue to grow, but right now, that's still a downside the consumer has to face when buying.
I've been using just an SSD since 2009. Hard drives are backup devices or other bulk data storage, but not something a reasonable person wants to run real programs off of.
If you actually have 2 TB of data that you actively need, then sure, get a 3 TB hard drive. But that's pretty rare for consumer use, and isn't at all similar to having 2 TB of stuff, most of which is junk that you'll never need but is only there because you don't believe in deleting or unstalling anything. If you buy a 3 TB hard drive and only put 100 GB of stuff on it, you'd have been better off with just a smaller SSD instead.
I actually do have a 3 TB external HDD myself. I was just pointing out why not everyone is using SSD: cost and storage size. I don't think the average consumer goes into buying/building a computer thinking about getting multiple drives. I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly know that 500 GB or so isn't enough for me(hence why I have an external one). I don't think it's enough for most gamers, which leads back to the cost of buying multiple drives.
For gamers today, even a single game installed can take up 50+ GBs. Games have literally gotten that big. Not all of them, obviously, but it's not uncommon for a regular game to be over 30 GBs.
You may not need it. Others do. Providing them with information that will improve their gaming experience is a positive.
As for CRTs, two years ago working as a PC field service tech I went to the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing plant in Fort Worth. Their security gate office was using an IBM XT computer with a green screen CRT monitor to print visitor's badges. Their reasoning? It still did what it needed to do and was not a security risk since it wasn't attached to an electronic network. They had plans to replace it but weren't in any rush to do so. They were acting as good stewards of the taxpayers money.
Don't underestimate the security advantages of not being connected to any network. The Internet of Things is going to lead to a bunch of completely unnecessary instances of being hacked because stuff got connected to the Internet for no good reason.
You didn't take it all the way, so I will add: This problem includes internal networks, as well, not just 'net connected ones. Anyone remember the sabotage on that Iranian nuclear reactor, for instance? Granted, you have to get inside, but still...
And, as far as old technology, we all know the stories of NASA using old crap like DOS still for stability and reliability.
I still have a big 300-400 dollar CRT I bought a few years back(I don't really use it anymore, but I do have it in storage) for picture quality. We don't notice it anymore(assuming you put money into a quality monitor), but CRTs had more accurate picture. The downsides of CRT were screen flicker and size, etc.
Point being, like someone else mentioned, newer tech generally has both upsides and downsides.
In the case of SSDs, it's pretty safe to assume the costs will come down and the sizes will continue to grow, but right now, that's still a downside the consumer has to face when buying.
500 GB is probably more than enough for an outright majority of the people who think that 500 GB isn't enough for them. Yes, not everyone. But for most people.
When you have a technology that is far superior in almost every way possible,, and is affordable and pretty much standard on new PCs, do you really need than article on this?
Sort of like an article telling you - why you need to retire your CRT display
On topic though: I've often said that the single largest, and most impactful, upgrade I've ever done to a computer in over 11 years of system building, is installing an SSD. I will never again build a PC without one, especially when they can be had so cheap these days.
Finally got an SSD this year, the difference is amazing.
Then again I also got an i7 proc., 16 GB 2400 RAM, and a 970 Nvidia, all in a huge tower case with extra fans.
Edit: And am loving my MSI MB, never going back to ASUS.
...
Really I just wanted to brag about my computer. Thanks for reading!
Using a 500 GB SSD with 250 GB reserved for games. Then again, I see no need in having more then 10 games installed at a time, as if I play them all. Then again, I have 150mb download speed at home so whenever I do feel like switching games it is done in an instant, the biggest games take me about an hour or so to install. I will never go back to a regular HD, ever, the difference is tremendous.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I have 3 SSD in my system, and one is dedicated to just playing Planetside 2 as they're that affordable now. There now even 2 other newer connection standards for new types of SSD that have even faster read & write times. M.2. is one, other standard you'll see on newer motherboards, I can't remember the name but it starts with Nv, something like that. It makes the access times on SSD of SATA 3.0 SSD look slow.
I needed the quantity, so I bought 3TB Caviar Green. At this moment I see next to NO reason to purchase an SSD. In fact, I'd sooner upgrade the proc + mobo...so, yeah. Guess you are wrong @DMKano . I for one still prefer huge sizes of normal HDDs. I am sure there are other people with my mindset as well.
...If you need a large amount of space for files then a HDD for storage is ok. ...
Isn't this sort of the point, though? Most everyone today requires alot of storage space, especially anyone who downloads/installs games(bloody games have become enormous today) or videos. Unless, like you mentioned, someone is just doing emails and basic web browsing.
Essentially the conundrum (still) is do you want to buy an HDD for a big main drive or do you want to buy an SSD + an HDD for storage(which means at least double the cost).
For anyone who uses many programs or plays many games(or does any type of editing, etc.), you can't live off just an SSD. Buying both can cost a pretty penny extra for the average person slapping together a new PC build.
SSD won't fully appeal to everyone until they match the efficient size/cost ratio that HDDs still provide. It's just simple economics right now. Even a small SSD is ridiculously more expensive in comparison to an HDD several times the size.
It still has some glaringly obvious disadvantages on the market for the regular consumer(non-professionals).
I am glad to see someone understand. And I can wait. It really does not bother me. And yes, I know that some people would scratch their eyes out if their computer booted up in more than a minute. A pointless problem imo.
This is fairly accurate... SSDs provide a large benefit over HDD in terms of a very specific performance metric. However, it's not like anyone was rioting in blogs about their HDD before SSDs became available. HDD performance, for the average gamer, has been perfectly acceptable to the point of being a non-issue.
If you're looking to spend a few extra hundred dollars on your rig anyways an SSD would certainly make you feel like you spent your money effectively. If you're not looking to spend extra cash just to enjoy a very limited (in scope) boost to performance for gaming, an HDD is still absolutely fine.
I needed the quantity, so I bought 3TB Caviar Green. At this moment I see next to NO reason to purchase an SSD. In fact, I'd sooner upgrade the proc + mobo...so, yeah. Guess you are wrong @DMKano . I for one still prefer huge sizes of normal HDDs. I am sure there are other people with my mindset as well.
...If you need a large amount of space for files then a HDD for storage is ok. ...
Isn't this sort of the point, though? Most everyone today requires alot of storage space, especially anyone who downloads/installs games(bloody games have become enormous today) or videos. Unless, like you mentioned, someone is just doing emails and basic web browsing.
Essentially the conundrum (still) is do you want to buy an HDD for a big main drive or do you want to buy an SSD + an HDD for storage(which means at least double the cost).
For anyone who uses many programs or plays many games(or does any type of editing, etc.), you can't live off just an SSD. Buying both can cost a pretty penny extra for the average person slapping together a new PC build.
SSD won't fully appeal to everyone until they match the efficient size/cost ratio that HDDs still provide. It's just simple economics right now. Even a small SSD is ridiculously more expensive in comparison to an HDD several times the size.
It still has some glaringly obvious disadvantages on the market for the regular consumer(non-professionals).
I am glad to see someone understand. And I can wait. It really does not bother me. And yes, I know that some people would scratch their eyes out if their computer booted up in more than a minute. A pointless problem imo.
This is fairly accurate... SSDs provide a large benefit over HDD in terms of a very specific performance metric. However, it's not like anyone was rioting in blogs about their HDD before SSDs became available. HDD performance, for the average gamer, has been perfectly acceptable to the point of being a non-issue.
If you're looking to spend a few extra hundred dollars on your rig anyways an SSD would certainly make you feel like you spent your money effectively. If you're not looking to spend extra cash just to enjoy a very limited (in scope) boost to performance for gaming, an HDD is still absolutely fine.
People had gotten so used to constantly having to wait on their computer that they didn't realize it didn't have to be that way--and that it wouldn't be fixed by several more years of Moore's Law. Twenty years ago, people had gotten used to computers crashing daily. People had the vague idea that this was undesirable, but mostly accepted it because there wasn't a better alternative on the horizon.
Furthermore, very few people realized that the hard drive was the culprit, not the processor or memory that would have been the cause of the same symptoms a decade prior. Even today, how many people could explain why a 7200 RPM hard drive is better than a 5400 RPM hard drive of the same capacity and sequential read/write speeds? By way of analogy, twenty years ago, people weren't trying to cut back on trans fats. It's not that they were good for you then; it's that people didn't know.
There is also the quote attributed (and possibly mis-attributed) to Henry Ford: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
If you can deliver a clearly superior product, people will appreciate that even if they hadn't expected it. Or at least some people will. Some will just insist that it's a waste of money and never try it.
As for the SSD costing "a few extra hundred dollars", it's not 2009 anymore. Or maybe you meant in some other non-US dollars that are worth a lot less. For example, you can get 240 GB for $50 after rebate, or $60 before rebate:
Double that capacity and a lot of people won't still need a hard drive at all. Adding an SSD to a gaming computer is an easy call on all but the smallest budgets, and arguably more essential than a discrete video card.
People had gotten so used to constantly having to wait on their computer that they didn't realize it didn't have to be that way--and that it wouldn't be fixed by several more years of Moore's Law. Twenty years ago, people had gotten used to computers crashing daily. People had the vague idea that this was undesirable, but mostly accepted it because there wasn't a better alternative on the horizon.
Furthermore, very few people realized that the hard drive was the culprit, not the processor or memory that would have been the cause of the same symptoms a decade prior. Even today, how many people could explain why a 7200 RPM hard drive is better than a 5400 RPM hard drive of the same capacity and sequential read/write speeds? By way of analogy, twenty years ago, people weren't trying to cut back on trans fats. It's not that they were good for you then; it's that people didn't know.
There is also the quote attributed (and possibly mis-attributed) to Henry Ford: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
If you can deliver a clearly superior product, people will appreciate that even if they hadn't expected it. Or at least some people will. Some will just insist that it's a waste of money and never try it.
As for the SSD costing "a few extra hundred dollars", it's not 2009 anymore. Or maybe you meant in some other non-US dollars that are worth a lot less. For example, you can get 240 GB for $50 after rebate, or $60 before rebate:
Double that capacity and a lot of people won't still need a hard drive at all. Adding an SSD to a gaming computer is an easy call on all but the smallest budgets, and arguably more essential than a discrete video card.
While that's nice and all, you're stretching when you say 240 GB (or even 500 GB) is going to be completely fine in terms of space for gamers (especially the gamer who will use the PC for storage of other media, such as music).
To highlight: "The recent upward trend seems to have begun in 2011, after which Call of Duty games exceeded 15GB and RAGE became notable for its nearly 20GB download. Things really shot upward in late 2013 however, corresponding with the launch of the PS4 and Xbox One. Since then almost all of these games have been over 20GB and many near 50. The PC version of Grand Theft Auto V is nearly 60GB."
The author of the article specifically mentions MMORPGs enjoying the largest benefit from an SSD.. WoW is currently 32 GBs+ according to Blizzard posts on their forums from 2015. I don't see games getting smaller, specifically not MMORPGs that release multiple expansion packs. It's also worth noting that SSD performance begins to take a hit above roughly 75% capacity, so even on a 500GB, once you reach over 400GB of files, you will start suffering from performance degradation (TRIM has helped with performance degradation over time, though).
As I said, it's a very nice but also very limited (again, in scope) performance boost for the average gamer. As with all products, the consumer will consider things such as the difference in their overall experience provided by SSD. It's certainly an improvement, but is it enough of an improvement to warrant it for the casual or average gamer? Folks are funny about stuff like that, and while load times are significantly lower on an SSD, they aren't unmanageably sluggish on HDD for the average user.
Will they become more and more popular for general use as the price point continues to fall? Of course. But acting as if this is a no-brainer... I don't agree we're there quite yet.
People had gotten so used to constantly having to wait on their computer that they didn't realize it didn't have to be that way--and that it wouldn't be fixed by several more years of Moore's Law. Twenty years ago, people had gotten used to computers crashing daily. People had the vague idea that this was undesirable, but mostly accepted it because there wasn't a better alternative on the horizon.
Furthermore, very few people realized that the hard drive was the culprit, not the processor or memory that would have been the cause of the same symptoms a decade prior. Even today, how many people could explain why a 7200 RPM hard drive is better than a 5400 RPM hard drive of the same capacity and sequential read/write speeds? By way of analogy, twenty years ago, people weren't trying to cut back on trans fats. It's not that they were good for you then; it's that people didn't know.
There is also the quote attributed (and possibly mis-attributed) to Henry Ford: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
If you can deliver a clearly superior product, people will appreciate that even if they hadn't expected it. Or at least some people will. Some will just insist that it's a waste of money and never try it.
As for the SSD costing "a few extra hundred dollars", it's not 2009 anymore. Or maybe you meant in some other non-US dollars that are worth a lot less. For example, you can get 240 GB for $50 after rebate, or $60 before rebate:
Double that capacity and a lot of people won't still need a hard drive at all. Adding an SSD to a gaming computer is an easy call on all but the smallest budgets, and arguably more essential than a discrete video card.
While that's nice and all, you're stretching when you say 240 GB (or even 500 GB) is going to be completely fine in terms of space for gamers (especially the gamer who will use the PC for storage of other media, such as music).
To highlight: "The recent upward trend seems to have begun in 2011, after which Call of Duty games exceeded 15GB and RAGE became notable for its nearly 20GB download. Things really shot upward in late 2013 however, corresponding with the launch of the PS4 and Xbox One. Since then almost all of these games have been over 20GB and many near 50. The PC version of Grand Theft Auto V is nearly 60GB."
The author of the article specifically mentions MMORPGs enjoying the largest benefit from an SSD.. WoW is currently 32 GBs+ according to Blizzard posts on their forums from 2015. I don't see games getting smaller, specifically not MMORPGs that release multiple expansion packs. It's also worth noting that SSD performance begins to take a hit above roughly 75% capacity, so even on a 500GB, once you reach over 400GB of files, you will start suffering from performance degradation (TRIM has helped with performance degradation over time, though).
As I said, it's a very nice but also very limited (again, in scope) performance boost for the average gamer. As with all products, the consumer will consider things such as the difference in their overall experience provided by SSD. It's certainly an improvement, but is it enough of an improvement to warrant it for the casual or average gamer? Folks are funny about stuff like that, and while load times are significantly lower on an SSD, they aren't unmanageably sluggish on HDD for the average user.
Will they become more and more popular for general use as the price point continues to fall? Of course. But acting as if this is a no-brainer... I don't agree we're there quite yet.
Need space? Control Panel -> Programs and Features Uninstall any games you don't expect to play again anytime soon. Done. You can reinstall them later if you decide you want to play them again.
Just for you, I checked on how much space I was using. 67.5 GB. I've only had this computer for about ten months, but my previous computer had nearly six years to accumulate junk. That was around 120 GB or so when I replaced it. Well, actually it got to about 200 GB once, because Windows decided to make huge numbers of copies of stuff for backups and I had to crack down on that.
Yes, it's possible to be a digital packrat and never, ever uninstall anything. But if that's your excuse for not getting an SSD, you're doing it wrong.
2016, you're still playing with a IDE HDD? WTF is wrong with you? Especially if you're playing MMO's, you MIGHT think everything is running fine, but in fact you're not. It's always a question of perception, when we're too used to something we're oblivious that there's something actually wrong. Pete's sake, no wonder most of you are having a hard time with logins and such, you're running on crap PC's, lol. "Game sucks, won't launch" No freaking kidding Einstein.
I needed the quantity, so I bought 3TB Caviar Green. At this moment I see next to NO reason to purchase an SSD. In fact, I'd sooner upgrade the proc + mobo...so, yeah. Guess you are wrong @DMKano . I for one still prefer huge sizes of normal HDDs. I am sure there are other people with my mindset as well.
...If you need a large amount of space for files then a HDD for storage is ok. ...
Isn't this sort of the point, though? Most everyone today requires alot of storage space, especially anyone who downloads/installs games(bloody games have become enormous today) or videos. Unless, like you mentioned, someone is just doing emails and basic web browsing.
Essentially the conundrum (still) is do you want to buy an HDD for a big main drive or do you want to buy an SSD + an HDD for storage(which means at least double the cost).
For anyone who uses many programs or plays many games(or does any type of editing, etc.), you can't live off just an SSD. Buying both can cost a pretty penny extra for the average person slapping together a new PC build.
SSD won't fully appeal to everyone until they match the efficient size/cost ratio that HDDs still provide. It's just simple economics right now. Even a small SSD is ridiculously more expensive in comparison to an HDD several times the size.
It still has some glaringly obvious disadvantages on the market for the regular consumer(non-professionals).
I am glad to see someone understand. And I can wait. It really does not bother me. And yes, I know that some people would scratch their eyes out if their computer booted up in more than a minute. A pointless problem imo.
You entirely missed the point. Playing a MMO, having the game on an SSD makes a huge difference, especially if you are playing in a group or even more so pvping. $200 buys a 500gb ssd and a 2 tb hard drive, the best of both worlds. That is not expensive at all.
Most folks aren't going to delete every game they have once they neglect to launch them every day, but that isn't really the crux of the issue. It's funny, actually, as your example is an example of a piece of hardware creating the same problem it fixes: SSDs speed up installing/uninstalling speeds, and their price point ends up necessitating these frequent installs/uninstalls by forcing consumers to buy smaller drive sizes.
The crux of the issue is the difference in price point for the performance boost. Only in very, very specific circumstances does an SSD provide a noticeable difference in gaming past a loading screen. It's a perception issue; gamers are far more concerned with framerate than load rate. For logical reason, as loading a game in seconds means very little if you're watching a slideshow afterwards. Even with HDD load times, you spend exponentially more time staring at the loaded game world than you do at a loading screen in all but the most instanced and load-heavy of titles (i.e. Destiny, a console title). SSDs are a solution to a problem no one was really complaining about, quite frankly. Which is why you're not seeing major PC manufacturers pushing television/internet ads everywhere singing the praises of their new "SSD-complete PCs." It's a nice boost to a performance area that means relatively little to the market at large.
They'll eventually replace HDDs for general PC use, I absolutely agree. And I support that evolution. However, they won't do so until they can closer align themselves with the price points of HDDs (which, again, will happen). Posts like BigRambo's are where I take issue, because while it's nice to reduce those load times, SSDs won't do much else for the average PC gamer and/or general PC user aside from forcing them to deal with smaller drive sizes in a world where file sizes for user programs (specifically for gaming) are growing at a brisk pace.
Most folks aren't going to delete every game they have once they neglect to launch them every day, but that isn't really the crux of the issue. It's funny, actually, as your example is an example of a piece of hardware creating the same problem it fixes: SSDs speed up installing/uninstalling speeds, and their price point ends up necessitating these frequent installs/uninstalls by forcing consumers to buy smaller drive sizes.
The crux of the issue is the difference in price point for the performance boost. Only in very, very specific circumstances does an SSD provide a noticeable difference in gaming past a loading screen. It's a perception issue; gamers are far more concerned with framerate than load rate. For logical reason, as loading a game in seconds means very little if you're watching a slideshow afterwards. Even with HDD load times, you spend exponentially more time staring at the loaded game world than you do at a loading screen in all but the most instanced and load-heavy of titles (i.e. Destiny, a console title). SSDs are a solution to a problem no one was really complaining about, quite frankly. Which is why you're not seeing major PC manufacturers pushing television/internet ads everywhere singing the praises of their new "SSD-complete PCs." It's a nice boost to a performance area that means relatively little to the market at large.
They'll eventually replace HDDs for general PC use, I absolutely agree. And I support that evolution. However, they won't do so until they can closer align themselves with the price points of HDDs (which, again, will happen). Posts like BigRambo's are where I take issue, because while it's nice to reduce those load times, SSDs won't do much else for the average PC gamer and/or general PC user aside from forcing them to deal with smaller drive sizes in a world where file sizes for user programs (specifically for gaming) are growing at a brisk pace.
You do realize that installing a game is different from launching a game, don't you?
I don't know about you, but I tend not to have ten huge games installed at a time and swap back and forth among all of them every day. I suspect that isn't a very common use case. If I have to go uninstall a game that I expect to never play again every couple of months, so?
As the benefits of SSDs go, gaming isn't the half of it. It's the difference between a computer doing what you ask it to do immediately versus eventually. Going from a hard drive to an SSD doesn't always seem like an amazing jump at first. The latter just works, and you quickly become accustomed to things just working so that it doesn't jump out at you. But once you get used to an SSD, you can never go back. The slowness of a hard drive really jumps out at you when you're used to it not being there. Even simple web browsing on a hard drive is painful.
Comments
If you actually have 2 TB of data that you actively need, then sure, get a 3 TB hard drive. But that's pretty rare for consumer use, and isn't at all similar to having 2 TB of stuff, most of which is junk that you'll never need but is only there because you don't believe in deleting or unstalling anything. If you buy a 3 TB hard drive and only put 100 GB of stuff on it, you'd have been better off with just a smaller SSD instead.
"That's why my WD Caviar Blue can only read and write sequential data at around 130MB/s while the MX200 can handle upwards of 555MB/s for reading and 500MB/s for writing (though in practice it's a bit slower)."
The problem with that is, sequential speeds basically don't matter for most purposes. For most real-life uses, 100 MB/s real-world performance is blazing fast. But if you need to load a lot of small things--as browsers and games commonly do--hard drives can spend most of their time waiting to spin to the right spot and chug along at 1 MB/s. That's not fast. An SSD that keeps performance in such harsh workloads well into the tens of MB/s is massively faster than a hard drive. That's why you need an SSD.
For gamers today, even a single game installed can take up 50+ GBs. Games have literally gotten that big. Not all of them, obviously, but it's not uncommon for a regular game to be over 30 GBs.
You didn't take it all the way, so I will add: This problem includes internal networks, as well, not just 'net connected ones. Anyone remember the sabotage on that Iranian nuclear reactor, for instance?
Granted, you have to get inside, but still...
And, as far as old technology, we all know the stories of NASA using old crap like DOS still for stability and reliability.
I still have a big 300-400 dollar CRT I bought a few years back(I don't really use it anymore, but I do have it in storage) for picture quality.
We don't notice it anymore(assuming you put money into a quality monitor), but CRTs had more accurate picture. The downsides of CRT were screen flicker and size, etc.
Point being, like someone else mentioned, newer tech generally has both upsides and downsides.
In the case of SSDs, it's pretty safe to assume the costs will come down and the sizes will continue to grow, but right now, that's still a downside the consumer has to face when buying.
On topic though: I've often said that the single largest, and most impactful, upgrade I've ever done to a computer in over 11 years of system building, is installing an SSD. I will never again build a PC without one, especially when they can be had so cheap these days.
Then again I also got an i7 proc., 16 GB 2400 RAM, and a 970 Nvidia, all in a huge tower case with extra fans. Edit: And am loving my MSI MB, never going back to ASUS.
...
Really I just wanted to brag about my computer. Thanks for reading!
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
This is fairly accurate... SSDs provide a large benefit over HDD in terms of a very specific performance metric. However, it's not like anyone was rioting in blogs about their HDD before SSDs became available. HDD performance, for the average gamer, has been perfectly acceptable to the point of being a non-issue.
If you're looking to spend a few extra hundred dollars on your rig anyways an SSD would certainly make you feel like you spent your money effectively. If you're not looking to spend extra cash just to enjoy a very limited (in scope) boost to performance for gaming, an HDD is still absolutely fine.
Furthermore, very few people realized that the hard drive was the culprit, not the processor or memory that would have been the cause of the same symptoms a decade prior. Even today, how many people could explain why a 7200 RPM hard drive is better than a 5400 RPM hard drive of the same capacity and sequential read/write speeds? By way of analogy, twenty years ago, people weren't trying to cut back on trans fats. It's not that they were good for you then; it's that people didn't know.
There is also the quote attributed (and possibly mis-attributed) to Henry Ford: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
If you can deliver a clearly superior product, people will appreciate that even if they hadn't expected it. Or at least some people will. Some will just insist that it's a waste of money and never try it.
As for the SSD costing "a few extra hundred dollars", it's not 2009 anymore. Or maybe you meant in some other non-US dollars that are worth a lot less. For example, you can get 240 GB for $50 after rebate, or $60 before rebate:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820228142
Double that capacity and a lot of people won't still need a hard drive at all. Adding an SSD to a gaming computer is an easy call on all but the smallest budgets, and arguably more essential than a discrete video card.
I self identify as a monkey.
As for those criticizing the article, you'll be surprised how many people have no idea about hardware, much less what an SSD drive is.
http://www.pcgamer.com/the-problem-with-growing-download-sizes/
To highlight: "The recent upward trend seems to have begun in 2011, after which Call of Duty games exceeded 15GB and RAGE became notable for its nearly 20GB download. Things really shot upward in late 2013 however, corresponding with the launch of the PS4 and Xbox One. Since then almost all of these games have been over 20GB and many near 50. The PC version of Grand Theft Auto V is nearly 60GB."
The author of the article specifically mentions MMORPGs enjoying the largest benefit from an SSD.. WoW is currently 32 GBs+ according to Blizzard posts on their forums from 2015. I don't see games getting smaller, specifically not MMORPGs that release multiple expansion packs. It's also worth noting that SSD performance begins to take a hit above roughly 75% capacity, so even on a 500GB, once you reach over 400GB of files, you will start suffering from performance degradation (TRIM has helped with performance degradation over time, though).
As I said, it's a very nice but also very limited (again, in scope) performance boost for the average gamer. As with all products, the consumer will consider things such as the difference in their overall experience provided by SSD. It's certainly an improvement, but is it enough of an improvement to warrant it for the casual or average gamer? Folks are funny about stuff like that, and while load times are significantly lower on an SSD, they aren't unmanageably sluggish on HDD for the average user.
Will they become more and more popular for general use as the price point continues to fall? Of course. But acting as if this is a no-brainer... I don't agree we're there quite yet.
Just for you, I checked on how much space I was using. 67.5 GB. I've only had this computer for about ten months, but my previous computer had nearly six years to accumulate junk. That was around 120 GB or so when I replaced it. Well, actually it got to about 200 GB once, because Windows decided to make huge numbers of copies of stuff for backups and I had to crack down on that.
Yes, it's possible to be a digital packrat and never, ever uninstall anything. But if that's your excuse for not getting an SSD, you're doing it wrong.
The crux of the issue is the difference in price point for the performance boost. Only in very, very specific circumstances does an SSD provide a noticeable difference in gaming past a loading screen. It's a perception issue; gamers are far more concerned with framerate than load rate. For logical reason, as loading a game in seconds means very little if you're watching a slideshow afterwards. Even with HDD load times, you spend exponentially more time staring at the loaded game world than you do at a loading screen in all but the most instanced and load-heavy of titles (i.e. Destiny, a console title). SSDs are a solution to a problem no one was really complaining about, quite frankly. Which is why you're not seeing major PC manufacturers pushing television/internet ads everywhere singing the praises of their new "SSD-complete PCs." It's a nice boost to a performance area that means relatively little to the market at large.
They'll eventually replace HDDs for general PC use, I absolutely agree. And I support that evolution. However, they won't do so until they can closer align themselves with the price points of HDDs (which, again, will happen). Posts like BigRambo's are where I take issue, because while it's nice to reduce those load times, SSDs won't do much else for the average PC gamer and/or general PC user aside from forcing them to deal with smaller drive sizes in a world where file sizes for user programs (specifically for gaming) are growing at a brisk pace.
I don't know about you, but I tend not to have ten huge games installed at a time and swap back and forth among all of them every day. I suspect that isn't a very common use case. If I have to go uninstall a game that I expect to never play again every couple of months, so?
As the benefits of SSDs go, gaming isn't the half of it. It's the difference between a computer doing what you ask it to do immediately versus eventually. Going from a hard drive to an SSD doesn't always seem like an amazing jump at first. The latter just works, and you quickly become accustomed to things just working so that it doesn't jump out at you. But once you get used to an SSD, you can never go back. The slowness of a hard drive really jumps out at you when you're used to it not being there. Even simple web browsing on a hard drive is painful.