Storage Solutions Decisions (HDD) - need advice

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Vandal

Forerunner
I'm thinking of sprucing up my storage and I'm at a loss for choice. Since this is for my gaming rig I'm in two minds, or three minds. I simply cannot decide on what I should prioritize - speed or space.

WD Black edition or Blue, a velociraptor or not, are the Seagate drives too unpredictable in terms of failure rates? Is WD more reliable? I've no specific budget in mind, but I like to spend once and have piece of mind.

If I wish to RAID at a future date, do the RE drives make sense? Are these slower than the Black Editions or Seagates 7200.11?

How good is the 7200.11 1.5 TB in terms of reliability?

I've started a poll so you guys can help me decide by choosing an option. I'll go with the most voted option, so please leave any arguments via comments.

FYI:
Current windows drive - Seagate 250 GB slim
Others: 2 x WD2500KS (want to replace), 2 x WD5000AAKS (one goes into my HTPC post this upgrade)
 
for OS drive go for SSD :P , raptor are old now ..

get ocz vertex SSD if u can + 1.5TB or use current OS drive with 1.5Tb till SSD becomes more affordable .
 
Yup, if you are looking from pure performance POV then go for OCZ or Intel SSD's for OS drive and if looking for a balance between performance and price then will suggest raid 0+1 of either Seagate 7200.12 drives or WD drives.
 
RoBoGhOsT said:
for OS drive go for SSD :P , raptor are old now ..
get ocz vertex SSD if u can + 1.5TB or use current OS drive with 1.5Tb till SSD becomes more affordable .
Click to expand...

Look if I wanted an SSD I would mention one in the options. Besides I don't think I'd like disabling the swap file on my primary partition for fear of MLC flash dying sooner. IMO flash isn't reliable enough for a primary drive ATM. Besides I need more space than 1 60 GB SSD as I plan on a dual boot with Vista x64 and Win7 x64.

I also don't like the sucky write speeds of the SSD drives. BTW I use SSDs in office regularly and the practical read speeds aren't as impressive as the HD Tach benchies.

Now back to the point. C'mon guys...
 
thebanik said:
Yup, if you are looking from pure performance POV then go for OCZ or Intel SSD's for OS drive
Click to expand...

Lol do you have any clue how much the SLC SSD drives from Intel retail for? A 32GB SLC SSD is priced at 348 USD ex-Newegg. And what would the OP store into that measly drive? His budget is nowhere close to it.

I'd advise the OP to get a 150GB Velociraptor and keep that as the primary drive - the OS and game installs and invest in a bunch of 7200.12 1 TB Seagate drives or the 1TB WD 1001FALS drives. You cant go wrong with the either of these!
 
Velociraptor 150GB for OS and WD 1 TB for storage.

whether black or green, that is upto you. i personally think a 1TB green would be a good choic.
 
Vandal said:
Look if I wanted an SSD I would mention one in the options. Besides I don't think I'd like disabling the swap file on my primary partition for fear of MLC flash dying sooner. IMO flash isn't reliable enough for a primary drive ATM. Besides I need more space than 1 60 GB SSD as I plan on a dual boot with Vista x64 and Win7 x64.

I also don't like the sucky write speeds of the SSD drives. BTW I use SSDs in office regularly and the practical read speeds aren't as impressive as the HD Tach benchies.

Now back to the point. C'mon guys...
Click to expand...

and you have used one of those Intel SSD's and you are saying that you havent been satisfied with the Intel X25-M series of SSD's????

You can have 80GB Intel SSD for around 300$. I dont think you will have sucky write speeds with one of these b**ches in ur rig....

@gannu, from where did you got that figure??? I guess you never tried searching for them after checking their initial launching price???
 
make a 300GB out of one 7200.11 1.5TB seagate. Much faster than the velociraptor.

And then use a 1TB WD green edition.
 
Vandal said:
I've no specific budget in mind, but I like to spend once and have piece of mind.
Click to expand...

Gannu said:
His budget is nowhere close to it.
Click to expand...

thebanik said:
You can have 80GB Intel SSD for around 300$.
Click to expand...

Performance wise they are in a league of their own , but not practical because of the price tag .

@OP
I suggest you get a 150 Gb VelociRaptor for OS and 2 x 1tb WD Black in Raid 1 if the data is important or Raid 0 if you want a faster array .
 
thebanik said:
and you have used one of those Intel SSD's and you are saying that you havent been satisfied with the Intel X25-M series of SSD's????

You can have 80GB Intel SSD for around 300$. I dont think you will have sucky write speeds with one of these b**ches in ur rig....

@gannu, from where did you got that figure??? I guess you never tried searching for them after checking their initial launching price???
Click to expand...

Yes, I have two Intel 80 GB SSD drives and I am not satisfied with the write speeds - they are in the region of the WD Black Edition 1TB but for the price per GB, I'd go with the WD any day. Besides are these SLC or MLC? Do not remember as I tested them more than 9 months ago.

Besides there are major performance issues when multiple read-writes are performed on SSD drives, I don't think they live up to the hype.
 
Vandal said:
Yes, I have two Intel 80 GB SSD drives and I am not satisfied with the write speeds - they are in the region of the WD Black Edition 1TB but for the price per GB, I'd go with the WD any day. Besides are these SLC or MLC? Do not remember as I tested them more than 9 months ago.

Besides there are major performance issues when multiple read-writes are performed on SSD drives, I don't think they live up to the hype.
Click to expand...

the M in X25-M denotes MLC, though I would suggest you to check for some reviews etc. where they have been used as OS drives and currently there are only 2-3 SSDs that are recommended and used as OS drive. And this one is certainly among them....but all this if you are really looking from performance POV.
 
^Thanks Banik, I didn't know about the designation of the drive. As I said, the capacity matters as well. I don't know if I'd be happy with an 80 GB drive costing double or triple of a regular HDD when its reliability may also prove an issue.

Although I am not discounting an SSD from my plans, ATM it's not a huge priority. I await the 256 GB drives to go MLC, I'd buy one at even 25000 bucks.
 
Vandal said:
Yes, I have two Intel 80 GB SSD drives and I am not satisfied with the write speeds - they are in the region of the WD Black Edition 1TB but for the price per GB, I'd go with the WD any day. Besides are these SLC or MLC? Do not remember as I tested them more than 9 months ago.

Besides there are major performance issues when multiple read-writes are performed on SSD drives, I don't think they live up to the hype.
Click to expand...

Performance-wise: SLC>>MLC and cost-wise SLC>>>MLC. The primary advantage of SLC based SSDs are obvious from the pricing - faster write speeds which's were MLC drives phail!

@thebanik: Lol alright here's a reference for you: Newegg.com - Intel X25-M SSDSA2MH080G1 80GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid state disk (SSD) - Solid State Disks

That's a measly 36GB SLC based drive! An 80GB MLC drive is priced even lesser: Newegg.com - Intel X25-M SSDSA2MH080G1 80GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid state disk (SSD) - Solid State Disks

Go figure!
 
Gannu said:
Performance-wise: SLC>>MLC and cost-wise SLC>>>MLC. The primary advantage of SLC based SSDs are obvious from the pricing - faster write speeds which's were MLC drives phail!

@thebanik: Lol alright here's a reference for you: Newegg.com - Intel X25-M SSDSA2MH080G1 80GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid state disk (SSD) - Solid State Disks

That's a measly 36GB SLC based drive! An 80GB MLC drive is priced even lesser: Newegg.com - Intel X25-M SSDSA2MH080G1 80GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid state disk (SSD) - Solid State Disks

Go figure!
Click to expand...

what go figure????

U are the one who said 32 GB Intel drives are 384$ ...

I stated above that 80GB Intel Drives are around 300$, so what are you trying to state???

@vandal, yeah I understand your concern, even me who bench so much, do not get the courage to invest in these SSD's because of their high GB to cost ratio. Just recommended them coz you stated in the first post that budget was not a constraint....
 
Not trying to 'state' anything but the 80GB ones you were referring to, are the MLC drives. The ones Vandal were referring to. The crappier of the lot which shows up read-write errors during multiple read/write sessions.

The real SSD drives are the SLC drives which are pretty much expensive. People who'd opt a MLC over the SLC drives are nothing short of retards! That's exactly my point.

That ends my discussion as well.
 
Exactly Gannu, and the ones who'd choose an MLC based SSD over a velociraptor are retards too :bleh:

BTW can anyone update on velociraptor prices? What about the see-through drives? Are those pricier? There are different versions too, which ones are better?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom