That SSD you just bought to replace your HDD may not be any faster. Oh, if you want the higher speed, you lose about 75% of the space advertised on the box.

[–] • 9 pts

(edited )

I can't agree with that statement. While data out may not be any faster, the seek time on an SSD excels compared to a spinning rust drive.

I've replaced many many HDDs with SSDs over the years, and even the cheapest of cheap shit makes a useful improvement over an HDD.

link

[–] • 4 pts

Especially those smaller, laptop HDDs. Those things are borderline useless brand new. After a year of use they can’t even keep up with idle requests from the OS.

parent
link

[–] • 4 pts

Yes, that's where a lot of the SSDs went. They were amazing for revitalizing a few years old laptop that was still fine for basic work, but just needed a kick in the pants.

parent
link

[–] • 3 pts

My ass.

link

[–] • 3 pts

QLC is garbage, stay away.

link

[–] • 2 pts

They’re faster.

link

[–] • 1 pt

Its simple. Boot your PC with your OS on your HD, then replace it with a SSD, then compare bootup times. Then try saying "its not any faster".

link

[–] • 1 pt

490MB/sec for the first 50GB of a burst write, that's tons faster than a HDD. Sure, coping your movie collection might take a while but for day-to-day things you aren't writing more than 50GB in a burst.

However, those SLC caches are iffy IMO. Seems like a nice way to wear out the flash for QLC mode. Personally I get older SSDs with MLC, and over-provision them by about 25%.

link

(post is archived)