Hard drive or SSD?

[Mick_Berg]

I'm going to upgrade to Windows 7 and will put it on a new drive. I'm thinking either a WD 500gb 7200rpm HDD, or a Sandisk 120gb SSD (good price right now, $99 at Newegg). But I have read that there will hardly be any speed difference between the HDD and the SSD. Is this correct? I thought the SSD's were much faster. But if there's not a significant speed increase, I may as well have the extra storage space.
Thoughts appreciated,
Thanks,
Mick Berg.

 

[William0d0]

If it's this SATA II SSD http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820171545 I would pass.

Get a SATA III.

I bought one of these http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233191. Works great.

I only use the SSD for Trainz, but it does make a difference. Routes like UMR or ECML load up a lot quicker. Zooming out to satellite view and zipping around the map is far smoother and responsive.

I have Windows 7 booting from a pair of WD Black Caviar 7200 RPM drives (RAID0) which works fine.

 

[wreeder]

I have a SATA 3 120 SSD and a SATA 3 7200 rpm HD and I tried TS12 on both and didn't see much of a difference. Remember no one really knows how SSD drives will hold up over time since they are fairly new. I'd go with HD for now it it is an either or question.

William

 

[kamran]

definatly ssd is far better,faster and expensive then hard disk.

 

[Mick_Berg]

Thanks gentlemen.
Mick.

 

[William0d0]

Here are my results running CrystalDiskMark.

The results on the left are:
2 1TB Western Digital Black Caviar drives configured RAID0.

The results on the right are:
1 Corsair Series GT 120 gig SSD.

By billparadise at 2012-04-04

Looking at the results we can see a couple of things.

1: When it comes to really large file sequential reads and writes, things like movies and such, cheaper conventional hard drives configured in a RAID perform quite nicely compared to a SSD.

2: Since any Trainz route is composed of a great many number of small files "assets", we really need to pay attention to the performance gain seen as we look at the transfer rate of smaller files. In this area the SSD shines. Especially when we look at multiple requests for files.

I imagine if I was running just a single non RAID hard drive the results on the left would be lower.

Perhaps you should run CrystalDiskMark and see what you are currently getting performance wise. And then you can gauge what you might gain.

From my experience I would have to say that it's CPU first, video card second, and hard drive third in order of importance to acheive performance in Trainz.

 

[Mick_Berg]

Interesting, thanks for doing that.
I already have Trainz on a 60gb SSD, and have certainly seen big improvements, especially in the small file reads as you say.
I just wonder if it's worth it for the OS and other programs.
Mick.

 

[Dermmy]

I run two installs of TS10 on my machine, my 'working' version and my 'testing' version. The 'working' version is on a dedicated Sata III SSD. The 'Testing' version is on a dedicated HD. Both disks have the same size paging file, obviously both installs are run by the same OS, same VID Card, same RAM, same everything. The 'Working' install is huge, it contains pretty much every asset I might ever use. the 'Testing' version is lean and mean - it contains only built-ins and whatever DLS/3rd Party content is required for the current route. The fat, heavy 'Working' version on the SSD absolutely kills the lean, mean install on the HD. It loads faster, runs smoother, stutters less (never!) - it is 'better' in every conceivable way.

I would put Trainz nowhere but on a dedicated Sata III SSD...

 

[steamboateng]

I'm a big fan of the SSD. I have both WIN7 64 and TS12 loaded on separate dedicated SSD's. With 6 Gb triple channel RAM and a GeForce GTX 570 (1Gb vidRAM) and performance is excellent. Personally, I recommend the Intel SSD's for reliability. But things may have changed in the last year.

 

[johnwhelan]

The basic difference is with a mechanical hard drive you have to move the head to find the data, with an SSD you don't and that's where you get the performance difference. It shows up most with small file sizes and Trainz loads lots of small files.

Cheerio John

 

[TramDU1214]

The best way would be a SSD mainly for OS and a HDD for stuff.

 

[steamboateng]

Try this:
80 Gb SSD - WIN7 64
120Gb SSD - TS12
1 Tb 7200 rpm HDD - Everything else!
I won't claim it's the optimum arrangement, but it seeems to work quite well!

 

[William0d0]

Try this:
80 Gb SSD - WIN7 64
120Gb SSD - TS12
1 Tb 7200 rpm HDD - Everything else!
I won't claim it's the optimum arrangement, but it seeems to work quite well!

I'm looking at getting a second SSD for windows (similar size to what you are using).

If I do I shall be moving the swap file and all of the account folders (with all of their temp files) to the regular hard drive so that Windows isn't constantly pounding the SSD with writes.

It does look like a great use of drives.

 

[Mick_Berg]

If it's this SATA II SSD http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820171545 I would pass.

That was the one I was looking at, but the price has shot back up to $150, so with that and your warning, I will pass on it.

There is always a good deal for something on Newegg. I'm now looking at a OCZ 120gig SSD (SATAIII) for $99, lots of good reviews, plus of course the usual one-egg reviews from those who are either unlucky or careless!
Mick.

 

[JCitron]

The prices are coming down, finally.

[TABLE="width: 690, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]

OCZ Vertex 3 2.5" 240GB SATA III 6Gbps SSD

Your computer will feel brand new with a beastly SSD like this, speeding up everything from boot times to file transfers with up to 550 MB/s read and 520 MB/s write speed. An SSD is the best bang for the buck upgrade you can make, so click Get Deal and snag this all-time low price. Apply coupon code 0T5QCC?V$GBNL6 for total $65 savings plus $20 mail-in rebate.

List Price: $259.99 Sale: $194.99 + FREE SHIPPING You save: 25% ($65) Expires: June 11 or sooner

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[NickieFoenshauge]

The prices are coming down, finally.

Not around here, they ain't. US$ is going up :'(

 

[maximus92]

Remember, the only thing that improves with an SSD is load times. If you're seeing a difference in frame rates, it isn't because of the SSD. Also, SSD's have a nasty habit of degrading over time, like a flash drive, which is basically what a SSD is. Right now, I choose to stay away from them, can't justify the price just to load one or two games on them. Besides, it's really not necessary to dedicate one hard drive for one game.

 

[Mick_Berg]

Remember, the only thing that improves with an SSD is load times. If you're seeing a difference in frame rates, it isn't because of the SSD. Also, SSD's have a nasty habit of degrading over time, like a flash drive, which is basically what a SSD is. Right now, I choose to stay away from them, can't justify the price just to load one or two games on them. Besides, it's really not necessary to dedicate one hard drive for one game.

I too have to watch my budget, but I think the $65 I paid for an OCZ 60gig SSD just for Trainz and World of Subways 3 was definitely worth it.

In what way do SSD's deteriorate? Is it a sudden complete failure, or slowing down, or bad reads, or what? You've got me nervous now, I'm going to back my 2012 userdata folder onto a regular HDD.

Thanks,
Mick.

 

[NickieFoenshauge]

Take a look at http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-reliability-failure-rate,2923.html

 

[Rail4Pete]

I got an Intel SSD 520 (240 gig, 5 years warranty) and that makes a big difference when switching view and loading time especialy in surveyor which uses more ressources than driver mode. Still have a regular Hdd as storage and back up. It would be hard to go back to a regular HDD for trainz since I experienced this.
Rail4Pete