are ssd faster then hdd?
i got a asus desktop with 8gb or ram and a 2500k cpu on a regualr 500 gb hdd would a ssd be faster and whats the real benifits my computer is fast already but i hate the clicking noise it make on the hdd, also how would i set it up 2 hardrive? where install windows?
- AndrewLv 48 years agoFavorite Answer
1) Power. Power consumption would be lower on a SSD device. It contains no moving parts and does not need to spin up like a HDD. Examples from Samsung's website that compare a SSD device with a HDD show that active power consumption for a notebook HDD is 3.88 watts avg, whereas a SSD device is 1 watt for active power consumption.
2) Downsides to SSD:
a) Cost. SSD devices are about $9/GB more expensive than HDD devices.
b) Inability to recover lost data. This could be due to accidentally deleted files, mechanical failure after abrupt power loss, magnetic fields near the SSD, and electrostatic charges.
2.1) You didn't ask for it, but positive attributes of SSD are:
a) Significant weight reduction, to the order of 1/5th the weight of a notebook HDD.
b) Can withstand 0 to 70 deg Celsius as opposed to 5 to 55 with a notebook HDD.
c) Can withstand up to a 1500G impact vs 170G for a notebook HDD.
d) No noise.
e) Fast access, read and write times. Virtually no seek time, 100 MB/sec read - 80MB/sec write (2-12msec seek, 59MB/sec read - 60MB/sec write for a notebook HDD).
3) Rumor that SSD drives fail after a certain number of re-writes. This is true. All electronic components will eventually fail (including HDD devices) and this is usually expressed as MTBF and stands for Mean Time Before Failure. This just means how many hours before the electronics will no longer function. MTBF for a Samsung SSD device is over 2,000,000 hours whereas it would be less than 700,000 hours MTBF for a notebook HDD device.
4) Is this the case for SSD devices in notebooks? Yes, all SSD and HDD devices will fail after some ridiculously long time, estimated to be around 79 years for a HDD and 228 years for a SSD to fail.
5) How big of a problem could this be? Not a problem at all, really, considering it should last longer than a HDD.
6, 7 & 8) Windows XP and space requirements, etc... Windows XP SP2 can consume up to 995MB of disk space. This would be just under 1GB, leaving 7GB or 15GB for your programs if you were using and 8GB or 16GB SSD, respectively. Whether or not this would be enough space will depend on the size of the programs you will be running.Source(s): <3
- Anonymous4 years ago
you're terrific with a 240GB in case you have a respectable set of applications or do gaming. choose for a Kingston HyperX or an OCZ vertex (3 or 4) MAX IOPS the two have examine/write speeds from 500-550 MB/s As yet another poster alluded to, the HDD does not furnish 3Gbps it is purely the interface speed (SATA II) ... it provides you approximately 100MBps (or 0.8 Gbps) vs the SSDs i discussed which furnish 555MBps (or 4.40 4 Gbps on a 6 Gbps SATA III interface )
- JLv 48 years ago
the SSD has faster read times. If you want to use 2 harddrives, run windows off the SSD & install programs & store files on the harddrive.