SSD €60-80

Briannnn

Titanfall is 50gb and I'm down to 25gb on my 120gb SSD...only my often played games and windows files are on my SSD.

I have an AsRock Z77 pro3 and already have a HDD and SSD on it.

Can someone recommend a good SSD for around €60-100? will go around €20 over, only if it has a lot more memory.
I will need of of those SATA cables too. (a good one please lol)

Briannnn

for those of you thinking wtf it's 50GB:
they didn't compress audio files to help low end PCs play the game smoothly..35gb of it is audio files -.-

this for €135 (ssd + delviery + paypal charge) is a good deal or not?
http://www.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=85974&agid=1145&pvid=4o33xr8of_hspziio0&ref=13

Sarz91

~€60 delivered.

Briannnn

you sure that's a safe SSD? some of them randomly die and have all the memory wiped out so I've heard

Redfox25

Briannnn wrote: »

you sure that's a safe SSD? some of them randomly die and have all the memory wiped out so I've heard

it could happen to any electronic device. It will be grand if yu look after it.

rey8px2m7altcs

Hey just an FYI man you know that with SSDs you should always leave 20% if it free.

You can get a fair few on amazon which tbh I would say buy amazon. Mainly due to the fact they refund and replace so long as the item is sold by amazon or fullfilled by them. Plus when you send it back they give you a printable sticker so it is free to return.

250GB
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00E391OX6/
Cost: €127
Free Postage

Honestly I would say get that as it is the best value for money mate.

120GB
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00E391KA8/
Cost: €80
Free postage

Both are covered by amazon. I would honest not use the .de one since if something goes wrong you have language to worry about. Plus you know how some will argue about a full refund. I have returned stuff to amazon 4 times now and got a full refund

dreamers75

Titanfall doesnt need to be on an SSD, it runs perfectly from a normal HD on highest settings.

Putting it on the SSD is only wasting valuable space.

Briannnn

SSD's make the game load much faster though, I know it doesn't give more FPS

also my current SSD is only on 9.64/120GB so that 20% thing isn't looking too good for me lol

Alright I think I'll go for that 250gb one on amazon thanks

rey8px2m7altcs

Briannnn wrote: »

SSD's make the game load much faster though, I know it doesn't give more FPS

also my current SSD is only on 9.64/120GB so that 20% thing isn't looking too good for me lol

Alright I think I'll go for that 250gb one on amazon thanks

Yeah I bought myself and my OH the Samsung 840 Pro SSD. Came to around €200 but so worth it for 250GB. I use the normal HDD for games etc but the SSD is pure OS and a few programs. You honestly need the 250GB for the OS and all that I could never go smaller lol

ChoppersX

Suppose these tips could help peeps who want to find out what's eating up precious ssd disk space use a program like "free disk analyzer by extensoft" it will show exactly what's taking up disk space.

Usual suspects are there Hibernation and Virtual Memory. So turn off hibernation if you don't use it and depending on the amount of ram you have with your pc either reduce the size of your paging file(vm) or move it onto your mechanical drive. Also a good idea to change the location of windows temp folder and downloads etc. to your hdd.

Titanfall should work just as good on your HDD

Monotype

I'd go with Sarz's recommendation of the 120GB M500 for £50. I'd be more inclined to stretch up to £90 for the 240GB to save you from upgrading for a while. The Evo's a nice buy but I think Crucial are especially good for the price. Both are really good drives.

Maybe move all your files to the bigger drive and sell the old if you need the cash?

Zachariah High Shrimp wrote: »

Hey just an FYI man you know that with SSDs you should always leave 20% if it free.

Depends on the drive. Some of them their performance falls when you have it 50% full. Some are not affected no matter how full. However, you probably want to avoid writing to the same area if you can.

Luck100

Monotype wrote: »

I'd go with Sarz's recommendation of the 120GB M500 for £50. I'd be more inclined to stretch up to £90 for the 240GB to save you from upgrading for a while. The Evo's a nice buy but I think Crucial are especially good for the price. Both are really good drives.

Maybe move all your files to the bigger drive and sell the old if you need the cash?




Depends on the drive. Some of them their performance falls when you have it 50% full. Some are not affected no matter how full. However, you probably want to avoid writing to the same area if you can.

Most drives are over-provisioned. I.e., they have more room which they hide from you so they can never be 100% physically full. This is all done at the hardware level so you won't see it at the user or OS level.

SSD also rotate the actual physical location of writes to prevent any individual flash cells from getting worn faster than others. So there is no need to avoid "writing to the same area" - what the OS thinks is the same area is actually getting mapped to different flash cells by the SSD firmware. Again, all transparent to the user and the OS. Very clever stuff, but it's quite necessary for SSDs to be viable for consumer user.

Luck100

For those people worried about wearing out their SSD, have a look at this:
http://techreport.com/review/26058/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-data-retention-after-600tb

Non-stop write endurance test to see when consumer SSDs will bite the dust. Turns out they do quite well.

Monotype

Luck100 wrote: »

Most drives are over-provisioned. I.e., they have more room which they hide from you so they can never be 100% physically full. This is all done at the hardware level so you won't see it at the user or OS level.

SSD also rotate the actual physical location of writes to prevent any individual flash cells from getting worn faster than others. So there is no need to avoid "writing to the same area" - what the OS thinks is the same area is actually getting mapped to different flash cells by the SSD firmware. Again, all transparent to the user and the OS. Very clever stuff, but it's quite necessary for SSDs to be viable for consumer user.

But say if you had a 200GB drive with an extra 10% hidden (i.e., 20GB) and you filled it up to 180GB. You didn't delete this 180GB, but every day, you download 10GB, delete it, hibernate, etc. You wouldn't be writing to the same 10GB stretch, but you'd still be only working with 40GB - i.e., writing to a limited area. You'd still have to do a lot of writing to wear it out, but you would potentially have a situation where a drive is much more worn in parts.

- Unless you are saying that SSDs recognise more permanent data and move it to worn places to avail of the fresher blocks. I think I've seen something like this mentioned once before, but it was vague and I wasn't sure if it was true or applied to select SSDs. If this is the case and is what you are talking about, have you got any articles for more information?

Monotype

Never mind, found the evidence I was looking for. Micron do it in their drives.

Two types of data exist in NAND Flash devices: static and dynamic. Static data is information that is rarely, if ever, updated. It may be read frequently, but it seldom changes and can theoretically reside in the same physical location for the life of the device.
Dynamic data, on the other hand, is constantly changing and consequently requires frequent reprogramming.

Dynamic wear leveling is a method of pooling the available blocks that are free of data and selecting the block with the lowest erase count for the next write. This method is most efficient for dynamic data because only the nonstatic portion of the NAND Flash array is wear-leveled. A system that implements dynamic wear leveling enables longer NAND Flash device life than a system that does not implement wear leveling.

For instance, in a device with a 25%/75% split of dynamic data versus static data, respectively, dynamic wear leveling targets the 25% of the blocks of dynamic memory area, while the other 75% of the blocks remain idle with static data. In this case, 25% of the available blocks are used to their maximum cycle count (see Figure 2).

In a 4,096-block MLC device with a 10,000-cycle count, 75% static data, and a program and erase rate of 50 blocks every 10 minutes (or 6 files per hour), dynamic wear leveling results in device wear-out after approximately 4 years, with 75% of the blocks nearly unused.

Static wear leveling utilizes all good blocks to evenly distribute wear, providing effective wear leveling and thereby extending the life of the device. This method tracks the cycle count of all good blocks and attempts to evenly distribute block wear throughout the entire device by selecting the available block with the least wear each time a program operation is executed. Static data is managed by maintaining all blocks within a certain erase count threshold. Blocks that contain static data with erase counts that begin to lag behind other blocks will be included in the wear-leveling block pool, with the static data being moved to blocks with higher erase counts.

Although the additional step of moving static data to free up space in low erase count blocks can slow write performance (because it requires additional controller overhead) and can consume some block life, overall, static wear leveling is the best method for maximizing the life of a NAND device.

Using the same example of a 4,096-block MLC device with a 10,000-cycle count, 75% static data, and a program and erase rate of 50 blocks every 10 minutes (or 6 files per hour), static wear leveling provides the best chance of extending the device life span beyond 15 years.

https://www.micron.com/-/media/Documents/Products/Technical%20Note/NAND%20Flash/tn2942_nand_wear_leveling.pdf

Luck100

Monotype wrote: »

But say if you had a 200GB drive with an extra 10% hidden (i.e., 20GB) and you filled it up to 180GB. You didn't delete this 180GB, but every day, you download 10GB, delete it, hibernate, etc. You wouldn't be writing to the same 10GB stretch, but you'd still be only working with 40GB - i.e., writing to a limited area. You'd still have to do a lot of writing to wear it out, but you would potentially have a situation where a drive is much more worn in parts.

- Unless you are saying that SSDs recognise more permanent data and move it to worn places to avail of the fresher blocks. I think I've seen something like this mentioned once before, but it was vague and I wasn't sure if it was true or applied to select SSDs. If this is the case and is what you are talking about, have you got any articles for more information?

It's called wear leveling. The scheme used for SSD flash memory will rotate data around even in the scenario you described.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_leveling

Briannnn

Ahhhhhhhh too much to read
what should I keep my current samsung 840 evo 120GB SSD free at and what should I keep the future 250gb evo 840 free at?

Morf

Briannnn wrote: »

Ahhhhhhhh too much to read
what should I keep my current samsung 840 evo 120GB SSD free at and what should I keep the future 250gb evo 840 free at?

It'll last ages and there is undeclared extra capacity to cope with unusable sectors that come along.

SSDs are too good. Expect them to get facebooked soon

rey8px2m7altcs

Morf wrote: »

It'll last ages and there is undeclared extra capacity to cope with unusable sectors that come along.

SSDs are too good. Expect them to get facebooked soon

Saw the Oculus Rift news huh, terrible news!