i remember my first intel ssd 160gb, that was like 500 bucks. you can get a 128 gb for 100~ give or take. prices will get cheaper as time goes on.
I don't think they're bad now. Got my first September 2011, was £80 for 96GB Got my second September 2012, was £50 for 128GB In december a friend got a 256GB Crucial M4 for £99 from amazon. 128GB is fine for me though and affordable at £50.
There was no need for your comment, he can wish for what he likes. People wishing for things creates markets and drives prices down which is why we have cheap mass storage that can achieve well over 100MB/s. He didnt mention a timescale and you did nothing other than knock him back.
Traditional drives are great for mass storage volumes. SSDs are great for system and programs. I don't see it necessary to have a SSD to load up my music or even HD movies as even modest spinners are able to play such content at far beyond the needed transfer rates to keep them consistent. The only reason I'd like a high capacity SSD at this point would be for games but as it stands I'm happy loading them from an 'old and moldy' 3TB 7200 RPM drive outside of the handful on my system SSD.
Yeah my games load great on 7200, I did try them on SSD before but really the difference wasn't enough to justify limiting the number of installed games
They are a **** load cheaper already, it will come down more eventually but really, don't expect anything miraculous for the moment I'd say.
It depends on the game really. Some games see massive benefits because they're constantly loading, like Bethesda's games. I've always run Skyrim on an SSD and when I tried it on my HDD it was just painful with the constant loading lag. Another, that I know I'll get hammered for mentioning liking it, is The Sims 3. Yeah, yeah, I know, but still that game is constantly loading and when doing the initial loads from saves it takes a while on a SSD, let alone on a traditional drive. But most games? The difference isn't worth it over the games and applications that actually do benefit from it. I would say most games don't benefit from it, but the ones that do like Skyrim, the current Fallout generation, and The Sims (and I imagine the upcoming Sim City), the change is frankly jarring at how much better they are on an SSD.
Last big price cut on SS drives was in the middle of 2012 (or so), form that time, they do actually come cheaper and cheaper, slightly. Depending from user to user, SSD's are necessity for any Windows OS after XP (using windows Vista/7/8 it's pain in the a** if you don't use advanced RAID setup with HDD's). You really (depends) don't need more than "128" GB SSD for average use. Games are always clever to install on HDD, and SSD will beat them in storage maybe after 3-5 years from now. It's also clever to install and stream games from different SATA port (less interference in writing/reading), so, really, if you can't get more, use "128"GB SSD in combination with one HDD and be happy. Windows 7 + basic programs (and windows update) = 14.2GB without pagefile, if you leave it on automatic, pagefile size = amount of RAM installed. Now do the math, and see that you have plenty of space for games if you insist to use them on SSD.
That was very correct. SSDs show their full capabilities only on games that STREAM data. Ex: Rage. Rage is constantly streaming data and it would see a great improvement in fps and overall speed. Also it greatly improves loading speeds and loading up windows. Apart from that there is little to no benefit from having SSD drive that has 1/7 of the capacity of a HDD and x3 the price.
from my experience i disagree, likely depends on drive used, however i use SATA 3- 6 Gb/s drives, one of which is 3TB size so maybe that made the difference. I played Skyrim on SSD, my corsair REAL which is pretty fast and only difference i was seeing was in the loading of gamesave and initial start like most others i used on it, i don't see any loading lag from streaming worlds in either skyrim or fallout 3 on it's current drive, even with all my high res texture mods and whatnot. Now on whatever drive i had back when Oblivion was released, i definitely had some loading lag, likely was SATA 2
