Its okay.
But not recommended, the speed will be rather slow.

Actually for ordinary users or non-sophiscated users, they won't notice much or at all, whether using Blue or Green version.

It is ok for ordinary usage even as the main OS disk.

The one noticeable surge in performance is SSD.

I do feel a difference to be honest.
Especially from a Samsung F3 to a WD Green (not talking about the 1.5TB here, but in general).

actually, there's a slightly difference, but the major factor, is you mind or you don't mind about the little difference.

But i think green version is very good for storage

Anyone who can tell me about the 2.5inch WD Elements SE 1TB external hard disk? Thank you.

Uhm...
Its an external hard-disk?

It does what it should do.
Perfomance wise, don't expect anything major because its for storage purposes.

Really, a decent hard disk except for the annoying WD software thing that is embedded into the firmware and cannot be removed.

Hey guys,Does WD Caviar black does really improve game performance??Or does a SSD do a better job?I heard better HDD's increase your game loading speed..thats it right?

Yes. It is an external hard disk.
If there is a firmware, I make sure that it can removed it.

In comparison to which HDD?
If you're talking about HDDs that are now 3 or 4 years old, Black definitely has better performance.

But by how much? On average, not more than 2-3 seconds of faster loading time on the game you're playing now.

Pure performance, if you want to feel it... SSD is the only answer.




Your statement gave me a good laugh man.
No offense.

No worries mate.

how much hdd speed effect the pc performance?

one of the hardware that bottleneck pc perfomance

The slow window start up aka most take a minute plus or so is due to HDD.

We can have Sata II, III, IV. But HDD output rate aka write and read won't exceed Sata I speed capability.

So, one question for all of your HD gurus out there.

I was planning on getting a new PC based on the AMD 890FX chipset with the newer SB850 SouthBridge.

I am mainly looking for a nice performance gain after not upgrading my PC for over 4+ years (last major upgrade was to upgrade from 2x512MB DDR1 to performance 2x1GB DDR1 G.Skill rams and upgraded a S939 Venice to a dual-core Opteron 144)

Was actually planning to get a Velociraptor 150GB as my main OS drive in this next build of mine, but then accidentally stumbled upon Anandtech's lengthy yet informative SSD article.. and my heart ached for an SSD.

Question:
As I'm mainly looking for day-to-day performance, would I benefit more from an SSD or 2xWD Velociraptors 150GB in Raid-0 (daily backups) in the following areas?

1. Multitasking multiple programs in background
2. Launching of applications
3. General 'snappier' feeling of running programs, etc.
4. Boot-up times (not so important as I can wait, but would be great for restarting PC)
5. Durability and longevity of the OS drive (quite important)

So, if the general comment is that SSDs are better, what SSDs would you recommend? I was actually looking at the locally available Intel X25-M G2 80GB SSDs as they are better performers over the cheaper X25-V 40GBs.

Or are there any other SSDs recommended that would give me a similar edge in faster performance, better random read/writes as well as low random access times?
For example, Anandtech's reviews on the Indilinx MLC seems to thrash the Intel's ones in sequential write speeds but how much does that translate to real-world snappy tests, as I'm coming from a mechanical HDD spinning @ 7200rpm, not coming from another SSD.

Or you could sway me back to the Velociraptors.

Thanks for the input.

This post has been edited by [Top-Gun]: May 29 2010, 02:17 PM

How long more will SSD will dominate HDD market?

There is a huge difference in performance between a HDD and an SSD. Just be aware that it won't help things that are not bottlenecked by the HDD. Some gamers were terribly disappointed.

The 890 isn't a solid upgrade from the 785. I was disappointed.

2, 3: Comparison of Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD and Intel X25-M 160GB SSD when starting 51 programs simultaneously
4: Intel X-25M VS WD Velociraptor Boot
5: Intel has stated that their 80GB(?) drives will be able to handle 100 GB of writes everyday for three years. Also, SSDs are practically immune to damage induced by shocks; you won't losing data by accidentally dropping it or hitting the computer.

When it comes to SSDs, you really should avoid the lower capacity ones. Most SSDs have good access times, especially if they have TRIM support.

I'm not sure about current Indilinx SSDs, but they were obscenely overpriced compared to Intel ones the last time I checked a few months ago. As for an alternative consideration, I bought a Kingston V Series G2 128 GB from Cycom at RM 899 (part no: SNV425S2128). While inferior to the Intel ones on performance, it is still far better performing than HDDs and has a larger capacity at a similar price point. I wouldn't waste my money on Velociraptors, it's going to be either SSDs for performance or huge HDDs for cheap storage.

The next planned market shock will be in Q3 or Q4 of this year when Intel releases the next generation of flash memory, double the capacity for the same price.

Thanks for the reply.
I actually saw both of those Youtube videos and was just wanting to know whether the SB850 hampers the performance of SSDs in anyway as compared to Intel's ICH10R solution. So I should hold out against the purchase and wait for the G3s to come out?

It probably might, but it's already so far ahead of HDDs that any more performance improvement might not be noticeable as you start running into CPU bottlenecks, which is what I tend to experience now.

As for whether you should buy one now, one consideration is the price. Let's assume that the hypothetical Intel X25-M G3 160GB quickly settles into the Intel X25-M G2 80GB price bracket and ignore any future price changes between the items I have mentioned, then the cost/GB would be like:

But that's not likely to happen any time soon after the launch, so I think that unless your budget is tight, any decent but large capacity SSD will be a decent purchase.

I'd buy one and would then hope that the G3 doesn't come out and hit the price I paid for in the next three or so months.

This post has been edited by everling: May 29 2010, 11:18 PM

will happen when the price & capacity is matching hdd

That's simply not going to happen in the next few years. For the foreseeable future, SSDs will simply be the better performers and HDDs will be better at storage. But Seagate's work at producing a hybrid will be something to watch with interest, especially when the hybrid has 16 or 32 GB of flash cache.