dun dun dun... chips wrote:
Jif wrote:pics or it didnt happen
i already posted the pics of my system speeds when i made the thread after i built my box. my hdds were comparable to sata2 ssds.
uh your HDDs arent even CLOSE to any SSD. sequential read/write means absolutely nothing for real-world performance. noticeable speed/performance is almost entirely exclusive to random 4K read/write bandwidth, latency (the best consumer HDDs for latency for 10k rpm raptors @ ~4ms vs .01 for any SSD), and the amount of IOs they can handle (as of 1-2 years ago most SSDs did like 10x more IO/s than the best HDDs.
sry bud, but the pic you posted doesnt even hold a candle to a 4 year old sata2 SSD. Sequential read/write means loading/saving one large file. a 200 MB/s sequential read/write speed helps ONLY when opening, copying, or saving an extremely large file like an ISO, archive, or movie. any time youre copying/saving/opening many small files at once, these are "random" r/w's b/c each file will be stored randomly across the NAND chips in the drive. "Sequential" means a file larger than one block, but the performance only really matters if the file is large enough to span thousands of blocks so the SSD can keep going right along the flash chip to perform the task.
TLDR: read this
article starting from the page i linked (3). u can skip some of the techno-babble, but it explains clearly why any traditonal HDD cant even hold a candle to a decent SSD. also, the article is 3 years old and almost all of the "issues" mentioned about SSDs have been eliminated (technically not eliminated but no longer very noticeable).