On 19/11/2014 5:30 μμ, nospam wrote:
In article , Tzortzakakis Dimitris
wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/07/storage_ssds/

... Unless your workload is very specifically single source, massive
capture, then you should be running SSDs. Even if you are not running
pure SSD, the case for tiered or hybrid storage makes itself.

SSDs are faster. They have way lower latency. They consume less power.
They take up less space.

Yep!But they still are more expensive than conventional hard drives.

you are paying for speed and reliability. if that isn't important, then
get a hard drive, where capacity is a priority.
I do！I have both, as I am writing after that (both a hard drive and an SSD)
I have an intel 520 series 120 GB that cost 62 euros, as a system disk, I
also have autocad on it, and my only 2 games *wolfenstein new order and
call of duty black ops. It goes without saying that as a data disk I
have a seagate barracuda 1TB for my photos, mp3s, videos and other
programms that there's no room on the SSD for them. I'm very pleased
with my SSD, the PC boots in less than 20 seconds. It is an AMD FX4130 8
GB gigabyte 990XA-UD3 gigabyte nvidia gtx 650 PC.

20 sec to boot is rather slow, but more importantly, who cares how long
it takes to boot. booting is rarely done. sleep the computer when not
in use and it wakes instantly, exactly where you left off.

Yep! I usually turn it off when I'm not using it. I just couldn't afford
even a 128 GB SSD (to the 120 GB I finally got) but it's enough, for
now. The barracuda １TB cost as much as the 120 GB SSD, also 62
euros-but the speed difference is tremendous、even with an AMD CPU.