Slickdeals.net

Slickdeals.net (http://slickdeals.net/forums/index.php)
-   Tech Support (http://slickdeals.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   SSD / mSata Boot Up - Advice Needed! (http://slickdeals.net/f/5883126-ssd-msata-boot-up-advice-needed)

CarsNoHomo 03-01-2013 11:36 AM

SSD / mSata Boot Up - Advice Needed!
 
I just bought the 120gb Kingston SSD from Staples. Installed it in my PS3, and while it does seem faster, I'm wondering if I would see more bang for my buck by installing it in my desktop.

Desktop: 32gb mSATA, 1tb 7200rpm
PS3: 500gb
Option: 120gb SSD

I have a few scenarios, please tell me which is the best
1) Install OS on mSATA, install programs as they fit on mSATA, and install programs >32gb on 1tb. Storage on 1tb.
2) Install OS on 1TB. Use mSATA for caching. =>This I do not understand how to set up.
3) Install OS on mSATA. Install SSD, and install programs on SSD. Use 1tb for storage.
4) Install OS on SSD. Install programs on SSD. Use 1tb for storage. mSATA not in use.
5) Install OS on SSD. Install programs on SSD. Use 1tb for storage. Use mSATA for caching. => Is this possible and/or beneficial?

Basically, my question is since the desktop has an mSATA, will I benefit from the SSD? Or would the difference be small enough that I might as well keep the SSD inside the PS3?

prozac4312 03-01-2013 11:40 AM

32GB seems too small to be useful.

A basic Win7 install is ~22GB, and a 32GB drive will only yield about 29GB of usable space.

In my opinion, there is little to no need for a SSD in a gaming console.

repitall 03-01-2013 11:46 AM

I would do #4.
Not sure you can even do #1...can you? Isn't mSATA only for caching with another drive?

LiquidRetro 03-01-2013 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prozac4312 (Post 57916970)
32GB seems too small to be useful.

A basic Win7 install is ~22GB, and a 32GB drive will only yield about 29GB of usable space.

In my opinion, there is little to no need for a SSD in a gaming console.

I agree that 32gb is too small for a windows 7 install. You will fight it more than its worth. Usually these small SSD's are not that fast either.

I would go with a modified version 5. Put your page file and stuff like that on the msata drive if you decide to use it.

CarsNoHomo 03-01-2013 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by repitall (Post 57917170)
I would do #4.
Not sure you can even do #1...can you? Isn't mSATA only for caching with another drive?

I was hoping someone would enlighten me about this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiquidRetro (Post 57917410)
I agree that 32gb is too small for a windows 7 install. You will fight it more than its worth. Usually these small SSD's are not that fast either.

I would go with a modified version 5. Put your page file and stuff like that on the msata drive if you decide to use it.

Only the OS (Windows 8) would go on the mSATA.

I remember before the time of SSD's, it was beneficial to install your OS on a drive, and install all your programs on a separate drive. This is scenario #3, as well as scenario #5.

In scenario 3, OS load would go on the mSATA, and most of the program load would come from the SSD. The idea here is for 2 SSD's to work together, through distribution of workload.
In scenario 5, all load would go on the SSD, with the mSATA to assist. The idea is again for 2 SSD's to work together, with one drive assisting the other.

That being said, I'm not up to date on tech, and wonder if these scenarios would work the way I imagine, and which scenario would be better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by prozac4312 (Post 57916970)

In my opinion, there is little to no need for a SSD in a gaming console.

It makes a big difference in load times, particularly for games like Gran Turismo which have large tracks to load. But since I play online, I'm often at the mercy of the slowest player to load the game, so the difference will not be seen during most of my usage.

LiquidRetro 03-01-2013 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarsNoHomo (Post 57917878)
I was hoping someone would enlighten me about this.



Only the OS (Windows 8) would go on the mSATA.

I remember before the time of SSD's, it was beneficial to install your OS on a drive, and install all your programs on a separate drive. This is scenario #3, as well as scenario #5.

In scenario 3, OS load would go on the mSATA, and most of the program load would come from the SSD. The idea here is for 2 SSD's to work together, through distribution of workload.
In scenario 5, all load would go on the SSD, with the mSATA to assist. The idea is again for 2 SSD's to work together, with one drive assisting the other.

That being said, I'm not up to date on tech, and wonder if these scenarios would work the way I imagine, and which scenario would be better.



It makes a big difference in load times, particularly for games like Gran Turismo with giant maps. But since I play online, I'm often at the mercy of the slowest player to load the game, so I will often not even be able to take advantage of the difference it makes.

Installing your programs on a separate drive is less important with an ssd. the argument use to be its easier to reinstall windows which is true but you would have to reinstall your programs too because they all make registered changes etc. Having programs installed on the SSD is great because they start so much faster. This being said most people need more storage than a 120gb ssd so I usually install most used programs browsers etc on the SSD leaving the big games for a fast HD.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:39 PM.


1999-2014