At what point does having windows 10 and other programs installed on an SSD, with an HDD for data storage become noticeably faster than just having one 1tb 7200rpm hdd.
currently weighing options on a budget pc, which i intend to be reliably fast and upgradable for the next 5+ years.
but there is still a lot im unaware of.
pretty much going to be an internet machine with light gaming.
cpu: i5 6400
motherboard: MSI H110I Pro Mini ITX LGA1151
https://us.msi.com/Motherboard/H110I-PRO.html#hero-overview
dedikaded wam: crucial 2x4GB DDR4 2133 (cause from what i hear 8gb is already overkill for what im using it for)
gpu: radeon r7 250 2GB (not playing crisis)
psu: FSP 500w +80Gold (psu calculator + the possibility of upgrading to slightly better stuff)
storage: this is where im confused theres are my options but im not sure if it will even matter
OS + Data : WD Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM
or
Data: WD Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM
OS: Sata SSD Sandisk Z400s 128GB
or
Data: WD Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM
OS: M.2 SSD Sandisk Z400s 128GB
But im confused if using an (m.2)SSD as a boot drive / programs only drive is just a Glorified Power Button, since ive heard that once a program is open its Loaded into the Ram. Meaning the SSD will only speed up startup time and the opening of New Programs... but once its on the Ram, its just the Ram and CPU doing work. idk if thats accurate...
>>55618829
Its way faster by default because HDDs are fucking slow
>>55618829
Just get a 120 GB SSD, they're only $55 CDN these days. I'm sure even cheaper in burgerland.
>>55618829
>At what point does having windows 10 and other programs installed on an SSD, with an HDD for data storage become noticeably faster than just having one 1tb 7200rpm hdd.
It's noticeably faster the instant you turn on your computer and Windows loads in seconds and is instantly useable upon logging in instead of chugging around while waiting for startup shit to load for three minutes
>>55618909
ive heard lot of talk of Windows Rot as Registry Errors mount up over years, causing computers to slow down.
would an SSD that never slows down be a nice way to avoid that?
So even when untouched with Gigs of poo, it should be as fast as the day i bought it.
>>55619101
I can confirm this even on my shitty old motherboard with sata2 ports limits to 300MB/s things are nice and snappy coming from a 7200rpm hard drive
But as someone that cheaped out on a 120GB ssd, don't it gets old fast, save a bit more and step up to at least 240/250/256GB if not 480/500/512GB
>>55619289
what do you mean by "it gets old fast"?
filled to quickly?
>>55619039
This. If you can't budget $50 you should get your fucking shit together
>>55618829
>light gaming
>r7 250
>mfw igpu's do better than that
Now if you want to be smart, don't buy that goddamed gpu, go for a i5 5675C if you really want to cheap out on that, Iris Pro 6200 in it is much better than that piece of crap R7
Though it's a H/Z97 platform, it might suit you better.
And get the fucking SSD
I bought a low end SSD for $15 last year. It was the best purchase I had ever made. Even if you buy the shittiest SSD, it's still better than a HDD. Buy a cheap 120 GB SSD, put all your programs and OS on it, enjoy.
What are you going to use it for?
>>55619419
i dont understand the justification yet?
120gb might be enough for what im doing.
especially when all my storage will be going to a 1TB HDD
SSD would be programs only.
Ive heard SSDs have a limited number of writes and shouldnt be defragged (since storage location doesnt matter). So unless Im working with Huge Files that demand performance, the 7200rpm HDD should do fine. And that i should keep basic items that dont need to be moved on the SSD.
HDD - storage and Temporary stuff
SSD - permanent data and programs
>>55619584
There is no need to micro manage what is/isnt on the SSD. Just treat it as your main drive. Dont put movies and shit like that on there. Otherwise, just install everything to it and enjoy.
>>55619541
>>55619541
basic stuff.
Chrome and itune, but im handing it off to a 60 year old guy and will be in use for another 5+ years.
Replacing a $900 Dell from 2008. (checked benchmarks, and the new stuff is many times better)
trying to pick stuff that is around $500-600, that will perform consistently over its life cycle as new programs (likely) get more taxing and if needed, upgraded.
the SSD is to ensure that no matter how many times they download flash.... it should still function about the same.
but im new to this and trying to avoid Dell as it seems i can better stuff without them.
>>55619950
i still need to look into it more, but Linus had an old video on making an SSD the boot drive then changing the computer's default directories so that when saving to c:\picture it redirects to d:\pictures (HHD)
Immediately. Are you fucking retarded op?
>>55620094
yes. thats why im here.
cause i dont know what im doing atm. but im trying.
>>55620067
key words there are old video. Back when big SSDs were 64GB and very expensive, it made sense to do that. The prices are such now, that there is absolute no reason to waste time trying to micro-manage directories.
For example, a 256GB Samsung 850 EVO is $92 on Amazon, and 500GB is $160.
Just get one of those and treat it like the only hard drive...only using the spinning disk to store large media and backups of pictures etc.
>>55620160
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/gf98TW/a-data-internal-hard-drive-asp550ss3240gmc
>>55620332
No, No, No...
Stick to Intel or Samsung
>>55619393
Yep, it fills up super quick without even trying in the era of 25-50GB games 120/128GB ssd is a pain in the ass to deal with after the windows install you're left with 100-90GB of free space
Sure you can redirect where stuff gets installed and only keep 1-2 games installed on the ssd and have a huge media/standard install hard drive, it's a little disappointing with you can double the space for like $20-30 for non samsung ssds, and $30-40 from the 120GB evo to the 250GB evo and double it again for another $40-60 for non samsung ssds and then $60-80 for the jump to a 500GB evo
At least here in the states, for a bit more than $110 you can get a 480GB sandisk plus ssd for like $60-70 you can get the 240GB version
It just makes more sense to get the bigger drives right now, hell the new crucial mx300 750GB ssd for $200 is a pretty decent deal
>>55618829
>cpu: i5 6400
>gpu: radeon r7 250 2GB (not playing crisis)
Or just save the few bucks you'd spend on a dedicated GPU and get a intel unit with iris pro graphics.
For "light gaming" it will be more than enough.
Because in the future
>you already have a decent CPU that does not need an upgrade
>you don't have throw out perfectly working GPU to get a better one
>>55618829
>At what point does having windows 10 and other programs installed on an SSD, with an HDD for data storage become noticeably faster than just having one 1tb 7200rpm hdd.
About six years ago, once SSDs became large enough to host an entire boot drive.
>>55618829
>Having SSD can and will improve:
loading times of everything
booting times of any OS
compiling times (the closer to the "true" business like Jave EE, the better results)
response times in shit software like big bloated IDE, CAD, other creative sort in movies, rendering etc
or when working with HUGE files which are either larger than your RAM or when shitty soft.
>So in hard reality when you are gamer, you:
boot PC once per day: no improvement
most games loads just once, or slowly in background: no improvement
the responsiveness of OS is hype, like when you copy crack once per new game, you don't need SSD to speed it up from 2 seconds to 0,02s.
>There are exceptions though. I know one: Sims 3.
With regular HDD the start of game is like 5 minutes, loading save another one, when in game even menus with items is loading slow and don't even thing to hit fast-save fast-reload: it will take ages. even when you play, you can measure how HDD is the only bottleneck in this game. The fact it is only 32bit: max 2GB of used RAM doesn't help either.
With at least 128GB SSD it is whole new game with loading times in seconds, not minutes.
So buy your shitty low spec PC without SSD and if you ever decide something is loading SLOW, then buy the SSD. Otherwise it will be wasted money. Also once you learn what is sleep and hibernation, even the boot time improvement is useless.
>>55619156
Yes and no.
No because it happens because Windows is shit. Yes because SSD is so fast you hardly feel your OS being slow.
The 'error' still occurs but you hardly feel it.
>>55619584
Even a cheap SSD is going to blow a 7200rpm HDD out of the water in terms of speeds.
>>55620869
There are many games that still have load times, like MMOs where jumping into a new area requires immediate loading of map data and such right then and there. It sped up my load times by a 4x, and that happens dozens of times in a gaming session, so the accumulated time savings is significant.
