Anandtech wrong on on not including SSD in Performance Midrange recommendations?

[GullLars]

This just was posted on Anandtech:
Written by Mike Jones and Jarred Walton on 5/12/2010 4:52:00 AM .
http://anandtech.com/show/3723/syste...ance-midrange/
$1700 complete build with peripherials, $1200 components.

Though the time for suggesting the purchase of an SSD boot/OS disk in this segment appears to be drawing closer, prices just aren’t there yet. In the meantime, builders will certainly be satisfied with the tried-and-true Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s. It has earned a reputation as a reliable drive, and consistently outperforms other 1TB 7200RPM drives in benchmarking.

As if that wasn't enough, the system includes a BD player costing $105...
I seriously found it hard to sit still and type in a comment, and was close to getting out of my chair and doing a RL

Please support me on this and comment on Anandtech ASAP. If you disagree, feel free to share why here.

[GullLars]

In addition, this just in from Jarred Walton in the comments sections in reply to a comment by another user:

Is Anand wrong? Nope. And neither am I. It's merely a case of different priorities. For the cost of a reasonable sized SSD (160GB is the smallest I'd be okay with), I can get a lot of other performance upgrades that will matter more to me.

Again, 160GB minimum? You can easily fit OS + core apps on 40GB. OS + full program suite on 80GB. Games, media, and others don't NEED an SSD when budget is a matter.

[alfaunits]

I disagree. I have 3x32GB X25-Es for only OS/apps (no PF/HF) and projects (~3GB).
I have to delete and copy VMs between uses, because I don't have to put them on these.

40GB is BS, unless all you want to do is internet surfing.

[Ao1]

For a mid range ($1,700) system I'm not sure if I would disagree with Anandtech. For $100 you get 1TB of reasonable performance. For $100 you only get 40GB of SSD real estate. I think the issue is purely cost. A G2 160Gb drive cost $449, which represents ~ 26% of the total cost a mid range system.

If it was a high range system I would agree with you completely.

My 2 cents

EDIT: Bottom line is that SSD costs way, way to much.

[GullLars]

VMs are not what i would consider "general usage" but workstation. It's more of a special case. In that case, i agree 40GB being small, but i also said, it's enough for core apps, like OS, office suite, and other programs most users need on a daily basis.
I have 2x32GB SSD for W7, apps, and even the few games i have installed (CSS, COD MW2, HoN), and still have only used 32,4GB. Although, i don't do heavy workstation stuff. The things that could fit that bill goes on my 300GB Velociraptor.

I have a 32GB Vertex in my laptop, and my parents have a 32GB Mtron Pro in their livingroom PC, and a 32GB Vertex in their HTPC (and a WD GP disk for media in both). They have been like constanly ever since i installed it, and have had no complaints whatsoever. My sister has even pointed out she things it's something wrong with her friends computers when she uses one of theirs.

[GullLars]

EDIT: Bottom line is that SSD costs way, way to much.

So you would put a $105 BD player in the system before you would allocate the same money for a 40GB x25-V for W7 and core apps?
This being in addition to the 1TB disk. Possibly downgrading from a Black to a Green since the IO load will be reduced significantly.

Edit: i make note of your oppinion, but at $1700, and with the level of components, i would cut back on other things to ensure a $100-200 SSD, only yielding to other oppinions for if the machine is intended for special case usage.
IMO you can't call a $1500 rigg "performance midrange" if you don't have an SSD in it. PCmark Vantage agrees with me :P

[Ao1]

I guess the best solution would be a $100 SSD for OS and a $100 HDD for storage. If you could fit both these in a mid range budget it would make sense.....more sense probably than higher cost RAM or CPU options.

[GullLars]

more sense probably than higher cost RAM or CPU options.

Or BluRay............................................ ..........................................
Where is pacman?! :P

[alfaunits]

So you would put a $105 BD player in the system before you would allocate the same money for a 40GB x25-V for W7 and core apps?

Yes - not for me, but yes for Average Joe "don't care how fast my player opens, only that it plays well".
What AJ cares how fast their OS boots and player starts if it does things it needs to do? We're an exception

Edit: i make note of your oppinion, but at $1700, and with the level of components, i would cut back on other things to ensure a $100-200 SSD,

As would I - but AJ wouldn't

[alfaunits]

The problem is I don't have space to store multiple VMs, and they are small (<5GB). So essentially I am using like 80GB without VMs.

VMs are not what i would consider "general usage" but workstation. It's more of a special case. In that case, i agree 40GB being small, but i also said, it's enough for core apps, like OS, office suite, and other programs most users need on a daily basis.

[Sam_oslo]

I've been using a Vertex 30GB as OS-disk for over 1 year, and never felt the need for a bigger one. Right now I'm running W7 Enterprise + many of programs i use daily, and still have 15GB free.

I sue a 1TB F3 + 750 F1 for media, not frequently use programs, and junk,

[G.Foyle]

Whoever is using Windows 7 on a 32 GB SSD and has free space left fails for using a 32-bit OS.

[Anvil]

VMs are not what i would consider "general usage" but workstation. It's more of a special case.
...

Agreed,

I do all my work in VM's.
My general setup is an 32-40GB boot drive, all my VM's are on other drives.
I've got 15-20GB left having installed the necessary applications and teaked the setup.
Compared to alfaunits my VM's are quite large, from 20GB up to 40GB. (windows servers/sql server...)

For laptops the minimum drive size using VM's is 160GB or more. (in my case)

[Sam_oslo]

Whoever is using Windows 7 on a 32 GB SSD and has free space left fails for using a 32-bit OS.

If you mean me, I'm using a 64bit W7 Enterprise on a Vertex 30GB. When i checked the latest, I have actually 19GB free. It is how it looks like:

[GullLars]

Whoever is using Windows 7 on a 32 GB SSD and has free space left fails for using a 32-bit OS.

Windows 7 64-bit ultimate takes up roughly 13GB whitout pagefile and hibernation. If you disable/limit system restore, and regulary clear tempfiles, it never grows above 15GB.
My laptop and the two computers my parents have all use 32GB SSDs for system drive, and all of them have 10GB free space on C: after Win7 64bit ultimate and all programs are installed.
NOTE: music, pictures, videos, games, and downloads are moved to other partitions using Win7's libraries.

[Ao1]

If you mean me, I'm using a 64bit W7 Enterprise on a Vertex 30GB. When i checked the latest, I have actually 19GB free. It is how it looks like:

What size is your winsxs folder? I tried working with 30GB SSD and it worked until the winsxs folder grew uncontrollably.

30GB only works if you strip down function and predominately only use your pc for web browsing.

[Coldon]

wont work for me either:

once i've installed all my core apps: visual studio, windows sdk, dx sdk, photoshop, office + visio, acrobat, fxcomposer, 3dsmax, + various smaller apps that 30gig is gonna be gone real quick. I will need minimum an 80gig drive and for that money i'd rather invest it in a 1tb hdd and spend the excess on more ram/better vid card. Things that I will notice more in my day to day work. If the price of a good 80gig SSD was more affordable then sure recommend it but as things currently stand I think their recommendation is perfectly valid.

[Ourasi]

What size is your winsxs folder? I tried working with 30GB SSD and it worked until the winsxs folder grew uncontrollably.

What are you doing, mate, my old Win7 64bit install is still only 10.1gb, and I do not only surf, I promise

30GB only works if you strip down function and predominately only use your pc for web browsing.

Strip down function? If you consider dropping pagefile/hibernate a loss of funktion, I agree, 30gb is to small, however 40gb is not...

All in all, your statement as a whole only holds true if you are on a 30-40gb SSD alone, with no additional storage. He recommends a WD Black 1TB, I say nonsense and recommend WD Black 1TB + X25-V 40gb wich adds a 100$ cost, and a whole lot of additional performance. The middle ground here is the 40gb SSD, with room for the most common daily apps and a game or so...

[Tiltevros]

PCMark Vantage HDD 110935 <------- lol?????? can i have the link plz?

[GullLars]

I see we have come to a heated topic here, but it seems all norwegians agree 30-40GB is enough for Windows 7 64Bit (any edition) with core apps (needed for "general usage" of the machine). And spinning disk storage on the side for stuff that don't fit or have priority.
I've also specified 80GB would be adviced for a more complete application suite for heavy duty work, while still having other storage for VMs or other big files/projects.

The key to keeping Windows vista/7 from running out of controll with space use is in:
*Pagefile (static but takes up much space, typically 5-10GB)
*Hibernation (=RAM capacity)
*System restore (will increase every time something is installed, updated or uninstalled if not limited)
*Temp files (will grow linearly easily to multiple GBs if not cleared regularly)
*Moving user folders to other drives/partitions if possible

EDIT: Tiltevros, so you saw Ourasi's bootable 2R0 x25-E from ICH10R WBC on? (likely high OC and small stripe)
EDIT2: Ourasi, gief full PCmark Vantage suite score plz

[Ourasi]

wont work for me either:

once i've installed all my core apps: visual studio, windows sdk, dx sdk, photoshop, office + visio, acrobat, fxcomposer, 3dsmax, + various smaller apps that 30gig is gonna be gone real quick. I will need minimum an 80gig drive and for that money i'd rather invest it in a 1tb hdd and spend the excess on more ram/better vid card. Things that I will notice more in my day to day work. If the price of a good 80gig SSD was more affordable then sure recommend it but as things currently stand I think their recommendation is perfectly valid.

So you'd rather have everything you have of apps on a HDD, then have OS+ a few of the most used apps that enjoy SSD performance on a small and cheap SSD and the rest on the same HDD for a 100$ extra cost? Sorry mate, I cannot agree with you, the "if I cannot fit everything on the SSD, I won't buy it" argument is kinda sad, those guys are missing out on the most beneficial upgrade for their PC's ever made, sad...

[Tiltevros]

EDIT: Tiltevros, so you saw Ourasi's bootable 2R0 x25-E from ICH10R WBC on? (likely high OC and small stripe)

i said i want the link to see it but noone is answering

[Ourasi]

PCMark Vantage HDD 110935 <------- lol?????? can i have the link plz?

I sure can give you an image atleast, with all the details, my friend:

This is with 2 E's in Raid0..

[Tiltevros]

I sure can give you an image atleast, with all the details, my friend:

This is with 2 E's in Raid0..

i would like to see the link
wow 680MB/s on movie maker intresting just for 500MB/s top speed

[Coldon]

So you'd rather have everything you have of apps on a HDD, then have OS+ a few of the most used apps that enjoy SSD performance on a small and cheap SSD and the rest on the same HDD for a 100$ extra cost? Sorry mate, I cannot agree with you, the "if I cannot fit everything on the SSD, I won't buy it" argument is kinda sad, those guys are missing out on the most beneficial upgrade for their PC's ever made, sad...

the problem is that my few most used apps will most likely fill an 80GB SSD. just the SDKs and the MSDN library take up 10gb, my win7 folder is 16gb, and as is, on my work machine my program files folder is 48GB, and that doesnt include all my source code, VMs (i have an XP VM and a win7 VM atm), game assets and so on...

your advice is to buy an SDD and then purchase a further HDD on top of it? just so i can enjoy the benefits of an SSD on half my apps? that doesnt make too much sense to me... for less than that I can get 3 HDD and raid 5 them. That makes more sense to me right now. In a couple of years when the prices of SSD's drop then maybe SSD's will be feasible.