Solid State Hard Drive

**Furunculus** · 09-17-2012, 17:33

agreed, at 104GB you have room to have your OS and games on a 240GB drive, and still leave 10% for sector reallocation.

**Tellos Athenaios** · 09-17-2012, 19:24

Uh Furunculus, that 10% is usually taken into account already.

**Husar** · 09-18-2012, 16:11

I was thinking about the same, ideally I could get two, one for Windows and one for some games. If you don't want to play all your 500Gb of Steam games all the time at once you can also shuffle their folders around between your Steamapps folder and a normal storage HDD without having to redownload them.

I guess in my case the SATA 300 on my mainboard would be a bottleneck but still a lot faster than booting stuff from an HDD, right?
And would it be better to get two 128GB SSDs or one 256GB and partition that in half? Any advantages of having them connected to different SATA connectors or seperation in case of failure etc?

**Crazed Rabbit** · 09-19-2012, 03:08

From talks with people at the office who've gone the "put games and not the OS on the SSD" route, the main benefits are very quick loading times, but not much in the way of improved FPS.

So you've got to balance that against really fast booting up, unless you can fit it all on one SSD. Either way you can probably fit your internet browser on the SSD, which is nice.

CR

**Husar** · 09-19-2012, 14:14

Well, that's because games are usually loaded into your RAM, or that of the graphics card(textures etc.).

With my 768MB graphics card there was a lot of loading from the HDD in some games, like in Civ V when a leader talked to me, now that I have a 2GB graphics card, these loading times are gone, wonder whether an SSD would have improved that a lot without the new graphics card.

I guess for myself I'd rather have the OS and browser, Office etc. load faster than my games now that the unplanned reloading in games is gone anyway.