SSD V HDD question

GyRob

GyRob

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,071
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
This is a bit new to me but iv just got a new computer and I thought SSD was suppose to be a lot quicker then a HDD .

Well I have a tiif file on the ssd and the same tiff file on my hdd 7200rpm- its a 300mb file

if I click on the tiff it open's in CS5 but it takes the same time from either drive .

It open's in under 2 seconds that's with the CS5 program closed so its not a problem but why are they taking the same time is what confuses me.

Rob.
 
Thanks, I think that may be the answer.
Rob.
 
I Really don't know Neil it was built by chilliblast and over clocked .

I don't know enough to start fiddling or poking around ,its plenty fast enough as it is I was just curious .

Rob.
 
You can see if AHCI mode is on or off by looking in the registry.
  • In the start menu, type regedit
  • In the left pane of the registry window, navigate to here: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\services\msahci
  • In the right pane, double-click the entry called Start
  • In the box that opens - if AHCI mode is on, the 'Value data' shown will be 0 (zero)
Take care to exit the registry without changing anything.
 
Last edited:
Ozei said:
You can see if AHCI mode is on or off by looking in the registry.
  • In the start menu, type regedit
  • In the left pane of the registry window, navigate to here: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\services\msahci
  • In the right pane, double-click the entry called Start
  • In the box that opens - if AHCI mode is on, the 'Value data' shown will be 0 (zero)
Take care to exit the registry without changing anything.
Click to expand...
did that, it just says ab Default in the right pain.
Rob.
 
Can you post a screenshot of the whole registry editor window - like this:

(green arrow shows the correct address)

4466-1399223826-d58711fbc67f1b108da1efc724de2334.jpg
 
Last edited:
Did you double-click the Start entry (top red arrow in screenshot above is pointing to it)?

Here it is again (in close up):

4467-1399224264-dfc6e4780598ddb27783e1cd1ebf054e.jpg
 
Last edited:
I thought the real big difference was supposed to come in random access reads/writes (think lots of scattered small files or larger files that are fragmented - not the case with a new PC)
Testing with a large file is probably not going to give you a the fairest comparison.

Have a look for something called Crystalmark Disk Benchmark - get the portable version so you don't have to install it. You will be able to run like for like tests against your SSD and mechanical hard disk, both sequential read/write and random read/write.
 
Not seeing anything like that Ozei no doult it's me, Thanks but I will get my friend to take a look as this baffle's me and im bound to press the wrong thing.

Thanks again .

Rob
 
afasoas said:
Have a look for something called Crystalmark Disk Benchmark.......
Click to expand...

If that's from the same site as CrystalDiskInfo, be careful - I downloaded it and it was littered with adware/malware.
 
GyRob said:
Not seeing anything like that Ozei no doult it's me,
Click to expand...


You're probably either:

1. Looking in the wrong place in the Registry Editor's left pane (which is why I asked for a screenshot)
or
2. You're looking in the right place but you haven't double-clicked START in the right pane.


The correct location in the Registry Editor left pane is this (it has to be exact):

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE
SYSTEM
CurrentControlSet
services
msahci​
 
Last edited:
PS. If you're not comfortable looking in the Registry Editor, don't risk it - changing the wrong thing can really mess up Windows.
 
Last edited:
Im not Ozie best leave well alone but will try that CrystalDiskInfo I Had just downloaded it before your other comment but nothing came with it .

Rob.
 
Well I run it, top is the ssd it looks to be quite a bit faster IF that's what the numbers mean .

Rob.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 x64 (C) 2007-2013 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]
Sequential Read : 511.667 MB/s
Sequential Write : 498.215 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 463.121 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 222.404 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 36.820 MB/s [ 8989.4 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 112.416 MB/s [ 27445.3 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 385.920 MB/s [ 94218.6 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 159.642 MB/s [ 38975.0 IOPS]
Test : 1000 MB [C: 46.4% (51.7/111.4 GB)] (x5)
Date : 2014/05/04 18:47:36
OS : Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 x64 (C) 2007-2013 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]
Sequential Read : 190.512 MB/s
Sequential Write : 187.095 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 61.741 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 101.992 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.707 MB/s [ 172.6 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 1.669 MB/s [ 407.4 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 2.098 MB/s [ 512.1 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 1.560 MB/s [ 380.8 IOPS]
Test : 1000 MB [K: 0.5% (4.6/931.5 GB)] (x5)
Date : 2014/05/04 18:55:10
OS : Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)
 
Is the SSD the system drive and where is CS installed? (is it on the SSD?)
 
Hi Dale
yes both are on the SSD .
 
I like to check the obvious :)
 
GyRob said:
... the ssd looks to be quite a bit faster IF that's what the numbers mean .
Click to expand...

That is what the numbers mean - larger (higher) read/write numbers are better.

If you look at the figures for Random Read 4KB & Random Write 4KB - there's no contest, the SSD is massively faster than the HDD.

e.g. the Random Write 4KB (QD=32) test:

SSD - 159.642 MB/s [ 38975.0 IOPS] :clap:
HDD - 1.560 MB/s [ 380.8 IOPS] :exit:​
 
Last edited:
HDDs have the size/price advantage at the moment, but Sandisk have got some huge SSDs in the pipeline - with capacities of 4, 6, 8 & 16 Terabytes.

When prices drop, that'll be the end of HDDs.
 
Last edited:
Ozei said:
HDDs have the size/price advantage at the moment, but Sandisk have got some huge SSDs in the pipeline - with capacities of 4, 6, 8 & 16 Terabytes.

When prices drop, that'll be the end of HDDs.
Click to expand...

Yes but at the moment a 500GB SSD costs about £350 - for that price I can buy about 12TB of HDD storage and I really can't see prices of SSDs coming down to anywhere remotely near that.
 
petersmart said:
Yes but at the moment a 500GB SSD costs about £350 - for that price I can buy about 12TB of HDD storage and I really can't see prices of SSDs coming down to anywhere remotely near that.
Click to expand...

It's possible to get a big SSD for a lot less than £350, e.g. this one (and I paid £10 less than that for mine).

SSD prices are high because (at the moment) they don't have anywhere near enough capacity to challenge large HDDs. As soon as multi-Terabyte SSDs start appearing on the market, they'll begin to sell and the more they sell, the cheaper they'll become - there'll be a snowball effect and it'll be unstoppable.

Back in the nineties, the major UK broadcasters were paying several thousand pounds for one 10GB HDD (for use in non-linear editing systems). Now, a 10GB drive would cost about the same as a bag of crisps, and the size be laughed at - it doesn't even make a decent USB stick.
 
Last edited:
A few months ago I bought a 500GB SSD for about £350 - now a 1TB drive is for sale at virtually the same price!

And with the Cashback deal (now expired) under £300!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00E3W16OU/

Let's hope they go on dropping!
.
 
Last edited:
The 840 is a very fast drive - I nearly bought one but decided that size was more important than speed.

(The real speed improvement is SSD vs. HDD, rather than very fast SSD vs. slightly slower SSD).
 
HDD is better if you listen to a lot of music. SSD sounds very harsh, whereas HDD have a more real, warmer sound. Or am I confusing this with CDs and LPs?
 
best one i read recently was on here in another thread, where someone mentioned that since changing mobile network with better coverage the content on their screen was brighter and more vivid o_O
 
neil_g said:
best one i read recently was on here in another thread, where someone mentioned that since changing mobile network with better coverage the content on their screen was brighter and more vivid o_O
Click to expand...
Ahahahaahahah.... Going to work chuckling now. Thanks :D
 
GyRob said:
This is a bit new to me but iv just got a new computer and I thought SSD was suppose to be a lot quicker then a HDD .

Well I have a tiif file on the ssd and the same tiff file on my hdd 7200rpm- its a 300mb file

if I click on the tiff it open's in CS5 but it takes the same time from either drive .

It open's in under 2 seconds that's with the CS5 program closed so its not a problem but why are they taking the same time is what confuses me.

Rob.
Click to expand...

You are talking about an image file which you open in an application software, the speed it loads is hardly noticeable to you, unless you're willing to hook up a stopwatch to the computer and do research. Why worry, just forget it and just enjoy. It's only an image file, any user data files like your photos, bitmaps you downloaded, documents you worked on, etc., they would hardly be noticeable.

However it is loading the Windows software that is where the SSD supposed to be faster than HDD comes into play. It is a lot noticeable when you have two machines, both very much the same apart from one using HDD and the other SSD, and when you start both at same time, in theory Windows from SSD would be up and running, ready for use, as much as anywhere between a couple of minutes to a few minutes earlier than loading same Windows (assuming every settings and folders are very same) from HDD.

Yes, you are right that SSD is supposed to be a lot quicker than HDD, but that is noticeable with way big major software like Windows or any other application software (something that eats up a lot more size than the 300MB .TIFF file size, we're talking about GBs), and hardly noticeable with small files like a .TIFF file.

Timing the load speed by using a .TIFF file is a bit like asking Usain Bolt and Mo Farah to race each other over a length of say just one metre, and see who's fastest. Timing to see which is faster loading Windows from SSD v HDD is more like watching Usain Bolt and Mo Farah race against each other over 100 metres or 1000 metres.

In theory, and as a general rule of a thumb, most people prefer to have Windows and all application software like CS5 on the SSD for faster loading, but user files (.TIFF, .JPG, .DOC, all those file you opened, worked with, saved,) on the HDD due to the SSD's limited writing lifespan.
 
Hi Major
yes I agree with what you state I was just unsure as to how it worked, the new computer does indeed load far far quicker than my old one and yes it is minutes faster on start-up.
I do have it setup as in your last paragraph so will stop worrying and enjoy it :)
Thanks

Rob.
 
Major Eazy said:
In theory, and as a general rule of a thumb, most people prefer to have Windows and all application software like CS5 on the SSD for faster loading, but user files (.TIFF, .JPG, .DOC, all those file you opened, worked with, saved,) on the HDD due to the SSD's limited writing lifespan.
Click to expand...

Limited lifespan isn't the reason why one should store data files on a different drive. Yes, flash memory does have a limit to the number of write/erase cycles it can handle. But, even the worst case, that limit is at least 10,000 cycles. So, with a 250GB drive you would need to write and erase 2,500,000GB of data to reach that limit. If you keep your drive for 10 years you'd have to write 250,000GB a year, or 685GB every single day. That's erasing and refilling the drive two-and-a-bit times every day.
 
Also bear in mind that its not the load speed that might be all thats affected in your simulation, the application itself will have to set the file up in memory etc and present it to you having processed it onto video ram etc. I suspect thats more where your time is being used in the simulation and thats why the numbers are about the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top