Is an SSD a necessary upgrade? If so, how many GIGABYTES is enough?

[Type 100]

Hard disk vs. SSD: multitasking.



Thanks to Tom's Hardware for this clip. I can personally attest to this. OpenOffice 3.4 loads really slow when run from a hard disk; on an SSD it's practically instant.

[Type 100]

If you can't afford to run an SSD big enough to act as your OS/programs drive, there are alternative solutions.

1. Seagate sells the Momentus XT Hybrid hard disk line with a small onboard NAND flash memory cache, usually around 4GB. It is paired with a smart algorithm that "learns" which programs and applications are frequently used, and moves them to the NAND cache so that they can load faster.

This is significantly cheaper than buying an SSD, but it's no faster for disk writes compared to a HDD and is just as susceptible to shock and bad handling. Not sure of the availability here, too.

2. If you're building or buying a new PC from scratch, Intel offers a feature called "Smart Response Technology" in motherboards with its Z68 and Z77 chipset. With SRT, using the motherboard's BIOS, you can use a small SSD to serve as a cache for the entire computer, similar to but extended from what Seagate does with the Momentus XT HDDs. In fact, in 2011 Intel sold a 20GB SSD with super-reliable SLC NAND flash for just this purpose (although SLC NAND is more expensive compared to the more usual MLC NAND for a given capacity).

The only real downside to using SRT is that your SSD won't show up as a separate drive in Windows Explorer because it's supposed to act as a cache or buffer for all the hard disks on the system. In pure speed terms it won't be as fast as using an SSD, but it'll definitely be quicker than an unassisted/uncached hard disk. Tom's Hardware did some testing with SRT and found that it's most cost-effective if you can't afford an SSD of at least 60GB capacity.