Originally posted by Mr-Movies:

---

Kevin,

You might want to look at something like this which I'm thinking about for my new lappy.

Seagate Hybrid SSD 500GB 2.5" $150

Stevo

---

Originally posted by ChrisC586:

---

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:

---

Kevin,

You might want to look at something like this which I'm thinking about for my new lappy.

Seagate Hybrid SSD 500GB 2.5" $150

Stevo

---

Wheres that at, the link just takes me to the forums? chris

---

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:

---

I've always had good luck with Mushkin Enhanced memory but if you read the NewEgg feedback from the bonehead experts they normally give them bad reviews. I see on this set no one has hacked on the memory yet though, LOL.

I just bought a SSD on sale, not the one I wanted but it was cheap, got memory for my new notebook and a replacement Blu-ray Burner. So now I'll have 16GB RAM, only CAS 9 I wanted CAS 7 but it was on sale, and a BD-RE burner in my i5 notebook. I can do movie ripping and reproduction anywhere and have enough RAM to run several VM's at once, which will be great for customer support plus scripting and other stuff.

From NewEgg I spent ~$211 and got logo top cheap BDR media plus free 4GB SD's with the RAM purchase;

SanDisk Ultra SDSSDH-120G-G25 2.5" 120GB SATA II Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) $124.99

G.SKILL 4GB Micro SDHC Flash Card w/ SD Adapter Model FF-TSDG4GA-C4 (x2)qty $0.00

G.SKILL 8GB (2 x 4GB) 204-Pin DDR3 SO-DIMM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10600) Laptop Memory (x2)qty $29.99

Optical Quantum 25GB 4X BD-R 25 Packs Logo Top Blu-ray Disc $16.99

Here is the Blu-ray 6x Burner I got for $95 shipped from 3B Tech;
Panasonic UJ-240 6x BD-R / 4x BD-RE

The Blu-ray's are for one of my friends and before you hack on them KEVIN I already know they are not premium media or as you might say crap media but, they will work fine and he doesn't need the best. :) LOL

---

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:

---

SATA II or III isn't going to make much difference with the SSD I believe there is enough headroom to handle even the SSD performance. My SATA II hard drives perform just as good as my SATA III new drives, for the most part. Your graph proves that I may only take a 30+% hit in performance. I'm suspect to those numbers as well.

Saving $60 bucks, is the true savings, right now when I'm tight for dollars is worth it for me and I'll upgrade it down the road so it was just a cheap way to test the waters.

Thanks for the input Russ and you're right I would have rather of had the SandForce than the route I went,
Stevo

---

Originally posted by theonejrs:

---

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:

---

SATA II or III isn't going to make much difference with the SSD I believe there is enough headroom to handle even the SSD performance. My SATA II hard drives perform just as good as my SATA III new drives, for the most part. Your graph proves that I may only take a 30+% hit in performance. I'm suspect to those numbers as well.

Saving $60 bucks, is the true savings, right now when I'm tight for dollars is worth it for me and I'll upgrade it down the road so it was just a cheap way to test the waters.

Thanks for the input Russ and you're right I would have rather of had the SandForce than the route I went,
Stevo

---

Stevo,

I don't know why you would be suspect of those numbers. There's too many people reporting that they get slightly better performance than claimed by Patriot. Even in IDE mode, mine continues to get faster as it learns my computing habits. Bloody thing is just plain fast! The truth is, that the only reason I went for an SSD now was the cost of a new replacement HDD. 60GB turned out to be the perfect size choice, because with everything installed, I have 31GB of disc space left. When I first got it, and only had Win 7 and Avg installed, it took 14 seconds to boot up. After installing all of my software, it changed to 18 seconds. If I let "The Windows Experience" set the start menu, it takes 11 seconds to boot. Programs like Photoshop CS3, that normally takes 10-12 seconds to load, takes about 3 seconds. I sincerely doubt that those numbers are suspect. I would post my original pic of the performance, but it's on the old boot drive. If you look back about a month or so you will find the pic. The performance has improved dramatically since then. Maximum Write speed so far is 427MB/s, maximum Read speed, 401MB/s. It was 406 write and 260 read when I first installed Win 7 on it. It appears to me that it's working perfectly. AHCI should improve those figures to about 525MB/s write and 490MB/s read. It's one fast Mother Frogger, that's for sure!

Russ

---

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:

---

Originally posted by theonejrs:

---

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:

---

SATA II or III isn't going to make much difference with the SSD I believe there is enough headroom to handle even the SSD performance. My SATA II hard drives perform just as good as my SATA III new drives, for the most part. Your graph proves that I may only take a 30+% hit in performance. I'm suspect to those numbers as well.

Saving $60 bucks, is the true savings, right now when I'm tight for dollars is worth it for me and I'll upgrade it down the road so it was just a cheap way to test the waters.

Thanks for the input Russ and you're right I would have rather of had the SandForce than the route I went,
Stevo

---

Stevo,

I don't know why you would be suspect of those numbers. There's too many people reporting that they get slightly better performance than claimed by Patriot. Even in IDE mode, mine continues to get faster as it learns my computing habits. Bloody thing is just plain fast! The truth is, that the only reason I went for an SSD now was the cost of a new replacement HDD. 60GB turned out to be the perfect size choice, because with everything installed, I have 31GB of disc space left. When I first got it, and only had Win 7 and Avg installed, it took 14 seconds to boot up. After installing all of my software, it changed to 18 seconds. If I let "The Windows Experience" set the start menu, it takes 11 seconds to boot. Programs like Photoshop CS3, that normally takes 10-12 seconds to load, takes about 3 seconds. I sincerely doubt that those numbers are suspect. I would post my original pic of the performance, but it's on the old boot drive. If you look back about a month or so you will find the pic. The performance has improved dramatically since then. Maximum Write speed so far is 427MB/s, maximum Read speed, 401MB/s. It was 406 write and 260 read when I first installed Win 7 on it. It appears to me that it's working perfectly. AHCI should improve those figures to about 525MB/s write and 490MB/s read. It's one fast Mother Frogger, that's for sure!

Russ

---

Program load times and system boot time I have no problem with your numbers. As the list of habits builds for sure your access times will decrease, but that isn't bandwidth which are the numbers I find to be suspect. I also believe your bandwidth numbers maybe burst and not sustained, then they make sense. If true SATA2 vs. SATA3 isn't going to hit me performance wise as bad as you have stated.

Bottom line your SSD is better and I'd like to have it but for a $60 difference and being tight for money right now it made sense for me to buy the SanDisk on sale. Also I'm not going from a faster SSD and will see a big increase in performance just going to the SSD I picked, so it is still a win-win for me.

Glad to see that you are loving your new SSD as I was wondering if it kept your enthusiasm still, it seems it has...

Thanks Russ take care,
Stevo

---

Originally posted by Lethal_B:

---

Subscribed. Gonna take the first steps to losing my PC-building virginity sometime next month. Hopefully this thread will help me get to second base and beyond.

---

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:

---

No worries Lethal and good luck. If you have questions or run into problems everyone here is pretty sharp and should be able to help you with any needs you may have.

You'll hit a home run I'm sure,
Stevo

Sam,

My C: partition is 48.9GB used out of 90GB available and that is without my Profile folders on it or Program Files (except Common folders, AV Suite, Partition Tools, and Acronis which are on the C: partition). The few tools installed to C: don't take up much space so the rest would be the Commons and 7 bloat from other stuff installed on E: partition. This isn't due to using sleep mode either or backups of any kind. I probably could still use a 60GB but I would like to have my "Program Files" folders on my SSD too which will add another 20GB. This would put me at 70GB approximately without headroom so a 60GB wouldn't work for that setup.

Stevo

---

Originally posted by omegaman7:

---

You're a moderator and never got your hands dirty? I give you guys wayy to much credit LOL! Just teasing. :p

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Hi there Lethal, welcome to the thread, long time no see :)

---

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:

---

No worries Lethal and good luck. If you have questions or run into problems everyone here is pretty sharp and should be able to help you with any needs you may have.

You'll hit a home run I'm sure,
Stevo

---

Originally posted by FredBun:

---

Lethal_B, I did it with help from these people here, and if I can do it I KNOW YOU can.

---