By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
dahuman on 12 April 2013
Edit Thread
walsufnir said:
ethomaz said:

walsufnir said:

Oh, no offense! Did you stealth-edit your posts? ;) Sorry man, didn't get it. Everything's fine. Goosfraba :)

No when I saw I make confusion started to say I was wrong about the comparision BD vs. HDD... the only part I'm in disagree is that super high speeds of the HDD showed in your graphs... they are lower than that.

If they can read at 120GB/s all the time then we don't really need SSD because the SDDs can't do over 200MB/s constant read too.


Ahh, now I get it! Yes, the read-times are obviously not constant, of course and yes, ssds can't do (but they keep closer to it). All the time is of course not possible. Thing is there is no "real life test". Usually the hdd isn't almost working at all when you have enough ram. In linux there is some logging but it's no big usage. Reading many data is while booting or starting programs (or do coding/compile-jobs) but usually there is not much workload for an hdd so these "stress-tests" are also not showing the real performance.

To make it short: They can be fast and quite slow compared to fastest speeds, yes. But it also very much depends on what you do with them. Hopefully ssds become even more affordable in next years, i can't stand this mechanical crap anymore.


dood, look at my benchmark lol.....