How easy/hard is it to set up a dual SSD/HDD system?

JohnJSal

JohnJSal

Active Member
Whenever I read the suggested builds for performance/gaming PCs, it's always recommended to install Windows and games on an SSD, and use an HDD for storage. How easy is this process? Doesn't Windows (or even some games) spread its files around so that having two separate drives would cause problems? I know the My Documents area is one thing that might be an issue...you'd probably want that on your HDD, but won't Windows install it to the SSD?

Thanks.

Edit: Also, does this dual setup even make that big of a difference? I consider myself a "gamer" type of PC user, but even with my current HDD, I never seem to notice that Windows or games run slowly. Will I notice some huge leap if I use an SSD? Or is this more of a theoretical "best method" when recommending ultimate PC builds?
 
Very easy. Just put the SSD in (HDD disconnected from MoBo), install windows however you do it (disc, USB), then put HDD back in, format it, and voila, now you have windows on a SSD!
 
JohnJSal said:
Whenever I read the suggested builds for performance/gaming PCs, it's always recommended to install Windows and games on an SSD, and use an HDD for storage. How easy is this process? Doesn't Windows (or even some games) spread its files around so that having two separate drives would cause problems? I know the My Documents area is one thing that might be an issue...you'd probably want that on your HDD, but won't Windows install it to the SSD?

Thanks.

Edit: Also, does this dual setup even make that big of a difference? I consider myself a "gamer" type of PC user, but even with my current HDD, I never seem to notice that Windows or games run slowly. Will I notice some huge leap if I use an SSD? Or is this more of a theoretical "best method" when recommending ultimate PC builds?
Click to expand...

It will not give you better performance in games. But it will boot windows in under 5 seconds. I would really recommend it, makes a world of different. For the documents folder, depending on what's on it, should be fine on the SSD. Unless you have GBs and GBs of files on it. I usually make a folder called downloads on my HDD and redirect my web browsers to that folder so whatever is downloaded will go straight to your HDD.

And it shouldn't cause problems. Been doing it for 2 years.
 
claptonman said:
It will not give you better performance in games. But it will boot windows in under 5 seconds.
Click to expand...

Hmm, in that case I'm not sure it's really worth it. My PC boots fast enough for my needs, plus I leave it on all the time anyway and only turn it off occasionally. At night I put it in sleep mode.

If it won't affect games, then I don't see much of a long-term benefit to spending the money and going through the hassle of setting it up.
 
JohnJSal said:
Hmm, in that case I'm not sure it's really worth it. My PC boots fast enough for my needs, plus I leave it on all the time anyway and only turn it off occasionally. At night I put it in sleep mode.

If it won't affect games, then I don't see much of a long-term benefit to spending the money and going through the hassle of setting it up.
Click to expand...

SSD is a world of different from the regular harddrive. If you used a ssd for a while, you don't want to go back to hard drive. expecially for not top of line systems.

Cheers.
 
paulcheung said:
If you used a ssd for a while, you don't want to go back to hard drive.
Click to expand...
I hear everyone saying that. I do not see it really. I have used a SSD for a while now on my laptop and I would not mind going back to a HDD if I had to. SSD is not all that much better in a daily use situation, especially if you are not using high throughput or cold booting a lot. I mean don't get me wrong, it is nice having 7 seconds between power switch and desktop. But I rarely fully power off the laptop, so it is not really helping a lot.
 
You may use your system different than me, and your configeration may better. Beleive me, the P4 Gateway I have with 2gb ram, it has a new life since I put that 60gb SSD in there. The programs are open instand instead have to wait for 10 second to open. Internet browse much faster if it have to get information from the hard drive.
It is just depend on the system.

Cheers.
 
true. But I seriously do not see much difference other than booting and installing programs on a Core 2 Duo with 1GB of DDR2 and ICH8m driving the SATA port(s). It had a 7200 RPM Hatachi travelstar before the SSD (samsung 830 128GB) and it worked just fine with that too. I notice less heat from the SSD, and it boots a lot faster, but otherwise I see not a bit of difference on a daily basis.
 
Well if you use windows as OS, you sure see the different. and your system come with 7200rpm hd and my come with 5400rpm hd. I don't know what I do right or wrong, the Gateway with P4, 2gb ram 160gb 5400rpm hd. after I install the 60gb SSD with windows 7 and put the most use programs in there. I don't have to wait when I open office applications and browse the internet much faster. so I am glad I change it.
If we have to go back to mechanic hard drive without choice, I guess we have to adapt.
Cheers.
 
wolfeking said:
I am using windows as the OS. Windows XP (driver support for 7 on this system is not really great).
Click to expand...

Putting an ssd on a laptop with Win 7 isn't ever going to unleash SSD speed. But even then, itll be twice as quick when HDD is read, and use less battery power. Pretty good upgrade.
 
I am not arguing that it was a bad upgrade. And compared to the big energy of the Processor, RAM, and Graphics the extra time provided by the SSD is not much. I am stuck at SATA II speeds no matter what OS I am on because of the age of the laptop. I like the SSD, but I am going to reset it soon and probably set it with 120 GB for OS and stuff (currently running on 44GB), thus effectively destroying the M90 bail out option.

I guess going back to what the original statement was about. The SSD is nice. It boots quick. It is really fast with installing apps and throughput intensive actions (like data transfer and the like). But in daily use I see no difference. Daily use being Web browsing (apexvs.com and here mainly), Office apps (word and spreadsheet, sometimes powerpoint), and the occasional stent of listening to music. I don't really notice a change with programs loading up either. But on this laptop there has never been a delay between double click and app opening, or at least none that I can remember.

All this said, I would go back to a HDD if I wanted to, or needed to. It is not really a world changing speed difference. Even on the desktop, the SSD (Samsung 830) was not really all that fast. The only way to see the "speed" was to run a drive bench on it. It was only marginally faster than my 1TB at booting up, and running BF3 it was actually slower.
 
Well, even my four year old computer opens programs within a second or two, so I still can't see the need for an SSD. I think I'll stick with my HDD for now.
 
It will potentially affect game performance, or at least load times, which for some games, like MMO's or any game based on the source engine, is a huge bonus. For others, like online FPS or MOBA games where everyone loads in and starts at the same time anyway, it doesn't matter, you will load extremely quickly, but then wait for everyone else
 
Aastii said:
For others, like online FPS or MOBA games where everyone loads in and starts at the same time anyway, it doesn't matter, you will load extremely quickly, but then wait for everyone else
Click to expand...
I find the opposite actually. At least on BF3 my load times were actually about 4 to 5 seconds slower with the SSD. (that is from selection of the server to in game screen). But that is not to say that others might have a better experience with it.
 
wolfeking said:
I am not arguing that it was a bad upgrade. And compared to the big energy of the Processor, RAM, and Graphics the extra time provided by the SSD is not much. .
Click to expand...


You can get an extra hour of battery life out of it, big plus if you're using it for its intended purpose. Speed of resume and hibernate, faster load times, faster file transfer times. Its a big big upgrade.
 
I would say that is not a great sumation. If the SSD gave me an hour then that means with a HDD I had 12 minutes of battery, which I didn't. I have only gotten about 20 minutes extra at most. I could get a lot more by lowering the voltage of the processor, dropping it to single core mode (still more than I need on this laptop), dropping RAM volts, and underclocking graphics and lowering its volts. But I don't really want to go through all that trouble right now just to get some more battery time.
It does resume and start a lot faster. 14 seconds from power button to XP desktop screen. File transfer I can not tell you for sure, as all file transfers have been from flash key to the encrypted partition of the SSD, thus is limited by the USB2 read times.

I am not saying it is not an upgrade, as it surely is. But it is not a world changing upgrade like you all make it out to be. It does not change much at all in my experience.
 
wolfeking said:
I would say that is not a great sumation. If the SSD gave me an hour then that means with a HDD I had 12 minutes of battery, which I didn't. I have only gotten about 20 minutes extra at most. I could get a lot more by lowering the voltage of the processor, dropping it to single core mode (still more than I need on this laptop), dropping RAM volts, and underclocking graphics and lowering its volts. But I don't really want to go through all that trouble right now just to get some more battery time.
It does resume and start a lot faster. 14 seconds from power button to XP desktop screen. File transfer I can not tell you for sure, as all file transfers have been from flash key to the encrypted partition of the SSD, thus is limited by the USB2 read times.

I am not saying it is not an upgrade, as it surely is. But it is not a world changing upgrade like you all make it out to be. It does not change much at all in my experience.
Click to expand...

So you don't think even in your case a 30% extra in battery time is worth it?
 
worth $100. Not really. As part of a larger upgrade it would definitely be worth it. But the $30 of a new battery would have gave a much larger upgrade. Still going for that later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top