SSD vs HDD speed

[Mazurati]

In lamest terms, what are the average speed differences between say an SSD with a Sata II connection (or Sata III) and a HDD with 7,200 RPM and a Sata III connection (6 GB/s)?

I'm trying to learn as much as I can before I build my computer and I'm a little confused about the speeds and to which is faster.

 

[Overclocked_Keyboard]

HDDs are the same across 6 GB/s and 3 GB/s since HDDs do not reach data transfer speeds that high. SSDs are much, much faster than HDDs but can also be more unstable and less reliable.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

HDDs are the same across 6 GB/s and 3 GB/s since HDDs do not reach data transfer speeds that high. SSDs are much, much faster than HDDs but can also be more unstable and less reliable.

Intel, Samsung, and Crucial SSDs are much more reliable than hard drives however the same isn't true for other brands.

 

[Overclocked_Keyboard]

Intel, Samsung, and Crucial SSDs are much more reliable than hard drives however the same isn't true for other brands.

Most of those still result in having to flash firmware or encountering data corruption bugs. They are more reliable than other brands, but at the same time SSDs are altogether not reliable devices.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Most of those still result in having to flash firmware or encountering data corruption bugs. They are more reliable than other brands, but at the same time SSDs are altogether not reliable devices.

Actually yes they are, Intel SSDs have a failure rate that is considerably lower than any hard drive manufacturers. Sandforce based drives do suffer from the issues you mention but that has no effect on other controllers.

 

[MindoverMaster]

What about OCZ? Haven't heard them being bad. Plus, I have 2 of em.

 

[PP Mguire]

HDDs are the same across 6 GB/s and 3 GB/s since HDDs do not reach data transfer speeds that high. SSDs are much, much faster than HDDs but can also be more unstable and less reliable.

Don't spread rumors that aren't true. People who are idiots with SSD's have problems with them. I have had my SSD since 2008 and I don't have any problems at all with it. It is crap like this that makes people paranoid to adopt the new technology. Anyone can get a DOA or faulty device and lay claim that the technology is bad. Don't fall into this category.

To answer the OP's question. The average read and write speed on a HDD will typically be sustained around 50-90MB/s depending on the cache on the drive assuming we are disregarding anything slower than 7200RPM. SSD speeds depends on the drive in question but can be anything between 100MB/s sustained read and 75MB/s sustained write to 500+. A thing to note is the latency on a HDD is much slower compared to that of an SSD.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

What about OCZ? Haven't heard them being bad. Plus, I have 2 of em.

OCZ suffers from the same flaws all of the other Sandforce OEM's do. I've owned 3 of them and have two currently but even suggesting them will get you flamed on some sites. Basically on reliability it goes Intel >=Samsung > Crucial >>>>>>everyone else. The reliability factor is significant enough that Intel drives have actually been increasing in price despite being outperformed by Sandforce drives.

 

[PP Mguire]

I know a bunch of people who jumped team Intel over that 8MB thing. IMO that is much worse than anything OCZ has had problems with. People are just overly paranoid and stupid about SSD's IMO.

 

[Slaymate]

When you consider all the different models and sizes of SSD's that OCZ offers and sells, they have very good reliability. When you sell more drives than a competitor it only makes sense that you have a few more returns.

I've tested numerous OCZ drives and I haven't had a single problem plus OCZ will give you the fastest drive at the best price.