SSD For Old Desktop
- Thread starter BK_123
- Start date
Smart_Guy
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 4,856
- Location
- Saudi Arabia
I second TT. SSD's are the best and cheapest upgrade to speed up performance and even on SATA 1 it is worth it for old computers given the price is reasonable. SSD's are specially good for accessing small files quickly, which is good for low speed transfer rate connections.
Brilliant, Thanks guys. I was thinking of this one SanDisk SSD Plus 120GB 2.5in SSD - PC Case Gear.
Smart_Guy
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 4,856
- Location
- Saudi Arabia
I'm afraid I cannot comment on other than Kingston SSD's since I tried them myself. Sorry.
Even though the others have already said yes, i'll add to that.
Yes it's worth it. it's the best upgrade you can give an old computer.
Seam like a fine SSD. You are gonna want to buy a cheap SSD.
Having only Sata 2 is gonna bottleneck expensive SSD's.
So that one is a good choice.
Yes it's worth it. it's the best upgrade you can give an old computer.
Seam like a fine SSD. You are gonna want to buy a cheap SSD.
Having only Sata 2 is gonna bottleneck expensive SSD's.
So that one is a good choice.
cb600fshornet
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 2,190
- Location
- England, Birmingham
Yeah definitely worth doing.
The SATA II will be a bottleneck, BUT ultimately the extra speed you gain from an SSD is the random read/writes which ultimately don't tend to be faster than SATA II can handle anyway. The only time it'll be slower than SATA III really is during sequential read/writes of massive files. I think that even if you added a SATA III card to your PC and tried the SSD on there to compare, you wouldn't see a proper real world difference
EDIT: Take a look at the below article, you can see that in some situations, the SATA III interface makes a fairly big difference in the real world tests, for example, copying a 16GB file. But the SATA II SSD is still significantly faster than a mechanical drive.
The interesting part is the "boot times" real world benchmark, the interface made practically no difference at all, and looking at how each SSD performed, the only difference was how fast the SSD was (ie, the Crucial M4 on the SATA III interface was first to boot, but the second item on the list isn't a different SSD on the SATA III interface, it was actually the Crucial M4 again, but on the SATA II interface, showing that having a better SSD is actually more important at boot time than having a better interface).
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sata-6gbps-performance-sata-3gbps,3110-7.html
I'd love to have a go at booting up an SSD on a SATA I interface to see what would happen!
The SATA II will be a bottleneck, BUT ultimately the extra speed you gain from an SSD is the random read/writes which ultimately don't tend to be faster than SATA II can handle anyway. The only time it'll be slower than SATA III really is during sequential read/writes of massive files. I think that even if you added a SATA III card to your PC and tried the SSD on there to compare, you wouldn't see a proper real world difference
EDIT: Take a look at the below article, you can see that in some situations, the SATA III interface makes a fairly big difference in the real world tests, for example, copying a 16GB file. But the SATA II SSD is still significantly faster than a mechanical drive.
The interesting part is the "boot times" real world benchmark, the interface made practically no difference at all, and looking at how each SSD performed, the only difference was how fast the SSD was (ie, the Crucial M4 on the SATA III interface was first to boot, but the second item on the list isn't a different SSD on the SATA III interface, it was actually the Crucial M4 again, but on the SATA II interface, showing that having a better SSD is actually more important at boot time than having a better interface).
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sata-6gbps-performance-sata-3gbps,3110-7.html
I'd love to have a go at booting up an SSD on a SATA I interface to see what would happen!
Last edited:
OneMarcilV
In Runtime
- Messages
- 496
When removing a spinning hard drive and installing a SSD. What is the best procedure?
The computer has a built in dvd reader. If the spinung drive is taken out and the SSD is installed will the computer recognize the DVD reader?
Also would you recommend configuring the BIOS to have the DVD reader as the first boot uo option followed by the C drive?
The computer has a built in dvd reader. If the spinung drive is taken out and the SSD is installed will the computer recognize the DVD reader?
Also would you recommend configuring the BIOS to have the DVD reader as the first boot uo option followed by the C drive?
Smart_Guy
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 4,856
- Location
- Saudi Arabia
SSD's directly take the place of the HDD's, no problem. Just unplug and plug the same SATA data cable from the HDD to the SSD (any power cable can be used then). It will use the same drive letter, unless the HDD is partitioned, the extra partitions will disappear.
That's the rule of the thumb. However, if it is a system drive, the system must be cloned to the SSD first (could be done even thu any external case that fits and sometimes it's provided with good brands) and the it can replace the system HDD as above. Sometimes this works out of the box but some other times bios changes must take place to avoid blue screens and such, and some other less frequent times the OS needs to be reinstalled to accommodate the SSD difference. I did that once and I needed only to change some bios settings. The OS could ask for a repair disk so keep that at hand.
Boot order should be controlled from the bios, but some inferior designs don't have it and cables have to be tampered with. But recognition should still be the same regardless.
Having the optical disk drive (DVD, CD, etc.) as the first boot drive is best and probably required if booting from them is something you do, so having them 1st is the way to go. In some cases it slows the boot but that's probably in the old days and not anymore. If they are not, then the system will check prior drives for boot files and only go to the optical drive orderly if it does not find any.
That's the rule of the thumb. However, if it is a system drive, the system must be cloned to the SSD first (could be done even thu any external case that fits and sometimes it's provided with good brands) and the it can replace the system HDD as above. Sometimes this works out of the box but some other times bios changes must take place to avoid blue screens and such, and some other less frequent times the OS needs to be reinstalled to accommodate the SSD difference. I did that once and I needed only to change some bios settings. The OS could ask for a repair disk so keep that at hand.
Boot order should be controlled from the bios, but some inferior designs don't have it and cables have to be tampered with. But recognition should still be the same regardless.
Having the optical disk drive (DVD, CD, etc.) as the first boot drive is best and probably required if booting from them is something you do, so having them 1st is the way to go. In some cases it slows the boot but that's probably in the old days and not anymore. If they are not, then the system will check prior drives for boot files and only go to the optical drive orderly if it does not find any.
