I saw your replies after I updated the build, but reading about it makes it seem pretty flaky, with the benefit from the SSD really depending on the manufacturer and model. I saw some with reviews that put them at being barely faster than an HDD, and other which had significant failure rates. I asked about what specific models they know to be good, but no one could recommend any. I also know the recipient has no experience with an SSD, and I don't either, and the prospect of the drive failing and resulting in complete and unrecoverable data loss is a bit intimidating.

I think I'll be more comfortable with them after they've been around longer and have undergone more improvements, and which ones are superior are well-known and well-tested, but at the moment it doesn't seem that the risk and cost is worth the benefit, at least not to a casual user.


Alright, I dropped 8GB of RAM and the cooler. I figured more is better but I'll take your word for it that it won't make a difference The reviews on that processor seem to indicate it runs very cool, even overclocked (which it won't be), so I guess that shouldn't be an issue.

By the way, will these parts come with all the screws/cables necessary to install them?

Yes, unless you bought them open-box or used.

Most likley those reviews showing no better performance than HDs are for really old SSDs, like the first generation that had bad controllers that emphasized throughput but neglected random seek speeds, which is the primary area that SSDs blow HDs out of the water. All SSDs from well-known brands for the past 2 years have been better than HDs.

Similarly, the high failure rates were from a particular brand of controller that was introduced 12-18 months ago which used cutting-edge algorithms to improve speed - it actually compressed all of your data on the fly as it stored it, which sped up read/write times as it was handling less data and gave you more usable space since everything was shrunk down in size. They messed up the earlier firmware for this, but this has since been fixed and I don't know of any other widespread issues at the moment. These were Sandforce controllers, and they aren't the only ones available, so if you wanted to avoid them out of an abundance of caution, then there are several other controller brands out there to choose from, although generally the sandforce drives offer the best performance/size/price ratio.

Most likely this is because there are many many SSDs out there, most of which use very similar underlying technology (the controller is the single biggest factor, then the flash memory). Also the difference in performance between 100MB/s throughput and 120MB/s throughput really isn't much when you're comparing it to a mechanical HD that might only have 30MB/s. Really when it comes to buying SSDs, it's more about price and size than it is about a specific brand. A lot of people just buy whatever is on sale for the size they want.

This is more likely to happen with a traditional mechanical HD than it is an SSD. Also you might see some FUD out there about flash memory cells wearing out, but it really is FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). Most drives would take you constantly writing new data at full speed for 2 years non-stop before the cells started to physically degrade. Normal desktop use will never approach this limit - it can be an issue for servers though (which is why there are enterprise-class SSDs that cost at least 2-3x more as consumer ones).

That time is now. SSDs have had big price drops in the last 6 months so they are often available under $1/GB now, which was seen as a milestone and a marker for mass-adoption by many tech people (comments on Slashdot).

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 28 2012, 11:15 pm by Lanthanide.

The SSD is probably my favorite thing about my computer. I can boot up Windows 7 and be on the desktop within 12 seconds (compared to this laptop, which takes upwards of one to two minutes), and everything launches like it were already cached in RAM. I used to be in the same boat as you about a year ago because SSDs were pretty unreliable back then, but now I wouldn't consider a modern build without one.

I would recommend the Crucial M4 (or would have, at least, back when it was one of the best deals around) based on personal experience: mine worked right out of the box, is blazingly fast, runs quieter and cooler than my HDD, and I've had no technical issues with it at all (going about 7 months now). Sacrieur likes OCZ, while rockz says to treat them like the plague (presumably because some of their models like the Vertex 2 had compatibility issues and were overall dreadful launches), but they have one of the fastest drives out there. ADATA (which has experience and reputation with flash memory before SSDs) seems to be a reliable brand as well, and the same could be said of Samsung (which made the SSD I suggested here; that SSD has excellent reviews, and a large number of them to boot).

If you're concerned about hard drives dying, I regret to inform you like others here already have that HDDs have the same problem in this regard. If you're paranoid about a dying drive, you should be running your storage in RAID 1, 5, or 10. If you're not doing this on your existing machines, you're running the same risk on an HDD as an SSD.

But hey, you're building this machine for someone else, so fuck 'em.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_FM2

Trinity is damn awesome in the low power market. I have to stress that you need to be using hybrid graphics with it though, otherwise it's worthless.

On SSDs, I got one heck of a steal on a $0.50 / GB 120 GB one on black friday. And it wasn't OCZ either. I'm sorry I didn't just buy 10 now. The Samsung 840 is pretty much king now, and crucial m4 is old and busted (but still pretty good). The V4 is crap, so don't get it.

Well, not counting SSD concerns presented, I think it's good to go. I took off the cooler and extra 8GB of RAM, as mentioned, and added this 200mm fan for the top of the case.

It doesn't seem that there are any issues with this, so I think this is probably what I'll end up going with. I'll update if something changes, or if it doesn't, when the machine is operational. Thanks for all the help in getting this figured out so quickly

As for comments about HDD failure resulting in complete and unrecoverable data loss, I've never had this happen. I've had HDDs fail, but never so fully and suddenly that the information can't be backed up and the drive replaced before it fails completely. I get that it's easier for HDDs to be damaged, but realistically, I don't think the risk is worth mentioning unless you live in an earthquake hotspot or something.

As opposed to a review site for a popular SSD (coincidentally the Crucial M4), which would suggest that 1 in 12 people randomly experience complete information loss, with no warning whatsoever, after 1 to 12 months of normal use. Sure, it ends up with a decent score when 100 people give it the lowest score and 1100 give it the highest score, but it seems like an unacceptable level of risk. Checking other SSD products, this appears to be a trend.

Not all reviews are genuine reviews. Further, those that have drives fail on them may be more motivated to leave bad reviews than those who did not have their drives fail on them.

The potential for reviews not being genuine applies to all reviews, not just bad ones. You should have also mentioned that those who left good reviews could have had their drives fail since then.

I can get behind pretty much all of Lanth's arguments. It all seems based off problems that since have been solved.
Intel states that 2% of their drives were returned due to failure. That's stellar reliabilty but there may be other brands/models/controllers that have problems. The Samsung 840 seems pretty good (and fast!) too, if you don't want an Intel.
Also MTBF is higher for SSDs (2 Million hours compared to 1.5 Million).

And even if all of this were nonsense and the SSD were to suddenly die, your data would be on your data drive (HDD) since the SSD is the system drive. So it would just be a matter of RMA and reinstalling Windows.

Also when you're so afraid about failures, consider this:
With a SSD you could use it to mirror your most important data (not counting games and films since those are too large, but documents and pictures).
Which means unless both drives get destroyed the same time you won't lose your important stuff. It's added safety, not added risk.

Then you're lucky.

Correct, HDDs are easier to be damaged due to shock etc than SSDs since they have moving parts and SSDs don't. But this is realistically a non-issue for desktop computers (laptops are a different matter), hence why I haven't mentioned it at all. HDDs dying is because they simply wear out because they have moving parts. Google's HDD study showed that failures rates for for HDDs generally means they will be DOA, die within the first 3 months or otherwise it will last 3+ years. SSDs on the other hand simply don't have nearly the same death profile: the risk is pretty much firmware or fundamental design flaw, or they'll keep working for a long time.

How about you give us a link to this site?

I've had 6 hdds die on me in the last 10 months (I work with about 300 computers). Two I was able to get data off of them. One of them was my personal 1 TB HDD I was using to back up all my data off of my three other HDDS while I put them into a raid 5. God that was exceedingly annoying.

Update: The build was a success After installing some protection software, I gave it to the recipient and it's running beautifully.

Thanks to everyone who gave their input, the quick and helpful responses were greatly appreciated