Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I don't know, man. SSD is still too expensive for anyone except
> performance freaks. More bafflingly, even though the performance of SSD
> should be orders of magnitude superior to HD, apparently some of the
> best HDs can actually surpass SSD. That shouldn't be possible, but
> somehow it is. I find that utterly bizarre, but those are apparently the
> numbers.

Well I have two SSDs and I'm not a performace freak.

> More bafflingly, even though the performance of SSD
> should be orders of magnitude superior to HD, apparently some of the
> best HDs can actually surpass SSD. That shouldn't be possible, but
> somehow it is. I find that utterly bizarre, but those are apparently the
> numbers.

Depends on what key parameters youre looking at. In sheer bulk transfer rate and
especially write speed, it's possible for a mechanical drive to outperform an
SSD.
But for random access you'll be hard pressed to find a mechanical drive
outperforming an SSD.
And that's the main reason I have my SSDs. For the random access speed.

My SSDs have a random access speed in the low megabyte range, but thats still 10
times faster than my mechanical ones (late model 1 & 2 TB Western Digital SATA2
drives).

Post a reply to this message