Any reason not to get a large SSD?
Any reason not to get a large SSD?
Author
Discussion

Condi

Original Poster:

19,045 posts

188 months

Yesterday (10:49)
quotequote all
I've been having a look at what is holding back my PC when it's noticeably slower than other people's to load games and such like. It appears the drive is quite slow and that is the bottle neck, so easiest and cheapest thing to do is replace it with a new one. Options are a 2TB HDD, for about £60 a similar sized SSD for £120.

Back in the day I'm sure I remember SSDs not being recommended for large storage/gaming, being used mainly as small boot drives, but in 2025 is there any reason not to get an SSD rather than a HDD? I don't have a huge amount of data, current drive is only 1TB and about 75% full, so 2TB should be fine for a few years.

bangerhoarder

667 posts

85 months

Yesterday (10:55)
quotequote all
Not using large SSDs for gaming etc went out years ago. I think it went back to sustained read speeds, which HDDs were better at. Irrelevant now, for home use at least.

Not a bad idea to keep a HDD in there for backup/long term storage, but for anything in frequent use get rid.

biggiles

1,942 posts

242 months

Yesterday (11:11)
quotequote all
SSD all the way for home use, though they are a little more expensive.

HDDs have their place for specific purposes, but most people aren't running 30 TB NAS systems.

simon_harris

2,165 posts

51 months

Yesterday (11:14)
quotequote all
the problem used to be that you had a defined number of read/writes to an SSD and that using in gaming type systems would burn through those pretty quickly in comparative terms to a HDD. That is a problem long since solved though and they are now commonly used.

Drive Blind

5,455 posts

194 months

Yesterday (12:09)
quotequote all
whats the age / spec of your machine?

replacing the hdd with ssd and a memory upgrade and reinstall windows is the default answer for improving old machines.

xeny

5,158 posts

95 months

Yesterday (13:09)
quotequote all
SSDs in general are much more performant when they're less full, so consider going larger than 2TB rather than starting ~40% full.

If you want to go with 2TB for budget reasons, make sure you get a TLC rather than QLC drive, as this is particularly an issue with them.

JoshSm

1,789 posts

54 months

Yesterday (13:25)
quotequote all
simon_harris said:
the problem used to be that you had a defined number of read/writes to an SSD and that using in gaming type systems would burn through those pretty quickly in comparative terms to a HDD. That is a problem long since solved though and they are now commonly used.
The problem wasn't really solved, if anything the write endurance in terms of cycles got worse on the cheaper ranges due to price pressures & the technology for increasing density at those prices.

But overall if you're after endurance, then for an otherwise equivalent drive spec the largest ones will last the longest, especially if you don't use the extra space.

Otherwise if it matters buy an enterprise grade one.

Griffith4ever

5,742 posts

52 months

Yesterday (13:30)
quotequote all
I have 4 odd SSDs in mine now - 2 older Sata 2.5" SSD drives, and 2 new 1 and 2 TB NVME SSDs. They all run fine, even the older SATA ones.

My OS is on a fast Samsung 1TB SSD, and my games are on the other larger no-name ones.

If you are moving your OS (and you REALLY should) onto your new purchase, by a Samsung SSD - it comes with free software that performs the image copy for you - makes it a walk in the park. You are going to be utterly amazed at the speed increase.

xeny

5,158 posts

95 months

Yesterday (14:13)
quotequote all
Something else to check, - is the current drive NVMe, or SATA, and how many NVMe slots does your current motherboard (do you have the model) have?

I agree with Griffith4ever to put the OS on the fastest drive is probably the best choice. WD/Sandisk and Crucial also offer bundled imaging software, and I'd very much aim to use a drive from one of these vendors for the OS.

JoshSm

1,789 posts

54 months

Yesterday (14:33)
quotequote all
It's going to depend on the spec, some of the fast NVMe drives can only sustain that speed in bursts and are compromised on endurance.

And the OS drive is subject to constant writes so endurance is the key for that one. At a minimum all the operating system logs and stuff that never stop, and usually things like temp files and browser & other caches too unless you make a lot of settings changes to eliminate most of it. You will get through a lot of write cycles without even noticing.

Better to have an OS drive plus a second drive for the other stuff. That's how all my machines are set up including the laptops.

If you want to push the OS drive there's always the option to have striped NVMe for maximum performance and half the wear.

Condi

Original Poster:

19,045 posts

188 months

Yesterday (16:14)
quotequote all
The OS and a few other programs are already on an SSD, the larger HDD is where the games are saved and it's the loading from this which is taking the time. I'll have a look at NVe drives, at some point I expect to upgrade the rest of the machine anyway, but it has become obvious that the HDD is the current bottleneck. Thanks for all the information.

BlueMR2

8,911 posts

219 months

Yesterday (20:02)
quotequote all
Condi said:
The OS and a few other programs are already on an SSD, the larger HDD is where the games are saved and it's the loading from this which is taking the time. I'll have a look at NVe drives, at some point I expect to upgrade the rest of the machine anyway, but it has become obvious that the HDD is the current bottleneck. Thanks for all the information.
Check out the details of your motherboard, that will tell you if you have any onboard m2 slots.

Condi

Original Poster:

19,045 posts

188 months

Yesterday (20:17)
quotequote all
BlueMR2 said:
Check out the details of your motherboard, that will tell you if you have any onboard m2 slots.
Ive ordered a Crucial 2TB M2 PCI5 drive, which will be a massive upgrade today and will be compatible with any new mobo i get in future. Current mobo is only PCI3, but does have a spare M2 slot.

BlueMR2

8,911 posts

219 months

Yesterday (20:36)
quotequote all
You just need to know if the m.2 slot is sata or nvme.


mikef

5,755 posts

268 months

Yesterday (23:02)
quotequote all
SATA SSDs including SATA M2 cards are only around twice as fast as a SATA 3 SSD

If your motherboard doesn't have an NVMe slot and if you do have a spare PCIe slot in the PC, then you could buy a converter card like this one from Amazon

I have a 2TB Crucial P5 Plus NVMe SSD with that card as a games storage drive; it's running at 3200 MB/s, so around 10 times faster than SATA HDDs. The speed will depend on which gen PCIe, and how many lanes are already being used for gaming cards etc

Condi

Original Poster:

19,045 posts

188 months

Yesterday (23:31)
quotequote all
According to the internet the motherboard supports NVME, so it should just be a case of plugging it in, copying all the files over, and off we go.

Only question is, if everything is installed on the D drive, and the new SSD becomes the E drive, how does the computer know which drive to look at, because everything D/..... won't exist any more. It'll all be E/..... Presumably if I copy everything over directly, they'll copy over the D/... indexing, even though it's not the D drive??

JoshSm

1,789 posts

54 months

Yesterday (23:50)
quotequote all
The drive letters are whatever you want them to be. You can make d to f and e to d and then it will be happy.

Especially if you take out the old one.


LunarOne

6,509 posts

154 months

xeny said:
SSDs in general are much more performant when they're less full, so consider going larger than 2TB rather than starting ~40% full.

If you want to go with 2TB for budget reasons, make sure you get a TLC rather than QLC drive, as this is particularly an issue with them.
This.

https://www.xda-developers.com/please-stop-buying-...

maffski

1,905 posts

176 months

LunarOne said:
xeny said:
SSDs in general are much more performant when they're less full, so consider going larger than 2TB rather than starting ~40% full.

If you want to go with 2TB for budget reasons, make sure you get a TLC rather than QLC drive, as this is particularly an issue with them.
This.

https://www.xda-developers.com/please-stop-buying-...
Most people are only writing data occasionally (installing games and updates for example), so re-write cycle counts are pretty irrelevant, and full write buffers are annoying but I'm not sure I'd care that much. I'd rather have a larger gen 4 drive with QLC and a system ram cache than a smaller gen 5 drive with TLC and an DRAM cache.

Condi

Original Poster:

19,045 posts

188 months

Don't worry, it's Gen5, high capacity and TLC.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/crucial-p510-2tb-m....