*obliterates the notion that SSDs are faster than HDDs*

*obliterates the notion that SSDs are faster than HDDs*

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    is the implication here that defragmentation makes an hdd as fast as a solid state drive
    because: nah

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >its a zoomie finds out about defragmenting episode

      t. fell for the SSD meme

      I'm over here defragging nightly, getting more storage per $, and getting the same speed because everything is read sequentially

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        read sequentially with at most 285MB/s (with loud 7200rpm) while SSDs can do 12GB/s?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          OP is trolling badly

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          OP is trolling badly

          First of all, YOUR SSD isn't doing 12GB/s because you don't have a Gen 5 SSD. Second, your SSD isn't reading this fast after prolonged use, and defragmentation can't fix this. It's probably reading aroudn 1GB/s MAX.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I do actually. Not everyone is a thirdie here. But let's assume I only have a 4.0 SSD, that's still 6-7GB/s sequential.
            For consumer SSDs only write speed decreases with time, not read. Professional SSDs do not. Even the cheapest SATA SSDs in their worst case scenario, outpace your HDD.
            Your precious HDD behaves the same - it slows down the further away from the center of the disks the data is, but with crucial difference - both speeds are affected.
            Also defragmentation won't fix the latency issues caused by accessing DIFFERENT files spread all over the disk.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "Fill whole disk" isn't a proper sustained write test. Garbage collection will be minimal or won't even start at all considering over provisioning.

            >For consumer SSDs only write speed decreases with time, not read

            This is literally, factually in correct. Populated NAND cells take longer to read.

            My HDD has ZERO of these issues, despite being 95% full.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"Fill whole disk" isn't a proper sustained write test. Garbage collection will be minimal or won't even start at all considering over provisioning.
            It is the literal worst case for a SSD. It can't use unallocated cells to soften the load, as SLC cache. I am giving your moronoHDD the advantage here and it still loses hilariously badly.
            >This is literally, factually in correct. Populated NAND cells take longer to read.
            [citation needed] because it's incorrect (a dictionary would help you here). Also empty NAND cells are not being read because the controller knows that they are empty in the first place. What's next, you're gonna come up with "partially empty" cells? Still a resounding "no".
            >My HDD has ZERO of these issues, despite being 95% full.
            Of course it does. The data near the center is read/written faster than the data on the outside. That's basic physics, but you seem to be not really well versed in that anyway.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It is the literal worst case for a SSD.

            The worst case for an SSD is random OVERWRITES, not a disk fill. Consider attending a lecture on the basics of flash storage.

            >[citation needed]

            A NAND cell takes more time to read the more charge it holds.

            >The data near the center is read/written faster than the data on the outside

            This is irrelevant given a defragmented HDD, because the file will be placed optimally.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The worst case for an SSD is random OVERWRITES, not a disk fill. Consider attending a lecture on the basics of flash storage.
            I know that.
            Consider reading how TPU tests their SSD:
            >All drives are filled with random data to 80% of their capacity
            >All write requests contain random, incompressible data.
            >In order to minimize random variation, each real-life performance test is run several times, with reboots between tests to minimize the impact of disk cache.
            Thus it is being overwritten, several times in fact.
            >A NAND cell takes more time to read the more charge it holds.
            That's not a source, you are repeating yourself. And even IF true, that still is orders of magnitude faster than moving a HDD head.
            >This is irrelevant given a defragmented HDD, because the file will be placed optimally.
            You wrote that your drive is 95% full. It is literally impossible to place everything optimally in that case. Basic math knowledge deficiencies, again. The data located in the first 10% is read/written faster than the data at 80% - this still holds and will always hold no matter how hard you kvetch.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "my HDD has none of these issues"
            even the worst, most out of trim SSD has better performance than a HDD. I get that this is bait, but christ is it good because you're just so moronic.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Lowest tier single chip dramless QLC do lose to high capacity top tier HDDs in sustained linear write speed once both are out of cache. But that's it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You seem confused regarding bits and bytes.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you don't have a Gen 5 SSD
            why do third worlders like to claim everyone else DOESN'T have the hardware they can't afford? it's weird. do you actually think gen 5 ssds are expensive and out of peoples reach? they're only 150$. third worlders must be this poor and desperate to claim people don't really have what they have LOL. i always thought that anons on here were poor, but i didn't realize most were desperately poor

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            t.coping street shitter

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            haha, my SSD will do 2GB/s for years, with better latency than your RAM, poorgay. Take the optane pill anon, I dare you.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >and getting the same speed because everything is read sequentially
        No, you're not.
        Don't even bother lying.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >he doesn’t know about access times
        Jesus Christ anon, you cannot be this moronic. It’s not allowed.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >its a zoomie finds out about defragmenting episode

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What the frick are you talking about anon have you ever tried loading a big program on a HDD vs a SSD

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    disk compression makes HDD's btfo SSD's

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >PC at work has been slow as shit forever
    >8th gen i7, 8 GB RAM, no bloatware, has no business being this slow
    >look at system monitor, HDD is pegged at 100% usage constantly
    >will literally take 30 seconds for the start menu to open, up to half an hour after a cold boot
    >clone the drive
    >put it on a replacement SATA SSD
    >PC now instantly responsive
    Yes, I tried defragging, yes I tried clearing out junk files and uninstalling the typical bloatware, the HDD was just unacceptably slow. This is almost always the case in any computer made in the last 10 years - an SSD is practically mandatory for a fast user experience.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >hourly poorgay cope thread

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      defragmentation isnt a an actual problem if you use a modern filesystem, ntfs isnt one

      Imagine being this much of a moron.
      We've moved on from heavily fragmenting filesystems anon long time ago.
      Stop using NTFS - Black person Technology File System.

      Switch to *BSD, Linux or modern macOS anon.
      Switch to low latency BFQ with a hdd tune(1.78x speedup).

      OP is a troll or a broke ass. You can have a cheap 128GB SSD for $20 and experience and benefits they offer.

      Worst bait

      >and getting the same speed because everything is read sequentially
      No, you're not.
      Don't even bother lying.

      A nerve was touched

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        stop using Black person technology kernel

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    defragmentation isnt a an actual problem if you use a modern filesystem, ntfs isnt one

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine being this much of a moron.
    We've moved on from heavily fragmenting filesystems anon long time ago.
    Stop using NTFS - Black person Technology File System.

    Switch to *BSD, Linux or modern macOS anon.
    Switch to low latency BFQ with a hdd tune(1.78x speedup).

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    OP is a troll or a broke ass. You can have a cheap 128GB SSD for $20 and experience and benefits they offer.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Worst bait

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Stop being a coping poorgay, OP.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i use reiserfs with an old laptop 120gb hd

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    SSDs are so much faster than hard drives it's not even funny. do you even know top transfer speeds of both? clearly you don't

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I have both an SSD (cheap) for system, and HDD for user files. And I can definitively state that even cheap SSD is faster than defragmented HDD

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    third worlders are still pushing the whole "hard drives are better than SSDs" meme huh? SSDs can do up to 12400mbps max sequential reads. what can hard drives do? i'll wait. anything besides pure numbers is third world cope. SSDs are the fastest thing there is, hard drives are ONLY good for large storage at this point, nothing else

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      i just use my cpu L1 cache, let me guess, you need more?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *