Member Avatar for mah300274

Does anyone know around how fast an SSD is?

I mean is it comparable to 10K HDD? Is a 15K HDD faster then an SSD (especialy 6gb/s)?

This is just a random post, just curious because of the high prices.

  • 3 Contributors
  • 3 Replies
  • 298 Views
  • 1 Day Discussion Span
  • Latest Post Latest Post by mah300274

Dani AI

Generated

Building on ’s question and the points raised by and , here’s a compact, numbers‑focused primer that fills the gaps those replies left open.

Mechanical 15K drives are fundamentally limited by rotation and head movement: a 15,000 RPM spindle gives about a 2 ms average rotational latency and—after seeks—only on the order of a few hundred small‑block IOPS (roughly 150–200 for random 4K operations), which is why responsiveness for an OS or many small I/O tasks stays bound to platter drives. (en.wikipedia.org)

Flash removes rotational/seek delay. Modern NVMe SSDs can deliver multi‑GB/s sequential throughput and hundreds of thousands to over a million random IOPS (for example, the Samsung 990 PRO lists up to ~7,450 MB/s sequential and >1.4M random IOPS in vendor specs), while even SATA SSDs still deliver many orders of magnitude lower latency than any HDD. Those are the real user‑visible wins: snappy boot, instant app launches, and fast DB/VM metadata access. (semiconductor.samsung.com)

A practical, long‑term setup that’s still sensible years after this thread began: put the OS and programs on an SSD sized for installed software (many people find 256–1000 GB ideal) and keep bulk media/backups on larger HDDs. Prioritize drives with reasonable endurance/TBW ratings, leave some free space (or overprovision) to sustain performance, and ensure the OS supports TRIM (or schedule fstrim on Linux) so the drive’s garbage collection stays healthy. (insights.samsung.com)

Finally, check NAND type and endurance: SLC/MLC/TLC/QLC trade cost for write endurance and sustained‑write performance—TLC is common for mainstream SSDs, QLC for dense cheap capacity, and higher‑end/enterprise parts use stronger NAND and higher TBW. For write‑heavy or multi‑VM workloads, pick drives with higher endurance specs. (techtarget.com)

This gives the core tradeoffs (latency/IOPS, sustained throughput, endurance) so the historical question—15K vs 10K vs SSD—resolves into a workload choice: if responsiveness matters, flash wins; for raw $/GB archive, platters still hold value.

Recommended Answers

All 3 Replies

Member Avatar for tje210

if you want to compare, look at their 1) throughput, 2) seek time, and 3) access time.

If you're concerned with speed... get 2 7200 RPM drives and hook them up in raid 1. Or get 4 and hook them up in Raid 10 (for a bigger drive). IMO, spending money for fast platter drives is a waste, and spending money on SSDs is a waste right now, because prices will come down soon. the cheap ones are too small to make use of, and the big ones are too expensive to justify for the non-wealthy consumer. if money is no object, get some gorgeous big SSD's and watch them fly.

Member Avatar for Rik_

With ssd, it all depends on what it connects to. If it is designed to "enulate" sata by connecting to a sata port then it's not much quicker than a sata as it is restricted to sata data transfer speed. If ssd is connected to it's own dedicated interface in a pci-e slot then it has the potential to be a lot faster.

At the moment, because of cost, it's just not worth it in my opinion.

We have some Toshiba R500's in the workshop at the moment. They have ssd in them as standard and I can't say they are any quicker than sata as they have the ssd connected via the sata interface.

Member Avatar for mah300274

Ya I know the costs of everything are outragous but I was just curious because the SSD will come down soon enough... hopefully sooner then later

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.