SSD and RAM Confusion

[dunksalot]

So I am leaning towards Sager 9150. There are some hard drive options that I could use some clarity on if someone can please help me.

I use my PC for work and gaming. I run Windows 7, Office, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and a few additional (smaller) programs simultaneously - and this is a typical work day for me. I want speed when I boot my PC and when I open/close applications as time is money.

1. Is there a significant difference between the standard 8GB RAM and the 16GB - DDR3 1600MHz Dual Channel Memory (4 SODIMMS) upgrade?
2. If I opt for the 80GB Intel 310 Series mSATA SSD - Preconfigured as an OS Drive would this be a great way to ensure a fast boot up if this is the only drive with Windows 7 (eventually would like to upgrade to Windows 8) and ran my other programs on...
3. 240gb Intel 520 Series Solid State Drive - Can I then use this SSD for Office and other key programs/games? I would then opt for the 750GB as my third drive mainly for storage...
4. If I opt for the third 750GB storage drive is there any need or performance advantage I would gain out of the 750GB (w/ 8GB SSD Memory) Seagate XT 7200RPM NCQ Hybrid (Serial-ATA III 600 - 32MB Cache)? Am I correct in assuming these SSD memory and cache added features are really more for boot-up enhancements?
5. So considering all of the above, would I be satisfied opting for the 750GB (w/ 8GB SSD Memory) Seagate XT 7200RPM NCQ Hybrid (Serial-ATA III 600 - 32MB Cache) as my primary drive?

Thanks!!!

[Fat Dragon]

With that much running at once, you'll probably benefit from 16 GB RAM over 8 GB. 1333 MHz will provide almost identical performance to 1600 MHz, though, if the price is higher for the higher speed, it's probably unnecessary.

If you're already planning on getting a 2.5" SSD with full SATA-III speeds, I would pass on the mSATA as a boot drive, since it'll be slower than the 520 you're considering. I don't know if faster SSD's contribute significantly to faster boot speeds or if it's just hair-splitting at that point, but either way the mSATA drive would be redundant with the faster and larger 520.

Some people think that a Hybrid drive will provide faster secondary storage than a regular HDD, but unless the files you're storing get used during multiple boots, they won't make it into the SSD cache anyway, so I don't see any advantage of a hybrid for storage over a regular 7200 RPM disk. The 8 GB cache of the XT takes your regularly used files and caches them to a small SSD that allows them (and nothing else on the drive) to be called up faster than if they were coming from the spinning disk. The benefit of this typically comes up when you're running programs from the hybrid drive, so if you're installing your programs on an SSD the primary benefit of the hybrid is largely moot.

So, if you ask me, I'd go with 16 GB of 1333MHz RAM (you could upgrade it yourself aftermarket, but I think Sager's pretty good about keeping upgrade prices realistic), the 240 GB Intel 520 (you could probably even get by with 120 or 180 but that's up to you), and a regular 7200 RPM HDD for backup.

[w3ak3stl1nk]

^^what he said and...
Those applications listed wouldn't really push the box. And since you are interested in boot up and shutdown the SSD on the OS is correct with the sata III on the main bay. The main advantage of the 240GB is that it is speced faster... not saying it is entirely worth it relative to the 120GB, but worth is determined by you. Also the 7200RPM drive should work fine as backup... some say the 5400RPM work just as well, but it's a mater of preference... only bringing up the 5400RPM because the 1TB drives run pretty slow.
Good response though

[maverick1989]

Actually if you are doing such memory intensive tasks, I would suggest going for as few DIMMs as possible. 4x4 is not as good as 2x8. 2 8gig DIMMs will cost you more but, well, if time is money, then they cost you less in the long run.

As for your HDD, well, again if time is money, do not bring a conventional drive into the picture. It will slow you down. You can use one as a backup drive. To store stuff that you rarely use but that takes up a lot of space. I am not sure what that stuff would be for you. For a conventional user, HD movies fit the bill. A large collection of songs too. Games not commonly played or those that I have cracked and might start again with a differently spec'ed character would also go on the conventional. But all the work stuff you are going to be using every day, that should go on the SSD and that means you need a big enough SSD to store all those programs.

[Kuroi-Tsubasa]

Definitely put your programs onto the SSD, and save files and whatnot on the HDD. That's basically what I do, except my HDD is an external (i need an Ultrabay caddy lol....)

As for 4x4 v 2x8, I am 99% sure that you would not be able to tell the difference when you're running your programs and going about your computer business. They only way you'll really see the performance difference between the two is if you benchmark them, but that is not representative of real-world usage. Save your money, buy the 4x4GB configuration (I'd buy the extra sticks aftermarket and install yourself to save more), and use the remaining budget for either extra goodies to install, or something else (maybe a nice dinner or whatever lol).

[jinda]

If I'm the one buying, I'll get the lowest RAM, and the 750GB 7200 rpm and buy the extra RAM and SSD somewhere and install them myself. It will be a lot cheaper.

[dunksalot]

Great answers - helps clarify a lot. I feel more comfortable about what I need to purchase. Thanks a million!!!

[dunksalot]

What's the performance differences between (1) an Intel 520 Series SSD with a 2nd HDD for storage, or (2) Dual HDD in Raid 0?

Costs irrelevant. Assume total storage is 1TB.

[Kuroi-Tsubasa]

Solid state > mechanical drives, every -- single -- time.

Not even 15k RPM HDDs in RAID 0 could beat an Intel 520 (or any SATAIII drive, maybe any SATAII even).

It'll just cost a lot more to have 1TB in SSD storage, but then again you state costs do not matter.

[Fat Dragon]

Solid state > mechanical drives, every -- single -- time.

Not even 15k RPM HDDs in RAID 0 could beat an Intel 520 (or any SATAIII drive, maybe any SATAII even).

It'll just cost a lot more to have 1TB in SSD storage, but then again you state costs do not matter.

This. And you'd pay as much for that theoretical 1TB dual-15k setup as for the same amount of much-faster storage in current-gen SSDs, it wouldn't fit in a notebook, and power draw would be an order of magnitude higher. RAID 0 also doubles the risk of losing your data - if one HDD fails, you lose all of your data.

Better to go with the initial plan - SSD as the system and program drive, HDD for storage.