OCZ CORE SATA2 SSD

[Yoma]

Hi guys

I'm just wondering...
As Arma uses a streaming engine, sometimes you can notice visible lodshifting when you move around fast around the map. (I use a raid 0 setup and still it tends to do this once in a while)
OCZ just came out with a new SSD drive that has very very nice read/access times and that's actually coming close to be affordable. I know there are a lot of hardware-buffs playing Arma. So i wondered, does anyone of you actually own one of these drives and have Arma installed on it?
Does it perform any better then a spinning HD?
Please only respond if you've actually seen the game run on one. I don't want this topic reduced to a "yes no" for SSD, i just want to know how it performs.
It may very well be that it behaves just about the same and that the actual bottleneck is simply not in reading from disk.

[Mr Burns]

How exactly it performs i dont know because i dont have one
Some lucky guys put it up against the VelociRaptor - read more here: http://hothardware.com/News....ak_Peek
imho ArmA would benefit alot from either the raptor and the ssd drive, but both still are'nt 'grown up' enough to be considerable .. just like dual gfx cards still are.

[PuFu]

OCZ Sata SSD Review @ Guru3D

[andersson]

Hm, it is tempting to buy one for OS and arma....

But I guess I save the money for now and wait for the first real pricedrop.

[Mr Sarkey]

The biggest worry with SSD is the number of cycles they can handle which seems iffy as of now.

[PuFu]

guru3d says having 16GB of data used every day will have your SSC life 100 years...that is the theory anyways..

[Tha_Man]

There are already several reviews available of the Core series (Google is your friend ), but the biggest downside of this SSD seems to be the random write speed/access time. The MTBF (mean time between failures) is at least as high as conventional disks, if not a lot higher. I wouldn't be afraid that your SSD wears out.
Reads can be done very quickly (up to 140MB/s, 0.3ms access time) so that would make it perfect for a disk to play your games from (mostly read operations). Having your OS installed on it, with perhaps a swap file and temporary files to store (write&#33, might be less beneficial than conventional HDD's due to the higher random write access times (up to 240ms, what I've read versus ~12ms read/write for HDD's). New HDD's may for now still be the best and cheapest option, since 100MB/s read is quite normal nowadays.

There is however great potential for SSD's as the prices go down and hopefully, performance goes up! I'm willing to give it a try when my budget allows me to, because as I said, SSD's can surely benefit games because of the low read access times, I'm sure Arma will benefit a lot; especially with high speed movement and high viewing distances (loads of textures to load).

[Yoma]

So my question still remains:
Does anyone have one and if so how does it perform?

[gL33k]

So my question still remains:
Does anyone have one and if so how does it perform with arma?

Fixed

[Yoma]

Euhm fixed as in : who out there HAS one and can share FIRSTHAND experience?
Where?
I didn't see anyone write that he has one and that arma does better on it then on his regular HD.
So again: how does it REALLY perform in Arma? (I know how it's SUPPOSED to perform but i wanna hear real life experiences)