2.5" SSD in my 3.5" Desktop?

It appears that this computer only has 2 SATA connections so I am assuming you are planning to remove the HDD and replace it with a SSD. If that is your plan the result will be the same as you have seen on your laptops, faster bootup and overall performance.

One thing I would consider is to keep the HDD and replace the optical drive with a SSD. I assume the optical drive's SATA port is also SATA III. By doing this you could save some money by going with a smaller SSD for the operating system and use the HDD for your data storage. If you sometimes need the optical drive you could put it in a 5 1/4" external SATA to USB enclosure or use other workarounds like creating an USB ISO from the CD.

You may also want to look at this adapter although I think the Corsair, with the slotted holes, allows for adjusting the horizontal position of the drive whereas this one does not::

www.amazon.com/.../B00G57BN1M

What Adapter have you guys used?

I swear by the Silverstone SDP08: it has all the mount points of a conventional 3.5-inch storage device and will mount two 2.5-inch devices in over-and-under configuration.  

I wish I had brought the Corsair with the adjustable mounting holes. The lengths of SSDs vary and edge of the SSD do not always line up with the edge of the bracket which can be a problem when connecting the SATA power and data cables.

First off, sorry for the convoluted question LOL, I could have shortened it considerably but my brain is not all that good.

That was some good feedback guys, and it's looking like the Corsair because vtoy116 pointed out the adjustable slots! I really like that feature, and...black is cool LOL.  The SDP08 looks very good also, so will keep that one in mind for future projects too!  The SDP08 has more reviews, but the Corsair is the best seller, both on amazon? LOL how does that make sense.  Maybe the SDP08 is older, been around longer.

I think I will keep my Optical Drive and just install the SSD, or may even install the HDD I have for now.  I want to compare the HDD to an SDD which I will get asap.  I keep most my files on USB's, three of them to be exact, all backed up from my primary.  This way I am not tied down to any pc because I have multiple computers, and, do a little repair also, so it's nice to have all my info mobile.

I just bought a "Sandisk Plus" for my laptop, but was considering the PNY for this 660s as there were more reviews by customers, which one would you guys get out of those two?  I know the Samsung is the popular one but I'm on a budget, and already have one of those for another laptop, or maybe will put it in this 660s!!!...not sure yet.

I wonder which one will perform better at file transfer to the drive itself?  I suppose the SDD wins everywhere, I'll need to look at some real-world benchmarks again.

I have a Brand New WD Blue 7200rpm 1TB so will throw that in there to see how it performs, and then try out an SSD also.  The trade off for me I think is the HDD is a little more durable? but not really sure.  I also like to multiboot, so the HDD is good for that also, but I really want to test this 660s with one of my SSD's, I'll post back when it is all up and running!

Thanks guys, this was a lot of help!

O-And I don't know who to give the "Did this answer your question?" To? can I do this for more than one in a Thread?

I doubt your HDD is going to be more durable than an SSD. If you can judge durability based on the warranty alone, the WD Blue has a 2-year warranty and the PNY SSD has a 3-year warranty.

As far as file transfer is concerned, if you are referring to transfers to USBs, your limitation is the USB interface and not the drive type (HDD or SSD)..

How is a SSD faster than the HDD, just the Boot times.  I understand writing To a USB will be a different equation.  What if writing to the SSD vs HDD, they are both SATA III but which one is faster.  So it's boot time, and write times to and from the Drives, which I'm guessing the SSD wins every time.  I'm also guessing the SSD takes less energy to run, and less heat created.  My room get's hot easy and I would rather have that SSD for this.  I feel my desktop blowing hot air all the time, don't like that lol.

What about stuff like the pagefile, things like this are being wrote to the HDD right, albeit not so much, still need to access it for some things, like web browsing stuff?

If I only went with one, which one would you go with?  I don't store stuff on System Drive for the most part.

Thanks, sorry I'm a little brain fogged atm.

SATA III is just the interface so that alone does not determine the speed of the device; think of 7200 rpm and 5400 rpm HDDs. Electro-mechanical hard drives are just slower than SSDs.

If I had to go with one I would go with the SSD. Speed and reliability are the main factors with size the only drawback.

SSD's detrap and lose data.  SSD's will never be more durable than HDD because they die in 100,000 or 10,000 or 1,000 Writes with SLC vs MLC vs TLC.

Hard drives can be turned off and not lose data for 30 years or more.  SSD's lose 100 percent of the data after about 1 year of being off aka 52 weeks.  1 Week or less in a HOT environment which is why you never leave an ssd in a laptop in your car. :emotion-15:.

The effects of temperature on the data retention and endurance of the SSD, however, is rarely specified or discussed. (Because you may not want and ssd after you find out how little time it takes for heat to completely lose all data in an SSD.)  Endurance is how many writes to dead.  SLC is 100,000   MLC is 10,000(Samsung PRO)  TLC is 1000. (SAMSUNG EVO)  for example.  The translation is that in normal temps the lower the better ssd's last for many weeks aka 52.

When it gets hotter that duration can be as little as 1 week.

And in very hot environments as little as a few hours.  While the ssd can be re formatted the data "stored electrons" is lost forever.

http://www.eeweb.com/blog/eli_tiomkin/industrial-temperature-and-nand-flash-in-ssd-products

You can believe what you want but if your numbers are true and there are no mitigation in SSD controllers for these limitations than lots of people are wasting their money buying SSDs. Most consumers don't have to worry about the internals of endurance management, most new SSD are good enough. You don't have to believe me, just Google 'SSD lifespan'.

By the way, the original poster had a desktop so I don't think he will be leaving it in his car, but if he dropped his SSD I bet it would survive better than his HDD.

and if it is a 660s yes there are only two SATA ports on the MoBo, but for less than $15 you can buy a PCIe 1x two port SATA controller and add two more drives. The chassis is small but double stick tape works fine to tape it to the case. I wouldn't ship one this way but it mounts without issues.

1) my primary systems no longer have spinning drives. much faster, much quieter.

2) data that is valuable is stored following the 3-2-1 principle.

3 total copies of your data,

2 of which are local but on different mediums (read: devices),

1 copy offsite.

copy/pasted/edited from here:  www DOT backblaze.com/blog/the-3-2-1-backup-strategy/

I do more than that for my primary workstations where downtime costs money and clone the SSDs to an HDD so I have a working copy.

Macbooks, I don't bother backing up any of the internal programs, just the data.

I like your idea of PCIe SATA controller. SSDs are so small and light I am sure there is some way to Velcro it in instead of using double stick tape.