Hi guys,
Let me preface my question by saying, I understand this question may draw hate or general negativity towards my mindset on this matter as it may sound ignorant or dumb, but I am honestly curious about this and really want to know why I'm wrong so I can learn. Thanks.
I am about to start a new PC build and I am trying to budget out where to direct money for parts. It will be my third build and I have been slowly building up my knowledge about parts and what to expect from a system.
I have noticed that on these forums from people posting build guides, or people general recommending parts on the web, or even from the man himself Linus in his videos, people seem to love putting an SSD in their machines to supplement their usual HDD they have installed. They seem to be in systems ranging from as low as $600 to $2500 machines and everything in between.
I'm currently trying to get my head around the value of them, and I don't seem to be able to. In Australia where i'm from, a solid 250gb Intel SSD would set you back about $200, and im not sure i really understand how that $200 is justified. Wouldn't the money spent on an SSD be better spent on a better CPU or GPU? I'll give an example below of my mindset and let me know if i seem to be missing the point, lets say someone is going to do a build with an FX 8320 and an R9 270x:
Build 1 (Adding an SSD):
CPU: AMD FX 8320 ($189AU)
GPU: Gigabyte OC Edition AMD R9 270X 2GB ($279AU)
SSD: Intel 530S 240G ($195AU)
TOTAL: $663
Build 2 (Upgrade):
CPU: Upgrade to an FX 8350 ($239AU)
GPU: Upgrade to an Gigabyte OC Edition AMD R9 280X 3GB($379AU)
TOTAL: $618
I'm just not sure I understand why Build 1 is a better option than Build 2. Does faster load times outweigh that gain in performance? Im honestly wondering why Build 1 is a better option. Maybe the money doesn't have to go to the GPU and CPU, but wouldn't it still be better spread out upgrading individual parts of a system?
Please people, help me understand so i may share the knowledge with the world