Best SSD for SATA II Notebooks?

Another "recommend me an SSD" thread. RAID not possible as my lappy only has 1 drive bay, SATA II only, my laptop doesn't support SATA III. I'm looking for a 120gb ssd, my priority is boot time (Startup/shutdown) as well as response time of opening applications. My laptop is used for gaming so starting game applications is priority as well as increasing load times between levels. I will not be copying large files such as movies or music to the drive although I will be installing/uninstalling games pretty often. Basically I guess I'm looking for a drive that has the best 4k read/write scores and of course reliability is a big factor. I guess I'm looking for a drive that does best at real-world testing..Thanks!!

 

intel x25-m 120gb ftw

 

Still the intel? Despite the competition with sandforce based drives? Btw, I know OCZ and Corsair have high failure rates, is this due to the controller(sandforce) or it's just them? There's someone I know who's selling G.skill Phoenix Pro 120gb drives, I saw benchmarks and being a sandforce drive, seems to perform pretty well..Don't know about real world tests though..And also the samsung, great benchmarks on that drive, although not a sandforce(could be a good thing though)..

 

Yeah, still the Intel.

 

for SATA II, either the intel x25m, or you can wait for the next 320 series. For both performance + reliability.

for SATA III, there would be more choices though..

 

Yeah board only supports SATA II.. what is the 320? intel? when is it due to come out?

Question for the intel x25-m: Do the 160gbs perform better than the 120gbs? Does the performance of the intel's depend on the size or are all x25-ms basically the same? comparing 120gb/160gb..

 

The 120GB and 160GB X25's perform the same. The 80GB model takes a dive in maximum throughput.

From what I've read about the 320's, I cannot recommend them (unless they are the same money for substantially more capacity) or much less money at the same capacity points - so far, this is not the case).

Basically, all current (read; small capacity - and yes, 160GB is still small) SSD's perform at their best when you have the highest capacity model and you fill it with OS/apps/data as little as possible. Every single client of mine has seen this effect with the varied SSD's in their systems.

 

Even the sandforce drives? They claim even their 40gb models have the same performance as the 250s is it? Or is that marketing bull?

 

So long you read/write 0's or 1's, a 256M model of a SF would be just as fast as a 256TB SF.

 

Just something worth considering (as I am also) is that even though you have sataII at the mo, you could "futureproof" by buying a sataIII drive if you have the remote possibility of changing to a system that will support sataII any time soon. Would maybe save on another purchase? - something I am toying with even though i can only use sataII currently.

 

Personally, I don't think an SSD(or HDD) needs to be future proof. If I have a newer machine that supports SATA3 in say 1-2 years time down the road, most likely than not I would also need a newer and larger SSD(which will be cheaper).

In fact, I have never experienced a case where I need to use my old device in newer machine, other than once or twice retrieving files from the HDD taken out(because the old machine has died).

 

I won't be getting a SATA 3 anytime soon..not to mention benchmarks say SATA 3 capable ssds don't perform as well on SATA 2 as SATA 2 native ssds..Not sure if that's true though..In any case, the SATA 3 ssds are more expensive anyways..I can only spend around $230 for a 120gb drive..Right now my choices here where I'm from are either G.skill, intel, and OCZ..I can get my hands on mushkin probably as well as Corsair..Samsung will probably be quite difficult to find..Are sandforce drives worth it? I mean with the failure rate and all? Cause I don't wanna have to send it to another country for rma..It'll cost me a fortune..Not to mention the time before I get a replacement..I'm looking for reliability and real world performance..boot time, opening apps, loading time between game levels etc..is intel x25-m 12gb the way to go?

 

I suggest you read some reviews like this one or this one.

Intel G2 is a good SSD but I don't see any reason to recommend it over a Samsung 470.

 

I'd say Crucial C300 .. Its pretty cheap and awesome!

 

Quoted from the conclusion on the first link:

With less expensive rivals largely impervious to whatever causes the 470 Series' precipitous drop in file copy speed, it's difficult to recommend the Samsung SSD. TRIM is supposed to address the poor used-state performance of solid-state drives, and this particular implementation isn't delivering on that promise. What a shame. The 470 Series is otherwise impressive, and its low idle power consumption and tiny circuit board are sure to attract notebook makers looking for a small SSD to squeeze into their ultraportables. I just won't be putting this one in mine.

Doesnt that mean that degredation of the 470 over time means that it wont be a good long-term bet? - seems that it doesnt handle things very well in that regard. Wouldnt the X25-m be a better bet for longevity?

 

Iirc Techreport uses a torture test to simulate heavy usage. Samsung may need more time to recover it's speed.

Tomshardware reached different conclusions about the used 470 performance. In their testing it's alsmost identical to a new drive: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-470-sandforce-best-ssd,2783-15.html

I expect that a 'normally' used Samsung will outperform the X25-m 120GB in file copies.

If you want to answer that you'd need to benchmark these drives after let's say one year of usage.

 

According to benchmarks the intel x25-m doesn't do well with loading game levels even though it has high benchmarks with regard to loading at MB/s..why is that so? A velociraptor beats it at loading modern warfare..

 

One bad benchmark result doesn't mean much. In general Intel performs fine at loading games.

 

Intel 320 seems like a good option. Same strengths as G2 with better write peformance and power consumption.

Intel's 320 Series solid-state drive - The Tech Report - Page 10

 

I agree with phil,

Storage Review Intel SSD 320 Review (300GB)

 

Great news but I wonder how much it'll cost..And when it'll be available here..Wouldn't wanna have to order online cause shipping sucks..Do you guys think it fairs well compared to the samsung?

 

In all likelihood... you won't notice the difference.

 

Excellent Laptopmagreview found by Cloudfire.
Intel SSD 320 (300GB) Review - A Review of the Intel SSD 320 (300GB)

Many real world tests on a notebook. Intel 320 vs. Vertex 2, Samsung 470 and C300. Intel 320 doesn't look that impressive.

 

Yeah i read..Not to mention we won't be getting that drive here very soon..And it'll most probably cost a fortune..x25-m is alot cheaper here now..well it's around $275..yeah i know it's quite pricey here..same goes for the Corsair with is $285 and the G.skill phoenix pro at $265 for the 120gb models..Might go with the intel x25-m..

 

At those prices, and if it's for the M11x, then yes, I'd probably go with the X25-M, as it's not too far behind the others, and since you worry so much about reliability and degradation, it's the best choice given how you said you'll be using your machine. I tend to recommend Sandforce in the US just because Sandforce tends to be so much cheaper, but without the price advantage, there's no reason not to get the Intel, given how much you worry about the other qualities.

 

Phil, not that impressive?

300GB's @ SSD speeds that are non too shabby.

What has you disappointed in this drive?

This one seems ideal for my U30Jc 'note' book.

 

Hmmmm...from my very short knowledge of the SSD market, I would say Intel arent the fastest pony on the block by some way but what they lack in speed etc, they make up for in reliability - so I have heard.

From that point of view, its a good contender for me. No point having the fastest non-working drive now is there!

 

Longer application open times, slower than C300 and Vertex 2. Even slower than X25m. As Laptopmag says "Competitors are faster".

After seeing all the synthetic benchmarks on Anandtech I expected more from the real world performance.

The Intel 320 300GB should be faster than a 120GB model. If the Vertex 2 and X25-m in the review would have been the larger models, the Intel 320 would have looked worse.

 

Ahh, I see ('competitors are faster')... so an avg of 0.6 and 0.3 seconds longer in single, multi-tasking scenarios, respectively, is not worthy of consideration.

 

You say "not worthy of consideration", while I said "Intel 320 doesn't look that impressive."

Conclusion: it's not faster, it's not cheaper and it's not more power efficient than competitors.

Then the only thing left is that it may be more reliable. But is it really more reliable than a C300, a Corsair Force or a Samsung 470? I have no idea.

For $100 less than a Intel 320 300GB I would probably get a Crucial C300. It's a nice bonus that it's already SATA III capable.

 

It's faster at some things (just like the other SSD's), it's not available yet, so 'cheaper' doesn't really mean anything to me (yet) and more power efficient? I haven't seen those comparisions either.

Reliability is what one would choose Intel for without question - even if you have doubts.

 

It's interesting how you keep misreading my posts. I didn't say that the competitors are more power efficient.

On Amazon the Intel 320 300GB costs even more than a OCZ Vertex 3 240GB or a Crucial M4 256GB. I find that really hard to justify.

 

So which is it?

Competitors are more power efficient...

Or, competitors are not (compared to the Intel 320)?

 

man your tempting me to cancel on the 320 and go with c400, im sure im not going with the vertex but crucial c400 seems tempting, specially saving almost $100 (but 44gb less). One of the reasons that i didn't go that route was that only superbizz has them, never heard of the site, find it very wierd that micron decided to supply them before amazon or newegg as the biggest etailers.

 

44GB > $100 when total capacity is less than 500GB's.

 

Reading still proves very hard for you...

I hope you do better while interpreting the power measurements of sites like Storagereview, Techreport or others

 

Oh, I can read, maybe not how you write though?


Thanks for giving me a hint where the power measurements might be found.

 

Do you really don't understand why saying "it's not more power efficient than competitors" doesn't mean that "the competitors are more power efficient"?

Maybe you forgot one possibility: there doesn't seem to be a clear winner in power consumption.

Agreed. And unless it gets cheaper it doesn't look that appealing...

It almost looks like you agree with me there

 

The 160GB models of the G2 are $50 cheaper than the 16GB models of the G3..I don't think it's worth it..=) BTW, stupid question but is the 320 and G3 the same thing? lol

 

Yes. (10 char)

 

Ahh..then if were talking about a $50 difference for a product that performs less impressive at most real world applications..Hmmm,wonder what all the fuss is about? lol

 

Because everyone "assumed" that the next generation of Intel drives would crush all the competition just as the previous generation did when they were first released. And the new generation does perform better than the old generation, just perhaps not quite to the extent that everyone was hoping for. It's kind of like expecting a stretch limo to replace your regular car, but "only" getting a regular limo. Still somewhat impressive, just not the huge gain that was hoped for.

 

Ahh..Makes sense actually..Well too bad the prices of the G2 here won't probably get affected by the release of the G3.. Well at least not anytime soon..Not until they introduce the G3 here which will probably be a long time from now..

 

The difference between a mechanical and almost any ssd is incredible, the real world apps will load in secs, the laptops becomes very responsive. Now between G3 and this new Sata III monsters might be a little disappointed in benches, but in real world i doubt anyone here can tell the difference at all, yes its miliseconds and in some scenarios is seconds, but average user wont notice a difference, now people like tiller might since he does heavy work that his drive can make a big difference.

Mechanical HHD ------------------------------> Sata II SSD --> SataIII SSD.

 

oh don't get me wrong, I know the difference between a mechanical drive and an ssd is night and day. What I meant was what's with all the fuss about the 320 kicking the x25-m in the butt when real world scenarios show people won't even notice the difference.. I am still currently choosing what ssd I'll be getting since the real world numbers are so close..It makes it harder to decide lol..i only care about real world performance though..Not the benchmarks and stuff..

 

SSD to HDD is not night and day. Well, maybe in 'snap' and benchmarks.

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/7308779-post14.html


If your baseline is in actual output (like mine is... outlook=productivity), then SSD's are not anywhere close to a 'night and day' difference - especially when money is included into the equation (money better spent on upgrading the RAM or upgrading the platform/processor which will increase real productivity).

 

My system is pretty much maxed out so an SSD is the only remaining upgrade left performance wise..I'm looking for a snappier system and a faster overall system in terms of loading times and opening apps and as well as system startup/shutdown..Plus I can always transfer it to whatever machine I'll be getting in the far future so it's not like the drive will be a waste of money..

 

Well with your expectations laid bare, sure you'll see an improvement with an SSD.

What you'll also see (if you could compare them as I have had the chance to) is that a V2 will seem 'much' faster initially than an Intel - but that the Intel drives will keep that 'like new' speed much better than a SandForce based drive can.

But agreed; for 'snap' SSD's are untouchable (mostly, ).

 

Are we talking about the 34nm V2 or the 25nm V2? Or all the sandforce drives? Sandforce drive's performance really degrades over time? I mean even with TRIM?

 

Tiller as usual is spreading much confusion about Sandforce drives.

TRIM works fine on Sandforce 1200 drives except for one thing: sequential writes of incompressible data are throttled to 80MB/sec. That's a worst case scenario. Best case scenario (optimal compressible data) is that it writes with 265 MB/sec. Real life is somewhere in between.

If you want to copy large volumes of incompressible data, take a Samsung 470. It blows away the Intel X25m and Sandforce drives.