Best SSD for SATA II Notebooks?

Incompressible data would be videos, music, those kinds of stuff? Ah I won't be doing any of that..But I'm wondering which drive would do better at installing/uninstalling though? As I don't know which benchmark to look at for faster installation speeds..

 

You won't find meaningful differences...

now flip that coin, or make a decision

 

Many files are incompressible (not just multimedia files).

Performance in installing/uninstalling is something that varies based on what program we're talking about. In the end, I would say it would balance out to a -+few seconds.

 

Probably gonna flip a coin seriously lol..Or go for the safest bet, which is the intel..=) Thanks for the input, but I'll still be bugging other threads once in a while so I hope you don't mind..

 

Not at all. I enjoy your questions and I think they will be very helpful for many other readers.

 

about uncompressable data. It is not as 'unusual' as one think. If you are a frequent youtube visitor, you may end up having a lot of them. Sure playing them is not going to be an issue but whether it will cause the DuraWrite to kick in can be a concern.

 

The 80 MB/sec limit for sequential writes of incompressible data will always kick in on a used Sandforce 1200 drive. For Youtube it has no impact.

So only sequential writes of incompressible data are affected.

While some files are incompressible, the large majority of the files in the Windows and application folders are compressible.

Sequential writes (the only metric that's affected) aren't really important for every day usage. Seq. writes have a significant effect on large file copies and some video capturing but that's about it.

The 4K random read & writes and 512K random read & writes of used Sandforce drives are very high and remain very high after DuraWrite kicks in. And those random read and writes are much more important for every day usage than sequential writes of incompressible data.

 

Well, most files are compressible but the degree various. The Windows and application directory is about 15-25%. IOW compressed size about 80% of the original.

Also I have no idea whether youtube video would affect it but if you watch enough of them within 'X' time, they may have written enough to the buffer to trigger DuraWrite. I am not SF engineer so I don't know their logic and actual figure, I cannot say for sure one way or the other, may be you have looked into their code.

 

Yes the degree of compressability varies. Worst case scenario for a Sandforce 1200 drive is 80 MB/sec. Best case is 265 MB/sec. Real world is usually somewhere in between.

For comparison the best and worst case scenario for Intel X25m 120GB is 100 MB/sec.

The 80 MB/sec limit for incompressible data is always triggered on used Sandforce 1200 drives, you don't have to worry about triggering it.

And it will not affect watching videos on Youtube.

 

I didn't say will affect watching youtube. In fact, I said watching it WOULD NOT BE an issue. But the buffering(which is writing uncompressable data to the disk) MAY trigger DuraWrite. My English must be really bad to make you think that I was saying it affects watching video.

EDIT:
and for the somewhere in between. I think I have given you a hard figure that it is more close to the worst case side than the best case side.

 

Maybe I didn't explain it clearly. After a Sandforce 1200 drive is used for a little time, usually after a few hours to a day, the 80 MB/sec limit for sequential writes of incompressible data is always triggered.

There's no need about worrying that it may trigger because it's already triggered and it will stay that way until a secure erase will reset it. That will only work for a short time because then it will kick in again.

And why would you worry about triggering it unless you do a lot of large file copies of incompressed data...

I got that you understand that it doesn't affect watching Youtube, I repeated it for other readers.

On a side note, I don't think the throttle you are talking about is called DuraWrite. As far as I know DuraWrite is another name for the compression that Sandforce drives use: http://techreport.com/articles.x/18864

Interesting quote from that article:

 

If I read SF's presentation right, DuraWrite is actually a collection of things including compression and brakes all aim at reducing the write to NAND. I used it for convenience.

 

I read on the OCZ forums that the 80 MB/sec limit is not part of DuraWrite. I believe it was OCZ Tony who said that.

 

Ah ok, Tony.

 

I have a question, all this talk about DuraWrite, TRIM, and whatever other things I keep hearing, I have no idea what they are apart from the general concept that it helps maintain the write speeds of SSDs as it degrades over time..Now my question is, do I have to download these softwares or do they come with the package or what? And I read something about leaving my laptop on at sleep for a week in order for the ssd to regain performance? Sorry I have no idea what I'm talking about..

 

you don't need to do anything if you are running Windows 7

 

Don't worry about it. It all happens by itself when you're running Windows 7.

edit: like Chimpanzee said.

 

Oh that's a relief..I thought I have to download and run tons of software apps to maintain whatever SSD I get..So I'm assuming both intel and sandforce drives have their respective TRIM or whatever you call it features and they work equally well?

 

TRIM works well on both drives except for the famous throttle on Sandforce drives for sequential writes of incompressible data, they're limited to 80 MB/sec.

Let's not do that discussion over, it's already been discussed at length in this thread.

During normal usage you won't notice performance degradation on the latest SSDs.

 

They work a bit differently. TRIM happens automatically, and is part of both SSDs, While Intel apparently applies TRIM immediately, Sandforce seems to delay it, and use it as part of their garbage collection routines. Sandforce garbage collection is supposed to automatically run when the SSD is idle for long enough, unforunately, some systems have too many background processes to the point that the SSD is never truly idle, so the garbage collection won't run. In that case, logging off to the Windows login screen "guarantees" that the SSD will be idle long enough for the Sandforce garbage collection to run. This normally isn't necessary, however.

 

Yes I've read it..Basically intel keeps it's performance "like new" while sandforce drives take a while for TRIM to work and sometimes writing degrades..Thanks

 

Sorry for double post, so let me get this straight, with intel, I'm certain that I don't have to worry about the TRIM working or not? Meaning I don't have to leave the drive in an "idle" state for TRIM to work?

 

For Intel you don't. That is also one of the reason I don't like SF. It completely changed my usage pattern.

To clarify, all SSD has this so called 'GC'(or sort of defrag equivalent) as they would need to erase big 1M block but write can be as small as 4K which would leave holes over time and do wear leveling. TRIM help the GC routine as it give it more info.

It is the GC policy that is different. Both has their pros and cons.

 

As chimpanzee said, that's correct. Personally, I don't usually logoff on my Sandforce drive, and I've noticed no degradation, so GC seems to be working just fine for me. My benchmarks do seem to be a bit slower than when "fresh", but it's still around 100 MB/s sequential last I checked (with random CDM data), and as I mentioned it's unnoticeable with my workflow. Of course, I also have a ridiculously large drive.

 

And is it true that the intel drives barely degrade? i mean I've read that the intel drives perform "like new" even after 1 year or 2..Is this true? I mean with respect to the sandforce drives?

 

For the most part, yes. Daverpermen is probably the most prominent example; he has G1s that have been running for a couple years now with no issues. The G2s are about 2 years old at this point, I believe, and I don't think anyone's noticed any real degradation either. Vertex 2s are a bit newer, so I don't think they've been around long enough to have as large a base for comparison (only a year to a year and a half, I think), but it seems that as long as you have a good drive (that doesn't suddenly "disappear") there's been no real degradation either (unless you trigger LTWT or something... but that's a separate issue).

 

Okay so how TRIM works seems like another thing to take into account when choosing a drive aside from performance/price/reliability since it seems like a drive that keeps top performance (even though it is a little bit slower than other drives) is better than a drive that performs best for a couple of months then slowly declines doesn't it?

 

Well, yes, and no. A lot depends on the reasons for it. Intel does immediate TRIM operations, but running TRIM right away will result in a higher number of writes to the SSD, which will obviously reduce it's life through P/E cycles. Intel rates their drives pretty highly on life, though, so in their opinion this doesn't matter. Sandforce, on the other hand, is driven to a much higher level of flash protection, which is why they TRIM later, as well as perform on the fly compression on all data written to the drive (obviously less data written to the drive results in fewer P/E cycles). This (theoretically) lets Sandforce get higher life out of lower quality NAND, or even more extended life out of higher quality NAND. This is partly why the idea of Sandforce and Intel cooperating on a drive is somewhat exciting; the idea of an extremely long-lived SSD is quite enticing.

As for this decline in performance... as I mentioned, I've not noticed any such decline, and neither have many others that use a Vertex 2 drive. Some of them have even mentioned that if they hadn't done benchmarks that showed the decline, they wouldn't even have known that there was one.

 

Is this something you have experienced yourself or did you read this somewhere?

I have done the following tets on 2 Sandforce drives (Vertex 2 and Inferno)
- run Crystal Disk mark
- fill the SSD to full capacity
- delete all files
- run Crystal Disk Mark again

I never noticed a performance drop, even I repeated the process. My conclusion: TRIM works immediately.

I've tried logging off, I've never seen it do anything to performance. I think the logging off procedure is only applicable to an OS w/o TRIM.

@ BeastRider, whether you take a Sandforce, Intel or Samsung drive, it's unlikely you'll notice any performance degradation.

 

Ah so sandforce based drives are "supposed" to outlast the intels am I correct? By not trimming as often as the intels, it's supposed to increase the life span of the drive is this correct?

 

Noted, just clarifying some info..=)

 

In theory maybe. In reality there are no data available on which drive lasts longest.

 

Read somewhere; one source being the OCZ forums here. As mentioned, I haven't noticed the speed degradation in the first place (apart from the benchmark decline in a "dirty" drive versus a clean one), so it's all academic to me.

 

When would you actually feel the difference between sandforce drives and intel drives? I mean over time will there be a gap? When you transfer large files such as GBs of movies and music would you actually feel the difference if you had a sandforce drive as supposed to an intel drive?

 

It really depends on to what would you be moving it to, the Intel 510 seems to have the fastest sequentials, but to transfer should be limited into what speed your source can read, the means of moving and its limitation, and your destination can write. IMO for the average user wont matter, not like we have ssd to transport media atm, and in Gigabit lans would be caped well below of what any of this ssds can deliver, so the only choice is to use an external ssd or a raid array with multiple drives directly connected.

 

You won't notice a difference between X25m 120GB and Sandforce 120GB.

 

For your usages, you're unlikely to notice a significant difference. If you dealt with lots of photo or movie editing, then the Sandforce could be slower.

 

Sandforce drive usually beat the Intel X25m in productivity benchmarks. Most photo and movie editing software is compressible, and multi tasking performance of Sandforce is rated higher than Intel X25m (see Anandtech).

Sandforce drives may write compressed images and movies to disk slower. That's probably true, but that"s only a small part of all the work. And if you work with RAW image files the Sandforce would write a lot faster. So it all depends.

 

Is that what you think or you frequently do photo and movie editing work ? I have seen quite some people complaining about the degrade of SF drive in doing their video editing work.

 

It's what I read on Anandtech and Storagereview.com

If the video editing work is with compressed video, it makes a lot of sense the Sandforce isn't a very good choice. Nor is the intel X25m that can only write with 100MB/sec.

 

What in tarnations is going on? Just read Anand and the new Intel 25nm is out. Vertex 3 is coming really soon. Then why the heck is my Vertex 2E 60GB priced at $160?

I paid $95 (after rebate) in December and free shipping. DUUUUUDE.

BTW, the best SATA II SSD is the new Intel x25m right? Because it's faster than the older Intels but more reliable than Sandforce and others? Good on power consumption, too, I think?

 

Yes. the most balanced. Though if I can get G2 50 bucks cheaper, I would get that.

 

The X25m is the G2. The 320 is the G3 but it's not the fastest SATA II SSD. It's actually slower in quite a few benchmarks, especially application loading.

This review shows the real world speeds pretty well:
Intel SSD 320 (300GB) Review - A Review of the Intel SSD 320 (300GB)

I'd say the Samsung 470 is the best SATA II SSD. Crucial C300 on SATA II is a good option too.

Edit: Here a lot of benchmarks between Intel X25m 80GB vs. 320 300GB. Notice the slightly better read speeds (sequential and random) on the X25m.

 

I believe I saw some benchmarks showing the intel x25-m G2 loads apps faster than the samsung 470 though, is this correct? Again I know it's probably a second or 2 difference but I think I saw benchmarks showing the G2 is still fastest at loading stuff..Boot, apps, games, etc..Although it could be a fluke or something..

 

The fastest ssd for sata2 notebooks is the ocz vertex 3 and the best ssd overall is the intel 510 if we take into account the realibility of the intel ssds
according to anandtech
The Crucial m4 (Micron C400) SSD Review - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

 

I suppose I am beginning to agree with the G2 sayers. As fast as Gen3 and a bit less expensive and likely more reliable if from Crucial and/or Intel because of quality and larger media.

If G3 is not faster why go with the smaller media and give up reliability. So X-25 or C300 seem good choices. (sorry I won't deal with OCZ).

Perry

 

25mn NAND doesn't mean automatic reduced in reliability of the drive.

 

Just wanna add something to consider. It seems sandforce drives require a lot of "maintaining" meaning the performance degrades over time and you have to do some sort of "solution" in order for performance to get back to how it was at brand new. I've been reading the g.skill forums as well as the corsair forums (I'm assuming this applies to all SF drives) and they post a lot of "solutions" as well as additional software to restore the drives..This seems like a hassle to me, considering I've heard Intel's performance doesn't degrade even after 1 year or so of constantly being used..If this is true then Intel is still the best choice as it is a "hassle-free" drive, plus everything you need can be found in the Intel toolbox as I've heard..Any info regarding the sandforce drives "high maintenance"? I am of course not sure as I do not have any experience with these SSDs..This is based on other forums..

 

Depends on what you mean by "degrades". If you mean lower benchmark scores, then yes, Sandforce drives bench lower over time, but then again, so does Intel. Are you going to notice this "degradation" most of the time in any practical use? No. Think of it like a knife or a pair of scissors; after you use them for a week or two, they're obviously not as sharp as they were when you bought them. Are you going to notice that they're not as sharp most of the time? Not at all. I've owned my Vertex 2 now for about 4-5 months (got it in mid/early December). If I run a CDM, my sequential scores are a bit lower than they were when I ran them from a "fresh" drive. Do I notice any slowdown? Not at all. Have I performed any particular maintenance on the drive? Not at all. Now, I freely admit that in terms of degradation, it will take a longer time to show up on my drive than most others (I have a 240 GB SSD), but I'm willing to bet that most of the people that complain about maintaining performance are going off benchmark scores and not anything they can actually notice. I am also, for what it's worth, a pretty light user of the drive; 832 GB written over the 4-5 months. I did offload my User directory and page file to a secondary platter drive, though.

 

I've read about transferring temp folder and page file to another drive, but for a notebook with only 1 drive bay, i will not be able to do this..Btw, is it true that the intel TRIMs immediately whereas the SF based drives sometimes have to be left on the log-on screen in order for it to be idle long enough before TRIM kicks in?