Forget Intel's G3 SSDs

The Intel 80GB G2 in my desktop has also degraded significantly and has only had 360GB total disk writes according to CrystalDiskMark which is 4.5 times the capacity. TRIM is enabled and drive aligned as well. Boot times have degraded and apps loading times are slow. Heck my TeamSpeak client for some reason now can take 30 seconds to load up. I've even run the Intel SSD Toolbox TRIM app and that didn't help.

I'm about ready to do another reformat and reinstall of Windows, but I just don't have the time for all that right now. And I'd at least like to find out what is causing this so I don't do the same thing again. I think I may reformat using IDE mode instead of AHCI and see if that helps.

It really irritates me because, well, I spent $200 for that drive, and it got such rave reviews. The 64GB Kingston V-series SSDNow is faster and more responsive. Heck my Vertex 2 screams really fast.

 

That's a myth. Crucial C300 becomes significantly faster moving from SATA II to SATA III. Maybe not noticeable during light usage but definitely during multi tasking.

I recommend Corsair Nova V128 for normal notebook usage. The Techreport review explains why.

If you're into heavy multi tasking I recommend a Sandforce drive like Vertex 2.

There's no point in a C300 when you're on a SATA II connection.

 

Honestly, most users don't really truly multitask. The difference between most of the top end SSDs from my uses are minimal. In what situations do you notice much increased speed when comparing say the Intel vs. Crucial or even SATA/300 vs. SATA/600?

 

Let me answer that!

Benchmarks!

 

I agree that most users don't truly multi task often. But some people do. For the people that do SATA III brings significant improvements to the C300's performance. Not only in benchmarks, also in real life.

Examples: running Windows update in the background while copying files. Or running a virusscan while performing other tasks.

I noticed the C300 SATA II performance drop off in the multi task situations like described in my review.

 

Thanks for the recommendation. Here's an interesting result from the Techreport review which concerns "Performance per Dollar" -- notice that the Corsair Nova V128 tops the list:



I believe I'll pull the trigger on this one today. Newegg has it for $220 at the moment.

 

I'm not sure that list is still accurate with current prices. I believe Sandforce prices have dropped after that review was published.

Reason I recommended the Nova V128 is that it's fast in normal usage and has the lowest power consumption of all drives. Since you have a 1830T it can easily give you half an hour extra battery life.

 

I've got the same drive, according to Intel's SSD Toolbox's SMART Attribute reading it has had 872.94GB host writes so far. Is that the same as CDM's reported disk writes (where do I find that on CDM?). But anyway so far it's still doing pretty well, I do the scheduled optimization every night.

P.S. It's got about 30 of 80GB free so maybe that helps?

 

Unless you are multitasking with large data sets where the program has to access the hard drive due to shear file size, I still don’t see SSD benefitting that kind of use in a measurable way as well.

Most typical multitasking is more dependent on the CPU and more importantly the amount of RAM a system has.

If I have Word, Internet Browser, Outlook, Excel (With a typical sized spreadsheet, maybe several sheets and not a huge dataset) and maybe an AS400 or Spice session open. When I switch back and forth it is still pretty instant even on my dinosaur of a machine at work.

Now if you take my laptop in my sig, If you had the same programs above and add widows update and maybe a malware or virus scan I still get pretty much get instant response as well. albeit it has an SSD in it.

 

The Intel drive gave me 1 to 2 hours more battery time, so the Corsair should be great in the ultraportable.

 

If you look at the review I linked to you can see two examples of a multi task scenario where the storage has a big impact.

In that case I would not expect large improvements. How much battery life do you get now? and with your 5400rpm drive?

 

With the stock 500GB drive, "balanced" power plan, 60% brightness, between 5 and 6 hrs just surfing via wi-fi. With the Intel SSD I often got close to 8 hours.

 

Wow that's impressive. With the SSDs I tried in my 1830T I never got beyond 6:30.

The difference may be the way of measuring though. I guess you are using Windows to estimate battery life. I used Battery Bar.

PS. excuse me for the off topic posts. Let's get back on topic please.

 

True, I only used the Windows estimate which is, at best, questionable. And I never ran the battery all the way down and timed the whole session... so my results are highly suspect and can only be used for a sloppy comparison between platter and SSD drives.

 

Dang. I wish I had seen that before I bought my kingston v series. I might just have to sell it and buy the corsair nova instead. My battery life sucks in my netbook now with that Kingston. Anyone want a lightly used Kingston V-series (not V+) 64GB for $100 shipped?

Do you think the 64GB Nova has similar cost/performance, but more importantly minimal power consumption?

 

I looked at that review and IMHO that is excessive multitasking. Where I work and the people I know would not be doing those kinds of things at the same time. When I made my statement it was based on the types of use I see daily.
That's not to say people wouldn't perform the types of actions you showed.

 

Opening and image in Photoshop while a Virus scan is running in the background is not what I would call "excessive" multi tasking. Maybe medium. The other test would qualify as heavy multi tasking.

Probably.

 

The price on the 128GB Corsair Nova just shot up $25 on Newegg. Maybe they're reading this thread... lol. Damn, I should've ordered it yesterday!

 

Why do all these reviews cover the 100-128GB drives usually? I don't care about those. Or at least comment that the smaller sized drives have similar performance/power requirements. It stands to reason for a 60GB drive for example, would have the same controller and just less memory, so performance should be the same, but it doesn't always end up that way.

 

This is an excellent review that covers the smaller models:
Budget Sub-$150 Solid State Drive Round-up > Benchmarks: Real-World Applications - TechSpot

 

Thanks! <ten chars>

 

Well, the Sandforce 2000 chip will give the G3 a beating.
G3:
Sequential Read: 250MB/s
Sequential Write:170MB/s
read IOPS: 50K
write IOPS:40K
Security: AES-128

Sandforce 2000:
Sequential Read: 500MB/s
Sequential Write:500MB/s
read IOPS: 60K
write IOPS:60K
Security: AES-256


Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3971/s...and-60k-iops/1

 

Knowing Sandforce these numbers will be on all-zero data or something like that...

 

The Sandforce sequential speeds are only for compressible data indeed.

 

Same here... i don't trust sandforce...

it will beat the C300 for sure.. hello... C300 is like 2 generations older...if its beats C400, i'll be really suprised.