Having an SSD Dilema.... SSD Experts help me out.

Alright

So I got my G73... I want to swap out the primary HDD for an SDD.
My Primary SSD will just be my OS, programs and games.... Thats all thats going to be on there. I just got the computer so im going to say im going to need around 100 GB to be on the safe side, i probably wont be needing that much, but its better to be safe than sorry.

Anyways I would have opted for the 80gb from intel, but im scared I may get close to useing that much down the road... So one of my choices was the 160gb.... I am looking for fast overall performance. If you have any other SSDs that maybe a good fit for me. please give me some advice. But out of these two help me choose.

I want either

the

160GB Intel X-25 Mainstream At my local Canadian store is $450.00

OR

100 GB OCZ Vertex 2 for $390.00

I know the intel is cheaper, but I have read some reviews saying the vertex is much faster. I want to get this by the end of the weekend.... So help please

what about the agility 2??? how does it stack up? doesnt seem its to far off the Vertex 2 in performance. and is about 35 dollars cheaper for the 100 gb....

 

100GB is way too much just for OS. 60GB is more than plenty for Win 7 x64 (which takes 12GB) and the rest for programs and games.

It's kind of a waste of an SSD if you only install your OS on the SSD and not your programs as well. If you put your programs onto a mechanical drive, they will be just as slow as before when loading. I tried this and was not happy, so I reformatted my desktop SSD and put OS and Programs on there, and followed a couple simple tweaks.

On my desktop and laptop, which both have SSDs, I point all my downloads / videos / documents / music to a mechanical drive. All programs and page files stay on the SSD. With Win 7, Bad Company 2, and Adobe CS4 Master Collection + bunch of other programs, I still have 35GB free on my 60gb Vertex SSD in my laptop.

If you're getting that G73 beast, you will probably want to limit page file to 512mb-1gb, so to make the OS utilize more of the much faster RAM and also save you space on the SSD.

I also disabled Hibernation and System Restore too.

There's lots of FAQs and guides on the Vertex forums, but honestly there are only a couple basic tweaks that help, the rest is for uber geeks who want to squeeze that 1% of performance

I've heard that while the Intel X-25-M is good, it hits a strange write bottleneck, in any case consult with as many benchmarks as you need.

I have 2 Vertexes, a 128GB in my desktop and a 60gb in my G51VX, both are awesome and worth every penny.

 

I am putting, OS, Programs , applications, games etc... on the SSD....

All movies, pictures, music will be on the Secondary HDD

OK...

WHat size would you reccomend for, OS, MS Office, other applications and maybe 10 games at the max.... I never have more than 5 at a time on my PC. I usually get bored of them and uninstall them.... So what size would you reccomend for me?

also what do you mean by 'limit page file' can I get some more detailed information on this to what it exactly means and how the computer benifits from it, and how.

 

If you are looking at the Vertex 2, you might want to seriously consider the OWC Mercury Extreme Pro RE which I just reviewed and in my system now. The diff between it and other drives, other than the 5 year warranty, is that its performance absolutely does not lag when you fill it. It also has 28% over provisioning which is pretty much unheard of but maybe that assists in results like this when the drive is filled:

EDIT: I have been asking and looking for the same from a Vertex 2 but apparently it cant be found... The price is $399 but, before you call it expensive, consider whether you would be stopping at 60-70% with the Intel whereas you wouldnt with this...

 

That means to manually set the page file to a specific size, in this case 512meg to 1gig. While this guide is for Vista the same procedure applies to Win 7.

 

corsair just intro'd a few new drives

 

hmmm this is not easy... I think im gunna go for the vertex 2 bahh i donno haha soo friggin hard to choose, i wanna get it right when im spending this kind of money.

 

Hi, this review by anandtech OCZ's Vertex 2 Pro Preview: The Fastest MLC SSD We've Ever Tested - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News shows that the Vertex 2 Pro was the fastest MLC drive when he reviewed it back in Dec. of 2009. Significantly, it was better in almost every PCMark Vantage test than the X-25M.

However, there have been a number of new drives released since then, OCZ's Agility 2 Reviewed: The First SF-1200 with MP Firmware - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News including the OCZ Agility 2, reviewed in Apr 2010, which currently lead the pack. Now, PCMark Vantage isn't everything, and even though the new Sandforce controllers seem superior to Intel's X-25M, there may be problems down the road. Only time will tell.

Also, Intel's 3rd generation X-25 M and more importantly the X-25 E will be released soon, in Q4 according to anand. It is my opinion that the X-25 E will soon be on top again.

 

I've got a 128GB SSD in my Envy here, and a good number of games and apps installed. I currently have about 40GB free space. Most of my games are a little older and don't use a ton of disk space, so I'd suggest you go for the 160GB, just to give yourself breathing room for a while. Try checking the size of your Program Files folders now for an idea about how much space just programs and games will take up.

The Agility may benchmark higher, and be faster, but the Intel is still stupid fast, and supports TRIM so it will stay that way. I would recommend you not worry about having the best benchmark, and optimize your monetary investment instead.

 

Kwantz, please edit your last post instead of posting consecutive messages.

On your question I would advise to read the earlier posted reviews by Anantech.

And keep in mind it's very hard (impossible) no notice speed differences between Intel and Vertex 2 without using benchmark software.

However, the differences in write performance and power consumption are noticeable.

Actually Anand says Intel told him it will be a mid year refresh.

 

Intel X-25 is plenty fast in real world use. Also, 160GB is the probably the minimum for today (and a little bit of tomorrow), unless you like uninstalling programs or games. I only use mine for gaming, and I already ordered a 256GB (Crucial) to replace the 160GB.

The problem is, you'll get spoiled by the fast load times (not just the OS booting), and will want just about everything to load or launch "now, please".

 

The beauty of the SandForce controllers thusfar is that we haven't seen any problems whatsoever that doesn't relate to manufacturer firmware itself. Having said that, it would be nice to see the different drives and their over-provisioning all put side by side for tests that count, the most important being that of SSD performance degradation when filled and once seasoned.

I have had an Intel for some time and cannot say enough of them. They have established themselves as the basemark for most SSD performance testing and with good reason. I cannot fill my Intel to capacity and get better performance benchmarks than I do at 20% however and this is something, at least I think, we should start considering when we are considering capacity.

If I can fill an OWC completely and still get ideal performance where I have to start watching at 60% of other drives, which is at around the 100 Gb mark of the Intel, what would I consider to be the better value? Is it the OWC with amazing benchmarks or the Intel with lesser benchmarks and technically bottlenecked as I start to fill it to capacity?

Having said this, I cannot find any benchmarks anywhere that show the other Sandforce drives performance results when filled to capacity and wonder if there is a reason for this? I would love to see it for the Vertex 2 because it is truly being touted as a great SSD all over the net but how does it perform full? Is it possible that OWC, in allowing 28% overprovisioning have truly stumbled on something that the others havent?

I truly cannot be the only one that must have considered the fact that we should want an SSD that keeps the same performance regardless of how full it is...

 

Les, by 28% over provisioning do you mean that the SSD is shipped with 28% of its capacity hidden and un-partitioned to maintain performance, and also not included in the total marketed capacity?

Don't SSDs that have TRIM and garbage collection solve the near full capacity issue?

 

Yes. The OWC SSD is a 128Gb ssd that has 28Gb dedicated to the firmware needs specifically and this does not show up when formatted. OWC's claim is that this, along with their firmware allow them to guarantee the performance will not suffer as a result of age or filling. They have also thrown a 5 year guarantee on that regardless of the thorough put.

The Intel is considered to be the best..yet it slows.

And with respect to TRIM and garbage collection, not necessarily. Anand had a great article that explained slowing as the SSD filled if I could find it... Lets see if I can explain...

Nope...not necessary...here we go.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2738/8

Now lets add to this. The ssd can write in 4kb pages but only erase in 512kb blocks. Understanding the mechanics of this lets us understand why over provisioning is so important, especially with large file reads and writes. The SSD writes to all blocks on the ssd equally and it is possible that most 512kb blocks are only partially full of information, however, the entire block is now accounted for. If a large file must be stored, the ssd will, at some point, read several partially written blocks, realize they are not full, take the information from them and consolidate it to free up space. Its like taking two files of 256kb from each block and putting them on one block, freeing up the other. With litle or no overprovisioning performance slows drastically.

Over provisioning comes into effect with the information which is picked up and moved. In the example above the 2x256 kb blocks would be temporarily stored in the over provisioned NAND, both blocks now cleaned and only then are they put on one. This is necessary because, unlike a HDD, we cannot overwrite data onto the block.

 

I too am undecided between the X25 160gb and the Vertex 2 100gb. I think I will just wait until July-ish to buy in case there is an Intel refresh. At the very least, the current intel drives will probably drop in price. I currently have a 7200RPM HDD, so it isn't the end of the world to wait, but wow do I miss my SSD. I want to pucnh my computer in the face when it takes longer than 20 seconds to boot. If Intel doesn't refresh by July, I will just buy an SSD anyway.

 

I'd just take the Intel for reliability and support

The Intel has proven itself, and its 4K speeds (the one that counts) are great

 

^^^
You can't go wrong with Intel--

 

I'd say intel. The one in my HP is good enough, but it's only a 40GB... Although I would like to upgrade, I just don't have the cash.

Sidenote: Detlev, how much did that LeGrand cost?

 

You also can't go wrong with the Vertex 2 SSD. I have the Intel SSD in my Thinkpad and am running raid in my Macbook Pro with the Vertex 2 SSD.

 

it is fast.. it is more expensive but not as reliable.. still i say intel is better no doubt about it.