Intel 520 + Crucial M4

Looking into getting a clevo p170em, which has room for 2 hds (3 if optical drive is replaced). I was thinking of getting a 240 ssd for my os drive, and a 750GB 7200rpm 2.5" SATA 300 Hybrid for extra storage. There is also the option of adding mSata but I'll probably wait to add that in a year or two.

Is this a good setup in terms of getting great gaming performance? Or should I consider a different setup?

The two ssd drive I've looked at are the 240GB Intel® (520) SATA III 6Gb/s SSD2 and the 256GB Crucial® (M4) SATA III 6Gb/s SSD2. The intel drive is about 100$ more expensive, while the Crucial also has more space (256 vs 240 gb). Which company will give me a more reliable product? Performance is important, of course, but I need this laptop to last me at least 3 years, and having a drive fail would really, really suck. I need your help!

 

Both are known for producing reliable drives, though in my opinion I would lean towards the M4 having better reliability because it's been out longer, has thousands of positive reviews (also a favorite on NBR), and it uses a Marvell controller; however, it's slightly slower than the 520. 520 uses a SandForce controller, which has me uneasy, but from what I can tell from the 330 (also SandForce), they might be reliable now. I'd still go with the M4 simply because the 520 was just released not too long ago, so long-term reliability is unknown at this point.

You won't go wrong with either SSD, especially since SSDs actually don't affect gaming performance much. The only possible thing they can affect is load times, but the gameplay itself will highly depend on the GPU you end up purchasing with the laptop.

 

you're misinformed about the space. they both have roughly the same amount. you might want to read about 'over-provisioning.'

but ya, either drive is fine. its very hard to notice performance differences between SSD drives of the same tier (in this case, the top tier). I honestly recommend going for the crucial m4; its a beauty. in addition, it has a proven track record for firmware updates.

also, you're wasting money if you're getting a momentus xt. since its a storage drive, the nand cache does pretty much nothing. just get a regular HDD

 

Au contraire, mon ami. You're misinformed on the XT as a data drive, as it is not true in most cases as most users have some static data that is read over and over again.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...-5-750gb-7200rpm-benchmark-5.html#post8191656

http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...t-upgrades/655634-ssd-hybrid.html#post8426727

http://forum.notebookreview.com/sager-clevo/649060-ssd-vs-hybrid-3.html#post8355218

 

A hybrid HDD used as a secondary storage device is only useful if that data can easily be speed up by I/O performance increases (the point of the SSD cache). However, I'm led to believe that OP will be using a secondary drive as storage for documents, pictures, whatever, which wouldn't benefit much from the cache anyway. Example, say (s)he wants to open a doc on the drive; Word should be installed on the main SSD, so loading times for that won't matter. Once Word is loaded, it's just a matter of loading up the text in the document, which even a HDD can do quickly (programs take longer simply because of the size of those files; it's all a matter of sequential read speeds and file size).

Hybrid HDDs, as I've stated before on NBR, are pointless for most people since the drive has to learn from the user which programs/data to load into cache, which means that the user *must* have a predictable computing behavior in order for it to work (say, OP *always* loads Windows, then Word, then Firebox, and then plays some iTunes, all at the same time each day). In the real world, the majority of users have a "random" behavior (myself included), so caching anything other than the Windows boot files probably won't happen. Sure, the Momentus XT will boot nearly as fast as a decent SSD, but everything else will practically be relegated to HDD speeds.

Those would probably legitimately see a boost in performance from a hybrid HDD, since they are accessed fairly often by the OS. However, my above comments still stand about normal user data being stored on a hybrid HDD as a secondary drive.

**Speaking of that post in that thread, I believe that your personal observations of increased loading speeds is partly due to you having two HDDs in RAID 1, which does boost read speeds by a bit.

 

Until I know what data would be stored and how it is used, no one can say with certainty if that is true.

And this is incorrect. The XT "Adaptive Memory" is a caching routine which monitors the most frequently used LBAs on a drive. It doesn't matter, if Word is loaded, then Firebox and then the user plays some mp3s nor does the load order matter. What matters is the number of "reads" against LBAs on disk. The higher the hit count to that address on disk, the more and more likely it will end up in the SSD cache.

I stick by my original observations that if you have a library or other files that are read over and over again, the XT works great when I/O matters. The perfect end-user example is a library of MP3s viewed through Windows Media Player. Ever sit and wait and wait for the images to load as you peruse the library of MP3s? Over time w/ the XT as it counts LBA access and moves things into the cache, load performance gets better over time.

If it is randomly changing data, then yes. If it is static, then no.

Yes, RAID-1 does allow the RAID controller to split up reads among the devices in the controller. But there has also been load improvements with one disk as well.

In the end it will be up to cshaw71 to understand what would be stored on the secondary disk, if the data is mostly static or dynamic, use of any junction points, etc. After understanding all of this, if cshaw71 wants to drop some extra coin on the drive, the decision is ultimately theirs.

 

I would be using the SSD for my os and programs, and I would be using the other drive for movies, music, and everything else.

Thank you both for your advice! I think I will go for the regular non-hybrid drive because most of the stuff located on that drive will be loaded randomly. Though it sounds like over time I might get improved performance with the hybrid, I don't think I would really notice much improvement due to the fact that I probably won't be loading the same files/directories on a regular basis (this is my first two HD setup so I'm not too sure about my habits, but we'll see how it goes).

Again, thanks for the help!

 

NP. Once you've used things a bit, post back and let us know how it is working out.

 

Will do!

 

So did you end up getting the crucial M4 or the Intel 520 ssd?

 

I'm going with the crucial, seems like a much better deal

 

good idea, it's way cheaper too, best $ per GB

 

I just purchase and install crucial m4 in my laptop
I love it