Is SSD really worth the price or is it just a rip-off?

Hello everybody,

I'm about to buy a high-end laptop, and I thought it'd be me more powerful with 2x 64 Go SSD drives in RAID-0.

Then I popped on some news saying 10% to 20% of laptops featuring SSD are sent back to the manufacturer, because of lackluster performance. Here's the link (cache from google is faster):

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cach...ge/?p=304+ssd+harris&hl=fr&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=fr

In short, the author explains SSD is not appropriate for Windows because it can't manage short writes, and the incredible numbers displayed by SSD producers can only be obtained on virgin drives. Is this true?!

Before spending a 2000$ premium on something that doesn't work, I'd like to ask the lucky SSD owners to share their experience with us on this thread. Please don't post manufacturers' benchmarks... First hand evidence is preferable, and it's even better if you had normal HD on your laptop but then upgraded to SSD, to compare the two technologies.

Thanks!

 

Have you looked through the SSD sticky? You should probably ask there.

 

OK, let me get this straight? You want SSD owners who have two in a RAID 0 configuration? I am thinking you are asking for the impossible! If I am allowed to comment on this as I do not own one I would appreciate the chance. I mean I have never shot myself in the head with a gun but I still have intelligent input on the subject.

You clearly do not understand some of the issues. What you want to accomplish is critical to whether it is a good idea or not. I can tell you as a generality no! It is not worth $2,000! Les is the expert on SSD's, and I highly doubt he would encourage anyone to spend $2,000 on 128GB's. I wish you luck but you ask the $64,000 question. The answer is still in discussion.

Read Les's sticky as it has much info.

 

Woody, although it's the future, as it stands SSD drives have a high failure rate, especially when used in intensive environments (such as servers). Some here would disagree, but have a look around the net, the proof is in the pudding.
IMHO, the price doesn't justify getting one at this time. As price goes down in the future, and the reliability gets better, it would be a better time to get one. I just couldn't recommend it right now.

 

The only thing a fast drive is good for is loading and storing files.

It isn't going to magically increase your gaming experience, benchmark scores, or things of that nature. Games will load faster, benches will be higher, but in the end you still get about the same FPS for the same settings.

Programs will load and exit faster, but most programs normal operation will not be faster because once they're loaded into RAM the hard drive isn't used much at all.

SSDs are good for, mostly, two things: data protection and heavy file I/O with large files (think like rendering a long video or something).

You can shake your laptop around all day, throw it around all day, while running and the data is still safe. Do that with a traditional drive and I'm sure your OS and files will be corrupted in no time. Not to mention you'll need a new hard drive too. For general usage laptops, SSDs will not be a significant benefit as laptops are usually put through that much stress...however, your needs may vary.

The highest end SSDs can hit 100-120MB/s for sequential read/writes and that is difficult to achieve with a traditional drive. So applications that use a lot of sequential I/O will benefit. Small/random file I/O may only perform as good (or even worse) than traditional drives in some cases.

Here's another option for you: get two traditional hard drives. Using the Intel Matrix Storage Manager, you can use part of each drive in RAID 0 and part of it in RAID 1. Put the OS and applications in the RAID 0 partition, and all your data in the RAID 1 partition.

 

You could get 2X the storage for 1/10 the price. I don't think SSD is really prime-time yet. If you have the disposable income to get it, I suppose I would get it (though 128GB is on the low end in terms of HD space these days), but if money is of any concern to you at all, everything seems to suggest SSD just isn't worth it yet.

 

The answer to this question can be approached from so many angles I really don't know where to start. Greg has done a great job defining and commenting on many. First off, as much as I enjoy being the ssd guy would I pay $3800 for a new Memoright 128Gb ssd? Nope. I am really one of the cheapest guys going. Errrrr, maybe its better to term it as resourceful. Price is coming down and, as it does, the computer experience will change in ssd ownership and yes one day in the future, ssds will revolutionize the storage industry.

This is all a factor or only one thing presently, NAND pricing. If it were cheaper Seagate, WD and others would have jumped aboard this train already I think. Watch out though because here comes Intel with some huge promises.

SSDs are not a new technology by any means. Oh ya, throwing one in a consumer laptop is right up there but they are trusted and have been used in some of the worlds most critical, dangerous and demanding environments for years now. They are trusted implicitly by industry because of their durability, characteristics...and low failure rate.

On to this failure rate phenomenon. If you read around the net, the RUMOURS of ssd failure rate have been pretty much cleared up and the author of the original article, err actually editor of that site, has apologized to Dell profusely as it was Dell the site targeted stating that there was upwards around a 20% failure rate. Dell worked out the actual numbers and responded which is something that even they concede they would never normally do. The numbers equal somewhere in the area of 2%, not 20% which is probably much lower than most hd's. I, myself, have looked and not found anywhere near the purported failure rate and I also get much of my information first hand.

This brings me to my next train of thought which would be a bit of support for my views from the author as he is asking for responses for those who have personal experience. My system contains a Samsung SATA II presently as a review has just been completed and it is being monitored for durability. Others tested include the Sandisk 5000 32Gb, Samsung SATA I 64Gb, Mtron Mobi 32Gb, Mtron Pro 32Gb and Memoright 32Gb and yet a few others have been looked at on a confidential basis.

There is also a definite advantage to being an independent reviewer in that my relationships do not include resellers who are hoping for sales, but deal directly with the manufacturers who monitor this site closely and can use our responses to gauge improvement and consumer demand for their product. If specific information is sought, as was previously with a question regarding mtbf (mean time before failure) rates, all of 11 manufacturers to include consumer, business and enterprise will have an opportunity to answer. On the consumer side of things the list includes contacts with Samsung, Mtron, Memoright, OCZ, Transcend, Ridata, as well as Dell since they have shown support in ssd advancement and certainly lead in being one of the first to introduce the technology. (I could only hope an Apple Exec takes a look at this as I would love to be the first to throw the new Mtron 1.8" ssd in the MacAir and watch the absolute fastest ssd at work in the truly lightest laptop going. hint...hint...You could watch me improve your sales instantly eheh)

This is not only a very definite advantage for us here at NBR, but for the manufacturers as well. If something unusual occurs during testing, they are provided with the opportunity to respond or rectify compatibility issues. This is the case where early Sonys were not compatible and alot of emails were sent to manufacturers with information received, for the most part, from NBR members. Its no longer a problem for Sony systems.

In then end, it only comes down to capacity and pricing which are both changing rapidly. The industry seems to be experiencing changes so fast, the manufacturer canot afford to soak 'pre-sale' production costs into drives hoping they will sell. You will see this with Memoright where most resellers require order and payment before delivery to them from the manufacturer.

A typical example would be the recent release of 64Gb ssds. Here we have one manufacturer ready to release a mlc consumer price friendly version of their ssd and Samsung whips out their slc version which can stand beside the best, this being available for as low as 600 in configured Dells which now drops the price base significantly.

Ok...long winded yes I am absolutely sure this was and I am not quite finished yet so...

I will concede I am not a gamer whatsoever but I do know that there will be substantial gains from the ssd as the prices and capacities continue to improve. I seem to remember a network administrator stating not so long ago that the access time of the ssd is a huge factor in the role it will play in larger environments. I am also not a gamer but am sure that gamers would truly appreciate the fact that their games will load in a few seconds vice a few minutes, again because of disk access time. This would also be crucial at those points in the game when the hd (or ssd) must be accessed.

The benefits carry on to performance which is jumping out leaps and bounds ahead of any hd, complete silence as their are no moving parts, less heat which means less continous fan use which equates to better battery mileage, durability, endurance, quicker startup times, application loading and so on. You may not be aware but slc ssds are expected to outlive most of their owners with truly respected lifespan estimated in excess of 100 years. Also, I can imagine their are many who can tell stories of hard drive crashes that would not be seen in the ssd...

Wow...this just became a white paper I think; it was enjoyable writing it though.

 

wow, thats a good answer

 

[ I digress ]

 

Lol... we are all here to learn, and I do just as much as the NBR readership and the companies that watch over these threads. I receive as many e-mails from industry and people outside NBR regarding querries as I do here...and for the most part, NBR members help with the answers.

Take this for example which I think is a very interesting point regarding the ssd speed when use with pagefile. Follow through from the original until the next few threads. I am very curious about this. Start with post #34

 

Hello,

I am not a gamer, as I use my laptop for work, so...not sure if this will help you or not.

I am a performance and gadget nut, I like the latest and greatest and if there is something faster, I try and upgrade to it as soon as I can.

I've been using laptops for the last 10+ years or so, and only use my desktop for gaming.

I've been through all the Dell and IBM business class laptops, and always put the fastest proc and max amount of ram in them, as well as the fastest laptop HDD's I can.

I've recently been using a new t61p thinkpad, T9300 proc, 4g ram, vista ultimate 32 bit. When I purchased this new laptop, I put in the 7k200 200g 7200 rpm hdd, and also tried the 320gb 5400 rpm hdd's.

They worked just fine... I went and purchased a X300 thinkpad to use while "on the road" and it has a 64GB SSD. I fell in love with how snappy things would load, etc. I was also using a 64GB SSD in a Dell XPS M1330 around the house...and while my T61p was docked.

So, I moved the original 64gb ssd out of one of my dell xps M1330 laptops into the t61p.

I am amazed at how fast this thing is. I use Thunderbird with about 250-300K emails across several dozen folders, IMAP connected, and it just eats it alive. On normal hdd's I was always waiting for tbird for 3 to 5 seconds when I would switch folders, etc.

Word, Excel, VIC, all my apps just load almost instantly.

I am not into video editing, storing large files on it, etc. So I cannot tell you how an ssd would compare to a normal hdd if you do any of these tasks.

I can tell you for day to day business tasks, and large email clients (tbird and outlook) I've noticed a huge improvement in speed using an SSD.

So much so I will not go back to using a normal hdd for any laptops I use. I keep my data on an external usb hdd so I can have it with me on any machine I use day to day. I also sync it online so if I do not have my usb hdd I have access to all my files (almost 100G, no music or vid/pics) on any machine with a browser.

I am waiting for the new thinkpad and dells to come out with LED screens, and I will replace this t61p and d630 with the new led ones once they start shipping.

I also just ordered the 64GB ssd sata-II OCZ drive to replace the older samsung in my t61p and I'll put the older ssd back into the dell 1330.

In summary - for business use, lots of apps, big email clients and searching, yes, you will notice a huge difference having an SSD - at least I did.

Also, I would never do raid-0 on a system if the data was important.

Tom

 

Excellent post Tom and I have some good and bad news for you.

With respect to the OCZ, it apparently is a rebadged Samsung SATA II and both are identical inside and out. I am told that the manufacturing plant, much like many laptop manufacturers, is a no-name where companies buy the product and stamp their name on it, this being one example of this. My review on the Samsung SATA II should be posted in a few days so look for it. benchmarks on both are exactly the same.

Now, as for the LED situation, don't hold your breath. I am told (by a very relaible and well placed contact) that Dell has made the decision to move and stay out of the LED business as it had so much difficulty with quality control previously.

 

wow... didn't expect to get so detailed answers so fast! Thanks guys!

To sum it up: SSD is a great promise for the future but the technology is not yet ripe. I saw that 10 second Vista boot on youtube using SSD, but I think it'll remain a dream for some time...

I think I'll stick with 7200 tpm HD Drive then.
Do you think it's worth it to put in just one SSD drive to have faster load speeds? For me the whole point is that I hate sitting in front of my pc waiting for stuff to load.

 

Oh... I had not seen Tom's post. Pretty much answers my last question. I think I'l go for one SSD drive then, to put the OS and apps on.

Any other SSD users here who can testify? Any user who had problems with SSD for that matter? Speak now or stay quiet forever!!

 

I have two 64 GB SSD in my Think pad T61. The OCZ Sata II is the boot drive and the Sata I Samsung is in the ultra bay adapter. I've had no problems with either of my SSD's.

 

Hey jedisolo,

Did you notice a performance difference between the generation I samsung SATA-I and the samsung/OCZ sata-II ssd?

Thanks!

 

TomK... There is a huge difference. You will see it when my review is posted this weekend as you can compare benchmarks.

 

The OCZ SATA II aka Samsung SATA II is twice as fast as my Samsung SATA I.

 

Just my subjective two cents:

"Is SSD really worth the price?" It's kinda like that saying; "if you gotta ask, well..."

-But-

Strictly speaking from a hands-on performance comparison...

My MemoRight 128GB GT is pretty awesome from a speed/read/write/access point of view when compared to a 5400/7200 HD.

If price isn't a factor and you're willing to pay top dollar for no-compromises performance (and you will) then frankly, I haven't heard a reasonable case against SLC SSD's such as this MemoRight versus conventional HD's.

As a matter-of-fact, with a few exceptions aside, it seems that the preponderance of "nay-sayers" are the ones who are limited by the price tag variable.

If you’re serious about straight-up performance and you’ve got the dough then try running two of these puppies in a RAID 0 config and don’t look back.

 

Thanks Les and jedisolo!

JLF - Where did you buy the 128GB and if I may ask, at what price?

Thanks!

 

Matt Dawson President
MyDigitalDiscount.com Inc.
315-343-0090

MemoRight 128GB GT $3,506

 

Are you considering getting one?

 

Les,

Thinking about it!

Tom

 

LOL 3500$ for 128 GB!!
Actually I've taken 10 minutes to think about it. I think that for 1/10 of the money I'd put in SSD, I could get 2x200 GB 7200 tpm drives in RAID 0 and have very good performance still. (or even better depending on the situation)
Also I like to store my favourite movies and a few seasons of TV shows on my laptop, so 64 or 128 GB is simply not enough. My music alone is 30 GB! I could never fit an opera of Wagner in lossless format on SSD...
And with the money spared from not taking SSD, I could invest in a high-end 7.1 surround system!!

 

Sure you could. You've also added dramatically to the weight and heat of the system while similultaneously lowering the battery life of the system.

RAID0 has no protection so I hope you have something external to your machine that you are using to back it up for when the hard drive fails.

To be honest with you, the music is not something I would keep on a hard drive that's subject to a lot of bouncing and shaking unless you have backups or don't mind reripping the content.

As for the Wagner opera, that's small change, even at the highest sampling rates and bit depths available unless you're talking about a high-def video encode.

I don't have a problem with the new technology (SSDs) carrying a significant premium. They are already dropping in price and in 3-5 years I think that they will take over the consumer space for storage.

Cheers,

 

Come on SSD is a ripoff for todays prices!

 

Its never a ripoff if you have the need or desire coupled with the money to purchase it with.

You could compare this argument to buyina a Ford Fusion vice a Maseradi (lol).

 

So what kind of real world performance are you getting for all that money?

 

It's cutting edge technology which is never cheap. You need speeds that are 5x-10x what a 255x memory stick is, and you need multiples of that capacity.

Silicon memory simply isn't as cheap to produce as disk platters, and it never has been.

Prices will come down, and as Les points out there are currently specific applications

A ripoff would be a situation where the retail pricing isn't commensurate with the manufacturing cost. That isn't the case and it will get cheaper and cheaper with each passing quarter.

I'm guessing in a year and a half the 128GB SSDs will be at a much more reasonable price, and for laptops that's a sweet spot. A 128GB SSD would be marketed as a 137 or 138GB traditional disk.

 

It isn't just performance, it's also the ability to run in a much harsher environment with higher levels of G force that a traditional drive simply can't handle.

To answer your question though, the numbers I've seen show that the SATA II interfaced drives exceed 10K consumer drives for everything but burst speeds. I expect them to reach the performance of 15K SAS drives in the next generation which are hideously expensive for hard drives. To give you an idea, a 300GB 15K SAS drive retails for around $1K.

With your logic, since you can get a 300GB for < $90 at newegg they are a ripoff too.

 

I am very much looking forward to Les' upcoming review.

Here is a little tip for you guys who want a fast SSD and need more than 32/64 GB of storage space but do not want to shell out USD 3 506 for the 128 GB Memoright.

Buy an SSD that is one size smaller (and two sizes less expensive) and complement your notebook's storage capacity by utilizing a Compact Flash Card with a PCCard/Express Card Compact Flash adapter. At least when it comes to PCCard Compact Flash adapters, they sit flush with the notebook even when the Compact Flash card is inserted in the adapter (I do not know about Express Card though).

32GB Compact Flash cards are sold for USD 140 - 160 at Newegg and a nice PCCard/Express Card CF adapter can be found for less than USD 50. Use the Compact Flash card to store your static data i.e. music/videos/etc. The Compact Flash card will not offer stellar performance (approx 5 MB/s read/write for the Transcend one) but if it is used for music and videos it is of no importance.

If the Samsung SATA II holds up to scrutiny by Les, it would mean that you could get 64GB of very high performance storage space to your notebook for approx USD 1 000 and still being able to supplement the storage capacity of the notebook by another 32GB for USD 200.

 

Ripoff is clearly the wrong word. But not economically viable for most users at this point. And I do look forward to the continuing advancements in speed and reductions in prices. I could get by w/128GB when they become affordable and even 64 if the price was good. My first HDD had 11.2GB and I made that work. So that 300GB<$90 would be my external.

 

I don't have a problem with saying the price isn't right. But using the term ripoff is one fraught with negative connotations including price gouging.

That's my issue.

Too expensive to make it worthwhile? That's fine.

 

I've been considering this too, and came to quite the same conclusion : ExpressCard SSD + SD/CF depending on what you've got. That makes 80Gb of storage when using a 32GB SSD !

 

K...the reviews up, up, up!!! Click on it in my sig block!

And for the soon to be m1330's buyers, it can be had in the M1330 as of this morning for $650. Best price yet!

 

The reason why I was thinking of SSD in the first place is for the fast boot, and for a responsive OS. But I dont reboot my laptop more than once a week... And according to the article from Harris ( see the link in my first post), the OS isn't that snappy after just a few weeks of use. Among other reasons, today's drivers and protocols are not yet optimal for SSD. I used the word "rip-off" because one of SSDs key selling points is speed, and apparently that promise is not delivered in real world day to day use.
Also, I personally don't feel safe taking my laptop around, because these things are expensive and very fragile. Not mentioning someone can try to steal it from you. For these reasons, my laptop rarely leaves my room, and I don't care about weight or battery life.
If I pay a high price, I want an all-in-one ready to use solution. I don't want to spend time and money on external drives and complicated solutions.
Maybe I'm lucky but I never experienced HD failure yet, so this point seems a bit abstract to me. RAID 0 for max capacity and speed!!

 

Woody,

The downfalls of the ssd are simple; size and price and availability. As for them being fragile, I can relate a very amusing conversation I had with one of the enterprise ssd companies when I brought up ssd durability. I was told that there testing of ssds has nothing to do with lifespan as it is already known. Its something like a monkey testing luggage. They throw them against walls, run them over and so on to try and see to what level these will crack. So far they have withstood extreme cold, 4G force of pressure, extreme heat and on and on. There is nothing fragile about an ssd whatsoever.

As for the article from Harris, I have my own express response which I will reserve if thats ok. The OS is snappy instantly. The benchmarks are seen instantly. 100MB/s read and write is now becoming very common (see new review) and cannot be touched by regular hard drives. The access speed is the true magic of the ssd and its beauty shown a few times in this thread.

As for drivers, there is no fine tuning required at all. The ssd replaces the HD by simply pulling one out and putting the other in.

I will agree with you though, capacity and price are still the big hiccups but this is changing daily. Only today Dell priced the new ssd at $650 for the 64Gb which is unheard of anywhere that i know of.

 

This is exciting news. My day-to-day life deals with enterprise SANs sustaining over a GB/sec (or tens of thousands of IOPS) and I've always been frustrated by desktop and laptop mass storage. I'm excited about where SSD storage will take us over the next two years.

I do also agree that right now the capacity and price makes this a bit of a niche market. The problem is that enthusiasts don't like to choose performance over capacity. On the desktop side,this never was an issue; everyone went and bought 36GB Raptors because, well, you could always throw in a couple of big 7200rpm drives and get your performance AND your capacity. Not so on a laptop, most of which are limited to that one drive bay... which currently would have to be stuffed with a near-four figure drive with 64GB capacity in an age of terabyte storage.

That will change I'm sure, and it's the 256GB devices doubtlessly on the horizon that I think will represent a serious tipping point, especially if the STR does another doubling or so.

One question I had regards interfaces. I never expected a laptop to ever have mass storage that could test PATA or SATA interface limitations. Now, I'm not so sure... these things could scale to become incredibly fast. Current SATA interfaces are 3.0 gigabit, right? Have the actual chipset implementations of SATA interfaces been tested to actually handle 200MB/sec transfer rates from a single device? Because, those days are not far off.

 

What would be nice would be to do the same benchmarks again after one month of intensive use of the laptop, to see if there is any slowdown of the SSD drive over that period. What the article says is that the benchmarks you do on brand new drives are misleading.

Anyway I personally don't question SSD performance, since I don't own one and since SSD owners seem to be pretty happy with it -at least on this forum. What I was trying to say in my previous post is that SSD doesn't fit my needs, I'm looking for a desktop replacement notebook. I can understand that for other people SSD is the right choice. Especially if you take your laptop everywhere with you and use it on the run, or if you like to throw it against the wall for fun...

 

Here's the link to the original article which deals with the Dell SSD failure rumor :
http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9895986-1.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=Crave

A second article says the failure allegations are not proved, but that still the performance of SSD is not impressive:
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9898066-7.html

I think anyone thinking of spending extra money on SSD should read this before, to have a point of view that is different from corporate communication. Of course Avi Cohen retracted from his claims, when he woke up with a dead horse's head in his bed... Also you'll see posts from unhappy SSD owners, and I think it's important to have both sides of the story.

 

I do not believe that Dell would publicly give out gravely incorrect failure/return figures as it would be grounds for lawsuits from shareholders and be in violation of Dells listing requirements.

In regards to the poor performance of some SSDs (or poor random writes which Harris specifically comments), Les reviews include benchmarks from ATTO Diskbench, which shows performance data for small random reads/writes so that the reader can form his own opinion on performance.

If anything, Les tests show that certain SSDs significantly outperform the fastest notebook HDDs available. However, Les has also elaborated on that all SSDs are not created equal (e.g. SLC vs MLC) and also in his benchmarks the Sandisk and the Samsung SATA I did not fare so good.

It is unfortunate that some people spend top dollar buying Super Talent/ Sandisk (old version) / Samsung (old version) SSDs while expecting stellar performance. However, if you are spending lots of money, you really should do your research so that you can make an informed purchase decision.

 

Woody:

I have used all of the ssds I have tested extensively. There is absolutely no change in its performance a day, month or any further down the road. If you understand fragmentation of a hard drive, this is in direct contrast to a hard drive which not only slows through stress of load almost immediately, but also over weeks when a HD becomes fragmented.

You can leave a ssd for a year and, hypothetically any number of things can occur over that period of time. It just doesnt matter because the access time is still .2ms. It does not slow.

We have tackled this issue, and many others, extensively here at NBR.

 

Now if we could just get these available standalone for a few less $$$ Not much, I'm thinking $500ish would be awesome.

Cheers,

 

I myself had initially thought that SSDs were quite a ripoff. But,
Fact: SSDs ARE way faster than conventional drives!
Fact: SSDs ARE reletively newer tech.... and like anything else, will require massive price dropping before they can be seen as mainstream.
And that's about it.

 

I have seen the words "newer tech" used several times now. And as Les has taken great pains to point out it is not. Now Les is usually pointing this out when people are questioning the reliability and longevity of these drives. The application or availability to the GP may in fact be cutting edge the technology is not cutting edge and is tried and true. I wish people would stop referring to it as "new technology" as it is clearly not. You can't have it both ways cutting edge and tested and true?

 

It is cutting edge / new technology in this form.

The underlying storage mechanism is pre-existing, however getting to this speed? Nope.

The fastest USB sticks top out at about 20 MBytes/second. These are 5x faster.

 

It is essentially and economically newer tech as being utilized in the form of large hard disks

 

I wanted to throw my 2 cents in. I believe the application is cutting edge not the technology. I will concede it is semantics so no interest in arguing. I mean I do recognize a 20,000rpm HDD would be cutting edge tech, so I do get it.

 

Everybody wants to enjoy the benefits of new technology and cutting edge performance. They just don't necessarily want to pay the premium that it comes attached with...

 

Yeah.... that's right! Good "application" of your vocabulary And nice wording!