On the verge of buying an Intel SSD...

Hi everyone. I'm on the verge of buying an Intel MLC 40GB SSD. I've got the money to buy it, but will I regret buying it? I've got an average notebook. Pentium Dual Core (65nm tech) and an Intel X3100 (Integrated Graphics) with 2GB RAM with a 5400 RPM 160 GB WD HD. I'm basically asking you guys to give me one last "push" to go for it.

Here are my current doubts/fears:
1. I don't follow the SSD scene at all. Is something extraordinary coming out within the next few months that'll blow it out of the water?
2. IIRC, Windows 7 is the only OS that supports TRIM. (If I'm wrong, correct me) If i don't use Windows 7, is my SSD doomed to be slow or will it NEVER be slower than my 5400 RPM HD even in worst case scenario?
3. Will i actually notice a performance increase in normal usage? I don't do anything super intensive, but I hear the random accessing is amazing. I'm not worried about space, because I never manage to even fill 80 GB hard drives anywhere near their capacity. Normal usage includes watching youtube videos, typical internet stuff, and opening PDFs and documents. Also, how's the boot up time? Has that been improved?

Thanks guys in advance for the final push (unless you convince me not to)

 

If I may... here is a review I wrote of the slower Patriot 32Gb SATA SSD.
http://www.epinions.com/review/PDP_Systems_Patriot_Warp_32GB_Solid_State_SATA_300_2_5_Hard_Drive/content_491289022084
Results
Boot time is almost non-existant in Windows XP Professional. However, I did turn off all Indexing services since they are no longer needed with 0.2Ms random access times.

Several months out, the computer still has this SSD and has been crunching SETI@Home workunits constantly. I ran a benchmark last week and got the same results as in the review published above.

Enjoy your new toy!

 

1. If you're buying an Intel 40GB SSD, then your budget likely won't be able to accommodate a future SSD that would blow the Intel out of the water, so to speak.
2. Even at its worse, the Intel SSDs destroy anything mechanical...
3. Maybe. Honestly, if you leave Superfetch on (and I recommend that you do), I don't think you will notice much of a difference. Superfetch in Vista/7 caches commonly used programs to RAM, which has even better read/write/access than SSDs.

The main thing you'll notice with an SSD is the significant increase in battery life and reliability.

 

1. No, nothing extraordinary will be coming out any time soon that can compete with the quality of an Intel SSD. They really are the best in the game right now and the 40GB version is a great way to get started.
2. Over time, performance does start to decrease unless you maintain the drive. Intel has an SSD optimizer tool on their website that you should schedule to run once a week to maintain performance. My 80GB drive was freezing/lagging ever so often. Once I ran the optimizer, the freeze/lag went away.
3. You will notice the most difference in terms of boot time, loading/installing applications. Youtube videos and any other misc internet stuff are not dependent on the SSD

Note that I own both the 80GB gen2 (for desktop) and 40GB (for laptop)

 

My SSD, which is slower than the Intel's, installed Firefox in less than a second. HOLY FLIPPING CHEEZ-IT'S!

 

Before waiting for the Next Big Thing, consider the relative speed of HDD vs SSD. The best notebook HDDs have 4k read/writes in the 0.5/1.0 range (that's MB/sec) and an Intel G2 is in the 15/40 range (I don't have the figures handy for your 40GB). So buying now will give you a 15x to 80x improvement.

The next generation of SSDs may be a big improvement, but there isn't anything happening in the next 12 months that is going to exceed maybe twice as fast. That's a wild guess. It may be far less, a 50% improvement. The technology is no longer new and it's reaching the point where the improvement curve flattens. Think of HDDs -- if a new one gets a 10% improvement they make headlines. So the potential future improvement pales in comparison to the jump you can have today. Buy now.

 

You might regret buying it if you need to use all the capacity available (~38GB), or even if its only filled more than around 70% (26.5GB).

Although SSD are fast, they do not give anything like 15x to 80x improvement over a mechanical HD in real world use. In benchmarks, maybe/sure, but unless all you do is run benchmarks on your notebook, they are mostly irrelevant (unless you want to verify if something is operating as it should).

1. Extraordinary things are coming out every few months, but nobody can say what they may be. For example, a SandForce based SSD is expected soon and early benchmarks show very promising, but when delved into deeper, I for one would not put my trust in this new tech yet, for my business. (Because of the file compression it does to make itself (sometimes) faster than the leader; Intel).

2. Yes, currently it is only Win 7. But also consider that the system needs to be in AHCI mode and the driver (SATA driver) needs to be able to 'pass' the TRIM commands to the SSD too. Although you can run TRIM manually in Windows XP and Vista, I am not sure for linux based O/S's.

3. You will notice a difference if the % filled is kept at or under 50% of the total capacity of the drive. Past this, you will notice a much less responsive SSD. With Samsung SSD's, some aspects of the performance can degrade to below HD speeds - but that is below a VRaptor's performance envelope. It may still be above a notebook's 5400 RPM HD.

I did not notice a huge decrease in boot up time when testing a Torqx SSD, but you may want to read more here to read my findings for yourself:

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=436882&highlight=The+SSD+Myth+Exposed



What I learned from that experiment is that % filled is very important. Effectively, if you're buying the SSD for speed; keep it under 50% filled and you'll be happy - but your cost/GB just doubled.

Hope this helps.

 

@tiller

Not to hijack this thread, but how do you know that putting more than 50% of an SSD slows it down? I realize about 90% (the number I've heard) is when it starts slowing down. 50% is a lot less than 90%. What reviews or benchmarks are you basing this off of?

I'm curious because it sounds like my 256GB drive is now a 128GB drive!

~Ibrahim~

 

The X-25V comes with a sticker that says, my SSD rocks! I tested one of those Intel 40gb drives over the weekend. restart-time was 35 seconds.

 

See the link I included in the post above.

Basically, that is what I found and davepermen (among others) helped to pointed out.

An SSD that was 90% filled: I think I would drop that system and go back crying to my desktop with Vraptor's - and they too are only filled to about 60% (per partition).

Not only did it slow down, but the Torqx SSD 'stuttered' so bad it made me return it immediately. And that was simply trying to extract a very small file.

 

Different brands, and possibly even different models from the same brand will have different numbers, due to differences in firmware, "spare" flash cells, and differences in garbage collection/TRIM. The "accepted" percentage, last I heard, for an Intel was about 80%. I have no doubt that the number for a different brand would be different.

 

I've got a X3100 graphics card in my laptop - a T9300 processor and an Intel SSD.
Oh, and 4GB of RAM - good choice yes.

1. A SSD is supposed to give you security as it isn't affected by shocks etc.
-> i.e. better suited for portable use than a HDD

2. A SSD is highly beneficial in data intensive tasks - Photoshop, Audio spring to mind - Video too.
Not gaming - I assume that's why you mention the CPU - although maybe some "levels" might load faster if they need to read a lot of data off the HDD.

3. You will notice a significantly faster boot time and potentially lower battery consumption - programmes also start quicker.

Watching Youtube videos, reading pdfs isn't at all affected by the HDD - how can it, its running from the internet and from RAM.