SSD Thread (Benchmarks, Brands, News, and Advice)

Alright, time to close the old thread which has gotten too long. Continue discussion here!

 

Intel X25-E 64GB, bought 6 months ago. Installed into a VAIO Z. Full SATA II 3Gbps support. So far so good, no performance degradation, no problem with large amount of random reads/writes, no problem with large number of concurrent I/Os. Sexy 4k random. Immune to most shock damage; almost zero thermal power.

Can boot up Windows Server 2008 R2 (as host OS) within 22 seconds, including swiping fingerprint. Desktop becomes instantly available. (Chrome can be ready for use instantly after taskbar appears.)

Can boot up 3 operating systems (Windows 2000 + Windows XP + Ubuntu 6.06) simultaneously in VMware, within 60 seconds. (It is known that HDD takes forever to do this, and some low-end SSD may stuck with this...)

The only problem is the capacity - can't store all the BluRay movies.

See attached s/s for benchmark results.

250 MB/s sequential read;
170 MB/s sequential write;
10,000+ IOPS for 512 bytes random under HD Tune Pro 3.5;
Over 20 MB/s for 4k random under HD Tune Pro 3.5;
36788 HDD Score in PCMark 05.

(Note: HD Tune Pro 3.5 does not provide consistent results comparable with results from other benchmark software.)

 

So what firmware does that run? And is there GC?

 

How's the battery life of the X25-E? What did you have in it before and can you give us a comparison? Aww that last thread didn't even hit 10,000 posts lol.

 

Maybe 33 % better random write (on SATA-I) is good reason to align disk:

Before:
Sequential Read : 122.892 MB/s
Sequential Write : 115.084 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 107.015 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 65.927 MB/s
Random Read 4KB : 13.237 MB/s
Random Write 4KB : 5.975 MB/s

After:
Sequential Read : 123.471 MB/s
Sequential Write : 113.045 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 107.192 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 79.164 MB/s
Random Read 4KB : 13.397 MB/s
Random Write 4KB : 8.046 MB/s


BTW: it's good to have align HDD, not only SSD

 

well, for the price you pay for E series, anything else than perfection would be rip off

 

I didn't have a chance to test the battery life with the previous HITACHI 320GB 7200rpm HDD.

With X25-E, browsing web pages with WiFi and processing Word documents under Windows Server 2008 R2, battery lasts about 5 hours under stamina mode (Intel 4500MHD), and about 3 hours under speed mode (nVidia 9300M GS).

 

Well at least we know that they are delivering performance for the high price whereas before you got nothing but an expensive paperweight as reward for your investment.

I think the SSD market is moving from "early adopter" to mainstream now.
I dipped my toe in the water with my little OCZ Summit 60gb shell shocker and I will definitely be looking for one of the higher capacity models when the prices come down a bit.

 

Booo!!! I want the old thread back!!! Haha of course the slc is going to be AWESOME! Even my samsung slc is AWESOME! Just lacking in the sequential reads I need for gaming . But really I wish anand would put the old Sammy slc in with his latest "benchmark". I'm sure it would be more than competetive.

 

I've got a question about SSD usage under Windows 7

I have 2 SSDs in Raid 0 mode using Windows 7 and my WEI score is only 6.9. Shouldn't it be faster?

Also, I have the option to defrag as well...shouldn't it be greyed out? Mine isn't, I dont think Windows 7 knows i'm using a SSD

 

The RAID controller might be hiding details from the OS that allow it to detect that the drive is an SSD. Make sure SuperFetch and Defrag are off.

 

I wonder is it just the laptop or is the Kingston SSD degrading rapidly..
In my Acer Aspire 4810t testing


in my desktop plugged in as an "external/storage"

 

I think I'll be getting the 320GB Intel X25-M when it comes out

Or maybe wait till G3, not sure yet.

 

I am looking to get the cheapest 256gb ssd. I was looking at this:
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...oductdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&cs=19&sku=341-8981

But the tech specs show it as sata-150.... which is pathetic. Any other cheap ones anybody found?

 

I think Dell's specs are wrong here. I don't think we ever had 256GB drives on the SATA I bus. I think this is supposed to the be the Samsung PB22-J.

 

would i disable it by running "services.msc" and disabling defrag and superfetch?

Or is there an official way to disable defrag and superfetch?

 

I would love for someone to confirm this (if they bought one). Spending that kind of money on a lemon is something I can't do.

 

CONFIRMED. I got mine from DELL.

 

Try downloading Intel Matrix Storage Manager and enable Volume Write-Back Cache.

I did mine that way.

Don't worry about Superfetch. I think these SSDs can handle it.

 

Yeah, I think several people on these boards have bought these drives from Dell. Is it really the cheapest way to get 'em?

 

MegaMan X,

Is your WEI score the overall or the primary hard disk score?

Also, do you have another disk (as primary) instead of your RAIDed SSD's that is possibly confusing Win 7 WEI as to which is the 'system' drive?

 

Of course you're going to get 6.9
Your RAID'ed Samsung SSD's from Sony is first gen MLC with read speed of 90MB/sec and write speed 70MB/sec. The two of them combined is still weaker than a single second gen MLC Samsung drive (which is the one I have). I get a score of 7.1 for this drive in Windows 7.

 

I get 7,3 with my modest Crucial 64GB ;-)

Same phenomenon for me :
Random 4K writes speed before alignment was 8,5 MB/s and 11,5 MB/s after while sequential speeds remained the same.

 

No big surprize there, concerning alignment... Think about what it does. 4k writes over two blocks or pages or whatever as apposed to one. that is lik twice the work. and sequntials stay the same because it is only affected at the very begining and end of the write.

I made two little drawings. not really accurate to the process but may visually explain the reason alignment is more import for random writes.

 

Thanks for the drawing, Mormegil. I guess my next question would be, why is it (mis)aligned to begin with? What pattern of usage is the default alignment geared towards?

 

The OS windows XP is what makes it mis-aligned, at if i recall correctly 63 instead of 64 or a multitude there of. but don't quote me on that.

If you are using an operating system other than XP it is aligned properly, XP users must fix their alignment.

 

I have XP, and mine is aligned to 63. I might fix that using Tomy B's recipe.

 

good idea

 

These are the kind of tests that I would like all reviewers to do:

http://blogs.msdn.com/chrisfie/arch...-server-2010-demo-image-benchmark-take-2.aspx

Also, see;

http://blogs.msdn.com/chrisfie/arch...rver-project-server-demo-image-benchmark.aspx


I don't care about the benchmarks (except as they verify/confirm that the drive is operating 'to specs' compared to others like it), I care about a set amount of 'work' for the drive to do and see which drive can do that work faster.

In the links above, there is an improvement of over 13 minutes for the Samsung SSD compared to the notebook hard drive (second link, simply adding the seconds together) and 25 seconds more time saved by using a G1 Intel SSD vs. the Samsung. (I wish he had timed all the original tests with the Intel also).

This isn't to point out that the Intel is faster, this is to point out the testing process. A twice as fast system where you save 13 minutes (multiplied by how many times you may do this during the course of a work day) is a huge and significant time savings that easily translates into dollars for most of us.

Even the shorter tests noted where 25 seconds are saved (still 12% faster though) are also notable because this scenario may be repeated tens or hundreds of times in a workday making those half minutes saved add up very fast (of course, we don't include booting up every time).

Now, that I have shown an example of these tests I prefer, does anyone have any links that show a similar testing/reporting process?

 

My brother looking for SSD aswell, was browsing and found this review, the agility seems alright.

OCZ Agility EX SSD 60GB review

 

I got two running in RAID0. works great! get them now before they really start using the slower 30nm Flash chips! got mine for $130 after rebate. Can't beat that!

Edit: WAIT THAT'S THE SLC! NM NOT WORTH IT IMHO..

 

How on earth? When/where did you buy those?

 

I agree with Mormegil83, for the average enthusiast user SLC drives are expensive and unnecessary. Today's top MLC drives are more than good enough and lighter on the wallet too.

 

Ya, look at any of the comparison graphs and that is immediately obvious.

You can probably source a 256GB Summit for less than the 60GB SLC Agility and while it will obviously be slower, at such a low capacity an increase of 4 times is worth more than the slight increase in speed (again, for most/average users).

What I can't understand in that article is that they are pushing the SLC drive as more reliable than the MLC versions - there is still too little real data on either to make a definitive statement either way (even though theory sides with SLC's).

If either last until my next storage/boot drive upgrade (2 - 3 years), then the 'longevity' angle is moot for me.

Another point that I don't see discussed anymore is the fact that all SSD's except Intel use the 64MB/128MB cache to cache DATA - to me, this is scary. Intel states that they use it to cache the management of the data blocks themselves, not DATA.

Isn't anyone here concerned with that aspect of the various controllers inner workings?

 

The capacitors are said to hold enough energer to flush any data held within the cache if there were a power failure.

 

Does anyone know anywhere I can get my hands on the 8820 firmware update for the X25-M G1s? Intel seemed to have pulled both G1 and G2 firmware updates off their site.

 

Thanks,

I was just reading this article http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/ocz-ssd-roundup.html and it shows some interesting results for the Mac Vertex (simply different firmware, I'm sure).

Although the writer repeats that Intel should increase the sequential write speed of it's SSD's, in a lot of the tests the G2/G1's still proved superior to the drives with the higher 'base' or manufacturers, sequential write specs.

Hmmm, I didn't know that SSD's used capacitors for backup functions - still think it's a bad idea to cache the DATA though, especially as it is reading/moving 'old' data, intermingling it with 'new' data and writing the combined updated data again to the drive.

Seems dangerous to me in that not only do you potentially corrupt new data you are trying to save, but also existing data that you would have no way of knowing was corrupted or not (till you tried to access it at some later point in time).

 

No guarantees, but does this help you?

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1463671&page=4

 

If You are using XP it doesn't mean that Your drive is unaligned and if You are using Vista/7 it doesn't mean that Your drive is aligned.

If disk is logically partitioned during XP installation or running XP then drive is unaligned and if disk is logically partitioned during Vista// installation or running Vista/7 then drive is aligned.

 

Do you guys think $200 for an Intel G1 160GB is a good deal? That's how much it is to upgrade on the Envy 13.

 

Yup, that helps. Thanks, how'd you find it?

 

The firmware that was most recently pulled (the one with TRIM support) was pulled for a reason. It is bricking a lot of drives and/or causing them to stop functioning with unexplainable SMART errors after a random number of reboots.

 

Wow, nice notebook, but upgrade from what? If it's just a regular HD, then for $300 approx. you get a 160GB G1, then it's sweet. If it's from another SSD add that price to $200 and see how close you are to the G2's.

I'd expect you to be running Win 7 on this, right? I'd opt for a G2 myself if you've already maxed out the RAM at 8GB or more. Even at a premium over the G1's price above (plus, you'll have the original HD to sell with the notebook and continue to use the G2 in the future).

 

oh no, that's just my hard drive score. My "overall" score is 4.3 due to my graphics card bringing down everything. My CPU, ram, and hard drive all break "6", just my GPU bringing me down.

But that can't be right...this is the model# MMCRE28GFMXP

Here's the samsung spec sheet download here:

http://www.samsung.com/global/syste...product/2009/6/11/104614PM800_Spec_200906.pdf

Host Transfer Rate: 300MB/sec
Maximum Sequential Read Rate: 200MB/s(1.8",Slim) 220MB/s 220MB/s
Maximum Sequential Write Rate: 180MB/s(1.8",Slim) 200MB/s 120MB/s

I dont think this a 1st gen samsung drive, I got the laptop configured-to-order in September if this year.



Also, does anyone know how to disable defrag and superfetch on Windows 7?

 

If I tell you, I'll have to k...

Seriously, I just read too much.

 

Did you install Win 7 'normally' (recommended), or did you restore an image onto your RAIDed SSD's?

If you did a 'normal' install and let the Win 7 Installer format/partition the drives for you, then the alignment of the partitions should be correct. If you didn't, this may be the cause of your low WEI score; unaligned partition.

Since you are running RAID, Win 7 doesn't 'know' you are using SSD's so the only thing I would disable is defrag and leave everything else alone.

In the Start menu, type defrag and hit enter and simply uncheck the 'Run Defrag on a schedule' tick box.

 

Greg Ross,

The problem is that he doesn't want the G2 firmware, he wants the G1 firmware, but Intel made the decision to include both firmware installers into one downloadable ISO file. So, when they pulled the 'bad' G2 firmware, they also made the 'good' newer G1 firmware unavailable also.

 

I did a clean install using my Windows 7 Signature Edition Disc. So it wasn't like an upgrade or a restored image onto my raid 0 drives.

Ok, I disabled Defrag, but you suggest leaving superfetch on?

oh, and the only other thing is that there's no Trim for Raid 0 systems huh?? bummer

 

Yes, I do.

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx

Since you're running RAID anyways, and Samsung SSD's (correct?) which have no TRIM enabled firmware announced yet, you are twice out of luck.

Maybe when Samsung or Sony (don't hold your breath, I have a Vaio also), release a user upgradeable firmware for your drives, they'll leapfrog all the others and figure out how to support TRIM on their drives in RAID too?

 

ah, awesome faq.

Well, Sony has already impressed me by enabling VT in their latest bios. Wow. I actually don't expect them to impress me a second time lol

Under the FAQ in fore mentioned link it says:

So...disable Superfetch, readyboost and launch prefetching? or no? and how...lol