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

Go for Intel unless you want ultimate performance or excellent battery life.

In that case go for a Sandforce based drive like the Vertex 2 or Vertex LE.

 

I'd buy one in a flash (no pun intended) if it was 120GB at $300. I quite like the SandForce's performance advantages in some areas - power consumption most of all - and I'd be willing to buy one if the price was in line with Intel's pricing.

I'd also buy an Intel 120GB for $300 if they made one, though - I'm not quite happy with 80GB, and the ~$400 for the 160GB Intel is too high a price for me.

 

Thanks! Time to start froogling....

 

Vertex LE seems rather expensive though, so intel SSD is still the best price/performance right now? Going to get a 80gb intel G2.

 

You can get this 80gb g2 for $199.99

Newegg.com - A-DATA ASINTS-80GM-CSA 2.5" 80GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

If you can deal with MIR's this one is $199.99 after MIR and comes with some extras.
Newegg.com - DANE-ELEC SO-EX280UB2-MK 2.5" 80GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

EDIT: on second thought, looks like the Dane-Elec is probably G1 without TRIM, based on the black case and the model # blurred out.

 

Is there a chance some manufaturers pay / bribe those benchmark software designers so their ssd's performance results shifted up a bit??? at the end they are just freeware to serve the community.

Perhaps I am being paranoid.

 

Of course there's a chance, but I wouldn't be too worried about it nonetheless. Any decent review will use far more than one benchmark, and the chances are very low that any one manufacturer would bribe their way into every single one.

They might as well just bribe Microsoft, that way their SSD will be faster in the real world as well

 

how many of them out there that many of us use? CDM, AS SSD....
Can you feel the difference in real life experience? (b/w the faster and the slower)

 

You ain't paranoid if they are out to get ya'

 

More on those Benchmarking Freeware:
_________________________________

For instance CDM puts the max value as a result of each, although most of the values might be well below the max. That 's in my opinion misleading. Because that might be one of those fall into 5% quartile in normal distribution.
Most of the samples might be far below the max value.

Say, you have 100 identical pumps in a factory from the same manufacturer.
99 of them mean time between failure is around 18 months and one outperform the others and its MTBF is 60 months. This doesn't conclude that all will fail around 60 months.

And also where you test them is important too. on a rough road or on F1 track?

There are more flaws I picked. that was just one.

Those in my personal opinion can only give rough indication on SSD's performance.
They are not definite.

 

Let me first apologize for being too lazy to read through 512 pages. I'm thinking about getting my first SSD and was wondering if this: Newegg.com - Kingston SSDNow V+ Series SNVP325-S2B/128GB 2.5" 128GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) was any good? All I'm looking for is a slight speed gain, good price, and reliability. I am by no means looking for the best/greatest SSD. Does anyone have one or have any information about it? If anyone has another recommendation, all I'm willing to spend is ~$300 and 128GB.

Thanks

 

Do you have AS SSD (Acc. time) and ATTO bench for me?

 

3x100gb RAID 0 Sandforce on ICH10R with 4k stripe

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

 

Thanks!

Can't say anything else but

 

It's included in the reviews here: OCZ's Agility 2 Reviewed: The First SF-1200 with MP Firmware - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News
Here's another review: http://techreport.com/articles.x/18757/6

According to Techreport the Corsair Nova V128 is a better choice. It's cheaper too at Newegg.

I can't comment on the reliability.

 

My Corsair Nova V128 is holding up real nice. I love it and it is the first SSD that made me realize that I will never go back to spinners. Sure, they all need some more development time, but for now, I really like this drive and it does not get much publicity at all. I think that is because it simply... works.

Death toll for spinners. If you do not hear it you are deaf!

 

newegg user feedback for this drive:
Customer Reviews Of Corsair Nova Series CSSD-V128GB2-BRKT 2.5" 128GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

 

I can dig up ATTO but AS SSD gave incorrect readings regardless how I tried things. I can get you access times in the two latter attachments though...

 

I know that I should research a little bit, but this is a HUGE thread, Do any of you know the release date of the intel G3 ssd´s?. Thanks in advance.

 

Q4 '10 says Anandtech.

 

Actually Anandtech says it will be a mid year refresh.

Q4 was the originally planned date. I think the Sandforce drives are pushing Intel to release earlier.

 

Ohhh...gotcha. Thanks for the updated info.

 

So they wouldn't be 22nm then? The process couldn't be ready by mid-year.

 

OK, so Secure Erase on the Samsung 256GB:

Used GParted on Ubuntu Live (already had Ubuntu on a disk). Drive was frozen. Had to detach drive, boot up with Live disk, open Gparted, reconnect drive, and then use these commands:

https://ata.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/ATA_Secure_Erase

Worked fine, but had to put "sudo" in front of all the commands for some security thing.

Writes are now 10x better: 15MB/s to 165MB/s.



And if anyone is curious, Windows Backup Images retain alignment.

 

Glad it work

Would be interested to see ATTO bench

 

No "pre" ATTO bench, though. Thought I had one, but no where to be found.

 

Nice numbers

 

Thanks.

IDK if it was this or the A09 BIOS that just came out, but everything feels much snappier....stupid TRIM.

 

I only look up SSD info from time to time.

I see the sandforce stuff is out now.

Thought it strange just looking over the last 8 or so pages the change in placement of the SSDS.

About 3 months ago and for the longest before people were talking about drives like the Agility and a few others being the best price/value and Intel being the one for the most performance.

Now people are referring to Intel being the one to get for price/value and the sandforce for performance.

Competition is good though, maybe it will drive intel prices down more so that they really are the best value per dollar.

 

I'd still recommend Intel for performance - also because they are proven.
I suppose if you really want performance you can bin those Sandforce drives and get an Intel Server drive
Only problem... much more expensive.

 

Besides apparently the colour, could someone enlighten me as to what the difference is between these two X25-Ms?

Intel X25-M 160GB 2.5" MLC SATA II (SSDSA2MH160G2C1) - dabs.com

Intel 160GB X25-M SATAII 2.5" MLC (SSDSA2MH160G2R5) - dabs.com

I assume the only difference is one is OEM and one is retail - is that right? Which is which?

 

The second is the retail judging from the model number.

 

and the difference is retail one comes with 3.5" mounting bracket.

 

Aha, thanks

 

If 1st one actually is G2 then it should be same color as 2nd.
All G2s should be silver.

 

Ok, i have a ~$400 budget and was leaning toward the Intel X25-M 160GB (or the OCZ Vertex 2, but I don't know if I can live with just 100gb). I don't want to buy the Intel and have them refresh with the G3 right after, however, my laptop was just replaced with a HDD and I was already used to the speed of the SSD. So in a nutshell, I can technically wait for the G3 to come out, but I am being a baby and want an SSD now

Also, what are the rumored improvements for the G3? Thanks

 

Most likely speed increases - especially sequential so it sounds good to the uneducated masses...
And definitely size increases i.e. more capacity.

Worst case you'll be waiting until the end of the year though... and they might be pricier per GB than the G2 - there is no way to predict what exactly Intel will do.

 

I'm expecting the most noticeable improvements of the G3 will be write performance and power consumption.

Read performance of the G3 will probably also improve but it will be hard to notice.

 

Thanks guys

 

Hey guys, I'm planning to get an SSD with my new laptop towards the start of June and I have several questions/comments.

First off, the anandtech article a few pages back has the Kingston SSDNow V+ barely edging out the Intel X-25s on PCMark Vantage. Does this mean that it's better or at least comparable on daily use computing tasks?

The general opinion based on what I've read so far is that the Intel X-25 G2 is still the most recommended SSD, is this because it has higher random read/writes over the Kingston and since PCMark Vantage is still a 'synthetic' test, still performs better in the real world?

The techreport article seems to favor the Corsair Nova, but I would tend to disagree, based on the reviewer not having used proper drivers for the Intel X-25 and the poor reliability reviews on the Corsair.

Also, I'm wondering if there is a significant difference between the 160GB and 80GB Intel SSDs. The PCMarkVantage test shows the 80GB actually doing better than the 160GB on all test except music. However, I assume the 80GB will usually have more of its capacity filled, since it is a smaller drive, but with TRIM this shouldn't be too much of an issue.

Finally, the most basic issue: price. The Intel 80GB is $200, the Kingston 128GB is $300 and the Intel 160GB is $400. If my pockets were overflowing with cash, I would get the Intel 160GB and call the discussion over. But since they aren't, I am inclined to go with the Kingston, since that extra 48GB is a huge difference.

Of course, things may be cheaper with the G3 refresh later this year, which means maybe I should go with a HDD for now and upgrade later?

 

They will all be much, much faster than a spinning drive. Yes, if you value performance over all else, the Intel is what you should choose. But the extra capacity of the Kingston drives I would think is worth it. I find 120GB to be "ok" space-wise, especially after disabling hibernation, system restore, and other disk-eating things. I'm currently using 75GB of space on it, and that would completely fill the 80GB Intel. I am considering upgrading in the next generation or two, but not yet. The only thing I don't have on the drive is my music and movies, but that's a great thing to leave on an external drive.

 

These real life benchmarks confirm the Kingston V+ edging out the Intel.
A look at new SSDs from Corsair, Kingston, Plextor, and WD - The Tech Report - Page 6

The random reads and especially the writes of the Kingston are significantly slower though:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3667/oczs-agility-2-reviewed-the-first-sf1200-with-mp-firmware/5

How much you would notice of this in real life is the question. Installing programs will probably be quite slow on the Kingston.

May not be a bad idea. You can get a Hitachi 7K500 250GB single platter for $49.

Or get the Intel 80GB, it's dropping below $200 now.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...67016&cm_re=intel_80GB-_-20-167-016-_-Product

 

The Intel get's recommended for its 4K speeds - sequential speeds are 100% worthless. (Excluding a storage setup)
Additionally - they've so far been the most reliable - yes they had a firmware problem where an upgrade of the firmware bricked some drives - BUT any Firmware upgrade is a risk on any device.
Additionally we know that Intel's keep their speeds and not become dead slow after a little while.

 

Sequential speeds are important, they're just not the whole picture. Neither are 4K random speeds.

Real life performance is basically a mixture of access times, sequential speeds and I/O performance. All are important.

As you can see in the Techreport benchmarks, Intel does a lot better in the random reads, yet the Kingston V+ manages to outperform the Intel in a lot of the real life benchmarks.

 

Thanks for the advice. However, I do have some concerns about the reliability of the Techreport benchmarks. For most of the tests on the first page, especially the Photoshop CS2 and the gaming tests, the reviewer uses Microsoft's AHCI drivers instead of Intel's. He mentions several times that the Intel's performance would be significantly better if he had used those drivers.

My question is, overall, isn't the Intel faster (based on his review) if you take into account the expected performance boost from using Intel drivers?

Also, in his conclusion he mentions that one of the weaknesses of the Kingston is random writes. I was wondering what real-world tasks this would affect.

 

Pretty much loading software - opening large files, or using software that uses temp files like Photoshop.

These will need random read and writes.

 

Launching applications is mostly dependent on random read performance.

Random write performance influences installing applications.

Also applications like Firefox will often write small files to disk, which is also influenced by random write performance. However, the random write performance of the Kingston is not that bad that it will cause hick ups.

 

Funny thing: I've bought an Intel 160GB G2 on ebay last week, I've still been waiting for the delivery. I've mentally prepared myself for reinstalling my Win7Pro x64, but I've just found out that my DVD drive has died How ridiculous is that?

 

How ideal is that? Buy a bracket and an external, moving the old HD where the DVD was and then having the external DVD only when you need it.

You can get a 1Tb drive now for under $100 if you look so you end up with a great storage system with all the power...