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

Would You please be so kind and give me a link to an appropriate bracket on ebay (or whatever - I've been fighting with my GF tonight, even being a Kung Fu instructor doesn't help ;-) or something? MERCY!...

 

And installing Windows 7 from a USB key is a lot faster anyway.

 

Simply google hd/dvd bracket dvd and you are good. You need to know what kind of system you have which we dont..

 

Fudzilla says most G3 drives will come in Q4.

Fudzilla

I wonder if Anandtech is right with the mid year refresh.

 

On that note... does anybody notice a problem here?

80GB 160GB 300GB - 300??? Not 320GB? then 600GB...

 

Fudzilla is usually not the most reliable source. Let's hope they're wrong.

 

I'm not really sure there's a conflict here. Q4 of the fiscal year is July 1 through Sept 30 and July would certainly fall into the midyear definition.

 

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

Access times: I've never seen an SSD that had "slow" access times that impacted performance. Like, no review that I have seen on an SSD states "slow access times" as a con. I mean, is there going to be a measurable performance difference from a 1ms to .1ms access times? HDDs were in the 7-15ms range. Sorry for the sarcasm: it's a serious question.

Sequential: I thought as long as you have like 80MB/s read/write sequential, you won't notice a difference unless you're constantly moving xxGB files? Like, anything higher doesn't have a noticeable benefit (unless you fall under storage)? I just made up the number 80MB/s, probably even less.

I/O performance: so this is where it *really* matters, right? And people keep telling me 4KB is all we should care about. But 4KB random, right? No one cares about 4KB sequential?

While we're on the topic, someone want to explain to me why CrystalDiskMark uses like 4KB QD64? I realize it's queue depth of 64, but does this number really matter? How should I view this? Horrible, worst-case scenario or about regular usage?

 

This would only matter if you planned to use your SSD on a server

about the difference of 1ms access time compared to 0.1ms, it is quite big in my opinion, it's 10 times slower actually

 

OK, no server-usage, so forget about QD64. Thanks!

Right, well, I realize it's 10x slower numerically. But how does that .1 to 1ms difference translate into real life? 1ms to 10ms is also a 10x difference, but I would assume that would be a very large real-life difference. Does that difference carry over in any significant amount to the .1 to 1ms jump? I'm guessing no, but someone prove me wrong?

Basically, access times on SSDs are kind of moot as there are no "slow" SSDs in terms of access times. It's all a big wash, right?

~Ibrahim~

 

You know, it's funny that you mention this, because I was just recently comparing some 4KB random benchmarks to determine which SSD I wanted.

Here's the breakdown (in MB/s)

Kingston SSDNow V+ 128GB - 4.4 Random Write 18.4 Random Read

Intel X-25M 160GB G2 - 37.4 Random Write 64.3 Random Read

It is important to note that Anand ran reads/writes over an 8GB space of the drive, which presumably, would exaggerate any existing differences between the drives. I am not sure how this would actually correlate to real world usage.

But my point is that in the PCMark Vantage benchmark on the next page, which is supposed to simulate real world operations, the Kingston SSDNow V+ actually barely edges out the Intel X25 M.

Yes, despite having read/write times that are almost 4x slower than the Intel's, it is benchmarked to be better or at least comparable in the real world.

All this lead to a question: is the importance of random reads/writes exaggerated?

source: OCZ's Agility 2 Reviewed: The First SF-1200 with MP Firmware - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

 

For the user that has the SSD for everyday usage this difference won't really matter but when it comes to environments that involve GB of data that have to be accessed in the shortest possible time then yes it makes a big of a deal.
Also isn't it big of a difference when with the one SSD you can access let's say 10MB of data while with the other SSD you can access 100MB given the same amount of time?
0.1ms to 1ms won't seem such a big difference compared to 1ms and 10ms because the first couple of numbers are too fast for the human brain to realize (not that the second one isn't...).
There are slow and fast SSDs, it's that we can't really tell the difference when we use our human senses to compare them.

 

You are right that the difference is less dramatic than with HDDs but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Even the tiny differences matter because the disk can be accessed hundreds of times in a matter of seconds.

Above a certain number (higher than 80MB/sec afaik) the difference start to matter less. So much is true. But that doesn't mean the differences aren't there. The differences, even when they're small, can add up.

The reason why Anandtech at one point thought the 4KB random read was the holy grail in benchmarking is that all other benchmarks failed to show the weakness of the JMicron controller. The 4KB random read did, so then Anand thought this is the perfect benchmark.

The example in the Techreport benchmarks, clearly shown by ComicSands, points out that the 4K random read is yet another limited synthetic benchmark.

Of all synthetic benchmarks PC Mark Vantage is probably the best because it simulates real world usage. But I'd rather see real life benchmarks like Techreport uses. One they use is Worldbench that runs scripts in real applications.

I think it is. Above a certain number it's starts to matter less. A lot less.

 

Que Depth is important on a regular laptop too.

Simple test, create an HDR image in Photoshop and save it.
a) in IDE mode (no queuing)
b) in AHCI mode

With AHCI and native command queuing its faster - Photoshop uses the HDD/SSD as a Cache too though, so my guess is it queues the commands.

 

Here is a link of Shutdown and bootup of my new Macbook Pro 13" with 2.66 processor int running Leopard. Running new Vertex 2 SSD int it.

YouTube - MVI_2501.AVI

 

One thing I forgot to mention: the <0.1ms access time is a best case scenario. Worst case scenarios can be as high as 90ms, even for the Intel drive.

 

Access times: oh, right....there are lots of files being accessed, not just one at a time. True. I just saw some high access times on the X25-V....ugh, you're right, it still matters!

Sequential: I barely noticed my sequential write speed dropping from 175MB/s to 15MB/s with "normal" usage like Firefox and Word. More intensive applications might, though, IDK.

@Det

Haha, well, I don't have PS, but I'll take your word for it.

@Vantage

Hey, now! I posted something a few pages ago saying that the OCZ Vertex 2 scored higher than the Intel G2 on Vantage, but someone retorted that Vantage isn't too important because it only simulates real-world usage via synthetic means.

Worldbench isn't great for HDD testing, says TechReport:

We've long used WorldBench to test performance across a broad range of common desktop applications. The problem is that few of those tests are bound by storage subsystem performance—a faster hard drive isn't going to improve your web browsing or 3ds Max rendering speeds. A few of WorldBench's component tests have shown favor to faster hard drives in the past, though, so we've included them here.

Real-world testing by TechReport gives the SandForce a huge edge in game loading times, a wash in everything else, but an advantage to the G2 in Nero.

 

Techreport is right on the money.

Another website that does good real world testing is Laptopmag:
Intel X25-M G2 Review - File Copy Tests
Unfortunately they haven't posted new SSD reviews in a while.

That was probably me. Anyway, it's true.

Thanks for that Sandforce review. I hadn't seen it yet. Wow, really bad performance of the Sandforce drives there. I almost can't believe it. I'm surprised no one is talking about that.

What's also suprising is how well the Kingston V+ 128GB does in their real world benchmarks. It mostly stays ahead of Intel and Sandforce, while it's power consumption is extremely low.

Edit: The Vertex 2 does a lot better in these file copy benchmarks than in the ones at Techreport.
OCZ Vertex 2 100GB SSD Review > Benchmarks: File Copy Test - TechSpot
OCZ Vertex 2 Pro, Sandforce Powered SSD Preview - HotHardware

Edit 2: First review of Seagate's momentus XT looks very promising:

Seagate Momentus XT 500GB ST95005620AS Review - Overclockers Club

Unfortunately they did very little real world testing.

Edit 3: Storage review did: Seagate Momentus XT Review | StorageReview.com

Edit 4: Anandtech reviewed it too: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3734/seagates-momentus-xt-review-finally-a-good-hybrid-hdd

 

So the Intel X-25m g2 would be a better performer as compared to OCZ Vertex 2..... I am looking to buy a SSD.. just pushing myself to wait for intel g3 but this waiting game is damn difficult.... Any news on Intel g3... when will it be available to the customers and will it really be like 25 -30% cheaper straight away...

Or shall I just go ahead with a Intel X-25m 160gb or an OCZ Vertex 2 if it is any good...

 

I'd just keep off OCZ SSDs due to their track record...

Intels are reliable - and proven in the field

About the G3:
Nobody except Intel really knows when it'll come - and personally I'd doubt that prices will drop 20-30% - my estimate is that they will stay the same per GB for the G3 drives as its now for the G2 - especially as the Intels are quite competitively priced, possibly best performance for the price & best storage for the price - and if you need something faster - there are always the Intel server drives - and much more expensive too...

 

Based on the real life benchmarks by Techreport I don't think the Vertex 2 is worth the premium.

Intel G2 is a safe choice.

The Kingston V+ 128GB (v2) performs better than Intel G2 in most real life scenario's while it uses less power.

Here are some more real life benchmarks that show the Kingston V+ to be faster than Intel G2.

Like Detlev, I expect the G3 to come in at the current price of the G2.

Anand says the G3 will come mid-year, most other sources are still talking about Q4.

 

Which is harder to manufacture, SSD or Spinner? I saw a great article on the WD factory that makes spinners. I cold hardly imagine anything more complex, with the possible exception of an Intel CPU factory.

Point is, that with just a small downward price drop, and a small upwards capacity boost (both quite within reality) I can imagine SSD's taking off like wildfire, ESPECIALLY if they are easier to manufacture.

Dave

Corsair NOVA 128GB and loving it, but as always, looking for my next SSD

 

What is it people are expecting G3 to do that G2 doesn't? Is it speed?

Benchmarks aside, the G2 is a solid performer. I'm not sure where the line is where going faster no longer matters in anything except for benchmarks.

 

G3 should be driving costs down while increasing sequential speeds to match up with their existing excellent random performance and very low access times.

The issue with Sandforce drives and the lack of wide recommendation isn't their performance -- I'd take it over my G2, it's that the price/GB is just not worth it for likely imperceptible performance increases over a comparable Intel drive. Intel has been winning the price/performance war ever since the G2 drives came out, Sandforce is competitive on the wrong axis; they're competing for performance when the consumers want competition on capacity/price.

As long as Intel continues to be competitive on performance (they still are, and with their R&D budget, they will never stop being competitive in this area), they'll win as long as they release products at attractive prices.

If a consumer sees an 80GB Intel for $195 or a 50GB OCZ, Corsair, Patriot, OWC, or other Sandforce drive for $200, not only does Intel win on price, they win on capacity, and they win on brand recognition. Intel could not release another drive for 6-8 months and sit on their G2 drives with lower comparative fixed costs and improved process yields, continue to lower prices, and force everyone else to sit on stockpiles of inventory that they can't move. They have an advantage on everyone else in the market right now and G3 will only strengthen that position.

 

25nm Intel (G3) SSD's coming.

• Higher capacities.
• More speed.
• Sata 6GBs support.
• Lower power usage.
• Lower prices.

 

My biggest disappointment with the Intel G2 was that I lost battery life compared to my Seagate 5400.6

At first I did not believe it but by now Anandtech has shown that the power consumption of the Intel can be quite high. When writing it can be as high as 3 watt. When reading:

 

I just received my new Intel SSD 160GB G2 yesterday. I installed my Windows 7 Pro 64-bit and everything is LIGHTNING fast! I will never go back to traditional HDDs! This speed is just unbelievable! Plus I got it for 369$!

 

Yep, bye bye Spinners, it has been real fun while they lasted

 

Concur on the SSD and the speed. If ever doubt how much better they are go try another laptop with a 4200 RPM drive and you'll truly appreciate your investment.

 

Don't make fun of HDDs. I still gots one right here.

But also an SSD. So yeah.

Can't wait for the large capacity Intels.

 

SSDs need some serious price cutting to ever become mainstream.

You can get 1 terabyte+ storage in HDD for the same price that you get 40gb ssd.
That's just ridiculous, the speed is not worth it if money doesn't grow in trees for you.

I'll upgrade my HDD into SSD when i can get a price around 1gb/1€ for 300gb+. That's still not a reasonable price compared to HDDs though.

 

Agreed, at current prices there's still a lot of room for HDDs.

I'm looking forward to see the first people getting their Momentus XT. Fast HDD + small SSD for the most used files.

I'd like to have room for an SSD + HDD setup but I don't have it. (HP DM3)

 

Phil, You can always use an Optical Bay HDD caddy, You will loose the optical drive though. Check out NewmodeUS, Hard Drive Caddys for Notebooks for more details.

 

He knows about the caddy but I believe the DM3 doesn't have an ODD to replace.

 

hey.. guys was going through OCZ vertex 2 anandtech review... and he says it is faster than intel x-25m... but techreport comes to a different conclusion.... Am confused now....

 

Hello Guys,

I finally installed my Intel G2 160GB SSD into my ancient Samsung X50 and benched it. I know the scores will be limited by the SATA 1 speed but was expecting at least 50% higher speeds. Any comments or suggestions on improving them? I've already done all but the registry tweaks on Les's guide.

 

hello TechAnimal,

I believe that is as high as it will go on SATA 1. I wouldn't worry because your 4k is what you should be the focus and they look great!

 

Hard to say. I tend to trust Techreport's benchmarks more than Anandtech, because Anand focuses too much on I/O and controller performance. Even his 'real world' benchmark is measured in IOPS.

But Techreport seems to have some errors in their benchmarks, looking at the file copy results.

At this moment I haven't seen any real life benchmarks that justify the premium price of the Vertex 2.

 

yup that's the highest u can go... u should have really not got it and got something else way cheaper.. SATA I really makes u waste the extra speed.

 

I got it in preparation for my laptop upgrade so i'm not worried. Its just installed in the X50 till I decide which notebook i'm going for. (Thinkpad W510 or Elitebook 8540w). Also its not wasted as the system responsiveness is amazing! I barely notice that i've got just 1GB ram running Win 7

 

Which driver is better to install for Intel G2: Intel Rapid Storage Technology, or Intel Matrix Storage Manager? My OS is Win 7 Pro 64-bit.

 

Rapid Storage. The newest one supports TRIM, to boot.

 

Does anyone know what this is, and should I be worried? Thanks!

 

Im looking into buying a SSD and am just wondering, what is the difference between the Intel X18 and X25?

Also, what are the best drives in the 80gb-160gb range?

 

x18 = 1.8in drive
x25 = 2.5in drive

 

Is the OCZ Vertex Turbo OCZSSD2-1VTXT120G a good drive?

I can get it for $200 shipped plus 8% BCB so that seems pretty good for a 120gb drive.

Or how about the Kingston 128gb V series? SNVP425-S2B. That one is 225 shipped plus 8% cashback. Both are new unopened. Which one would be better for the money?

edit: The OCZ sold How's the kingston?

 

CRC or Cyclic Redundancy Check is a process that helps in identifying any errors that might occur during the data transmission process.
Since you have a laptop and you don't use a cable to connect the SSD to the motherboard you can exclude this factor. This leaves you with two cases. One is, data being incorrectly transmitted either from the web or a local network as well as from another media like DVD/flash disk, and two, files that are being transmitted and are corrupted and cannot be recovered.
Also I am not aware of any method that can reset this counter, so this warning will always be there. To only thing you can do is to monitor the values and see if they have significantly increased over time (also monitor your activities so you can have an idea of what's causing it).

 

Well, I cloned from an X-25 intel to the Crucial, so I don't what else it could be.

Thanks for the advice, however. +1 rep.

 

Are there any benchmarks showing SSD performance based on how full the drive is? I recall reading somewhere previously (like months ago) that somewhere around 80% capacity there is a noticeable degradation in performance. Maybe that's just hooey, but it'd be good to see some solid numbers. Thanks.

 

Performance degradation as a result of ssd capacity is an unfortunate truth and it is most likely a result of limited over provisioning IMHO. I searche hard for tests which would clearly show different drives and how this could have affected each with no luck.

I tested the OWC Mercury Extreme Pro HE with 28% OP and there was no slowing with the drive full.