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

Sandforce and Marvell based SSDs are slightly faster than Intel. For example OCZ Vertex 2, Corsair Force and Crucial C300.

Corsair Force should be coming in 160GB size but I don't know when.

Since you don't have SATA III I'd recommend going with Sandforce.

 

lol...i have no clue what u just said.

let's say i can get a 160GB intel x-25m for about $400. is there a better/similar performing SSD u would recommend over the intel x-25m that's priced about the same? for instance, how does this this 256GM crucial m225 compare to the intel x-25m? is there a big list that tells u which SSD's are the top performing ones? similar to a GPU performance list. some specific models would really help. there also seems to be different variations of some models as well, and that kind of adds to the confusion. sorry for all of the questions!

 

I just gave you the list OCZ Vertex 2, Corsair Force and Crucial C300.

The Intel is faster than the M225. The Corsair Force 160 is slightly faster than the Intel.

"The three new additions to the Force Series SSDs from Corsair have a Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price in the United States of $129.99 for the 40GB, $229.99 for the 80GB, and $449.99 for the 160GB version. The new models are expected to begin shipping worldwide in August."

 

whoops! thanks lol.

well i did a little more research and out of the 3 u listed, only the corsair force comes in a 160GB model. it is pretty much the same price as the 160GB intel x-25m, but if the corsair force is better performing, i might as well go with that one right?

 

I see you guys are mentioning they are better performing and faster, but how big is the difference anyway ?
The 128gb crucial M225 that houstoned mentioned is on a sale right now for $199, so I'm thinking how big is the difference between the Intel or Force to pay twice or more, is it that noticeble ?

 

Here you can see how the Force 120 performs against the Intel.
Corsair Force F120 SSD Review | StorageReview.com

 

i'm not sure if i gained some knowledge or made myself more confused by lookin at all of those charts lol!

if my common sense serves me correct than those graphs indicate that the corsair force is on par with the other 2, and pretty much superior compared to the intel x-25m? if that is the case then i will probably be lookin into where to purchase a 160GB corsair force SSD soon. do any of u guys know where the best/cheapest place to purchase one is?

p.s. - thanks for the help phil. +rep

 

Yes your conclusion is the way I see it too.

If you want to make it simple only look at the section "Real-World Benchmarks".

 

anyone think intel will release new drives before years end or should we expect them after CES?

 

is this the correct model? newegg was the only place i could find the 160GB corsair force on sale at. know any better/cheaper places or any newegg coupons?

 

According to most sources the first models should arrive in Q4.

It's only been out one or two days I think. Give it a couple of more days and more etailers will list it I expect.

 

Vertex 2 60GB down to £124.99 which makes it very competitive. OCZ 60GB Vertex 2E SSD 2.5" SATA-II Read 285MB/s.. | Ebuyer.com

My only concern about going for an OCZ product over the Crucial is the RMA process setup in the UK. Crucial's is next day replacement, OCZ seems to have to go to the Netherlands and then be shipped from outside Europe to the UK. Sounds potentially painfully slow, liveable if it's memory, less so when it's a drive.

Edit - Just checked with ebuyer, first year return would be with them. So that would be a speedier process.

 

I have decided it's a straight fight between the C300 and the V+. Because this is my first SSD, returns and support are important, so I'm going with someone with a UK base which knocks out OCZ, Corsair etc.

Now it's simply down to whether my current and future usage patterns suit a drive that's better with random writes or one better with sequential. And would I even notice the difference when the drive is up and running.

A toss of the coin. . .

 

I don't think you'll notice the difference.

 

In terms of returns and support, i had to send my first 256gb C300 to crucial, since it had failed, and a week later i got a new one with firmware 002 (first was 001) and since then it has worked flawlessly.

 

Once I mistakenly bought the wrong memory from Crucial and that was sorted very quickly. I've had a replacement stick from Kingston before and I've just broken an SD card and they're sending me a new one. So I've confidence in both companies.

 

Intel SSD roadmap 'updated' according to Computerbase.de 11th august.

Bild Intels aktualisierte SSD-Roadmap (1/1) - ComputerBase

Source: http://translate.google.com/transla...t/intel_ssd-roadmap/&sl=de&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

 

Any best guess as to how much the new Intel drives may cost? I am looking to buy a new drive, either a Sandforce drive or Crucial, in september. Any guess as to what portion of q4 we may see the new Intel drives?

 

Cool gadget to look at while benching...

 

I'd guess the 160GB G3 will cost what the G2 160GB costs one day before the launch of the G3

I have no idea when. I'd guess sooner then later. Intel must be loosing marketshare to C300 and Sandforce.

 

They would have to be with the prices on sandforce drives dropping everyday. I found Retail Corsair Force 240 on Ebay for $589 just now and went ahead and got it. Seemed like a good price and it was by a dealer I trust.

 

Looking into this with engineering...

 

Whoeee...you guys sure are SSD freaks...I just slapped my Intel G2 160 in, ran a couple of utilties, and haven't given a thought since.....

 

me too Zoid, just put it in and enjoy. I'm done with SSD tweaking.

 

I think you should benchmark it to verify you're getting the performance you paid for. After that, just enjoy it.

Recently I've seen many people not getting what they paid for. Here's a couple of examples: http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...arket-upgrades/507173-why-my-ssd-so-slow.html

 

Well, I guess we _are_ showing our faces here for a reason thanks

 

I agree, enjoy. I throw one quick bench once a day because I can't look into SMART yet to see if LifeTime Throttling on the SF2 has been enbled on writes. So I have to go by its write performance. Other than that I just use the system.

Now I'll admit I did the tweaks out the door to get the most out of the SSD. Once they are there though it is time to have fun and go on with life..............

 

Is $549 a good price for the Crucial Real SSD C300 256GB? Link

 

Seems like a good deal... i paid $650 for mine, but that was months ago.

 

I think it's a good deal. Just keep in mind that it needs a SATA III connection to get the full performance. Sandforce based drives perform better on SATA II.

 

Hasn't it been shown though, at least with current SATA III controlers, that the drive performs real life almost as good on SATA II? for benchmarks I would guess SATA III is going to rock the older SATA II but real life at least to me is much more important................

 

Not really. There's quite a dramatic performance loss in Storagereview's review (look for real world performance).
Crucial RealSSD C300 Review (256GB) | StorageReview.com

In my own benchmarking I only saw a performance loss when multi tasking. (compared to Sandforce drives)

 

phil have you tried the new owc mercury extreme 120gb? how wouldyou compare it to the c300 128gb in sata II mode?

 

I haven't but Storagereview did.

"It excelled in our real world tests, ranking #1 out of the SandForce models in our HTPC and Productivity traces, but slipped to third in the Gaming trace."
OWC Mercury Extreme Pro SSD Review (120GB) | StorageReview.com

You can compare those results to the C300 review. The hard thing is that almost every site comes to different results. And none of these sites have tested on notebooks.

Techreport showed better C300 results on SATA II controller.

My take (for Intel based notebooks): Sandforce > C300 > Intel G2.

 

really? what sandforce model is this again? sorry havent been following the thread.
always though you rated c300 the highest in 120/128gb

 

Sandforce based SSDs are (for example): OWC Mercury Extreme, OCZ Vertex 2 and Corsair Force.

In most multi tasking scenario's they beat the C300 on a SATA II controller.

C300 performs similar to Sandforce in most single tasks.

 

thanks for the clarification. just read that article and the mercury extreme seems to be neck and neck with the corsair force.
man, do we need your official ssd review, just too many choices out there atm.

 

hey phil,

i'm about to order the 160GB corsair force SSD soon. are there certain things i need to do to get more/better efficiency?

 

@stamatisx...

See my post at the end of this page

Hope this shall help a bit...

Cheers !

 

Only thing that really needs to be done is install the Intel Rapid Storage Driver.

After that you might want to run AS-SSD or Crystal Mark just to verify that it's performing like it should.
_______

Interesting post I saw on OCZ forums:

source

 

Thanks Phil and to others.
I have decided to pull the trigger in the C300 256GB. I am going to use this on my HP Elitebook 8740W(even though it's Sata II) with Win 7 64 Bit.
Hey Phil,
Is there anything i should watch out for (settings, etc)? There is too many tips and tricks all over the net .

 

Only thing that really needs to be done is install the Intel Rapid Storage Driver.

After that you might want to run AS-SSD or Crystal Mark just to verify that it's performing like it should.

PS. forgot to say if your BIOS has an AHCI setting it should be enabled. My HP laptop doesn't have it.

 

I've been running that utility for a short while this evening on my old machine, and indeed it's predominantly writing 8s. On that basis I'd be interested to see tests on 8ks in benchmarks.

Anyway I've today plumped for the V+ 64GB. Just came down to the higher sequential writes in the end. If I'm shunting uncompressed audio about it then it just wins over the C300. I think the relatively poorer 4ks are going to be barely noticeable.

If I'd had £200+ to spend I would have gone for the 128GB C300. If all goes well I can certainly see the drive ending up in the netbook within a year and then we'll see what the market has to offer.

 

Can i update the firmware on the C300 256GB SSD by installing it in the upgrade bay of my notebook (HP 8740W)? or should it be only on the main HDD bay.?

Edit: never mind, i just figured that the firmware can be updated only from bootable CD, so that rules out my upgrade bay.

 

Many thanx buddy, I hope they appreciate your effort and time the way I do!!

Will rep you as soon as it allows me

 

On the other hand I think 99% of the 8K writes we're not waiting for the job to finish. I'd guess most of the times the user is waiting for a storage job to finish is while reading.

 

Anyone know how hard it is to install an X25 80gb Intel into an AW 17x?

 

You're thinking about this wrong.

It doesn't matter that the 8K R r/w's are the predominant ones. A drive that benches with higher 8K numbers can still be slower in actual use than one that is a dog (comparatively) with those specific benchmarks.

How? Just like a game can be playing 100 FPS Average and still be choppy: the Minimum frame rate may well dip below 30 or less FPS, that's how.

So, if a drive exhibits great 8K R r/w's but horrible (again, comparatively) 4K's, then in real use you will see it slower. You may not see it slower in everything, but when it is slow, it will be much slower (and therefore, much more noticeable).

The point here is that you want a drive that is balanced, not one 'tuned' for a specific benchmark metric that may or may not match your overall computing style/use.

Good luck.

 

I understand what you're saying. My curiosity is why with 8K being the overwhelmingly the most accessed data 'chunk' it isn't being benched and 4K is, but then I'm not that geeky to know (or in the great scheme of things, care)

Like I said if I'd had the cash to splash I'd have gone for a 128GB C300 which seemed the most 'balanced', but for the first foray I couldn't justify it.

Performance aside, when it comes down to it, the number one reason I've gone SSD is 0 decibels, pure and simple. . .

 

Ummm...that actually originated on this thread from JlBrightBill some time ago. I have used it in any number of discussions. Here is the original theread if it helps:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/5930600-post3793.html

Goes to show the calibre of people we have right here.