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

Indeed, if you put two unidentical drives in RAID0, you will just loose the extra capacity of the bigger one, am I mistaken here ?

 

i always thought it just won't work...? or does it work like ram like Eye-I-aie suggested? beats me

 

A long time ago it just wouldn't work unless you were using identical drives.

Now, you mostly just lose capacity (if both/all are 5400/7200 RPM drives at least).

So, you're both right.

Ideally though, you should still not mix drives as timing differences could give you a very unstable RAID setup.

 

yea i wouldn't mess around with that... i'd personally make sure i'd have identical drives....

thanks for clearing that up though bro

 

Yeah unidentical drives in any RAID format is generally not a good idea. It should work flawlessly, but if you RAID a SSD and HDD, you get the WORST of both worlds. You're limited by the HDD's read and write speed (well at about 1.5 times the speed if in RAID 0) AND you're limited by the RAID's size (times two in RAID 0).

So a 128 GB SSD + 500 GB HDD in RAID 0 is seen as a single ~256GB drive at slower speed than just the SSD.

 

^^^^ which equals BIG WASTE OF MONEY ... lol

 

Yeah, but if you happen to have a whole bunch of, say, 500GB drives with different amounts of platters and from different manufacturers, it's not a big problem.

 

I recall running across a page with instructions on how to update a 256GB Samsung SSD to firmware with TRIM support by connecting it to a desktop and using some tool. I can't seem to find that page anymore, anyone have a pointer handy?

 

SandForce Debuts SF-2000 SSD Processor Family

 

The link on Anandtech:
SandForce Announces Next-Gen SSDs, SF-2000 Capable of 500MB/s and 60K IOPS - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

 

Hey guys,

how well do PCMark Vantage scores correlate with real life performance?

Suppose one drive gets ... 100MB/s in the application loading suite whereas another one gets 200MB/s. Am I actually going to see a complex program open 2x as fast?

Thanks

 

No where near that. I've actually seen examples where one drive gets a lower score than the other but opens an application faster.

The Vantage Total score is a nice indication for performance, but nothing more than that.

 

hmmm... really. that's interesting. Well, so how does that benchmark work? Doesn't it load a pre-written set of applications etc?

Another question: for normal home use (starting up, launching programs, playing games, etc) is random write as significant as random read? Would I actually see much of a difference between 10MB/s and 50MB/s 4k random write speeds?

Thanks

 

I didn't see any difference between my SSD (around 4 MB/s random 4k writes) and Intel X25-V (over 40 MB/s random 4k writes).

 

As Anand states:

The four cornerstones of an SSD depend on Sequencial R/W's, and Random R/W's.

He narrows the Random R/W's to 4K blocks, but I suggest that all block sizes are important in the 'feel' of the system.

Some SSD's are untouchable at the 'popular' 4K level, but fall flat when other sizes (512B, 1K, 2K, 8K, 16K, etc.) are analyzed.

No benchmark 'works' to predict real world usage because as soon as a benchmark is popular enough, a hardware manufacturer will have hired someone to learn how to 'cheat' it.

Another thing to keep in mind is that at queue level depths between 1-3, most SSD's do not 'shine' as brightly as their makers would like us to believe.

The bad part is that almost everyone from a netbook to a workstation worker 'lives' in the 1-3 queue level depth (and this is why mechanical HD's are still a viable alternative currently - performance/productivity-wise).

 

So basically Intel's g3 will be lagging behind the competition again...

I still don't understand why Intel didn't go SATAIII with the g3...

@TIlleroftheearth... do explain, as i am not current with the ssd-terms you speak of. What exactly are 1-3 queue depths? And how are mechanical HDDs still a viable alternative currently? I always thought even the crapiest ssd will outperfrom a hdd, in any test,benchmark and real-world application... or so i was told..

 

I had a Kingston V+, a C300 and a Sandforce drive in my Acer 1830T. Going by the 4K speeds the Kingston V+ should be much slower than a Sandforce drive. In reality it was (at least) equally fast, if not faster.

In Techreport's benchmarks the Kingston V+ manages to outperform the Sandforce drives in the majority of the real world benchmarks.

So much for synthetic benchmarks.

There are a couple of review sites that use real world benchmarks that reflect real world usage: Techreport, Techspot, Hexus, Behardware and a couple of more. These are the best in my opinion.

Then there are sites like Anandtech and Storage review. What they call real world benchmarks doesn't actually reflect real world usage. Instead they run a scenario and measure IOPS. These benchmarks favor controllers that do well in heavier multi tasking like Sandforce.

Lastly there are sites like Tomshardware that don't do any real world benchmarks. Least helpful reviews imo.

 

I don't rate Techreport. Woefully out of date on every front except cpu/gpu development, gamer centric and the forums are terrible. So many threads with lots of views and zero replies. I always liked xbit labs for their storage reviews and monitor roundups. Anandtech does good features and I like Anand's enthusiasm but everytime theres a big press release and the likes of Intel and Sandforce are preparing product launches, their marketing divisions start pumping out the war rhetoric and invariably, theres Anand off to the side banging on the war drums. Christ...

I don't know what SF1200 drives he was reviewing with what firmware but he managed to instantaneously 'unthrottle' his drives with a full TRIM?! I have no idea how he managed that.

 

Hi there

I recently bought a Corsair Force F60 and now int's in my Acer 3820TG-s tummy. It' s relly fast, but i've tested it with ATTO (Corsairs recommended test tool for getting " speeds they promise" ) but i'm not glad with my results.

Features (from Corsair website)
Maximum sequential read speed 285 MB/second
Maximum sequential write speed 275 MB/second
Random 4K write performance of 50,000 IOPS (4K aligned)

ATTO Results:
R W
0.5K 11.1 14.4
1K 22 27.7
2K 43.8 41.9
4K 88.1 165.5
8K 143.7 195.6
16k 179.7 221.8
.....
4096K 241 225


F40 results: Corsair Force 40GB Solid State Drive Test System Setup and ATTO Baseline Performance :: TweakTown USA Edition
Reaches 285/270

I have "intel rapid storage " installed, and trim is running. Anybody, any advice?

 

I created a new thread in the Windows/Software forum on some new Intel SSD cloning software.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/win...l-ssd-cloning-tool-software.html?nojs=1#links


Mods: I hope this post is okay and not against the rules, delete if it is.

 

After applying the two reg values, its ok now, but write times are bit slow i think.

4k 121/169
1024 284/263

 

Did you run the test in safe mode?

 

As an V+ owner this is certainly of interest.

I did have a heavy slowdown/pause while I was shunting a massive number of small clip/webart files between external drives connected via USB2 and doing other stuff at the same time. This was when I had things reg tweaked but it may have been due to Avira freaking out and closing down on a couple of occasions. Bar that things have been pretty smooth.

Probably by the end of 2011 it will end up in the netbook and then be royally trashed by XP but in the meantime I'll be keeping tabs of how it performs. Admittedly I have nothing to compare it by, and when the time comes things will have moved on a pace. Gotta love progress!

 

I should sun in safe mode?

 

Always

SunSafe® Official Site - The Sunscreen That Won?t Rub Off

and have safe s e x too !

 

DD
nightshift sucks my brain down

 

Dammit !

INTEL: PLEASE WAKE-UP !​

I've downloaded the software, ran the installation, and got this:​

AT LEAST ONE INTEL SSD MUST BE PRESENT TO INSTALL THIS SOFTWARE.​

HELLO, I'VE GOT TWO INTEL SSDs IN MY M17X, BUT THEY'RE RAIDED; GUESS RAID MEANS NO INTEL TO INTEL...​

Sorry guys, but this really turns me off; Intel being such a big company, when I see things like that, it just makes me want to puke... ​

As a matter of fact, I can't believe​

THEY CANNOT MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN:
​

NO INTEL INSIDE​

and​

TWO INTEL RAIDED INSIDE....​

Much more than embarrassing if you want my opinion on this one... ; and what a bunch of jerks they make themselves look like doing that....

Again, sorry for this, but for the price they sell their siht, they should simply keep on top with their own things, their own hardware, their own soffware, to WORK TOGETHER....​

Bottom line:​

IF THE SOFT DOESN'T SUPPORT RAID, IT SHOULD NOT STATE THAT I NEED AN INTELL SSD inside WHEN THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO IN THERE,​

BUT IT SHOULD BE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE MY DRIVES AND SAY INSTEAD THAT RAIDED SSDs ARE NOT SUPPORTED...​

Don't ever provide me with Intel's CEO own email address, PLEASE... ​

enought said for now....​

 

From reading the instructions, this tool seems to be designed for the specific and sole pupose of data migration from an HDD to the SSD that is going to replace it in the system. It does not appear to be a backup/cloning tool as the article's title implies. I don't think there's a need to get worked up over it not seeing your RAIDED drives unless you're trying to migrate data from RAIDED HDD's to the SSD's.

 

Forget the raid thing, and tell me since when does Intel make HDD, since the soft says there HAS to be an Intel drive inside for the soft JUST to install...

 

What are trying to do?

Clone a set of Raided Intel SSD's to a single Intel SSD or a standard hard drive.
or a single HD to a set of raided Intel SSD's?

Trying to figure out Which way your going?

The release notes don't explicitly state not for raided drives, but it's pretty obvious they are talking about a one way street of a single standard hard drive to an Intel SSD.

 

Hi guys.

Noob question. Is there a way (if so, what is it) to test whether the SSD works properly? I guess something like a surface scan for old HDDs. I've been getting some BSODs that I can't quite figure out, and would like to check whether the hardware is at least all right.

Thanks.

 

Did you investigate the source of the bsods?
Every time a bsod happens memory dumps is created, you should analyze it to discover the source of those failures.

 

If it is hardware as you suspect:

Take out the SSD, clone it to a good known mechanical HD and see if the BSOD's continue.

Do not clone it from the system it is in (the clone process could be compromised without your knowing it). Clone it from a seperate good known system that doesn't load it as a 'system' drive.

Pirx had an issue here where his SSD would BSOD on him from resume/hibernation modes - the cause was simply the SSD in use (in that particular system).

 

That makes sense. I get BSOD's when resuming from LONG TERM sleep (several hours or more). I've read it's actually a Win7 issue, so didn't think it might be my SSD. Either way, it doesn't bother me enough to care. I can power on almost as fast as resuming from sleep.

With SSD, hibernation (for me) is out of the question.

 

I am confident you are just trying to help and undertand...


My point still remains though:

The software states there HAS TO be an Intel drive inside, JUST FOR THE PROGRAM TO ACCEPT TO INSTALL ITSELF...

HOWEVER:

Since Intel do not make HDDs;

Since there ARE indeed a WHOLE bunch of computers out there which can only accomodate ONE DISK DRIVE;

Since the program WON'T INSTALL UNLESS THERE'S AN INTEL DRIVE INSIDE;

Therefore: who, and how will then one be able to migrate from an HDD to an Intel SSD if their computer can only accomodate ONE DISK DRIVE AT A TIME ?

Either I am plain stupid, which I admit is possible, or Intel made a boo-boo on this one. If so, this is neither their first one, nor is it gonna be their last.
But something's definately wrong here, and if it's me, I'll close it, else, someone gotta wake up @ Intel because
an Intel software telling me there's no intel inside while there's actually indeed two is an insult to the HUGE money I spent to get them, follow me ?​

Bottom line:

Intel gotta catch up to have their soft to work with their hard, FLAWLESSLY, period.
After all, Intel is the exact same company as Intel, and, again, for the price they sell, they better deliver;
I AM A CUSTOMER, I PAID A WHOLE BUNCH OF MONEY FOR THEIR THINGS, THEY THEN HAVE TO DELIVER.
​

I will just add here that it's true (it shows enought I guess) that I am more than frustrated with Intel, and I have several reasons to be ON TOP OF THE CURRENT ONE:


1. Intel toolbox 2.0 crashes my computer when using two Intel SSDs raided (v1.2 is OK);

2. Since I installed their last RST, I LOST 5 ~ 10 SECONDS OF BOOTTIME (and even if I reverted back, no luck...);

3. Their chipset is crappy as hell when using SSDs;

4. My centrino 6300N wifi card detects only 5 ~ 6 wifi networks from my home, while the braodcom one I had before was detecting 11 ~ 12 ones, and the broadcom was using only two antennas, while the Intel one uses all three: not that I need those extra networks but still, what the puck;

5. My M17X is almost Intel from coast to coast, almost from cost to cost, still, their things manage to work crappy one with each other...


I think I'll go take a swim to see if I can cool down a bit....

Chill eYe, chill...

 

External hard drive enclosure or dock.

A raid array does not act the same as a single hdd, that's why it's raid. Intel does not want the liability of allowing their software to work with non intel products, so it probably checks hardware ids. A raided drive appears as a single drive to the os. Depending on method of raid, the os may not even know how many drives are in the array, or even if there is a raid array at all. Its not intels fault, they provided a tool that works exactly as intended.

The amount of emoticons and the center alignment of text in your posts make my head hurt.

 

Wow...

Let's start with the end: I am absolutely sorry if the center alignments and the emoticons hurted you, but I can tell you I already used much more than I did on this post for one, and the text's enhancements are there and free for us to use, so, again sorry for that, I'll try my best to use less of those; I usualy do not use that much but here, I'm pretty pissed, so this explain that...


Now, I have no clue why you are talking about the O/S being aware of a RAID set-up or not, as nowhere did I myself refer to any O/S; I am talking about Intel's software not working flawlessly with Intel's hardware; Intel vs Intel... Read my post again: my lappy is almost Intel-inside from coast to coast:

Soft: Intel RAID Controller - Intel Storage Controller - Intel Mainboard's Chipset...

Hard: Intel SSDs - Intel Processor - Intel WiFi...


About extenal enclosure: Say I got a mini-tower that can only accomodate one Disk drive at a time. Say I buy an Intel SSD to put "inside"... Say the soft tells me I need an Intel drive inside for the soft to, again, FOR THE SOFT TO JUST INSTALL ITSELF (not to work, to INSTALL)... So then, I'd have to BUY an external enclosure ? THIS IS A TOTAL NONSENSE... (from my humble point of view)...

But you know what ? Let's pretend you got it right...

So, what will most likely happen here is this: The Intel soft will not install neither because, most likely, it will not even recognize there's an Intel SSD hooked to a USB port let's say, and the reason why I say that is because the software called Intel Toolbox, a tool made by the same INTEL, for THEIR OWN SSDs, does not recognize an Intel SSD hooked to a USB port; I know, I tried...

So, even if Intel thought that an average Joe user would then need and actually go and buy an external enclosure to be able to migrate his data from the HDD to the SSD wouldn't do any good as, if my calculation is right, the frigging Intel software would not even see the external SSD hooked to the USB port. And even if it would, just the fact alone that someone would then have to buy an external enclosure makes absolutely no sense to me.

I am sorry mate, but when you say it's not Intel's fault, I have to plain disagree with you as all I am talking about is Intel's stuff not working properly with Intel's stuff; no talk about any O/S or so.

But thanks a bunch for trying to comfort me !

 

Oh, sorry, I probably assumed a lot in my post.

Computers run in layers. There's the hardware layer that's literally hardware. There's firmware (sometimes). There's a kernel. There's a shell (sometimes). Then there's the OS. And ontop of the OS are applications. Generally, each layer only has access to one level below it, which is why it's sometimes called "layers of abstraction." If the OS has no idea what a RAID controller is doing behind the scenes, there's a good chance that an application running on the OS also will not be able to figure it out. The OS "sees" the RAID controller as a single hard drive. But I see now that you're using Intel's firmware RAID, and I'll be honest, I don't know how that works compared to a dedicated RAID controller or just Windows software RAID.

You want to copy one drive onto another drive, but you don't physically have an extra hard drive slot, so it's Intel's fault for making an application to ease the transition if you happen to have two drive slots?

You have an M17xR2, try the eSATA port, that should work exactly like an internal SATA port (because it's exactly the same).

Honestly, an average joe user probably wouldn't buy an SSD. And if AJ did buy an SSD, he probably wouldn't install it himself. And if AJ did install it himself, he'd have more than enough knowledge to realize that if he wanted to copy from one drive to another, they'd both have to be plugged in at the same time. If AJ didn't have another port in his laptop or mini desktop for two HDDs, he'd realize he'd need another. AJ could give up at this point, or he could ask someone, or even figure it out for himself, that instead of throwing his arms up and screaming at the world, he could essentially add another HDD slot by buying an external enclosure.

If you calmed down just a tiny bit, you'd be able to see logic and reasoning, eYe-I-aïe...

 

Let's keep this a civilized place where members can come to and use as a reference guide.

I think it would be best to continue this over PM guys.... before it gets outta hand.

That being said...

So who agrees with me that intel's g3's scream ULTIMATE FAIL as sandforce ssd's will see a revision as early as Q1... with SATA III, and like double the read/write speed of the g3s? Seems to me intel is releasing the g3 jjust to catch up to current SF ssds, but the new generation of SF drives with up the ante again by quite abit.. leaving intel in the dust again...am i right or am i missing something?

ORRR

is it that Intel's main goal with the new G3 is to attempt to make ssds more affordable and reach more consumers??? instead of producing super-fast/super expensive ssds that appeal only to enthusiasts n enterprise-level customers?

 

Affordable is really nice. I'll sacrifice being an enthusiast for something I really don't need for affordable in this case.

 

Me too!!! Of course this is what everyone is saying because the g3 will be 25nm based. Yet i still dont see any price tags popping up yet. Untill then... we can only hope.

 

Jstarnino,

I don't think Intel is aiming for 'ultimate fail' yet.

I more than feel that the G3 will put Intel back into the race - even with new tech coming out - by competing where it counts: on price (if and when it has to).

To me the new SandForce announcement was the 'ultimate fail' because it includes the performance limiting 'DuraWrite' technologies (again).

 

Yea you're probably right... but i don't even know what DURAWRITE is lolll... sorry... i might know computers very well... but i'm a complete SSD newb... mostly because their prices were too high n capacity too low for me to actually look into them...lol... but with all that about to change very soon... I'm down to learn

I've read that DuraWrite cut down the actual real world performance in half! but wat was the intention of such a technology? to prolong life-span? if so ..how so? Thanks for shedding some light on all this stuff... i'll be sure to rep when i'm aloud...seems i've been too generous lately

 

Okay, see this link:

See:
SandForce Announces Next-Gen SSDs, SF-2000 Capable of 500MB/s and 60K IOPS - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News


Note where it says 'Performance Throttling' (by design).

Also where it says 'Optimize Endurance' in the DuraWrite slide below.

What they're both saying is that the drive will not deliver full speed if it deems that the nand's lifespan will be impacted.

And this, on the Enterprise and the Industrial Line of SSD products from SandForce.

So, how I read this marketing BS is we'll let you buy the fastest drive available - you just won't be able to make (full) use of it.

 

Tiller, if you'd been writing the amounts that you're writing without DuraWrite you'd be seeing more serious performance degradation.

People please take Tillerofthearth's word with a grain of salt. He writes 100GB of data to his SSD which is highly unusual.

Fact of the matter is that Sandforce 1200 manages to outperform Intel G2 during multi tasking and writing. By the looks of it Sandforce 2000 will most likely outperform Intel G3.

 

And everyone, be aware that only few will be able to notice difference between worst (lets say Samsung or latest JMicron) and best SSD controller that You can buy these days.

 

I completely agree. The differences between the current SSDs during normal usage are minimal.

 

@Jstarnino: Sorry Pal, I still need to add here, since I honestly think it would NOT serve the community to leave this as is, but I assure you on the other hand, and on the other end, that no one will onward get hurted...


@Koshinn: Pal, let's put AJ and your nice suggestion to calm down aside for the moment if you don't mind...


From the beginning, my frustration comes from the fact that an Intel software tells me that there's no Intel's SSD inside, while there's in fact two of them. But on top of this, and as I previously said, there are other Intel issues that helped to build up my frustration toward them...


As a matter of fact:

1. My Intel Wifi card detects barely half of the available networks my Broadcom one used to find, and like if this was not already ridiculous enought, the Intel card uses the three antennas where the Broadcom one was using only two; go figure...

2. My Intel Chipset is bridling, flanging, trussing my Intel's SSD's performance, and some people here had to deploy treasures of inginuity to somewhat overcome Intel's inhability to make their soft work flawlessly with their hard; thanks Intel for allowing people here to use their brain to fix you...

3. Since I used Intel's last RST, I lost 5 ~ 10 seconds of boottime, and even if I reverted back since then, never was my system able to get those 5 ~ 10 seconds back, and this is even bench-measurable: CDM shows me sequential read speed of ± 350MB/s, while it was 450MB/s before. Actually, for a program that used to load instant, it's now taking 1 up to 2 seconds; much more than annoying when we know that SSDs degrade in WRITES, not READS...

4. Intel Toolbox 2.0 litterally crashes my system just when I load it, not even using it, while previous version was perfectly OK; so much for an update, thanks Intel...

5. Now, let's talk about layers. First off, thank you very much for your explanations, much appreciated. However, I have the regret to inform you that I still totally disagree, and here's why...


A: Intel Toolbox, which IS indeed an application, just the same as their "cloning software", runs on demand, DOES indeed see there's 2 Intel SSDs inside, while their cloning software tells me there's NONE inside; is there a layer that hides my drives to their "cloning software", and not to their Toolbox one ?

B: If I run a monitoring program, for instance, HWinfo, which also runs on the application layer, this guy shows me there's 2 Intels inside, just as Intel Toolbox does; again, is there a layer that specifically hides my drives only to Intel's cloning software ?

C: Intel's RST is loaded within the O/S, or with the O/S as far as I know, and this guy also can see two Intels inside, so, again, why wouldn't their "cloning software" ?


As a matter of fact, my frustration comes mainly from the fact that an Intel software tells me I do not have a specific Intel hardware inside, while other Intel and non-Intel programs, which run on the same layer (unless I'm mistaken here), DO indeed see those Intel's SSDs...


In my humble opinion, all this would never have happened if the Intel migration tool, their "cloning software", would have stated:

Either your system does not have an Intel SSD inside, OR you are working with a RAID array which IS (currently) NOT SUPPORTED by this software...

Instead of just saying that I do NOT have any Intel's SSD inside... which just happens to be... plain false ! (and much more insulting considering the price they sell those supposedly non-existing SSDs inside my comp)... And don't get me wrong here: it's not because it's Intel, I would have felt and acted the same would this have been from any other manufacturer...



And if I may add here, here's my totally foolish own explanation: As you said, my RAID is Intel's firmware. This guy is version 9.5, and this version is NOT optimized for SSDs. Therefore, my humble opinion is that if this piece of soft, if this FW would be updated AND optimized for SSDs, this might prevent anyone landing in this country-of where-is-the-Intel-drive-in-this-computer...

One reason I think that's what happening here is this: Every person here I can recall that mentionned having installed an SSD along with WIN7 said that WIN7 disabled the scheduled defragmentation and other funny but useless stuff for SSDs, upon the installation. However, while I did myself installed many times WIN7 on different SSD's, both Samsung and Intel, NEVER ever did WIN7 disabled by default those features on my rig, most likely because I got a RAID setup AND as Intel's 9.5FW is blind to distinguish SSDs from HDDs, well, as you say, windows have no clue neither, and this would explain that. And by the way, this might be a reason why Toolbox 2.0 crashed my system: incompatibility with FW 9.5...

Now, who makes the Intel 9.5 RAID FW ? I think you understand what I mean when I say that Intel must catch up to have their soft to work flawlessly with their hard...

Bottom line:

Who's responsible for Intel's WIFI card to detect only half the networks my Broadcom's one used to, and using one more antenna than the Broadcom's one on top of it ?

Who's responible for updating their RAID's FW, knowing a lot of people use their other products (SSD) that indeed do rely on the said FW ?

Who's responsible to make sure their soft works with their hard (toolbox 2.0 with 2 Intel's RAIDed SSDs) ?

Who's responsible to make sure their Chipset does not prevent their other OWN stuff (SSD) to work optimally ?


Look, honestly, I don't think it's necessary to continue enumerating, my point is simply that for the price they sell their stuff, they have to deliver the level of competency, the level of compatibility we are in the right to expect, to justify the price they ask for their products. It's as simple as that from my very little own point of view.

I paid a PREMIUM fee for my two Intel SSDs, and bottom line, I get the same performance (if not worse) I was getting with my Samsung's ones; Samsung's cost me $1.46/GB, Intel's $2.70/GB: when it hits you like this on the economic side, the frustration builds up much more rapidly when things tend to not perform as you are in the right to expect.

Obviously, I could't know upfront, before, but would I have known... And I am not saying this for no one to buy Intel; just stating what the facts are on my side, anyone's call to decide what they'll do or not.

Guess I've said enought for know, sorry if this annoyed anyone, but as a customer, I was plenty allowed to share my experiences, and I don't think I am polluting this forum with my posts; please forgive me if this is a bit bitter-like to you, and let me finish this wishing everyone a very nice sunday !


eYe

 

i agree... intel's a joke sometimes especially with their 5 series chipset screwing up so badly that their own SSD's can't run properly without tweaks on ur part.

 

I am really really curious to see how the G3 works out.