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

Newegg.com - Computer Parts, PC Components, Laptop Computers, LED LCD TV, Digital Cameras and more!

or

Newegg.com - External Enclosure, External Hard Drive Enclosure, USB External Enclosure, Multimedia External Enclosure

you don't say if you have the e-sata cable? someone posted a link awhile back, had an excellent case with cable included, amazing the stuff available these days

 

I can recommend the Vantec products:

See:
Vantec ? Vantec NexStar 3 - NST-360FBSU-BK - 3.5 SATA to USB/eSATA/1394a/1394b External Hard Drive Enclosure(Onyx Black)

 

Does SSDs and Truecrypt work together? I am thinking of encrypting my Intel G2 160GB. Since there is some sensitive data on it.

 

No reason for it not to. But, make sure you have a good ongoing backup plan and be prepared for a performance hit on the system.

 

If you have a CPU that has the new AES Instructions enabled, your performance hit should be minimal. I'm assuming the AES feature would speed up Truecrypt, I know it speeds up Bitlocker quite a bit.

 

AES may speed it up... but compared to not installed I still think there will be an effective performance hit depending on the software/apps in use.

What I am more afraid of is being (permanently) locked out of my data through some unforseeable incompatibilities. I have been bitten like this before...

 

Hey guys, help me out here. Some user over at the desktopreview forums has stated that MacOS and Linux perform better with an SSD than Windows... I don't know how you'd quantify that, but I was just making the point that TRIM is a feature in Windows 7 that is actually ahead of other OS's, and that TRIM is basically a necessity until SSD's can handle their own efficient real-time garbage collection indpendent of the OS.

Is there any evidence TRIM is not needed for Linux or Mac?

 

TRIM functionality is included in the latest Linux kernels ... versions 2.6.33 and up. The latest Ubuntu comes with 2.6.35. To enable TRIM you need only set a flag ("discard") in a configuration file for the drive (fstab). There are lots of tweaks for Linux to improve performance and they work really well.

My Ubuntu 10.10 installation boots to a usable desktop in 8 seconds and it shuts down to power-off in 3 seconds. <--- That's how I quantify it.

I've got Windows 7 as tweaked as I can get it and it can't match the performance in Linux. Benchmarks done in Linux are about equal to Windows 7 booted in safe mode.

 

Thanks for the response. I mean its hard to quantify which performs better on an SSD. With benchmarks they should be roughly the same. Boot times may be quicker in linux because it doesn't have a registry and has an overall smaller memory footprint. Boot times are quicker in linux on a standard HDD as well. Outside of the SSD itself, performance is really dictated by the PC SATA controller and the OS driver. With any non-TRIM SSD, they will all degrade appreciably once the full write capacity has been met regardless of OS.

 

Well, I really like speed (don't we all?) so most of the time I'm using Linux. Aside from gaming, I can do anything in Linux that I can do with Windows.... and do it faster and the risk of malware infections is greatly reduced in Linux so I don't have any AV program taking up resources.

A good guide for SSD tweaks you can do for Linux is in the Archwiki thread and also HERE. (Be sure and read all three pages at that link.)

I believe one of the major reasons that Linux is faster on SSDs (or any drive) is the file system. NTFS is NOT an efficient file system. Like many other aspects of Windows, it's a bloated, kludged-together mess. EXT4 is fast, secure, efficient and highly configurable.

 

Hello everyone, just swap out a 256 ssd from dell xps laptop to a toshiba 13 laptop, reload win7, but unable to get win 7 recognize the ssd, ms window experience stay at 5.9, disk defragment at enable. any help will be appreciate, thanks

 

Most (probably all) of your answers are right here in this thread.

Make sure the laptop is using AHCI mode for the disk controller (in BIOS) and Windows is configured to use the disk in AHCI mode. Windows 7 doesn't always automatically turn off scheduled defragmenting. Just turn it off yourself.

 

Thanks for the quick replay, BIOS has a choice of AHCI and compatility, AHCI was set. Under /device manager/ide ata.atpi controller/Sata AHCI controller is indicated. iam more concern on the window experience at 5.9, it was at 7.8 on the original xps16. thanks

 

You might try using the latest Intel RST driver (can be downloaded HERE. You want the one at the top of the list (10.0.0.1046) and then re-run the WEI assessment after installing it and rebooting. *This is assuming you have an Intel chipset in your laptop*

I would assume your disk score in WEI should be at least 7.0 for any SSD in good health.

 

Agreed. My primary disk score is 7.6

 

Go to this folder:

C:\Windows\Performance\WinSAT\DataStore


and delete everything inside.

Re-run the WEI while plugged in.

Does this change anything for you?

 

My X25-M 80GB (G2) gave me 7.8 after some tweaks to the OS. But performance was declining too fast so I sold it. My Corsair gives me 7.4. It's not as good as the Intel was for random small-file reads & writes but it screams at sequential larger file reads & writes. For about the same price as the Intel I get 50% more capacity. So far, I'm happy with it.

I've pared down Windows 7 x64 as much as I can. I got rid of most of the performance monitoring, error reporting, logging, un-needed features, services, etc. Boot and shutdown times are really fast now. On boot, the Windows logo doesn't even have time to completely form... the animation freezes halfway through and it zooms past that, the welcome screen flashes for a half-second and I'm dumped onto the desktop. Pretty amazing. I'm already checking my email while my poor friend waits another whole minute just to get to his desktop. I feel sorry for the "platter-people".

 

raydabruce,

don't feel too sorry for the 'platter-people'. If they did what you have done to your system their speedup would be (almost) as substantial too.

For the extra minute bootup time; they have a complete and fully functioning O/S compared to what you're running.

I'm not doubting it works for you - but deleting files and disabling built-in capabilities of a modern O/S is not my idea of an optimized system.

No matter how fast it boots.

 

The thing is that the OS tries to cover a wide range of users and functions and not everybody has an in-depth knowledge of how the hardware and the software works in order to perform the appropriate customizations. That's why the OS is so loaded. Keep in mind that not all features are necessary to everybody and there is no reason to keep them when you don't use them.
(you should see my configuration btw... )

 

stamatisx,

I agree 100% - but doing that doesn't depend on what storage system is used, right?

 

Well that depends, SSDs for instance have a certain lifespan and you can do a couple of things that will protect them ( i.e. disable the defragment ). There are also a couple of features that are not needed for an SSD like superfetch, prefetch and readyboost. You need them though for an HDD.
I agree though that certain changes will benefit the performance no matter what storage you have.

 

My customizations disabled services and uninstalled features that I never use, and turned off many background operations that I feel are unnecessary. We all know Windows is a hog and I just trimmed off some of the fat. My main motivation was to cut down on writes to prolong the lifespan of the SSD but a nice side-benefit was the speed it gave me. For my needs, it is a fully functional OS. Anyway, I use Linux most of the time (like, now). It's even faster with fewer writes. (Browser cache on /tmpfs, journaling turned off, etc.)

I know my setup isn't typical and I'm not recommending it to anyone else. The "average" user should probably leave most everything as it is except for the standard recommendations like disabling scheduled defrag, etc. I have the luxury of tweaking all I want because I don't use my computer for work -- it's more of a hobby than anything else and I have no precious data to safeguard... just media files and other, easily archived, non-critical files.

I'm hoping that the next iteration of Windows (8?) will be smart enough to detect an SSD and make a lot of these changes automatically. But I'm not counting on it. I've been watching Microsoft for 30 years. Sometimes they get it right but quite often they don't.

 

I also think the thing we must consider is the OS is built for every conceivable system config that it can reach. Would we see a totally different Win 7 if they geared it towards the SSD. I dont think there is any question of that. Many of the services become moot with the speed of the SSD and we need to ask why we would ven want to leave them on if they do nothing for us?

 

@Les,
Very good points. And thanks for the links in your signature... I'll add them to my SSD tweaks collection.

 

I'm not so convinced that SuperFetch and Prefetch should be turned off with SSD's (readyboost is a given though).

No matter how fast the SSD is; if the program is cached in RAM as SuperFetch does it - it will start up faster than from even the fastest storage solution i have used, ime. With my 8GB RAM systems, giving SuperFetch enough time to load itself up fully, many programs launch faster on the mechanical HD than from the SSD with SuperFetch off.

 

Agreed, there is only one catch here, if you fill up your RAM (let's say when you do image processing or gaming) superfetch will have to dump its contents and will reload them once there is enough available space. Doing so regularly doesn't offer that of an advantage (keep in mind that you need extra resources to monitor the usage pattern of your programs and the memory) That means that you need a big enough amount of RAM in order to benefit from that feature and even then with modern SSDs those differences are eliminated and not that noticeable.
Don't get me wrong, I don't say superfetch is useless or bad (there are people who put too much though on that in order to make it work), the exact opposite, it's very useful and should exist but the user can perform some testing and decide if he gets any performance increase or not.

 

stamatisx,

we're on the same page.

When I'm inside my image processing apps, I don't really care if my next launched app is slightly slower - I'm too concentrated on just finishing the work the first program took away the RAM from SuperFetch anyways.

 

I am not so convinced. I would like to see any test results that will show me a performaqnce gain with Superfetch or prefetch with an SSD. Yup... I am a bit stubborn eheheh....Same guy that was here 3 years ago shouting from the rooftops that 64bit was coming and eveybody laughed saying no way eheheh.

And Tx Ray!

 

Les, wish I had the time to do the test for you (right now).

Btw, I was using x64 3+ years ago.

 

Well SuperFetch and Prefetch require essentially a list of files to be maintained or created to grab. since this list can vary then there may be occasional writes. This may be where the idea of disabilng this for SSD's comes from.

But what does this get you, leaving it enabled that is. Well files read precached to ram is faster than an SSD is, there is no question there. The sore spot is having the drive just reading these files when at that moment in time it could be speedily reading files the program is trying to access at that instant. For the most part it is beneficial but minimally so.

Superfetch and prefetch are tricks used by the OS to insulate the users from slow HDD access. The slower the drive the more benefits you get from these OS tricks. Again the faster the drive you experience diminishing returns.

The other side of the coin is with a fast drive you start to read these files and take up alot of memory bandwidth caching the files. where a slow drive uses minimal memory bandwidth access a fast SSD will use quite a bit more if for a shorter time overall. This also can be true of CPU cycles too.

This further falls true of a slow memory sub system and lower CPU speed. With a 2GB of 800 MHz memory clock and a CULV you may get a different experience eating up cycles compared to a i7-940xm with 8GB of 1333 memory.

There are other considerations too, IGP needing system memory bandwidth compard to a dedicated GPU, pci bus cycles etc. etc. etc.

So as with just about everything with a multitude of variables YMMV...............

 

I'm looking at this for a boot drive, thoughts?
Newegg.com - Corsair Force CSSD-F60GB2-BRKT 2.5" 60GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

 

Or get the Vertex 2 60GB. Little cheaper and newer firmware.

 

Newegg.com - OCZ Vertex Series OCZSSD2-1VTX60G 2.5" 60GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

This one here? Thanks

 

Newegg.com - OCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD2-2VTXE60G 2.5" 60GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

Or I guess this one is faster and seems to be the same... I can't tell lol

 

The first one is Vertex1, the second Vertex 2. Get the last one.

 

I've just entered into the world of SSDs with a recent laptop purchase (Thinkpad X301 if you must know ), however there seems to be something wrong - it seems as if the drive is performing way below what it should be. I've been doing all sorts of Googling, installing drivers, TRIMing (well using CClearner to emulate it, since I'm only on Vista), etc. to no avail. The symptoms usually manifest themselves as a system freeze whenever the HDD is accessed (e.g. at the start of a file download in Firefox).

The drive is a Samsung MMCQE28G8MUP-0VAL1 with firmware version VAM08L1Q.

Here are the most recent CrystalDiskMark results:

Seq: 95.91 read / 73.62 write
512K: 93.21 read / 62.35 write
4K: 14.29 read / 4.633 write
4K QD32: 16.06 read / 3.273 write

I'm not sure if these are normal? Any advice would be appreciated.

 

A new firmware update is available for the Corsair Force SSD Series , It`s Version 2.0 , only use this update if you are having problems.

Sorry if this has been posted before.

John.

update is in link below.

Corsair Force Series Firmware 2.0 Update - The Corsair Support Forums

A discussion of version 2 firmware in the link below.

Comments for Force Firmware 2.0 update - The Corsair Support Forums

 

I've been saying for a while that my SandForce based 100GB Patriot Inferno does not have effective TRIM and/or Garbage collection (at least any that give a noticeable improvement).

I finally have some proof:

From Anand:

Source:
A Quick Look at OCZ's RevoDrive x2: IBIS Performance without HSDL - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News


How much does this impact performance?

Well, a simple timing of a CS5 update on my Inferno is 39 seconds (about a 1.1MB download), on my VRaptor that identical update on an identical software and O/S install (and both systems 8GB RAM) took less than 7 seconds.

 

Have you installed the latest Intel RST driver?
intel drivers pour Raid/Sata/Ata/Ahci

If possible, install Windows 7.

 

Can someone explain what this Intel G3 is? I may wait for December for prices to go down.

 

New generation Intel SSDs, similar speeds, lower price because of cheaper memory production method.

 

Oh awesome Price is my biggest issue right now lol I'll definitely wait for that then.

If my main boot drive is a SSD will I notice any difference if my secondary drive is a hybrid7.2krm or jsut a regular 7.2krpm HDD?

 

The hybrid XT is meant as primary drive. As a secondary drive you'll gain less benefits.

Could go 7200rpm or 5400rpm for secondary.

 

If it won't hurt me I'll probably use it because if you dismiss the SSD part of it it's still a good hard drive for the price.

 

Hmmm..

This looks like you've got an OLD generation Samsung SSD, because your version is OV A...

Are you saying (cause it ain't clear now) that you've bought a ( new) laptop with a ( new) SSD inside ?

You can have a look at newer Samsung's SSDs here... (they're already sold, just a matter of you seeing a picture of newer Sammys, which are OV B...).

Installing newer Intel RST (Rapid Storage Technology) as Phil suggests here is a good idea to start with...

Also, I have no clue about what chipset is powering your TP X301, but IF it's Intel, you might as well use the tips in this thread, or this thread, which should boost your SSD's performance, again, providing your chipset is an Intel one...

And finally, when everything will be set-up, don't forget to use the tips provided here, especially considering that your SSD most likely does NOT support TRIM, and your O/S for sure dosen't neither.

Cheers !


eYe

 

As eYe-I-aïe... said, OVA is very old SSD (2nd generation from Samsung, OVB is 3rd and current, 4th generation, SSDs are 470 series) and You wont see any better numbers from them.

Can't believe that Lenovo is still shipping these old drives!

 

Those numbers (and especially the symptoms you're describing) is exactly what I was first exposed to when I encountered an SSD - (very anti-climatic) - on a clients Dell M6400 over a year ago.

What made the drive halfway usable (to him, for me - I would rip it out and throw it in the garbage) was installing (upgrade, not clean install) Windows 7 x64 on his system.

The pausing, stuttering, slower than mechanical HD 'performance' was still there - but was much better than when it was running under Vista. One day, I had the bright idea to re-install all available drivers from the Dell website for his model - even if he had the same/latest drivers installed. This is what finally resurrected his system. Makes no sense, but then when it comes to SSD's, little does.

To put this in perspective, his much higher spec'd M6400 workstation was still slower than my VAIO running a Scorpio Blue 5400 RPM drive and eBoostr. Except for booting.

I highly recommend a clean install of Win7x64 after you do a secure erase on your drive. Install all the latest hardware drivers and keep the drive as empty as possible. Even with all this it will not be 'impressive' compared to a SandForce drive. But, in many things, it will seem like a step up from a mechanical drive. And miles from where you are now.

Good luck.

 

"You might try using the latest Intel RST driver (can be downloaded HERE. You want the one at the top of the list (10.0.0.1046) and then re-run the WEI assessment after installing it and rebooting. *This is assuming you have an Intel chipset in your laptop*

I would assume your disk score in WEI should be at least 7.0 for any SSD in good "


Go to this folder:

C:\Windows\Performance\WinSAT\DataStore


"and delete everything inside.

Re-run the WEI while plugged in.

Does this change anything for you?"

Thanks for all you guys help,
I end up using the original image {from toshiba) to restore my system. The WE for the disk is now back to 7.0.

 

The Samsung 470 looks like a very fast drive. Granted there are drives that get better 4K random speeds, but 255 MB/sec sequential writes with random data. That's twice the write speed of the Sandforce drives.

The reviews for the 128GB also look very good:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147063

 

I agree. They are probably the most underestimated SSDs in the market.

The older 256GB model already beats the Vertex 2 and Intel G2 in real life performance in this Notebookcheck review. This newer model should be even faster.