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

Afaik, only Intel algorithms do that.

Boo!


Be scared, be very very scared (hope you kept the mechanical HD?).

 

I wouldn't believe anything SSDlife says. Positive nor negative.

 

So where's all the good cyber monday deals on SSD's? I didn't see anything worth writing home about? Anyone?

 

Have you seen the Onyx2 120GB SSD ? It is a SandForce drive and the 120GB costs in Germany 160Euros (including the VAT) !! See OCZ Onyx 2 120GB, 2.5", SATA II (OCZSSD2-2ONX120G) | Geizhals.at EU

This is 1.333Euro per GB !!

 

Ah, should have mentioned I'm in USA. No great deals here. Missed out on the Intel $199.99 120GB deal with $35 Visa card.

 

Nope I installed Windows 7 HP x64 straight on this SSD when I built my i7 desktop

 

Who/what are you replying to?

 

Nice price but they've been saying it's available in two weeks for two months now...

For 180 euro you can get OCZ Vertex 2 with better memory, faster IOPS and one year more warranty.

I hope Vertex Plus comes soon, should be a good drive too.

 

I never had a mechanical drive for my i7 desktop for the OS part I meant.

 

i've seen none deals at all on amazon in UK... nice deals... no deals at all for anything.. brb...

 

Arrggg I really would have liked to have an SSD for gaming. Guess ill wait. I need a new 32" and a i7 (SB) anyways.

Anybody get any good deals on Cyber Monday?! So far I heard all negatives

 

The only good deal on Cyber Monday that I found was the Intel 120GB for $199 with $35 cash card and Lost Planet 2 game. I should have jumped on it, but didn't.

 

principles of bad block management in flash SSDs - article StorageSearch.com

Interesting read.

 

Uhh, I have an average P/E level of 111 cycles with 160GB written onto a 120GB drive. I have moved every imaginable cache/log off the drive. That's like a write amplification of 80, so your estimate would be off by... 8000% in my case.

 

Good read, thanks. +1.

Scary that even the manufacturers of these don't really know what they're doing. All this pomp and circumstance for a technology that could for all we know, up and fail at any time for a number of unknown reasons.

I wonder which manufacturer really knows what they're doing? Intel and/or Samsung maybe? I guess we'll reallyknow in a few years when all these new products start or don't start failing or dropping performance considerably.

So sounds like the reliability of SSD's could become something awful really quick.

Where are you getting your P/E cycle information? Something seems awry, unless the wear-leveling algorithm is completely awful.

 

Reading the built in SMART values. SSDLife, IndilinxSSDStatus, CDM, all report the exact same data.

In any case, wear leveling does not reduce the AVERAGE P/E cycle, it just writes data to alternate locations. So you don't wear out one block by writing to it 100000 times while not touching other blocks. This is different though.

 

Is it just me or did other people aswell expect affordable SSD's by now? It seems like i've been waiting for ages, and its also still insanely high priced for the desktop segment...

Do you guys think a 10 000rpm drive would be just, or near as good? Considering the high price of ssd's (which don't seem to drop as fast as expected) and the reports quoted in these forums stating the unknown reliability of ssd's?

 

Vertex 2 120GB is 175 now. In a few weeks you should be able to buy a good 120GB SSD (Onyx 2) for 160 euros.

Intel G3 will likely put more pressure on the prices.

I sold a Samsung 256GB for 275 euro on Ebay. That's almost 1 euro per GB. Not bad imo.

 

I believe we are still in the first wave of mainstream acceptance toward this product and the percentage of computers with SSD is still very samll. SSD OEM options from the major manufacturers have only been around for approx one year and so far there have not been major changes or improvements (especially storage size) either. Go to Best Buy or wherever and the sales people do not have a lot of SSD product nor are they selling the virtues of solid state. It's still an exclusive club. And we also know there are alot a variables and issues still plaguing SSDs (degradation). I've had the layman's conversation about having a small SSD for OS and keeping a second harddrive for storage and it's too much fuss the the general public. Add the fact the computer industry is still in 'pricing discipline' mode = holding the line on pricing. I do not expect a big drop in prices unless the current profit margins are high and companies have the room to reduce pricing in this manner.

 

The biggest problem is that the average folk have been spoon fed hard disk SPACE like crazy which 97% of them would not have a clue how to actually use and did not ask for. So, now SSD's come along with SO many benefits, at a reasonable cost for ANY given computer upgrade, but since they do not have as much UNNEEDED Space, they look like not so good of a deal.

I can hardly believe how long they are taking for adoption. I bet Spinner Manufacturers got in the way and are somehow slowing down adoption so they can get more $$$ out of their aging spinner technology investment. Can hardly blame them I guess. The writing is for sure on the wall in BIG letters.

 

Cape, I have to disagree.

With most average folks, an SSD would double the cost of their systems for negligible performance increases (when cost is considered).

For the same kind of upgrade (in price) they can have a much more powerful system and with the huge capacity that they know how to put to use not-so-well.

 

Tiller, I have to disagree with your disagreement. Very few people I know of who have experienced the

 

I guess I was using the price of $150 to $250 for a 128GB or so. This compares in price to any other upgrade like mainboard, chip, RAM, Video card, etc.

The overall quietness (which most people do not appreciate until they actually experience it) and noticeable speed increase are simply awesome.

And so, I must politely disagree with your disagree

 

Sorry...with Cape on this one. I have assisted and met with hundreds over the passed 3 years that have made the move to SSD and the only person that I have ever heard speak as Tiler might suggest is a site member here.

Conversely, when you can pay as little as 50 bucks to see such a difference in system performance in consideration of alternate storage ideas, I really don't think there is any question with respect to price and value left.

 

i kinda want an ssd now, i was planning on buying an momentus xt...the amazon deal ends today. i see a few deals on ssd though i don't know if it'll just be for black friday time. i have no experience with ssd or momentus xt is there a good video comparing them? *going to youtube now* i need to somehow test drive them haha.

 

@ Les, Cape, Tiller:

I think the argument is more about customer perception than actual performance gain. I don't think many of us here would argue against that SSD's improve I/O performance in general. But it's the general public.

I mean so many layman ask me how many GHz or GB the machine has without really knowing what they're asking. So many people are still sold on the more GHz or GB is better argument. It was that way for over a decade, while PC's became prevalent in the home, so it's ingrained in their heads.

That's hard to change. People want a budget PC, and telling someone they can get a system with a 500GB HDD for $500 or the same machine with a 120GB SSD for $700 doesn't compute to them. Explain why it costs more their eyes just glaze over and write the check for $500.

 

I definitely hear you on the ghz.

I spend some time once in a while trying to dump off the 2nd laptop in my signature on people and they try to gauge its power based on its 2.1 ghz dual core, using their pentium 4 3.0 ghz minds.

even amd used to use a number system based on the p4 for a while ignoring their ghz. But they dont anymore, cpu power is entirely marketed in a gray area complicated answer nowadays.

 

It is the way it is, but that does not make it "right". We need to work harder to convince them

I use the no moving parts argument. It sure makes ME feel like my data is safer. But then again, I have seen many a toasted HD.

 

Lol... disagreeing about my disagreeing...

You guys run with a different circle of people.

When a computer costs $500 and the SSD the same price (for half the capacity or less) the people I know don't say 'why not!'.

Even the ones that have had SSD's (way before me) are not too impressed with the 'speed' they offer - except for bootups - and even then, they're a little, ummm... 'shocked' when they see an XT boot up just as quick for an eighth of the price.

I know; SSD's will really become the mythical creatures I've read about - but I haven't met one yet that has dazzled me - nor have I met anyone that has been dazzled with one either.

Keep in mind: my Inferno boots, shuts down, resumes from sleep and even launches a program or two noticeably faster than my identically installed (O/S + Apps) XT's. But, the real work is still being done on the mechanical/hybrid drives because the SSD is all show and no go.

 

try virus scans or installing software, those are very fast. I know people who consider themselves serious business people who are using an XP box, Dell 5 years old with 512 RAM and it takes 3 minutes to open their database. I would have quit the job just to make a point. It is idiocy to continue that. So, people really need to be educated a little more about this stuff. Steve Jobs has the right idea, laptops with SSD's ONLY! Oh yeah!

 

Cape, I'm working on one right now (though not a Dell)!

I agree that with an SSD they would fly (the avg 'writes' would be not even 1% of what I demand of my storage subsystems daily for their 'business use').

But for the same money as an SSD, they can buy a new core i3 system with 8 times the RAM and a faster and roomier HDD. With warranty. With an modern O/S. With the same money.

We like the speed - no doubt about it. Business people (and sometimes I'm one of them) need a lot more to justify putting modern tech into years old systems.

As for SJ's he only has one 'right idea' - take anyone's money that's willing to give it to him.

 

I didn't know there was such a thing as a 'pricing discipline' mode, I guess that explains the lack of dropping prices.

 

Dell Chief Financial Officer Brian Gladden: 'Dell said lower component costs helped margins in the quarter, as did "pricing discipline" - not cutting prices too deeply to attract buyers - and improvements in the supply chain. The company said it also passed on some deals that could have hurt margins.'

News from The Associated Press

Gotta love the way these CEO's talk. A translator is sometimes necessary.

 

Here's yet another example of why quality always wins.

'More for the same $$$' is usually a sign (to me) of turning your back on such a 'deal' and putting your wallet away.

See:
SSD RAID: Do You Want A Cheap Array Or One Larger Drive? : Should You Go For SSD RAID?


I'll be sure to point out this article not only to the people who couldn't see that bad X 4 will still be bad, but also to the people who think that a RAID 0 of 2 or 4 7200RPM drives is just as good as the same amount of VRaptors in RAID0 too.

For some people, waiting for the 'real' good stuff is the hardest part of all.

 

It would be more accurate and interesting if they used two Intel X25-E 32GB in RAID 0 and compared them to an Intel X25-E 64GB. This way the performance wouldn't be affected by the lack of TRIM and the comparison would be among identical controllers...
Plus in a RAID setup the results will vary according to the stripe and the cluster size used, the kind of the test (ie fileserver, webserver, database...) and the controller so they should have performed a lot more testing IMO.

 

stamatisx,

I agree it would be more interesting: but it was 'accurate' in the sense that the total price of the 4x30GB or the 1x120GB SSD's (not including the RAID controller) was roughly equal.

That is what most people will make 'equal'; the 'money' not the obviously inherent flaws of their test setup ('flaws' for us performance junkies).

 

After installing PSE9 the other week, having a few issues and doing a couple of rollbacks/forwards of drive images I'm seeing after 4 months the first very minor signs of real-use slowdown with my 64Gb Kingston V+. It's not much, just a tiny bit less snappiness and some fractional graphical slowdowns with Aero. I've also updated the RST driver and the main RST app which replaced Intel Matrix Storage (is it actually required?), plus the ATI graphics driver/package (again, could I dump Catalyst Control Center?). Currently I'm running at about 50 percent capacity across the two partitions.

Talking of which I gave SSDLife a go and it's incorrectly reporting the SSD's overall free space. It's definitely only seeing the main partition (which has about 12Gb left). That makes me a little dubious about its pronouncement that the drive's health is excellent. I don't think I'll be keeping the program for long, so are there any other 'health check' apps worth investigating?

 

Hello all!

I've been looking to get a SSD for boot (Win7 x64 HP) and likely a few games, but I thought I'd ask for advice from those more informed than I on these matters before making the decision as I'm not sure which brand to get and what capacity (I'm looking to spend at most $300 so the 256 GB drives are out of the running though). The drives I've looked at so far (and seem to hold up well in the reviews/benchmarks I've seen):
Mushkin 120 GB - $225
Crucial C300 128 GB - $260
Crucial C300 64 GB - $145
OCZ Vertex 2 60 GB - $130
Mushkin 60 GB - $130

1. Is there a manufacturer I should steer clear of? Is this just in general or just one particular product line?

2. I'm planning on installing the OS and perhaps 3-5 games outside Steam onto this drive (SC2, Fallout 3, Supreme Commander FA, etc.) to take advantage of the boot/load speed. Would it be safe to install a few Steam games (if capacity permits) as well or will the frequent writes for Steam/game updates decrease the life of the drive too much? I'm only planning on actively using it for 2-3 years before upgrading to a newer drive and keeping this as a backup boot drive.

I appreciate the help!

 

Hello everyone!

I've been reading through this forum for several days now, and I tell you 700+ pages is a lot to go through! Sorry if something like this has been asked before, but I can't find it anywhere.

I just got a brand new computer, (Dell XPS 15, i7-740QM, 8GB ram, etc...) After loading all of my programs, games, and media I'm using up roughly 100GB of space on my HDD. I'd love to get an SSD, but I really can't afford anything bigger than the 120/128GB OCZ Vertex/Intel X25-m models. I believe I read somewhere that the performance of the SSD goes down the more you fill it up, is this true? If so, filling up 100GB on a 120/128GB SSD probably isn't a great idea then right?

I actually have an SSD in my work laptop, a 64GB model that is only for the OS and programs. For storing all the crap I need I have a 320GB HDD in an OBHD. I would willing to sacrifice the DVD drive in my personal laptop for a 2nd hard drive, however no matter how hard I look I cannot find an OBHD for a Dell XPS 15...

I really want the speed of an SSD in my personal laptop and I don't want to wait till a 256GB model comes down in price to what a 128GB is today. Anyone have any suggestions on how I can proceed with upgrading my laptop to an SSD?

Thanks in advance!

 

You'll need to get a generic caddy for your optical bay. Fenvi makes a great one. You can search ebay for Fenvy 12.7mm SATA to SATA HDD caddy.

 

SSDs wears in both capacity and speed; see here for more information.

For even more information, see here...

As a rule of thumb, try to buy an SSD that can hold TWICE the data you expect to write to it, and you should be all set.



eYe

 

I am in the middle of an article right now on performance degradation on filling an SSD and can give you a heads up on a few right now...

Samsung has no degradation whatsoever even when completely full testing random data. SandForce has minor visible changes in Crystal testing, however, surprisingly, there is no degradation whatsoever in PCMark Vantage x64 which are simulated real life scenarios and Crucial has no degradation whatsoever. These are your top 3 drives and the median used for testing was the original Intel which is a clear indicator of performance degradation as it drops significantly in all tests at different capacities until full.

I am not convinced that using the random is an accurate depiction of any degradation with a compressed drive such as SandForce, however, it is the only median which can measure a difference as oFill data will not serve to assist here.

All tests were conducted with random data and these results are very encouraging considering just a short time ago, many drives would decrease significantly when filled, many of which are no longer with us however.

In the middle of testing Kingston with the JMicron so cannot comment on that at all yet sorry.

 

I read a post(a guide) which shows the SSDs to avoid but I'm unable to locate it, could someone please point me to that post, Thanks.

 

This?

 

Thanks Poulsen.

 

Here is something a tad interesting. Prior to my review of the Samsung 470 a few weeks back, the highest Vantage HDD Suite scoring I had seen was around 34000 marks with the Crucial being able to hit 37000 more recently. Check out the chart of the latest tests with new SF f/w on the SF-1200 SSDs... The last I just tested this morning was the OWC Mercury Extreme Pro 40GB SSD with over 44000 points. Not a bad result for under a hundred bucks.

All of the SF based drives have the latest f/w release coming out with the drives now. I am not aware of it being available as a public upgrade for those already consumer owned.

 

I have lurked here and read the entire thread. I have seen appearant reasonable knowlegable people post on both sides of each issue raised. I am just about to launch into the world of SSD when I open my Christmas present. To say the lest I am somewhat confused about the care and feeding of an SSD. Mine will be a 240GB OCZ Agility 2. I now have the stock WD 500GB 5400RPM with about 74GB used. I am using Win 7 64 bit.

Here is a group question:

Without changing much about how I use my Acer 1830-3721 what are the chances the Agility 2 will work as I expect an SSD should, fast loading programs ans system? I plan to make an image after it is installed and set up and no more than once a month thereafter. My use will be net surfing, ITunes for a IPhone and IPad. My use of MS Office and data bases will be remote over a VPN to the company server, not local. Why can't I just use the SSD without all the fussing with it? 3 years use and it running fast all the way and I will be happy. Will I be happy or do I need to change my ways?

 

I'm not the authority here, but I'll make it succint. You won't need to change your ways. There are a few tweaks/changes that can be done in Win7, but that doesn't mean you have to alter your usage patterns.

No matter what you do to your SSD, it will be a massive improvement over your 5400RPM HDD.

 

You can even just install it and forget it really. All these tweaks aren't actually necessary, but will improve performance in some respects.

 

Wondering if there is a consensus on the best method to restore or erase an SSD? (Sandforce)