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

THAT'S a pretty good driver. On a already mature driver like that, its pretty impressive. I hoping that will rub off on the graphics driver team.

I feel my 160GB Seagate 7200RPM drive is slowing the X25-M down. I want a 80GB Postville for boot and this current 80GB for data.

 

Newegg Black Friday deals are up:

Intel G2 80GB for $215. Is that sweet or what?
I guess this makes up for two months of Newegg price gouging.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167016&Tpk=20-167-016

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167023&Tpk=20-167-023

 

What the..?! Damnitt!! Canadian pricing is still $305. If Black Friday deals carry over, it should be no more than $230. Mmmm...

 

Well, day 3 with my new Intel G2. So quiet. So fast. I am thinking I could probably not go backwards at this point. Still cannot wrap my mind around the no moving parts at all. Being in the backup business, that is a good thing for reliability. But note to all, backup still needs to take place!

Dave

 

+1

that pretty much sums it up guys.

 

IntelUser,

$225.99

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167023

Happy BF!

 

I want larger size, more than 160G!

 

We can make it faster, bigger, stronger - but you want it for less than $6M?

(Sorry, bad reference to the 'Bionic Man')

I too want/need it at least 320GB (for my notebook).

 

I cannot help but wonder if a fresh install of Win7 64 would make a difference that I could notice. 12-36 hours of work later, I would know. I find it always takes me long to get back to where i am as I do so many little different things for clients that all my work programs/addins/data/etc are scattered all over.

Ah well, for now I will continue to enjoy my drive. I am lucky in that I only have 80ish GB filled and would never need more than 120GB or so. However, being a SPEED freak, I guess I cannot help but wonder about RAID 0, which normally I would never do, and still probably will not do.

Thank you Intel and all members of this thread, especially I forget his name but he was the Canadian who started this thread originally about 1000 pages back.

 

if you are a speed freak, u should go for SLC. lol

 

Cape Consultant,

Les was the man (or at least the OP!).

A fresh Win 7 install might not make it faster, but from my torturing of this Win 7 install on my VAIO over the last four months or so, I know that it's next install of Win 7 x64 will be it's last.

So what?

I would rather have it 'perfect' for the next 2 or 3 years or more (at the cost of a few hours over a weekend) than wonder if I'm missing something for the next few years.

At the minimum, you will at least have aligned the partition correctly for an SSD (which cloning does not do). And, windows will have 'aligned' itself with the hardware that it will be installed/used on (never underestimate that part of Windows internal self-tuning).

Who am I kidding? Of course it will be faster!

(When you do a clean install, make sure you format the drive on a Windows 7 system - this will ensure that the empty pages get 'cleaned' properly and you'll be starting with essentially a new drive).

Cheers!

 

Thanks, I do also believe in the "initial setup" having a good effect. I also was wondering about the speed difference with a SLC. Since I am not a RAID 0 type of guy. Many have said that an SLC wold not be faster. Not true???

The problem I have with the reformat is that I have odd work hours and have my computer setup for maximum efficiency with regards to giving clients what they need in a very timely fashion. You KNOW that they are going to call in the middle of the reformat with requests thta i do not have ready yet. this is really no big deal I realize as I could have a cloned drive (spinner) ready to go with the old setup if necessary. Basically, I am lazy, and basically, I feel quite satisfied at this time with my speed

However, I am very curious about the "alignment" situation, which I never even heard about until reading this SSD thread. I may just have to do it for that reason alone

If I format the SSD from the Windows 7 64bit DVD and do a full format, would that do it and also keep Win7 from puttiong that crappy little partition there for who knows what reason? OR, should I clone to a spinner, then from THERE format the SSD and THEN install Win 7 fresh on it? Thanks, Dave

 

Dave,

I would clone to a spinner, from there do the SSD format (do not simply delete the partitions, formatting is what will clean the drive, delete the partitions afterwards) and then install Win 7 fresh.

That 'crappy little partition' is what enables Win 7 and Vista to properly align the partitions! Leave it alone!!!

Although the SLC drives are faster overall, in a workstation setup I still believe the X25-M G2 160GB Intel is still the king (Anand even hints that it would even be better in a server than the now old Intel SLC drives - except the G2 doesn't have the write cycles that the SLC drives do).

If you can RAID0 your notebook - what the heck are you waiting for?

When you do do this (and I know you will...) try to do some real-world and maybe a CrystalDiskMark benchmark so that we might get a hint of cloning vs. clean install on a G2. Thanks!

BTW, hope your mouth is feeling better by now?

 

Thanks for the info. Now I finally know what that little partition is for! So after cloning, I format both partitions, then delete the partitions, then install Win 7?

And yes, Les is the man! Did you know what his real job was? I cannot say here. Very interesting guy.

I do not worry about write cycles as I will be on to the next thing even before I could even begin to wear out a MLC

And yes, I would for sure post the benchies if/when I do this.

Guess I will begin making a list of software that I must have complex install codes for. Man, do I hate it where you have to put in one code, and then because it is an upgrade, ANOTHER code. Thanks, Dreamweaver!

Thanks to the magic of pain pills, the mouth does not hurt that much, but it is bruised up, swollen, and cannot chew much of anything. I much prefer SSD's to the dentist!

 

no. not for his tasks. SLC right now (if from intel) only make sense for thousands of customers accessing it at the same time. for single-user usage, it is actually slower or only equally fast in most cases. + he needs the storage size.

 

no. the partitions are aligned both automatically by the way they get created. the crappy little partition is filled with repair tools in case win7 one day doesn't boot.

 

Ah, the mystery of the little partition is coming to light. So basically, I am going to format and then delete both partitions, the W7 will put them both back, but properly aligned as it would be a "fresh" drive, yes?

I cannot wait till I have some software to install as people says it goes really fast. Someone said Win7 Ultimate in 10 minutes. THAT I would have to see.

 

Hey, great thread. Skimmed through it but still have lots of questions..

I'm on the look for a 17" laptop with decent performance and I'll be fiddling with PostgreSQL databases a lot with it and someone suggested that an SSD hard drive would really increase the performance. So:

1. I've noticed some laptop manufacturers like Dell allow you to choose to ship the laptop with an SSD drive instead of a normal HD. But usually the price increase is relatively low even for a 256GB drive, like 300-400e, even though good-quality SSD drives of this size usually cost much more. Does this mean they are low quality ones? How worried should I be? Any hints on what manufacturers have high-quality SSD drives on their laptops?

2. If I pick up an SSD drive elsewhere to go along with the laptop, how much of a hassle is installing it? Are there any compatibility issues? Laptops have their own SSD drive models I assume, separate from the desktop models?

thanks guys.

 

davepermen, thanks for the clarification...

Cape Consultant, if you want to see a fast install, make a Win 7 Bootable USB install key.

Tomy_B? Where are you?

 

gbporkpie,

Most SSD's are 2.5" models (or smaller) so they will fit in a notebook or desktop.

Most OEM SSD's currently sold are some version of Samsung SSD drives.

My opinion is you could do worse, but you could also do better (Intel G2).

From my research/experience with them so far, keep the drive as empty as possible to have the great performance they can deliver. (50-60% filled or less is preferred).

If you can, try before you've committed to buying! (Test on your system, with your programs and your data and work habits).

 

Do you have a link for making one of those? I got a spare 4GB thumb!

 

Yup!

Tomy B. thank you (again).

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=5491636&postcount=250

 

thanks for the quick reply. Given the percentages you gave, do you think 128GB is enough for a system drive? This would include a Windows 7 installation, my PostgreSQL databases (5-10GB) and some light programs like browsers and media players but most of the other crap and multimedia I plan on storing on some external USB HD. How cramped do you think it'd get? Obviously a tough question and depends on my own habits more than anything.. but yeah, think I'll regret it if I don't go for a 256GB one given all the info?

 

Thanks for posting this! After it went in and out of stock all night, n3wegg finally let me buy one...now hopefully it ships...

 

actually, ultraISO usb burning is method that tomy b learned from me
yap, I've tested every single beta w7 version so far, lot of dvd-s saved

also, related to intel driver stuff, well, it is well known fact that microsoft chipset drivers are piece of crap, afaik, if you use it long enough, your system even might start to freeze from time to time, and, simple driver reinstall won't do the magic, you need to reinstall whole OS, and apply new driver first thing after reinstall
it was mentioned somewhere in old new ssd thread around page 500-600 if I can recall correctly

edit: tomy b is changing ISP so he is offline at the moment for some time...
also, he got himself new machine, thinkpad t60, can't wait to see what kind of machine will it be compared to dell d620

 

darQ96, let him take some credit - he's your brother!

I love ThinkPads - so will he, I'm sure.

Okay, to give credit where credit is due - thanks darQ96 for the UltraISO tip!

Jackboot - Awesome!

 

Based strictly on what you state above, the 128GB seems sufficient for now, but myself, I always buy with an eye to the future too, so the 160GB Intel, while not that much bigger, is certainly more affordable (and faster, from many reports) than a 256GB SSD currently is and it gives you that much more breathing room in the % filled category that I'm finding is so important with SSD's.

 

tilleroftheearth is alluding to it - SSD speed mostly hasn't anything to do with the capacity.
Yes, a larger capacity drive can be faster (Intel 80GB vs. 160GB) but the key aspects are the flash memory but more important the controller.

Intel drives are pretty good at random reads and and writes and thus outperform many other drives.

SSDs don't have the typical "data density" aspect that a HDD has.

 

So I thought too, but found out differently.

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=436882

 

I'm not exactly sure where to look in your post

But HDD: The higher the data density the quicker your write/read speed (sequential)

For SSDs, larger SSD = more memory modules and yes they can be faster.
For the Intel X25-M 70MB/s on the 80GB one and up to 100MB/s on the 160GB one.

But its the same as setting up 2 USB flash drives on one USB port - as long as you don't exceed the capacity of the USB port you can increase performance - but say (via USB hubs) 100 or 200 flash drives and no matter how you set them up, even if you managed to simulate raid, once you hit the limit of what the USB hub can hndle that's it.

So in SSDs, you can add more memory, but if the controller can't handle more you don't get better performance.

 

SSDs to go mainstream in 2011?

 

on both ssd and hdd, the more data you have, and the less free space, this will make it more and more hard to find free spaces, resulting in slowdowns.

on a hdd, because the file sysetm gets more and more chaotic and work to manage.
on an ssd, because the same happens for the ssd-internal wearlevel managing.

the result: they both get slower if they get close to 0 free space.

the slow down can be rather strange, with quite drastic drops after disk specific limits.

but intels are quite fine about it, only getting quite bit speed drops at more than 80% filled.

 

I picked up an 80GB G2 from the Newegg sale, it'll probably go in my Desktop with Windows 7 and my 30GB Vertex will go in my Netbook, but 30GB is a bit small for my OS + music library. I might sell it and buy a 60GB of a lower-end drive.

 

why not just put your music library on an SD card?

 

48GB SD cards aren't terribly common. I also might get a bus-powered USB adapter to bring my 160GB drive along as storage.

 

That post was/is a work in progress - I learned quite a bit from actually using an SSD in my own system and then afterwards from many people, but especially davepermen.

To summarize it for you and tailor the summary to your specific question:

When I had only Win 7 installed (20GB out of almost 60GB) the computer seemed amazing.

As I started installing programs that I want/need on a daily basis the performance went to 'hmmm... its definitely faster doing this, but my Scorpio+eBoostr combo was faster doing that'.

When I had configured it to about 77% of its capacity it started to show its warts. What warts? Well, it only performed better than my mechHD+eBoostr combo to start up windows and give you a usable desktop (a whole 50sec faster - huge, but not worth almost $400 for).

What wart made me return this low tech SSD? Namely, trying to extract a single 180KB file that took almost a minute!

I don't need another sign that this tech is immature (or as davepermen pointed out, I had a poor representative of current SSD's and I had pushed it past what I should have).

Removed, re-install (my Scorpio Blue), return, move on.

The exact point that it started slowing down I don't know (because I didn't know to expect it so low - just like you), but it was definitely in the 50% range - programs were taking just that much longer than the previous ones to install.

 

whoa, yeah, if you've got that much music that you want at all times then an SD card isn't an option.

My music library is something like 200GB but obviously I don't need all that all the time...so for now my method is just to sporadically update 16GB of what I'm *actually* listening to at the moment...I find this is more than enough music to keep me satisfied until some new releases come out that I want to sample.

 

wow.. dunno, beautiful statement. i somehow feel sad to have been that harsh in tone against you. well, at least we both learned a lot. i did, at least

 

davepermen,

I can take harsh, but gentle works just as good on me (I'm here to learn too).

BTW, has anybody else tried the new Intel Rapid Storage Technology drivers?

What was your before/after experience with them (with or without an SSD in your systems)?

I'm finding mine stable enough that I've already converted half a dozen other systems to them - with no issues so far - except getting a more 'snappy' system for free.

 

degenerated mtron now up to normal speed again, which is quite amazing, and technically (i'm a programmer, and studied a bit how ntfs works, and how ssd works, and thus, i'm very irritated by how this driver could help fixing the mess, but it's impressive non-the-less, or actually, even more).

stable, so far, yes.

the intel didn't gain from it at all.


no other tests so far. but all stable, yes.

 

Snappy, it's a bit more on the x25-m G2. I also like that it's more responsive, but perhaps it's a placebo effect from spending the whole day on an xps m1710 with a 2nd gen 7200.2 160GB HDD. So i have all the same space, just at warp speed. In any event, it doesn't hurt the drive, so why change away from this new toy?

Jason

 

ganzonomy, are you commenting on the new Intel storage drivers? Do they make the G2 more snappy? Did you try them on the XPS M1710 also? What would you be changing away from? The now 'old' Intel Matrix Storage Manager drivers, or the default MS driver?

Sorry, your post raises more questions than answers!

 

I am trying to download the Intel SSD management software and it seems to no longer exist? Are they fixing it? I wanted to see what else it could do besides update firmware.

 

Yeah, pulled along with the firmware.

It will let you do a manual TRIM and even schedule it for you (recommended only once per day).

Also gives a ton of info about your drive(s) too.

But, you need the latest firmware to use it (which I think/am sure you have).

 

yep, i jumped on that bandwagon asap. ^^ love em.

 

Ah OK - I was looking specifically for the data density aspect.
I suppose the getting full = slowdown aspect is more noticeable in SSDs...

And HDDs you can defragment, SSDs you souldn't - or don't really need to.

I personally like my 160GB Intel drive so far - its definitely faster than my old 250GB HDD - and my battery life seems to have improved too.

The next time you try a SSD I hope you get a better one (or maybe they develop a bit more until then)

 

I can probably deal with 20 or so GB of my music on my netbook, I rarely listen to all of it anyway. I have my MP3 library and my FLAC library, the FLAC is far bigger than the 48GB.

 

Quick dumb question: I now have a 64GB SuperTalent UltraDrive GX installed into an Acer Timeline 1810TZ. Are there any firmware upgrades I can use to improve performance? Any SSD optimisation tools? (I assume in replacement of defragmentation tools).

 

Are you able to install the Intel Rapid Storage Technology drivers on your machine? Sorry, can't help with any other suggestions specific to your hardware.

 

Tiller, when I click on the link it says "Deactivated Product". When I search on the site it only shows the X25-E and the 160GB X25-M.