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

Its a micron realssd/crucial c300, probably the SATAII OEM version.
Great drive.
Just make sure you are running the latest Intel Rapid storage technology drivers and just use it

 

Plextor unleashes long life and stable ssds on uk market- The Inquirer

 

Thanks for the info. I think I will probably hold off buying ANYTHING at the moment until the new Intel drives are out....soon hopefully!....I was offered x2 x25-m's 160gb's for £400gbp new/sealed/bare so it would have been a good saving on the UK price of around £300-350gbp's PER DRIVE and the C300 I could get for £340gbp. (256gb)

Have heard lots of speculation with regards to G3 - that the 25nm architecture will lead to reduced costs....dont know by what degree but Im sure I heard/read somewhere that a new G3 160gb *should* cost around what a G2 80gb costs atm....if thats true, then thats a good deal

I take it the Sandforce SF1200 drives are OCZ Vertex II and a few others....seem to be around the same price range atm....

As far as Raiding goes, my current HHD's are Raid 0 but then, they dont need or require TRIM. I suppose manual GC is a requirement for Raided SSD's.

Anyway, fired PHIL a PM about C300/SataII....will do some more research now....thanks and +rep. given!

 

Didn't that PDF in another thread showed Intel G3 were coming March 11th?

 

yup

http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...st-intel-g3-ssd-benchmarks-7.html#post7129194

 

I just turned on the SSD page myself again after seeing some big price drop I'm talking about the Samsung 470 256GB drive, MZ-5PA256

Q1: what is the difference between these two, if any ?

MZ-5PA256/US ... sold by NewEgg
MZ-5PA256HMDR-010D1 ... sold in Ebay as Dell OEM Samsung 470

Q2: is the AXM06D1Q the last firmware for that drive ?

---

I just red couple pages back and saw that Toyo bought one of these .. so how is it? Thanks, I'm looking for one for my Lenovo T61 to run it under XP

 

Could you post some links?

 

Good spotting guys - thanks for the info - I was going nuts trying to find out more info on G3 release date! - think I will def. hang fire on SSD purchases till then.

 

I need a 256gb SSD and I can't decide between the Samsung 470 and Crucial C300..and advices? From benchmakes they look about the same except that the Samsung 470 uses a lot less power..but the C300 is SATA III which may be useful if I want to sell it in the future or is it if I get a new SATA III computer..which do you guys think? I also heard that Samsung is bad when it comes to updating firmware..is that true?

 

SATA/600 won't give you any benefits, IMO for a laptop, the lower power consumption and still very good performance of the 470 makes it the overall winner.

 

Normally you would ave to send the bad SSD IN 1ST. Sometimes in order to do it the other way, you would have to pay them for a new one until they recieved your defective unit back.

There are some good SSD Tweaks at SSD Reviews, Data Sheets and Comparison - ssdreview.com

 

In regards to the Samsung 470, I am really enjoying mine. I would lean towards the Samsung for several reasons. Samsung makes everything in the SSD in-house. No out-sourcing for the controller, etc. It also is much newer, meaning it has the latest technology.

That is the latest F/W BTW.

 

Surely Sata III or 600 WOULD give you added benefits in a laptop IF you had a Sata III compatible laptop, such as a Sandybridge laptop??? - my understanding is that most current drives can saturate Sata II but wouldnt be many drives out there that can saturate Sata III??

 

^ speed is not everything in the laptop game ... I highly support sgogeta4's opinion here.

 

Hi guys!, please give me and advice.

I currently have an envy 15 g2 with and intel x18m 160gb g2 . This laptop has 2 x1.8" hdd/ssd bays. I want to make a ssd raid0 configuration with this laptop. I don't want to expend too much I was planning on selling the intel ssd and with that money I plan to buy 2 crucial c300 64gb and put them on raid 0.

Are the c300 drives good at all? Could you suggest other 1.8" ssd's? I CAN'T expend more than $200 USD per drive.

 

Its true that for most laptops that power consumption would be a huge factor to consider for portability purpose on battery - BUT for those of us that have laptops that are pretty much DTR's and that run on ac power most of the time, I cant see that power consumption would cause an issue.

I personally use my laptop 99% of the time hooked up to the ac...therefore power consumption isnt really an issue. I bought it as a DTR and it is used as such with the added provision of being able to take it with me IF i needed to (unlike a desktop system with absolute zero portability). My laptop is a true desktop replacement system. I really dont have any intention of lugging it around coffee shops or taking it to college or whatever. It stays at home near the juice. Period.

So, for people like me, who use a laptop hooked up most of the time, performance would be more of a concern over power consumption, right?

I totally agree with the comments IF you use a laptop for its intended portability purpose....in that instance, a lower power SSD would potentially provide more benefits to its owner who chooses to take it out and run it on battery. I couldnt get out the door without mine wanting to be hooked up to the mains lol.

 

those that use a laptop not for being portable should just get a desktop. cheaper, faster..

but as it seems, most prefer to use the wrong tool for a job

 

I am on the total other end of you. I use the dickens out of my batteries. With 1 battery installed using a HDD I could get close to 6 hours, if I popped in my other battery into the disc drive slot I could another 2 hours. Ever since I have gone to using SSD's, I can hit 12 hours if I lower my brightness 1 notch. They actually do make a huge difference. On the other hand, I can't tell a difference in battery consumption between different brands of SSD's. I think they are all too close too each other.

Best part also, no heat, that little bitty vibration I would feel, and 100% DEAD silent!

 

I agree 100% Dave. Actually there isn't zero portability with a desktop. Heck, all you gotta do is unplug the monitor and case, we all have extra KB's laying around. My meaning is, if you had to you could use it elsewhere without too much trouble.

But, if I were to be behind a desk all day using a computer I would without a doubt get a desktop. One with some kahoona's!

 

To me, its NOT the wrong tool for the job at ALL.....tell me this. If I had bought a desktop and wanted to take it out, how am I supposed to do that? - strap it to my back?

 

yeah. running on a 500$ i5 with intel ssd since over a year, on 8gb ram, 24" screen > fullhd. you simply can't do that with a laptop. and now there's a sandybridge desktop right beside me for around 500$, sata6 ssd, etc..

it's really stupid to use a laptop when you have the space for a desktop (in my case, i put it in a drawer -> http://hauptstrasse48-2.homeserver.com/Davepermen/Random Stuff/ab (2).jpg)

oh, and less overheating, more silent (my current pc is not 100% silent sadly ).

cheaper, faster, more silent, less overheating, no tiny screen (anything's tiny compared to a 24 or 30" one )..

 

take the laptop with you for that..

 

Id just love to see you unplug your monitor and case and take it with you on a plane.......

 

I did say that my laptop was a DTR, I didnt say I had two systems.....ach...maybe you guys have several computers, maybe you have one in each room but I only need one. I dont want or need a desktop - hence the laptop.

It doesnt mean that I dont want it to perform to its best just because it isnt a desktop system.

 

I don't think so. There are a wide spectrum between the two extreme end.

My work laptop is plugged for almost 3 years(very occasionally being taken to other desk) and I also have an external monitor for it so in every way, it is used just as a desktop(well 98% of the time).

However, I would not choose a desktop for a few reasons:

1. noise
2. power consumption
3. I don't need the 'extra' speed of a desktop
4. I would need to occasionally take the laptop with me to a meeting in the office.

 

I whole heartedly agree with every word of this. I chose a high powered laptop because I didnt want to be tied to a desktops "apron strings". There are occasions where I pick up my lappy and go.....I couldnt do that with a desktop. That is primarily why I got a laptop - I needed a degree of portability.

And not to be brash about it, my laptops performance would probably destroy the majority of desktops anyway so why would I want or need one?

 

we're talking about those systems that you don't really move around.

it's a 90% 10% issue thing: if you don't use your laptop on the go for >90%, and only move it around for < 10%, then why the **** are you getting a device serving the < 10%, and not one serving you 90% perfectly?

well.. that might just be me, but i use logic to select what i get

 

if you don't need the "extra speed of the desktop", nr 1 is not true. just get a silent one (not quiet, silent).

for the occasional need, normally one has pool laptops to use. much cheaper and thus much better for the corporation.

 

Dave the logic is quite simple. If I bought a desktop then that would be great 90% of the time, the remainder of that 10%, I would be stuffed as I cant take a desktop with me in the car or work on a plane or take it to the park or go outside with it on a nice sunny day..(if I can be outside working inthe garden with some nice sun, thats important to me, rather than being tethered to a desktop in an office)

All of these things were important to me in a system. Seen as how I can do ANYTHING with my laptop ALL of the time ANYWHERE I want, made it the perfect choice. Afterall, why spend money on two systems when you can have just one that fits all your needs.

That would just be plain dumb to go for a desktop if you needed any degree of portability - we dont all have access to "pools" of laptops that we can just "pick one up" whenever we get to the office or wherever your "pool" is....(i mighta known you were talking from a business point of view in that respect)

 

because for that 90% of the time, that laptop happens to meet my need as well. For me it is simple, anything that I don't need I won't pay for it(this include the extra 100W/hr x 24 * 7 * 365*3, so far). I won't say it is logic, just my personal preference.

 

So now I need to choose a 'silent one', just so I can follow you work pattern ? I(or whoever in our IT) need to meet my specific requirement of 'X dB' ? most company don't work that way, either desktop(their choice) or laptop(their choice).

As for pool laptop, I then need to transfer my 'work personal' stuff, getting familiar with it again ? I don't think that is cheaper.

You have your way of choosing your stuff, others have theirs. As I said, the spectrum is so wide, I am not picking McDonald menus.

 

well, i have both which fits 100% of the time. but i couldn't stand using the laptop for everything, nor using a laptop "good enough for desktop" for portable things. they don't fit my portability needs, too. i prefer to have two extreme devices, then compared to one "jack of all trades" kinda thing that doesn't serve my needs perfectly in both cases.

because i get two more fitting systems, and actually can save money to trying to get one that does both.

yes, that is the business side. if you don't have pools for special needs there, the business failed to think cost effectively + flexible.

if 90% is good enough for you, enjoy. it is less than acceptable for me. guess why i'm in the ssd thread, and why i have tons of ssds by now..

you don't need to chose. but you can chose. but in general a desktop with higher performance than the laptop you can get is more silent than that laptop, anyways. that's just logical (same hw, bigger volume to have cooling air)

if you have to do that, your it department failed.

your laptop is a mcdonals menu for me (but i love mc donalds from time to time. but not allday long. which is why i chose from different systems as needed)

 

The words "baby" and "not getting bathed" spring to mind here. Different strokes for different folks is how I would put it. Laptop was my choice. Desktop is Dave's choice (as he has a huge pool of laptops at his disposal - that suits him).

I wasnt asking wether its better to have a desktop vs laptop debate, afterall, its a SSD thread. My point in question was that power consumption of an SSD is irrelevant if you use any system whilst plugged in wether it be laptop or desktop.

 

You really are making me laugh now Dave.

Firstly, I am NOT an out and out business user. I buy my own stuff and dont rely on a company providing it for me.

Maybe you have pots and pots of cash to be able to have "two extreme systems" and to have gone thru or own "tons of SSD's" but the majority of NORMAL people use maybe one system for everything. Also , the majorit of people do not have access to these "pools" of laptops whereby you can just pick one up as you see fit to tide you over when you NEED portability.

Please do not criticise people for their choices - its a personal thing and if you DONT LIKE IT...well, I guess thats just life.

I suggest you get on with owning your mutliple computers and SSD's and stop changing the subject in question.

 

huh ? I said that 90% of the time(when not used for its portability feature), it meets my need, not it meets 90% of my need. I think you need to read what other said before reply.

I cannot choose because for many organizations, what brand/model is the current crop is determined by the IT(however they reach that conclusion). They seldom care for individual preference.

I would not comment on the IT because most are other companies IT(I get in, they give me a machine and I do what I am paid for).

How am I supposed to have my 10 frequently used application to be on a pool laptop which no other one in the company use ?

 

you're mixing up work and home here. i don't have the pool of laptops at home, of course.

which it isn't, if it saves some cooling.

then you have all the choices you want.

at work, everyone should have access to such pools (else, suggest them. like for cars, and other things). at home, well, i actually save money that way. getting a high end laptop isn't cheap. getting a similar (but still higher end) desktop, though, is really cheap (if you just need some components. mainboard, cpu, sometimes ram, mostly)

he, it's a forum. it's for discussion. maybe i'm right, and you're not, and i get you to rethink and reconsider, and thus you learn something and profit for free. or i do, or what ever. it's a forum, it's about exchanging knowledge, ideas, etc..

again, it's a forum. we're here for discussion.

which is not what i defined. as said, a laptop can't serve me as well as a desktop, as a desktop always a better system in performance, cost, noise, flexibility except for one thing: portability. as long as i am not on the go, it's always the better thing.

but they normally chose desktops for being better overall except for those where they need laptops for the portability (and thus add pools for those that have a desktop with the occasional portability need).
seen this in about every company i've seen. maybe that's different overseas or where ever you life

and they should do their job well to provide you with good options.

not your problem, it's the it's problem. and there are different options to this. the most extreme one would be a fully virtualized desktop (iehks) or just having per-user-licenses and having the apps all installed (maybe virtualized, too, blablacorporate-it-talk). anyways, that's the job of the it departement: making your computers serve you the best way.

 

Face it Dave...your argument for desktop versus laptop for someone who needs portability is ALWAYS gonna be a loser....As I said before, my laptop is more powerful than many desktops so it suits me fine. I dont have the pre-confines of a desktop solution. Im not limited by performance.

True, its a forum and we can all exchange views and opinions so I respect that.

I think we have our wires crossed here as you are obviously talking froma business perspective. I am a 90% home user, I dont have an "IT department" to fall back on who may provide me with cars or whatever the heck else you are babbling on about.....

 

for someone who NEEDS portability, yes. i was talking those who just have a laptop to have it plugged in all day long. which was, what was raised this discussion. and you know tons in here use such laptops (especially gamers).

that one time a year they might move it: not worth the additional cost.


about the two > one system, no, i'm talking home. about the pool systems, there it's business.

 

I never said it is my problem, I am saying there are lots of factors that goes beyond your simple rule. I am not here to say your rule is right or wrong, I am saying your simple rule is too simple to apply. Anyway, I would stop here as I kind of seen that it would be a waste of both our time.

 

come on guys, you're going too far away here. Everyone for his/her own. I dont move my laptop too much either and so I got external monitor, KBD, mouse, and DVD. But hell for the money that I spent on it I could have such a nice desktop So guess I support both opinions, however if it's a laptop then I'd pick the more power efficient SSD rather than the fastest one, which I would prefer if it were a desktop instead.

dave, if that ^ is your desktop then I'd say it's pretty portable anyways ... LOL.

- now give me an answer on my Q1 question about those two models that I posted on p.856

 

miro gt,

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/7016333-post511.html


Never, ever buy rebranded (proprietary) components - only thing that it will give you is headaches.

Hope this helped.

 

Going over to the store this weekend to grab my hands on my first SSD.

Torn between the Corsair Force 60GB and the OCZ Vertex 2 60GB.

I'd like some opinions on both thanks! Leaning towards the Vertex though.

 

Opinions?

Yes! No!! Maybe!!!


Okay, can you give a usage pattern, O/S used, % filled or GB's of capacity you will use and expected results from going to an SSD?

With no info as-given, I would choose neither - Intel G2 would be my first choice (from someone who owns a SandForce based Inferno like the OCZ V2).

 

Well, have the W7 Ultimate 64bit. Expected fill rate and my patterns would most likely have the most used items , programs (Some CAD programs + Video rendering included) and games (probably 2-3...maybe more) in the SSD, and the rest on the Momentus XT on the 2nd drive (i.e. music, pictures, other lesser games, downloads). I would expect a min of 20-30GB used, give or take a couple of future extra GB addons later in the future. My previous drive had only 10GB left from 500GB. Which meant that I use it extensively...but then again I will have two drives.

I'd like TRIM support, as I read that SSD writing would degrade over time, while TRIM eliminates the problem or at least rectifies it to a certain extent by erasing files immediately.

The store I'm buying from has:
- Corsair F60, F120, F240s
- Mushkin Callisto 40,60,90,120,180,240GBs
- OCZ Vertex 2 40, 60, 90,120, 240
- Intel K X-25M
- Kingston V and V+ Series

 

Thisisalamp,

From the list you give, I'd still choose Intel an X25-M model (80GB or higher).

With Video rendering as one of your uses, I would be looking (only) for a Samsung 470 SSD (which is not at your store).

The Kingston V+ series is also a possibility. But the power consumption is very high with this model and the Write Amplification factor is also on the insane (bad) side. However, this drive will even work in a RAID0 configuration with no TRIM needed (just make sure there is a wall plug nearby - always).

See:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4010/kingston-ssdnow-v-plus-100-review


Good luck.

 

Could someone with a Crucial/Micron C300 (the more worn the better!) please post their drive's information with CrystalDiskInfo 4?

The program is available here. Apparently, it now supports reading that drive's health information.

I've just bought a C300, but I'd like to get an idea of how it looks after a while.

 

Thanks. I won't be using it on RAID so that's out of the question. I should at least be able to fork out some extra money somewhere to get that X-25M

 

I've had mine since July 2010. I do around 5GB-10GB of writes/deletes daily, and I have had the drive filled to ≥90% on many occasions.

According to CrystalDiskInfo, it is at 97%:


I had a OCZ Vertex once, and under the same treatment, it was at 79% health after only 3 months.

 

Tilleroftheearth, could you tell me why you choose Intel X25M over OCZ Vertex 2? I am currently debating between those two. My primary work is photo editting, a little game. I would need read speed more than write speed, so is Intel a clear winner here ?

Thanks !!!

 

Awesome, thanks. Looks like I should be happy going from the Crucial M225 (Indilinx Barefoot) to the C300.