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

Interesting, especially those failure rates.

BTW, I almost forgot that there used to be a deal between Intel and Marvell(that Intel sold its XScale to Marvell).

 

OCZ sell the most SSD ? I doubt.

Beside, rate is #failure / #total. So the more you sell, the more accurate it should be.

 

I think a more interesting question would be a breakdown of which failure rates by model, since Intel has only a few basic models (X-25M, X-25V, and their enterprise drives) while OCZ has a lot more. It could be that OCZ's failure rates are much higher on their cheaper models (and, for example, a fair number of the Kingston models will actually be Intel models, so it may be that a lot of failures attributed to Kingston should actually be attributed to Intel). I still think OCZ will come out with a higher failure rate than Intel, mind, but the disparity may not be as great when comparing comparable models (or it may be worse, but we'd need the numbers to know).

 

Statistics FTW

 

Don't you remember that statistics are worthless without proper interpretation? Or, in other words, "lies, d.mn lies, and statistics!" More to the point, I refer again to my post just before yours:

In this case, regarding what you quoted from me, the question would be how many of those failures came from PCs, and how many from Macs. OS X does behave rather differently than Windows or Linux, after all.

 

Shipping product that needs FW updates looks like they should do it better before shipping. (Indilinx and SandForce)
And yes, do it correctly, ship it and forget it!

 

and still the numbers show what i've seen since the first ssds popped up..

as macs are just pcs and hardware failures don't depend on the os, it shouldn't matter at all.

 

Hm. You interested me enough to go try to look into the original data, and it's not quite as rosy as you make it out to be. This is "just" sales and return data from a single french retailer, from October 2009 to April 2010. If I remember right, this means that all of those failed Kingston drives are actually Intel drives. They also made the point that anyone who returned the drives direct to the manufacturer as opposed to through the retailer obviously wouldn't be represented, but I don't know that people would be more likely to return an Intel drive directly to Intel as opposed to the retailer, so I wouldn't argue that point one way or the other. Actually... wasn't that exactly the same time period that the Intel firmware was bricking drives? If so, a lot of Intel "failures" would probably have been returned direct to Intel as opposed to the retailer, so that would be a lot of drives that "should" have shown up in the study but wouldn't. It's also interesting that the study points out that while a SSD "should" be more reliable than a HDD, for the most part (other than the Intel numbers), HDDs are just as reliable as SSDs were. The HDD numbers were desktop models, though, so I don't know if that makes a difference.

Oh, and for sources:

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscent...drives_no_better_than_others_survey_says.html

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/french_retailer_data_offers_ssd_failure_rates/

 

well the intel bricking still hasn't really shown to have had a real impact besides just some few users. the internet is known to blow stuff out of proportions. similar to how recently, "the windows phones first update bricks phones". yes, exactly one type of phone, with one type of firmware. not a common problem, not a "windows phone problem". few to nearnone where actually affected, but omg lets bash on microsoft took over

then again, seeing ssds being already as reliable as hdds which are a tried and true platform since years, while most of those ssd manufacturers are really new at it shows that the future is bright.

 

Well, even leaving aside the Intel bricking, the Kingston numbers add a pretty bad downside to them, since at the time, Kingston was using rebranded Intel drives (when did they switch away from Intel drives, does anyone remember?). I do agree that the future looks bright; this is, after all "old" data.

 

Right. Saying no firmware updates is like being able to look into the future. It's akin to updating hardware drivers, granted shouldn't be as frequent. But as they learn from their new technology and research and customer feedback I'd say it'd be bad form to not revise firmware. I think it's great.

 

one major important thing about firmware updates: no one can test every hw combination out there, esp. not every hw combination of the future. and there might be issues, that, then, when found, need to be fixed. that's what firmware updates are for, then.

 

just bought a Dell XPS 17.
Any recommandations which SSD to use?
(will use existing harddrive as second drive)

 

Depends on your usage and how much $$ you have. But generally recommended are SandForce based SSD (Corsair, Mushkin, minus OCZ), Intel SSD (G2, though the 510 series just came out), or Crucial SSD.

 

okay guys i cant wait any longer and want one now.

Intel X25-M SSDSA2MH120G2K5 2.5" 120GB SATA II

or

SAMSUNG 470 Series MZ-5PA128/US 2.5" 128GB SATA II

or

Crucial RealSSD C300 CTFDDAC128MAG-1G1 2.5" 128GB SATA III

?

I dont like Samsungs firmware upgrade process after reading about it.

Also, that Intel model is a G2, right?

 

Yes, that is the G2 Intel. Depends on what you primarily do, but Intel is a good bet.

 

yeh think i'm getting the intel since its 20% cheaper on newegg.

 

Intel is a good all around performer and reliable. Can't beat it for the price.

 

me is going for Samsung 470 ... one day. There's a post on here that says updating it's FW is actually not that bad.

besides, how many times you hear about problems with a Samsung 470 drive compared to all other brands ? (including Intel)

 

Well considering Samsung 470 hasn't been around long, hard to tell. Updating firmware isn't that bad, it's just destructive. I guess not a huge deal to backup and then restore, but it's just more down time.

 

So having more FW updates is better? :laugh:

I would say that less updates mean mature product on first release.

Very good point.

BTW: one buy SSD, first update FW and then proceed with installing OS and stuff.

 

So which is better to get? The 510 or G2?

 

it depends by some factor: if you have a sata II bound pc, IMO current g2 is a good choice for (performance and reliability)/cost.

if you are planning to buy a new pc with new sata version, i think it's better 510
but there are few benchmarks at the moment, let's wait how marvell controllers works

i have this ssd from few days, but i love it, 15 sec windows boot is only the tip of the iceberg

 

ended up ordering the G2 along with a bay adapter to stick my platter in.
cheaper than going with a 160/250 gig ssd.

kind of feel stupid doing this now as ive been waiting nearly a year to do this but it seems gen 3 ssd prices really arent going to drop all that much.

 

Nobody knew Intel were keeping G2 SSD while marketing G3. G3 are only going to supplement G2 unfortunately.

 

Try to keep some perspective. If you look at the realworld storage bench 2011 test in the Anandtech review of the 510, you'll notice the heavy workload test. It is apparently 106+gb of mixed media designed to represent approximately 2 weeks of continuous work. According to HDDLED I'm running at around 7gb per day already which is consistent with the test.

The only point I disagree on is that I do not believe this is a heavy workload. Most of the writes according to Procmon are to critical system files like c:\$logfile, c:\$mft, c:\$bitmap, \user\ntuser.dat and other \user\ temporary files and folders. Pagefile doesn't even rate next to NTFS volume logging.

Anyway, I digress. The difference in disk busy time between a Vertex 3 and a 510 is only 49.6 seconds. This is with disk activity consistent with two weeks of single user work. 49.6 seconds in 2 weeks. They may as well be the same drive.

When you use bar charts and benchmarks there is the issue of weighting. I use a good deal of metering tools in the stuff I work with - mainly FFT and spectrum analysis. if theres one thing I get from interpreting the data these tools provide, its that you can weight nearly anything so that its flat. Literally, you can just change the block size and weight the curve until the resolution is totally inappropriate for what you need to see. Its very easy to make bar charts where theres a massive difference in the length of the bars, even when the difference is actually tiny.

 

@Hayte

well said. All these comparison has to be viewed and analyzed in the correct perspective. 50 seconds for 2 weeks => 1250 seconds or 20 minutes a year.

Then we can calculate what it really means, say in monetarized term.

 

You are right to some extent. I was hoping for the 510 series SSDs to be a worthy upgrade pattern for my G2, yet, seeing the test results I do not consider it a worthy upgrade, especially when comparing prices. 510 may be an SSD to consider when switching from a traditional HDD though. I should have said that in my previous post .

 

Er, the 510 isn't a G3. The G3s are confirmed to still be SATA II (3 Gbps) with 25 nm NAND, the 510 is SATA III (6 Gbps) with 34 nm NAND. The G3s haven't hit yet, the 510s just did.

 

There should be a subforum for SSDs. This thread is getting a bit cluttered.

 

where is this info?
G3's are going to be SATA II? really?

so the 510 is Intel's top end drive for 2011?

 

The C300 is still the king for SATA 3 it seems. SATA 2 on the other hand... not so much. (Vertex 3 and C400 will take this, but aren't available yet)

I just can't wait to put my C300 into my Sager NP8150 once it finally arrives... It's just sitting in its box. I'd really like to test it atleast to make sure it isn't DOA or anything...

 

Intel 510 series is based on Marvell controller. It just released to fill the time gap between G2 and G3. I'm expecting new G3 end of this year.

 

Join the crusade:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/sit...ments/542751-ssd-subforum-under-hardware.html

 

It's pretty easy to find with a quick google. Every mention of the Intel G3 involves 25 nm NAND flash on a new Intel controller with about a maximum of 250 MB/s read, so there's no point to making them SATA III (6 Gbps). The 510, on the other hand, is confirmed to be a Marvell controller on a SATA III interface (with much higher performance), using 34 nm NAND. So this obviously isn't a G3, unless Intel has totally scrapped their G3 plans and are only going to be pushing this instead. And yes, this is probably going to be Intel's top drive for 2011, unless something unexpected happens with the G3. Of course, the G3 is also expected to come in a 600(!) GB size, so if you were going for capacity, the G3 would be the top drive...

 

Seeing thAt this will be my first SSD, would it be wise to go with the Intel 510's be a good starting drive? Im definitely looking at the 120GB drive for the OS, Photoshop, surfing the Internet and a few games such as SCII and WoW. I'm definitely a complete newb when it comes to SSDs. My secondary hard drive will be the 750GB 7200rpm drive.

 

Personally, save yourself the money and get a G2 120GB.

 

Make this SSD your last (at least for your current (and even, next) system):

See:
Intel Third Generation X25-M SSDs Set to Launch in Mid-April - Softpedia


The G3 has the Read/Write Sequential/Random and overall durability to eclipse the current theoretical benchmark 'king', the Vertex 3.

You have waited long enough to wait this much longer to get something worth getting (says someone who just returned an Intel G2 120GB after just a few hours of playing with it).

 

What didn't you like about the Intel G2?

 

The capacity, the price ($275 CAD) and the 'feel'.

There was no way I was going past the return period this time (as I did with my now USB 'key' $400 Patriot Inferno 100GB SSD).

Sure, I appreciated the speed when it's mostly empty (less than 50% filled) - what I'm very concerned about is how it will perform with a full install (my 'standard' ~80GB O/S + apps) - especially after a few weeks of use.

And, add data to that while creating even more (on a continuous basis).

Was it faster than the Scorpio Black, Hitachi 7K500 and Seagate XT's (all 500GB models) I use? Yes.

Was it almost 5 times faster than the almost 5 times cheaper And almost 5 times bigger capacity $55 Scorpio Black. No.

Not by a long shot.

 

$275? Yikes. I personally wouldn't jump on any SSD unless it's around $1.5/GB or less... of course, I did manage that when I got my SSD (which isn't an Intel 120 GB). >.>

 

Price is not the issue.

Performance increase vs. cost increase is.

When I paid $450+ (equivalent to over $750 today's money...) for a 60GB 7K60, I got much more for my money (in performance and capacity) than what $275 currently gets me today in SSD land (compared to 'normal' HDD's for ~$60).

 

I am keeping my NOVA 128GB until Intel comes out with a proper G3. Personally I think they are nuts with this interim SSD with Marvel controller.

Of course, by then maybe the C400 will have proven itself and I will get that

In the meantime, SSD's RULE!

 

Well, it partially is (which is why I went for price/GB rather than flat price). If, for example, that 120 GB Intel had cost "only" $175 CAD (slightly under $1.5/GB), would the performance increasse have been great enough for you to more seriously consider it?

 

It very much depends on how you measure the increase. In an isolated case (4x price -> 2x speed), you are right that it doesn't look smart.

But if the 2x speed => 1 man day => x dollars which is way higher than 200, don't you think that is a smart purchase ?

 

Well for that price I can understand. But even so that's what I like about the Intel. Performance hasn't decreased by anything I can tell over time or with it over half full.

 

Seeing that the 8170-S1 can't utilize the SATA III SSDs, should I just hold out for the G3s?

Will I be shooting myself in the foot if I go ahead with this purchase?

 

Why do you say it can't utilize it? Ports 0 and 1 are SATA III, which are the internal drive bays.

 

Xoticpc said Sager had told them that the &170-S1 does not utilize SATAIII SSDs but I will contact them again to double check.

 

150HM handles SATA III SSDs and show speeds higher than 3Gbps.

There is no reason 170HM won't.