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

Good choice, the Samsung 470 is a nice SSD. The 128GB will be faster than the 64GB, so use in which laptop you want it.

Cloning can be done with Acronis True Image Home, using the "Clone full disk - automatic" option.

I do recommend a clean install though. It's best for performance.

 

@madmattd
The M4 is my first SSD, and it took me ages to decide on what to get, due to SATA III drives just becomming available, and all the issues surrounding Sandforce controllers. I was lucky, and I managed to hold my nerve, and not buy anything until I was happy it would be OK. I was leaning towards the M4 which sounded like a solid performer, and fortunately Phil confirmed it was decent, before his review came out, as I couldn't wait that long! I jumped in and grabbed a 128GB M4 (not quite on par to the 256GB for seq writes, but not bad on everything else).

 

For sure the 128GB is a great drive. I was going back and forth between the Intel 320 160GB and this M4. I needed more than 120GB of space for my programs, there's no point in getting an SSD and having to install programs on a spinner...With Intel's 510 and Crucials M4 using the same controller (and NAND too I think), there was really nothing separating them except for the M4 being almost universally faster than the 510 (a few things it isn't but overall this is true) and also a LOT cheaper. The 320 is a solid drive (one is in my computer at work), but I just couldn't bring myself to get a SATA II drive for a SATA III laptop. Plus I could see myself topping 160GB in the next year (I'm at a solid 130 used now, and 160 is only 149 formatted. 19 GB is like 2-3 games these days).

Enjoy your M4, it is a nice successor to the C300 that most everyone raved about. And I use Crucial RAM whenever I can, after all Micron has been around for a little while...my family's first PC in 1995 was a Micron, lol.

 

I finally got my SSD's, Got the 128GB Samsung 470 for my G53SW and the 64GB little brother/sister for my older G50VT. Holy crap! I didn't know how fast my G53SW was until I put my SSD in! Windows Experience went from 5.9 to 7.5, now my GPU is the lowest score at 7.1 (not overclocked). I know it isn't SATA III but I was short on cash for the Crucial M4 SATA III. Still a big upgrade over my old 7200rpm. I am still happy, specially since I will end up getting a full refund them with my school. (Was for a class experiment). Now I just need to take one of my receipt copies to the cashiers office at school to get my refund.

Oh yeah, not to be forgotten the G50VT got a substantial boost as well.
I used Acronis to Clone my G53SW as I had too much crap to re-install. But did a clean install to my G53VT due to it being practically empty. I'll end up re-installing windows in about a month anyhow. (I usually do a every 3 month re-install for clean-up and to just keep it fresh. And that's coming up by the end of July.)

Would have been nice to get the Crucial one, but, I didn't have enough cash for both SSD's and everything else I needed to buy to meet my schools list, so something had to give. Oh well, I'm still happy with what I managed to get. Most likely will be upgrading before the warranty expires on the SSD's anyhow. (3 year). Now if anyone knows of a program or tweaks for Windows 7, both x86 and x64 (So I can tweak both SSD's) That would be wonderful.

 

Well, congrats! We do what we can do.

I don't suggest doing any 'tweaks' at all - except what I wrote to you in this reply:

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/7633999-post9751.html


Enjoy!

 

I ended up replacing the 640GB with the smaller 320GB in my G50VT as the 320GB was a 7200RPM compared to the 640's 5400rpm. I may suffer on battery life a little, but would rather have the faster seek times. That and I don't install too much to the G50VT. Other then that and disabling the Hibernate (I don't use it at all, either sleep or shutdown for me) to free up a little storage. (Can use every bit!) lol. Other then that I guess no other "tweaks". I did make sure Trim was active on both and they are. (Just call me paranoid.)

 

I would still do a re-install (clean install of Win7...) with the link in my previous post to move the users folder to your D: drive.

This will free up a lot on your SSD (that really doesn't need to be there...).

 

@ dragonwolf8504, can you post CrystalDiskMark 3x 100MB for both drives. Then we can tell if there's any need for tweaks.

 

Here are the tests. For some reason the 64GB came out to be a little faster. They are pretty close in speeds, but still.

Green Themed= 64GB
Blue Themed= 128GB

I can probably do one more benchmark, by request, but no more because I know benchmarks can wear a drive down. Unless of course there is a serious issue and someone points out some tweaks to do, then I'll do an extra benchmark. If requesting a final benchmark please be specific to the settings like Phil was. I will give until about 10pm tonight. (It is 10:12AM my time) As of this posting. To allow for multiple requests then a vote if they are different requests. Let me know.

 

I'll probably do a full re-install today, but, I don't know about your extra tweak as My itunes Database is tied to using "C: Drive" Like it knows where my songs is based on: C:\Users\Myname\My Music\itunes. I have so many playlists with so many songs, I don't really want to redo that, if it were to fail. (Call me paranoid) LOL. This was the whole reason I went with the 128GB instead of 2 64GB ones. That and the requirements of my class. But I would have done 2 64GB (one for each laptop) if it wasn't for the fact my itunes is all local and not stored on a server or another hard drive.

 

Both look pretty much fine. The chipset power saving features are limiting synthetic performance somewhat but I wouldn't worry about it.

 

I really don't have much in the way of settings there. I know i set the cpu to 100% within power settings and have done all i can in the BIOS, so that's all I can do apparently. It's still a big boost over my old drive. I can tell, that and Windows Experience Index now places my GPU as the lowest at 7.1. Will now, what a twist. Always was my HDD that was crippling my laptops. Now it's the gpu in the G53SW and CPU in my older G50VT. lol. I'm happy though. Actually I'm very happy! Lol

 

I would ignore WEI completely. In no way can a Nvidia GTX 460M limit your experience in Windows, unless we're talking about games.

 

well, 7.1 is definitely not cripping, phil. so the wei is correct: gpu is the lowest, but not low at all.

 

Some people (like DragonWolf maybe) assume that the GPU is limiting their experience of Windows because it has the lowest number. But I don't the GPU is actually limiting their experience.

The only thing it limits is WEI. And game performance.

 

well, it DOES limit it. but it's a limit that is not a problem.

that's like when at school (lowest: 1, highest: 6), your lowest grade is a 5.5. yes, it's the lowest (rest all 6), but that still is all awesome.

WEI is correct and right.

and gpu is split between two numbers: desktop and gaming performance. desktop performance is about aero, and video playback, and stuff like this.

 

Glad you said "maybe". I don't believe it limits, "limits" may have been the wrong word to use, so sorry on that. Maybe I should have said the lowest score was 7.1 which was my gpu. Or something along those lines. Still the 460M GTX is a strong performer, and I love it. Sorry for the confusion. But it looks like everyone got the point of what I was saying. I just wanted to clarify that I didn't believe the "limit" part.

 

It limits his WEI, it doesn't limit his real experience of running Windows.

But I feel an endless debate coming up, so let's agree to disagree.

 

it's the slowest part of his laptop. that's what wei measures. and that's right, or wrong, or what ever.

what matters is, it's slowest part is most likely fast enough for him to never bother him. it still is a limit.

for us, the speed of light is about never a problem. if you want to travel trough space, it is. and in both cases, it's a limit.

so yes, one could say HE is the limit. he only gets a 5.5 in WEI, and his laptop beats him all the time. but WEI doesn't care about the user.

it measures the laptop and defines numbers. if you have an app that needs a HIGHER number at any point, don't expect it to run well.

he will have a lower gaming performance (if it's the gaming part of graphics) than one with a 7.9. does that limit him? yes. does it MATTER? most likely not.

a limit is a limit independent of anyone being close to it, or not.

so no, i won't agree to disagree. you don't understand basic logic in this case. you take WEI personal, which it can't be. it's just a benchmark for the laptop, stating how fast each part is. and it measures the gpu to now be the slowest part of it.

 

Personal? I see nothing personal about WEI.

And I still say the GPU will in no way limit his real experience of running Windows, expect for games

 

maybe it's useless but if you are going to reinstall windows, i would do a secure erase;

 

I have decided I am going to re-install windows, but what exactly do you mean by a secure erase? Format it fully then re-install windows? Because that's what I do. If not, I would love to know, as I love learning new things! lol

 

I expect removing all partitions and then a quick format is enough.

A Secure Erase would only be necessary if you're having performance problems or if it's an old drive.

___________________________

Nice 96GB SSD for $105 after MIR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...m2157X567668X937f52ba37494e0dc6dcad5bb2272184

 

Whelp, that's what I did. Oh i read this: Secure Erase Methods Probably Won't Work on Your Solid-State Drive

Something to keep in mind maybe. Since it's only one article that I have found it may not mean too much, I may look into this a little farther, just for some reading, lol. I can run a quick benchmark on my SSD now, repeating Phil's original test to see if doing a clean install helped. (This can help in deciding a clean install or cloning the drive. If the cloning slows it down a little or something.) I'm sure it's best for clean install as Windows will see it's an SSD and will do the proper settings whereas I see a potential problem after cloning that windows may not realize it's on an SSD. (I don't know if that's true, my paranoia may be getting to me) Oh, also for some reason, my 64GB Samsung will report it's life and everything to SSDLife. But the 128GB Samsung dosn't seem to report anything. It did this after the clone and I though it may have been because of the clone. It still does it after the clean install. (All drivers are installed). Any thoughts here? Thanks. Oh I'll post the benchmarks of clone and clean install if there is any notable differences.

 

Well secure erase as far as wiping data completely it may not work, but as far as improving performance if you have performance problems, yes it usually works.

 

WEI is an MS benchmark rating tool that measures different component's performance. It's returning nothing else than a synthetic benchmark number which compares how components perform one to another. In no way this number (these numbers) reflect real life experience, nor do the numbers of CDM, or others; they are synthetic but VALID indications of the expected performance of the HDW measured.

All synthetic benchmark numbers (from any benchmarking tool) serve as a comparison from one system or one component to another. The number itself is NOT a limit: it's a score (Index if you wish) that, in the case of WEI, MS attributes to a set of measurements of this specific benchmarking tool. See the image below for instance. However, as far as I know, in no way those numbers are used by (software) developpers to tell you what WEI score you need to run their soft, again, as far as I know.

We all know the highest score a component can get is 7.9; obviously, the closest to 7.9 your components score, the faster your rig. Will the user note a difference between a 7.7 score and a 7.9 one for the same component ? Most likely not. However, WEI IS indeed personal, as any other benchmarking software, but it's personal to the components tested, or the rig, or the laptop; not personal to the USER !



About Secure Erase: That's what I like of my Intels (RAID0 SO NO TRIM): As soon as performance degrades, more or less about six months, only thing I have to do is reinstall windows, quick-format upon installation, and I get back their original performance, no secure erase needed or so...

Love it !!!

 

What program is that a screenshot from? Looks like some sort of software running in the old DOS

 

Type: winsat disk in a dos elevated console.

This is exactly what windows does when WEI evaluates your disk.

While you're there, you might wanna try winsat mem / cpu just to see...

 

i ran winsat disk and i got this

 

it's still a limit. it's a limit beyond being an issue for him. it's still a physical limit. this gpu can't play crysis on 6x 2560x1600 screens at max settings with 3d mode and 240fps.

does he need this? no. still, a limit.

anything that's 7.something in WEI is not an issue. just a limit.

 

It's a limit for those games yes, I agree.

 

it's always a limit, independent of anyone reaching it/having an issue with it.

but anyways, you agreed

 

I agreed on the games part

What my point was, the GPU is no bottleneck for the Windows user interface.

 

he never stated if it's measuring the userinterface part or the games part (there are TWO graphic numbers).

and it's still a limit. i can bring the same analogy with having multiple big screens, aero turned on, playing back fullhd movies, and pressing windows-tab. a 7.9 desktop graphics will result in more scenarios with smooth aero desktop experience than a 7.0 desktop graphics number.

it might not matter for him, but there's still a difference, a measurable one between the 7.0 and the 7.9. depending on the scenario, that matters.

and, again, a limit is a limit, independent of someone reaching it.

 

Yes on multiple screens with very high resolution it can become a limit yes.

I will agree with that

I will give you an example that's clearer.The GPU I'm working with now is rated 4.0 for Aero. The 5400rpm hard drive is rated 5.3. Some people might conclude that the GPU is now the bigger bottleneck in my experience. This is not true, the 5400 rpm is a huge bottleneck in my usage, the GPU is hardly a bottleneck in my usage.

 

Just thought I'd clarify, the 7.1 was for both gaming and user.

Honestly, I think we can drop this. I'm sorry for getting everyone off track when this is supposed to be about SSD's. So hopefully I can get us back on track. After testing my SSD's in both my laptops for roughly a week now I can say that I am very happy with everything. Boot time is much faster, loading programs is much faster, for instance I ran a batch file that launched at the same time, Chrome, CPUID HArdware Monitor, Firefox (Home screen, goggle.com), My Virtual Home, Adobe Acrobat Pro 9, Adobe Reader 10, iTunes, VLC, and Word 2007. It only took 3.5 Seconds (+/- .5 secs.) to launch all of them, with itunes taking the longest, all others where practically instantaneous. Not all of them are that intensive I realize, I do plan on seeing what would happen if I attempted to launch my most used games, Kane's Wraith and Torchlight, at the same time. As those both have alot to load. hose are probably the most intensive games on loading, that I can think of that I have, may be wrong though. Anyhow though, I am very happy with my new SSD's. Though one thing. I am having issues with SSD Life showing my life for the 128GB Samsung, but not the 64GB Samsung. (64GB is in the G50VT) I have installed all drivers but still get the below shot. Maybe someone can help me figure out what's wrong. if it's my SSD or laptop.

 

from my CrystalInfo, it shows my OCZ vertex has 89% health status, is there anyway can refresh back to 100%?

 

Hi Ronan,

No. The health status is a countdown to death Well, not exactly, it's a countdown to when you'll no longer be able to write/boot from it (you'll still be able to read from it though, if you need to recover data etc).

I'm not sure how long you've had your drive, but in that time you've used 11% of its life.
(though I heard that some people updating their firmware, have had their life halved, as OCZ revised life expectations - not sure which one's it applied to though)

I wonder if any OCZ SSD has actually made it to 0%

 

I bought it in 2009, but I hardly use it coz it sucks with ACHI mode, so I switch to intel G2 when it releases. even now, my intel G2 still shows me 100% health, and my vertex( I did use this drive for 10 month) is 89%.

 

Well, you've really no need to worry about SSD life/health
(Other than the usual backups, in case you get a drive failure)

 

Kingston V+ 100 96GB review has been posted. Impressive performance for the money.

 

I'd heard this was a good drive before, and it certainly is, looking at your review. I'd also heard that this was a re-badged intel x25 - any truth in that?

BTW Any idea what's going on in this thread?...
http://forum.notebookreview.com/sol...ecked-box-compress-drive-save-disk-space.html

 

Kingston used to sell rebadged Intel drives but the v+ 100 is not one.

The V+ 100 uses a Toshiba controller, which is actually a tweaked JMicron controller.

 

I just scored a Western Digital SiliconEdge Blue 256GB SSD for $200 during the 3 minutes it was available in the newegg deal of the day. Deciding whether to keep it or sell it and use the money towards a Samsung 470. Figure I can sell the WD and net about $350 as new, and buy a Samsung 470 for $420. So $270 I can get a Samsung 470 256GB. Or just save the $70 and live with the WD.

 

the question is if ppl will buy it

 

Why wouldn't they? They evaporated off Newegg's site in 3 minutes. It's hard to find any 256GB SSD new with TRIM that is less than $350.

 

I wish they would do that sale with Intel 320 160GB! I am in love wiht mine and will put one in any laptop I may happen to get.

 

Very nice deal. Real world performance is quite good.
A look at new SSDs from Corsair, Kingston, Plextor, and WD - The Tech Report - Page 6

 

how representative are the standard benchmarks (AS SSD, CDM, ATTO) of SSD performance?

In all 3 of my SSDs they benchmark 5-15% faster with the MSAHCI driver rather than the Intel RST drivers.

And this increase is pretty consistent sequential or random. Certainly not enough to worry about but enough not to ignore also.

 

The only real test is by running with one set of drivers for a week/month in your normal usage mode and then switching to see if you notice a difference (and if it's not noticeable, then it doesn't matter what 'benchmarks' say...).

Doing this, there is no way that I would be running with the stock MSAHCI drivers - for real work/real world usage the Intel RST drivers (v10.5) are noticeably faster (overall).