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

Tiger Direct has Intel SSDSA2MH080G2C1 X25M MLC Solid State Drive - 80GB, SATA, 2.5" (OEM) for $222 roughly after Bing Cashback, ordered one just now and still available in stock.

 

......it's coming.....

 

lol, i dont care samsung anymore coz i get rid of it.
my vertex is much faster than samsung..

 

In what respect ronan? Benches or overall feel? Bootup? Application load? Snappiness?

 

I'm going to bet 'snappiness', 'feel', 'Application load' and 'Bootup' for $20! lol

 

with samsung, it tooks 20 sec to bootup windows 7, right now, it only takes me 10 sec to full bootup.

 

if you could post a youtube video that would be really impressive. the following youtube is from vertex win 7 boot up but way slow....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elujjdo_8XU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-ned7IarTI&feature=related

the best vertex win 7 bootup record to date seems to be 17.9 sec:

http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/flash_drives/ocz_vertex_series_sata_ii_2_5-ssd

TweakPC (Germany)
“The OCZ Vertex shows a marked improvement over the last generation of SSDs. The performance almost makes the mouth water. While reading the economic SSD up to 250 MB/second and write 128k blocks from their maximum of nearly 200 MB/sec. These are truly outstanding values in this test. If you are looking for maximum performance for a system disk, the OCZ Vertex is the SSD you are looking for. A Windows 7 Boot Time on an SSD of just 17.9 seconds speaks for itself and earns our Performance Award for the OCZ Vertex.”

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2009/06/05/corsair-p256-256gb-ssd-review/9

 

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2009/06/05/corsair-p256-256gb-ssd-review/8

"The Corsair P256 has the lowest maximum latencies of any drive we've tested when tasked with a heavy combined random read/write workload, bettering every other SSD and hard disk drive and ensuring stutter free performance regardless of the work load."

 

You know, this is why benchmarks are so questionable to me - when they're believed at face value without any real, real world experience to back them up.

First, for the 17.9 Win 7 boot up times...

I can't read/understand German, but I can see that they tested the drive under Vista x64 - so then they Award it because of its Win 7 boot time? Something does not sound right there? (I'm probably way off, but that is what I gleamed from trying to see the testing methodology they used).

As for the bit-tech.net article quoted above, hmmm....

I understand that they are testing a G1 Intel (not defending Intel here, just that if Intel was a little better in Maximum combined read/write response times - because it thoroughly trounced everything else in Average response time and combined read/write Speed (throughput - MB/s) tests, it would be the 'best' in every category of combined read/writes). I wonder what a G2 with the new firmware would do in these tests? As good as the G1 is, the G2 certainly is better, I believe.

More to the point, I wonder what a 160GB G2 would do. That would be a much better comparison to the 256GB Corsair, right? (The bigger the SSD drive, the faster it (usually) is...).

Also, though they claim to do real world testing - they don't. I don't clone my installations because they are not as good as a clean install - they cloned, which makes the SSD's especially look better than they are, for a user like me. Then, they tweak and disable almost everything in Vista and use that as a real world boot up test? Not one of the more useful sites in my book, sorry.

I want real, real world tests; that would mirror my experience with the products if/when I decided to buy them and use them in a real production situations - not an artificially created environment that showcases a single good or even great point about an obscure and possibly insignificant benchmark metric. And, a metric that they failed to show how it would even affect a user in a real world setting.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not disputing the actual numbers. What I am disputing is the fact that they are pulling at straws to find something good to say about a product they're reviewing, but failing to convey how its supposed strength will benefit the user. In that respect, this review is a fail - not only now, because the G2 has been released since, but also at the time because they failed to test it against a 160GB G1 and also show how the benchmarks they produced related to the real world.

I also had to chuckle that a full format kills the performance of the drive - all that is (a full format), is simply writing to every cell - so, so much for no significant performance degradation, huh? But they masked that fact well, with benchmarks as 'proof'.

 

This link isn't German - its in English for me - and doesn't mention Win7

 

No, not that link;

This link:
http://www.tweakpc.de/hardware/tests/ssd/ocz_vertex/s01.php

Followed from here:
http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/flash_drives/ocz_vertex_series_sata_ii_2_5-ssd

Mentioned in this post here:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=5610114&postcount=1558

 

14 pages?? 14 ****ing pages?!!?

i hate those webpages. one article, 14 pages.. grmbl

 

Greg,

I came across your review of the Dell D430... The thread was closed so my apologies for sending you an e-mail via this way.

Can you offer any advice, if possible AND if you have the time.

I have a D430 but as I'm not technical enough, I dont actually understand the difference between HDD and the types, ie: SATA, IDE, ATA and so on... I guess you get the picture.

I want to upgrade my HD but this little Dell alsoo has a kind of tape connector...

What about a SSD..??? Oh my goodness, my head hurts....

This is the scene. I'm a freelance photographer based in Bristol in the UK. I am on a shoot and need to upload pix to view them and decide whats best to keep, bin, edit and send. Problem is, the HD is so slow (perhaps), so do I actually need an SSD (and are they the quickest form of HD) or do I need another type of HD.. I'm also concerned about the connecting cable from HD to M/Board...

Any help is greatly apprecaited...

If this helps, feel free to e-mail me directly. And of course, I would offer you my e-mail here on this posting but I don't know if it will cancle the post or get seen by the wrong FRAUDSTERS, if you know what I mean.

Hope to hear from you,

Jon

 

i'm in the market for ssd

how do i know whether i'm getting gen1 or gen2 of the intel drives at places like newegg?

 

by reading..

(sorry..)

 

Tiller, in regards to your last paragraph of your post, I believe most SSD's are reported to degrade after a full format. Hence the guides saying to do a Windows 'quick format', no?

 

hankaaron57,

sure they'll degrade, but by six times?

I'm not suggesting to do a full format, just commenting that a full format is effectively writing to every available cell and the Samsung's/Corsairs are supposed to offer consistent performance from when you start using them, till, I guess forever - because they're supposedly shipped in a 'degraded' state to begin with.

The full format 'bug' sure throws a wrench on that view, huh?

 

yes Jon, because the Latitude D430/D420 are in the subnotebook class, going for thin and light, dell decided to go with a 1.8" ard drive, with a ZIF cnnector. so that is the type of SSD you will need.

if you want to learn more, check out here.

http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?t=766084

SSD is the fastest, Samsung is the cheapest, but they support trim, yet. Intel and various others do support TRIM function, but cost a bit more per GB. there is a lot of reading, and personal preference involved in choosing the right SSD for you.

 

Jon,

As a photographer also, may I ask what program you're using to cull your shots? Also, are you shooting RAW or jpgs? What size of files are we talking about here - 12MP or 24MP+?

Just looking at the spec's from the D430, it may not have enough horsepower to make any difference to the overall feel and speed of your required workflow - with an SSD or not.

If you're interested to see my SSD experience on a Patriot Torqx 64GB model...

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


The specific SSD is not what you're interested in (as max420 says, its a ZIF connector 1.8" you're looking for), but the experience may well apply to you if you can only buy a smaller SSD and you need, relatively, a lot of programs/data with you always.

Ask any specific questions you want - we'll try to help!

Oh! As you state you're new to all this tech stuff, this post may also help you too:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=5609787#post5609787


What it basically concludes is that defragging a HD can make it almost (not quite, though) match a newer and faster model.

 

he should notice some improvment with the SSD, even though its a lower clock, it's still a core2duo, and even if it is just with boot times and app launches, it will be more responsive.

my friend has my old D420, CoreDuo, that he put a 64GB SSD into, and while it encodes video at the same speed it used to, it index's, and muxes files wayyy faster than when i had a mechanical HDD in it.

 

i am shooting 1Dmkiii and 5Dmkii, and using Adobe Lightroom and Canon DPP. if you are using SSD, the bottle necks are ur CPU and memory.
IMO, at least you need 8G memory. If you are buying a SSD, you should consider about Intel SSD or OCZ vertex/Turbo, it gives u good 4k and 512k random read/write. As I have already stated, u also need more memory and fast CPU.

 

win 7 bootup time is from ocz site rather than that review. for real world test, it's a pity we haven't seen real scientific test reflecting all aspects of real world performance, but only some partial test for specific aspect. since stuttering will be big issue for my applications, i just more concern on this. according to that review, Random Combined Read/Write Response Time (Maximum) seems to be more critical on this issue, although i don't know whether this is true or not. as that review shows this random combined response time on intel G1 is nine times longer than P256, and five times than vertex, let's assume G2 gets significant improvement, (write speed doubled than G1 from other review) can we assume G2 improve about 200%(i.e. this number would be half of G1), then it's still way more than double of vertex number and four times of P256 number. but we never know the truth on this regard for G2 from available online resources so far...

for that full format issue, as long as GC or TRIM works, it's not a big issue i guess.

 

Roger that, just verifying.

 

Cool!

Like I said, I can't read German, but I can read numbers in almost any language:

Quote:
"Eine Windows 7 Bootzeit auf der SSD von nur 17,9 Sekunden spricht eigentlich für sich und verdient sich auch unseren Performance Award für die OCZ Vertex."

Above quote from:
http://www.tweakpc.de/hardware/tests/ssd/ocz_vertex/s14.php

Translated to English:
Quote:
"TweakPC (Germany)
“The OCZ Vertex shows a marked improvement over the last generation of SSDs. The performance almost makes the mouth water. While reading the economic SSD up to 250 MB/second and write 128k blocks from their maximum of nearly 200 MB/sec. These are truly outstanding values in this test. If you are looking for maximum performance for a system disk, the OCZ Vertex is the SSD you are looking for. A Windows 7 Boot Time on an SSD of just 17.9 seconds speaks for itself and earns our Performance Award for the OCZ Vertex.”"

Translated to English quote above from this page:
http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/flash_drives/ocz_vertex_series_sata_ii_2_5-ssd

(Scroll around 55% down the page or search for 'TweakPC (Germany)')

Finally, the testing methodology is found here:
http://www.tweakpc.de/hardware/tests/ssd/ocz_vertex/s02.php


I may still be wrong, but I am attempting to verify the accuracy of these claims as you can see - I just hope you're doing the same too.

Also, I'm not doubting your numbers (although I can), what I am doubting is that is there any real world basis for 'believing' in those numbers? I agree there is no universal test for everyones needs - but that doesn't negate the fact that benchmarks will always show what the manufacturer or the reviewer wants them to show - not what you think it is.

 

yeah, i referred to this, didn't noticed it is translated from german.

 

vostro1400user,

ah! Always, always go to the source.

 

"Samsung will be offering support tools and firmware updates for Windows 7 which will be available in the beginning of 2010.

If you wish to be informed as soon as the Windows 7 Firmware Update can be downloaded please register below for our email notification service about general availability."

http://semicon.samsung.de/relaunch/products/ssd/firmware_update.asp

 

lol, yeah, but I read in the summer that Samsung will be offering Win 7 TRIM support in September... lol

I won't sign up for the email notification - I'll just wait for the Samsung user's party that will happen when Samsung eventually does get their act in gear.

 

lol, just flash 1901Q on ur samsung, it works good.
My friend flashed his Superstupid SSD with 1901Q, and he did feel the boost.

 

What Samsung drive was that and where did you find the updated firmware?

 

lol , some post the link in this thread

 

www.mushkin.de/sup.html

 

Got my intel 160G today,
updated the firmware to the latest one
did CMD test with 1000MB package in 9 runs.
No Intel Matrix Storage software installed.

 

I don't know if this was posted or not but Seagate is getting ready to release their first SSD called the Pulsar SSD and it's using SLC instead of MLC with a read speed of 240 MB/s and a write speed of 220 MB/s.



Seagate's 1st SSD - Finally a Real Product
Editor:- December 8, 2009 - Seagate announced details of its Pulsar SSD - a 2.5" SATA SLC SSD with 200GB capacity.

Sequential R/W rate is upto 240MB/s and 220MB/s respectively, R/W IOPS are 30,000 and 25,000 respectively. Aimed at the server market the BER is quoted as 1 sector per 10E16. Seagate says it has been sampling the new drive - its 1st SSD - since September 2009.

Editor's comments:- the remarkable thing about Seagate's 1st SSD is that it took the company so many years to enter the market. Technically - it's unremarkable.

Will it succeed in the market? In my view it would be unrealistic to assume that Seagate's long running dominance in the hard disk market will translate to dominance in SSDs too - because nearly all its potential oem customers have already been evaluating or using SSDs from other sources for upto 4 years.

And even if Seagate's new product succeeds in filling holes in design slots in 2010 - its oem customers can always replace this product with their own designs leveraging the merchant market for SSD controllers & IP.

To succeed in the SSD market - Seagate will have to demonstrate unique mastery in some aspect of SSD technology which customers value. The most attractive area will probably be in the area of reliability.

In recent quarters we've seen a spate of flaky SSDs get to market. This tendency will rise in 2010 as many storage oems decide that shipping untried products is a lower risk to their businesses than losing out on customer mind share. Each bad news story helps companies who have a clean reputation. But as a newcomer to the SSD market Seagate may have to wait years to establish its own reputation.


Source: http://www.storagesearch.com/

 

Those are about the same results I get. Check my post about 9 pages back by now Do not bet against Seagate. They know about hard drives and data. Yes they do! I bet they are going to execute SSD's brilliantly. Initially, they are going for enterprise. Which, BTW, is where the MONEY is. And none of this complaining about price. If they can save POWER and add SPEED, done deal. The data centers will order them by the truckload. Of course, they have to be fast and reliable and actually save power.

 

I updated my clients desktop (AMD/Opteron) G2 160GB Intel last week and his sequential speeds were similar to yours.

However, his random r/w results were horrible. His platform cannot use the IRST drivers nor the IMSM ones either. Worse, he can't even run the SSD Optimizer software either to do a manual TRIM (the software reports that the SSD is not 'ready').

Enjoy yours!

Cheers!

 

Firmware upgrade for the SSD?

 

Noob question: I'm trying to update the firmware on my Samsung 256gb drive with the VBM19D1Q firmware to the VBM1901Q. I used a win98 usb boot disk with the maindiag.exe, mf.bin and if.bin files on it. I also enabled IDE 32 bit compatibility in the bios and when I start the program, it gives me the following error:



So what am I doing wrong?

 

Why are you using a Win98 usb boot disc?

That sounds wrong already... if you need a bootable disc... you can definitely format floppy's so they are bootable.

 

often, firmware updates are only working with a dos-based boot disk. and the win98 bootdisk is a dos-based boot disk.

that looks just fine

but maybe the acpi / ide settings have to be changed in the bios.

(just in case, detlev, my mtrons only update with a dos-based boot disk)

 

Yes, this was after the Intel 1.5 firmware upgrade!

 

Since when has TRIM been only Intel? I thought the ATA TRIM command was just required of the OS and SSD?

 

no. if you can't, consider yourself getting cheated, and request a real bios. i haven't yet encountered a home or business bios that did NOT allow that change. get them to deliver something that is COMMON everywhere else.

i don't consider myself lucky for having a standard feature that everybody else has, too

 

did you some 98 boot disk you made or downloaded? because the instructions are pretty clear sbout using a usb drive, with the HP disk format tool.

 

Yes, but the O/S has to pass it to the SATA/AHCI driver which is where it breaks for my clients desktop AMD/Opteron setup.

 

I agree 100% - remember, this is why I originally thought SSD's? What's the big deal - after I saw it poking along in my clients desktop.

But, I don't see a BIOS update anytime soon from them?

For me, just easier to ignore AMD/nVidia baseds solutions and go with something that just works (Intel).

 

I have a Samsung 256GB with 19D1 on it, what is difference/improvements with 1901?

where can I find 1901?

 

Little question...

when I try to instal the Intel Matrix Storage drivers I just get an error saying they aren't meant for my laptop? on a PM965 chipset with an ICH8M "thing" - I have a feeling I'm using Windows Default drivers from 2006??? ... any clue?

(I was wondering if the SSD might not benefit)

 

Exact same problem here, trying to upgrade my Dell 256GB SSD (installed in Dell XPS Studio 16) which came with VBM151DQ firmware. I've tried with SATA option set both to IDE and AHCI in BIOS and also tried the flash from hard start so the drive would not be in locked/frozen state. I booted into DOS using a USB floppy drive.

For what its worth, I tried to run the Samsung flashers from Lenovo which immediately did recognize my drive (on Port 0) unlike maindiag.exe - of course I couldn't do the flash since it is for different models, but seems the problem is with the Samsung maindiag.exe utility not working through the Dell BIOS.

Any solution to this ? Really would like to upgrade my drive to at least the 1901Q since my unit (purchased in Sept) came with very old firmware. In the meantime I am using PD10 & FF Cleaner to maintain it.

Hopefully Samsung will have a better flash utility that won't cause issues in common laptops, along with the latest and greatest FW, I think VBM2401Q is out there on new production.