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

depends ur demand。
160G is OK for me。
I will buy intel 320G when it is released

 

I haven't heard back from Corsair yet either, Joker.

Meh. Samsung is working out the kinks and I would rather them do that and take their time then rush out some crappy, haphass firmware

 

Lol， dont use Corsair TRIM firmware, OCZ had said earlier that firmware was a pain in the . the GC one is pretty stable

 

Well, I would like the opportunity to find out for myself, really.

Just give me the chance to test it, Samsung! lol

 

Ditto, I'd like to see for myself how the TRIM beta firmware works.

 

Like I said, if/when I get the FW from Corsair, I'll post it and let you guys know

 

I was thinking about replacing this Patriot KOI Series SSD I bought recently until comparing benchmark results which overall I couldn't find any that were even remotely close.

See results and screenshots below:
PATRIOT 128GB 2.5" SATA KOI SERIES (FOR APPLE) SSD BENCHMARK TEST RESULTS

**************************************************************** CRYSTAL DISKMARK TESTS
****************************************************************
Software Used to Test: Crystal DiskMark 2.2

TEST #1: 5 Tests/100MB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer Size Read [MB/s] Write [MB/s]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sequential 296.6 556.5
512K 275.9 561.3
4K 20.08 20.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

TEST #2: 5 Tests/100MB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer Size Read [MB/s] Write [MB/s]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sequential 291.6 570
512K 278.8 519.7
4K 17.94 18.21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

TEST #3: 5 Tests/50MB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer Size Read [MB/s] Write [MB/s]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sequential 302.7 505.7
512K 265.4 467.8
4K 19.11 19.88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

TEST #4: 5 Tests/ 1000MB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer Size Read [MB/s] Write [MB/s]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sequential 301.4 461.9
512K 216.3 245.9
4K 13.54 16.26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


********************************************************************************
ATTO DISK BENCHMARK TESTS
********************************************************************************

Software: ATTO Disk Benchmark
TEST #1: Unforced/256MB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer Write Read
Size [MB/s] [MB/s]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.5 3176 4085
1 6809 8144
2 12964 14932
4 26811 26293
8 46637 46800
16 108044 90051
32 167157 166328
64 377487 283089
128 494927 305791
256 494927 270732
512 497102 274763
1024 411041 287140
2048 518796 269415
4096 528482 291415
8192 553648 276133
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

TEST #2: Forced/32MB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer Write Read
Size [MB/s] [MB/s]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.5 3091 4235
1 6259 8285
2 13341 15517
4 25866 25613
8 53360 51605
16 113829 103979
32 173791 174654
64 333046 283089
128 482917 312516
256 579953 296068
512 563383 301989
1024 543899 266437
2048 563383 270732
4096 482917 275567
8192 549526 287844
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

your number looks much different from it is supposed to be:

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7727&Itemid=47

 

Hi everyone,

My new laptop is going to arrive soon. I ordered it with 2 HP branded Intel X18-m G1 160GB drives installed.

Can anyone please give me a quick rundown of what I have to do to maintain their speeds? I know that they dont support TRIM being G1 versions.

I will not be running them in RAID, but as just C: and D: drives within Win7.

Is the GC fully automatic? Do i have to format them every year a certain way? Are there things to avoid?

Thank You.

 

How much did you spend, if you don't mind telling?

 

Prototype Marvell Sata 6 SSD tested on a desktop.

 

Avoid running excessive benchmarks. They're fast, you know they're fast, run Crystal DiskMark to make sure they're running as they should be, then forget about it and just enjoy the speed.

 

Exactly. That's why I posted. Have any other benchmarking software you want me to try?

 

not true, my sammy self refreshed itself fine under ubuntu

 

Grats on the new drive, have fun with it!

BTW, I noticed the term "Garbage Collection" is overused. By default, all memory systems need GC, hard drives/SSD drives/RAM. The one that you are looking for is "idle GC", because it does GC for the sake of cleaning up the cells in addition to whatever it needs to do to make it function.

On the Intel drive there's no "idle GC", it only happens when it absolutely needs to. But it has some intelligence so if your usage pattern(the way you use your computer) is relatively the same every day, it should get its speed back up somewhat.

 

hankaaron57,

I just got up and running out the door - but what guide was I supposed to send you?

Here is an overview of my 7K500 upgrade that may contain what you're looking for:

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=441674

 

hi ,
sorry my english it`very good bad.
So my benchmark with my Dell Studio 1737 ,P8600 with Intel Postville 80gb and Win7 64bit.
Whats you think?
It`s a little problem with the 4k parameter or that right?

Thanks and great from old germany

 

It looks fine to me

 

4K reads should be a bit faster, but I wouldn't worry much about it.

 

I heard Kingstone V series with JM controller has no issue on lag, is it true?

 

thats 80G intel, so it doest have any speed boost tho

 

160GB vs 80GB has only got faster write speed - the 80GB version get's the same read speed.

 

Dead reckoning, but it seems switching to the Intel X25 added about 45 minutes of battery life. I'm getting a hard 7 hours with the integrated graphics and now year old 9 cell battery. That's the same as Lenovo's pie in the sky battery life estimates for a brand new battery. I'm happy to say the least.

Also the Thinkpad is silent except for the always fun random bouts of Penryn whine

Despite that Marvell being more Frankenstein's Monster than actual prototype, it still manages to indicate future tech will actually take advantage of SATA 3. Hell, the read only comparison at least demonstrates the Intel really is scrapping SATA2's glass ceiling.

 

and till we get sata3 in laptops, it will be outdated and limiting again

 

so, i have the Samsung PM800, and from what I've read, it seems I could try to update my firmware with two different versions. im under the impression that there is one that supports beta trim, and there is one that supports GC and comes with a zero writing reset firmware as well. so what im wondering, is which do y'all think i should i try to install, or do you think i should just wait for dell/samsung to release something.

i do have a desktop available that i can use to connect the drive to the 0 sata port.

i do a lot of HD video encoding, loading 40+ GB files onto the drive, encoding them, deleting them, and moving the encoded files off, and i have noticed a slight loss of performance over the short time ive had it.

this is my current info:

 

Does anyone even know what version the beta TRIM fw is (from Corsair)?

 

Vbm19c1q .

 

Then how is the newer fw posted above (VBM19D1Q) not have TRIM?

D comes after C, right?

 

that is the firmware that came installed on the drive btw.

 

it seems not the case, D might be Dell OEM, C might be Corsair OEM, just my guess.

 

Congrats!

First, when you clean install Win 7, don't have both drives installed.

Second, just make sure that defrag is off for both drives.

(How? Click Start type defrag, Enter, uncheck the 'Scheduled defrag schedule'.

You may want to see this (especially the first post, of course, but also post #11 in this thread which talks specifically about a two drive system - just adjust the sizes which are based on a 500GB HD):

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=442289

 

If I'm reading German(?) right, the sequential speeds are fine, but the 4K r/w's are running about half.

Do you have the 'default' MS SATA driver installed or are you using Intel Matrix Storage Manager (or IMSM) or another SATA driver other than the 'default'?

Unless you're using the MS driver, then TRIM commands are not being passed to the drive and therefore your low 4K results.

You may want to try the 'not officially released' Intel Rapid Storage Technology drivers as they are much better the the IMSM drivers and are supposed to pass TRIM commands to the drive with Win 7, of course.

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=5555869&postcount=783

BTW, you want the 11.01MB download link.

Good luck.

 

During the last week, I have been not tweaking my drive, but merely "cleaning up" and deleting old crap and old software and unnecessary startup software and unnecessary indexing (still may put back Outlook indexing) and I must admit I am liking my SSD more and more. Wold love to do a full clean install of win7 64bit but alas, that is not for now. My driver is my Microsft 2006 number: 6.1.7600.16385

Is this good, bad, or neither?

I did flash the latest firmware and have run the optimizer.

Anyways, it really is great to be a part of the future. And to be at least in theory, an order of magnitude more reliable, due to no moving parts. Thank you Intel and this forum! And thank you Les!

 

Cape Consultant,

Just checking... your 'driver', is that for your SSD drive or for the SATA AHCI controller under the IDE ATA/ATAPI Controllers section in Device Manager?

 

lol, SSD is addictive,
After I first bought intel G1 80G in 2008, I have been keeping buying different SSDs to test the performance on my laptop..
So far, I am settling down to Intel G2 and Ocz Vertex, but I am looking to experience new SanForce based SSD.

 

Hey Tiller, that is for the drive itself. I will check now the other... Under Intel ICH8 SATA drivers, the same...

6.1.7600.16385

I keep thinking the drivers are the stock MS ones and that TRIM is not included, but I cannot prove it

 

@tilleroftheearth
At first time was the MS AHCi driver installed (pic e,f,g).

i`m follow your link and install the 11,1MB driver, the device manager look`s better then befor. (pic y)

but the benchmark is not better, some people say:
The dektop chipset has the fast performance, and
the Mobile chipset has not so good speed.

It`s that right?

here 2 nice tools:
Download Drive Controller Info ( http://blog.orbmu2k.de/)
http://www.alex-is.de/PHP/fusion/news.php

 

Cape Consultant,

Yes, AFAIK, this is the stock MS drivers.

Remember, TRIM is initiated by the operating system each time a file is deleted or a partition is Formatted (and not simply deleted/removed).

The stock MS driver you have allows the TRIM command to be passed from the O/S to all the firmware TRIM enabled SSD's in your system.

So, you should be good for now!

Cheers!

Thanks for the links, but again no German (understanding) here, sorry.

However, you have increased your 4K and 4K-64Third scores significantly!

Even the latency is lower for both reads/writes too.

What you need to check though is not the ATA 0 Channel for the proper driver version, you need to check the 'Intel ICH9M-E/M SATA AHCI Controller' for the right driver version (should be v9.5.0.1037).

If you don't use system restore (as I do not), then you may want to find the Intel SSD Toolbox and do a manual TRIM once. This will 'synchronize' your Win 7 system with your SSD and afterwards, each time you delete a file, TRIM will be able to keep your drive as fast as possible.

(Note: Right now, even though you have all the right firmware and drivers, the drive is already degraded and TRIM doesn't fix that until you write to every cell of the drive and then delete or move what was written. Then TRIM will 'clean' the degraded cells and give you back the speeds the drive is capable of).

If you do download the Intel SSD Toolbox, again, I repeat don't use system restore as it could lead to corrupted files. Also, do a before/after test to verify that the manual TRIM has restored the drive to full speed and let us see the results.

As to the desktop chipset having better performance than the notebook's version, that may be true, a little - but I would guess that an identical CPU/GPU/RAM/HD setup and mobile vs. desktop chipset comparison would be within the margin of error of each other, performance-wise. Realistically, it doesn't matter as we don't normally have a choice in a desktop vs. notebook chipset when we purchase our systems! Well, at least not in the system I purchase.

Good luck.

 

Engineering question: what does "sequential read" mean on an SSD?

On a mechanical hard drive, we know that sequential means physically adjacent on the same track so the head does not have to move between the beginning of the read and the end of the read (or perhaps just has to jump to an adjacent track).

Since an SSD doesn't have moving heads, spinning platters, or tracks, what the heck does sequential mean?

The reason I ask is that I have always been baffled at the dramatic difference in speed of an SSD on sequential reads and random reads. To an electronic chip, does it really make that much difference whether the memory nodes are adjacent to each other, or not adjacent on the same physical chip? Is there a difference in access time between retrieving data on the same physical chip as opposed to the chip sitting next to it on the board?

Just wondering. A question for a cold winter day. (No snarky comments from those from sunny latitudes, please.)

 

Huge difference?
There isn't such a huge difference on the Intel drive.

Part of the performance hit is the memory controller.

And of course you have a lot of memory chips - not just "1 large one".

 

T61Dumb,

No, adjacent doesn't matter on an SSD, very true.

What matters is the fact that it is a large file (in the 10's of MB's or larger).

Why? Because it slows down when 'creating' directory entries (very small file writes), folders (again, very small writes), but, once all that 'housekeeping' is done - it could read as fast as the CPU/interface can handle, or, it can write as fast as the cells/SSD controller/interface can handle as well.

So the total access times do effectively decrease on larger reads/writes compared to smaller reads/writes - because as fast as SSD's and memory chips are, the overhead required for proper management (including wear-leveling) is still significant.


DetlevCM,

I think he's comparing mechanical to SSD's?

 

What I meant was the difference between sequential read speed on an SSD and the 4k read speed on the same SSD. Anandtech for example recently reported the Intel G2 as 258MB/sec for sequential read, and 64MB/sec for random read. I would call that a huge difference. http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3667&p=5

SSD electronics have to jump from one electronic node to another in order to read, and from one chip to another among the 8-10 NAND chips on the board. Why is it slower for 4k reads?

We also know that SSDs become fragmented through use and they don't get defragmented. So a large file must be in a number of pieces. I'm at a loss to understand why that is so different than a random read on an SSD.

Where's an Intel engineer when we need one?

 

Explained as the 'overhead' in my post above.

 

yep. read tillers explanation.

there are two overhead parts: one is the ntfs file system part, and the other is the sata-command parts. both are not free.


the last part is, if you have to read only parts of the flash cells, i think that's slower than a full flash cell, too? unsure right now, but that could result in slower reads when randomly accessing, too.

 

davepermen, are you not feeling well? You're agreeing with me!

j/k!

Thanks for pointing out the NTFS angle too - those add up to a lot of small reads/writes which only makes our small read/writes that much slower and makes the larger files so much faster too.

For the part/full cell reads, that's interesting. I don't have any info on that, but you could be right - depending on how the controller is set up, of course.

Hmmm... thinking about it for a little longer - isn't the #'s of channels what makes the read/write small file latency go down? Maybe we need to get to the point where each cell is on its own 'channel' to make so called 'sequential' speeds match the 'random' small speeds - ah! said that backwards, but you know what I mean?

 

yeah, not feeling well.

j/k!

i never disagreed much on you. there where just details different.

good points here. and yes, if each cell would have an own channel, it would be 100% constant in speed. or so (the file system would still slow down by needing more accesses, but we get the idea..)

to be perfect, each bit would have to be accessible individually... theoretically

 

lol...

but, can you image the controller for that controller for that SSD? It would probably need an SSD just to run it and that would need it's own controller and that would need...

I guess Intel chose a compromise that would suit the real world? And also allow them to get out a product before not only it was obsolete, but also before their lives were over too? lol...

 

not even ram is 100% constant in terms of accesses. non-random accesses are faster, for similar reasons.

 

hey everyone i had a quick question.i am deciding between a intel 80gb g2 or 128gb kingston v-series ssd and they are same price and i know that the intel is better performance wise but i am worried about storage size and dont want to spend $500 on a 160gb intel. if i got the kingston how would the performance be long term without trim support? and does anyone know if it will get trim support?

 

$3k out the door.

$500 for the two ssds alone, not bad if they arent pieces of crap (just bad things ive heard about the G1)