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

if you don't feel a difference, switch it off.

 

I might, I'm going through the whole of this thread:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=189228

To see if anybody had something similar.

 

okay, good luck.

 

in other news, corsairs newest firmware supports trim, and they bash intel. i personally hope they have to put their firmware back offline as it has some bug that bricks corsair drives, just because they bashed intel needlessly. but, as we have users here owning such drives, i sure hope not that it really happens.

Corsair Trim Firmware

 

OCZ says they have that same firmware for Summits but not going to release it yet because they want to be extra careful.

 

haha. good luck to corsair, then

 

firmware is not beta but updater is beta, maybe ocz team hasn't done their job for this updater.

 

OCZ's Indilinx based SSD support seems to be pretty thorough but I think they wish the Samsung based Summit never happened. OCZ Summit support is condescending and chintzy--discussion of a firmware upgrade is officially banned on their support forum.

 

ya, some strange things are going on in the ssd land..

 

I think Intel should release they FW and updater as beta first, they could learn it from they own mistake (G2 SSDs).

 

i prefer it the way they did. the beta would just had stayed "it's your own risk", and people would borked their ssd all over the world (we all know how much anyone cares about 'beta being for testing on test systems'.. )


but yeah, they don't do public betas. they could. but they're more a hw company, and they can't do public hw betas. so they don't do public sw betas..

 

:::Makes note to self - never buy an OCZ SSD:::

 

makes note to you: only intel, only intel. only F*****ING INTEL!!

even with bogus firmware, they rock

 

Well, that was my point, duh!

I am giving up on the PM800's for now.....

 

i'm still waiting for my first g2..

 

I just ordered the G2.

Retail version was the same price as the OEM. What's the difference?

 

I believe there is a difference in support between OEM and retail versions - retail get support from the manufacturer.

OEM don't or something like that.

 

oems are in a brown ugly tiny box, put together in big packages.

retail is in a nice shiny box, blue, with INTEL SSD on it, and all that fancy.

 

Yes, I am truly in a panic I cannot help but think that if my read speeds were TWICE what they are then I would feel some of that "snappiness" that I so dearly wanted. Big dif between approx 100 and approx 200 MB'/s, or so I would think.

I guess I could do a fresh install anytime, but that would entail going back to my nice WD 1TB Black spinner for an extended period of time.

I am truly scared to have to reload anything by Adobe as they get so disgustingly complex with their upgrade/passwords/etc. that sometimes I have had to buy their program again which was only a small shade easier that trying to deal with their tech support.

I would possibly be able to gain valuable real world information for the "team" by a direct comparison of a cloned 32bit w7 as compared to a fresh 64 bit w7 install.

Thanks,

Dave

 

indeed, you would

 

sgilmore,

Thanks! Just ran this on my 7K500 mech HD and the results are much closer to 'theoretical' than HD Tune reported (and picked out by Phil (mod) as being much less than what he expected of a 7200 RPM HD).

Yet, what I find the most interesting is the 'Total Run Time' score. Mine 'scored' at 1:53.29.

Yes, I consider this a 'score' because it shows my 7200 RPM HD took almost 65% longer to run this test - not too bad in my estimation - than your SSD did with the insane numbers (insane compared to the mech HD's numbers).

Now, if 'winsat disk' does the same test (length and iterations) on each disk equally, this total time score is the one that counts for me, not the individual test scores.

This rough comparison (time to time) is the best comparison to 'real world use' I have seen yet. So even though random R/W's are 4000% faster on an SSD, that metric is irrelevant (as I know already) in normal use of a HD or SSD.

Comparing the time it takes to run 'winsat disk' may just be the HD/SSD benchmark I've been looking for'.

Thanks again!

 

and the fun thing is, it's the most bashed benchmark existing the windows experience index

and actually, it's quite good..

 

Yes, the experience would be worth it (doubly so if you shared it too), but I wouldn't be in such a panic if I were you.

Comparing different people's 'winsat disk' scores has only convinced me again that benchmarks are useless. Even a much faster raw score is reported as a lower WEI score!

As for your particular case Dave, I think your SSD finishes the test the fastest of them all (1:11.45) even compared to hollis_f's 'double the read speed' G2.

Even the much faster (supposedly) Corsairs take about 10 seconds or so longer to complete this test...

 

And retail comes with a 3.5" mount for a desktop with screws, manual, and a sticker!

 

well. maybe the winsat time is not the perfect measure? but i like the numbers it reports, it lets one interpret details.

benchmarks aren't useless. one should just not abuse them for what they're not.

 

i so want that sticker...

 

Rachel, may I kindly ask what forum rules I was breaking so I don't repeat it again? I checked the 'forum rules' link, but maybe I'm too dumb to see my own mistake.

I thought that I was offering some help and guidance, at least all I could offer.

I do notice that even now, nobody has offered anything more than I did.

Respectfully,

Happy Holidays!

 

how badly do you want it?

 

Nothing special about it.... can't decide whether to stick it on or not... currently held in place by cellotape...

 

nothing special about it? NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT IT?!!?

yeah, you can say that. you HAVE IT. so you can obviously say that!

^^

nah, but it's a cool sticker. if it would be bigger, i would put it on my car, for sure.

i actually don't know if i ordered OEM or retail.. we'll see.

 

Even though my client gave me his sticker from his 160GB G2 purchase, I still haven't put it on anything (don't normally anyway - no matter how much of a 'fan' I am of anything).

But, Intel still Rocks!

 

i'd like to have it as a t-shirt. geeky t-shirts are the best thing

 

If you're really desperate for it and not getting one I could mail you mine

 

I'll mail you mine if you admit WEI is a crappy benchmark

 

that's not fair!!

and not true!!



i come over to get it myself from you!! just shy 6 to 8 hours away i am.. i could hop in my car and get ya!!

actually, some nbr meeting would be fun, sort of..

but most likely weird as hell

 

If I was davepermen, and if he thought like me, then he would know that all benchmarks are crappy and he would have another Intel Rocks sticker.

 

and it would not mean anything, as i would know that it would rock in benchmarks, which are all crappy anyways.

a devils circle

 

Hey guys, trying to keep it a little on topic, speaking of undependable benchmarks, has anyone read this story:

See:
http://anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3693


Seems like they can't figure out why the benchmarks don't 'jive' with what should be really happening there too.

 

not really an ssd topic. there is a thread about pineview, we can discuss it there..

 

No, I didn't mean the story is on topic, sorry.

I meant how benchmarks don't reflect normal use (at all in my case).

Do the 'winsat disk' runs times matter or am I barking up a wrong tree again?

 

Suggest that closer to summer I was talking about it with Serg - in terms of pricing its feasible for him to come to Germany - which he wants to visit too at some point

Maybe we need to plan something - anybody fancy visiting the Ruhr Area?

 

wrong tree. the notes you get matter. a 1.0 is the worst, a 7.9 is the best. you get individual notes per test.

 

ruhrpot, nature one!!!

i would be there..

 

Okay, but even then, how could you explain (I know how Phil would ) why my 7K500 scores better (6.9) than a G2 (6.8) on one of the individual scores (the 'responsiveness overall' run).

Again, all benchmark scores seem like crap to me.

My Hitachi 7K500 winsat disk run:

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Windows\system32>winsat disk
Windows System Assessment Tool
> Running: Feature Enumeration ''
> Run Time 00:00:00.00
> Running: Storage Assessment '-seq -read -n 0'
> Run Time 00:00:10.73
> Running: Storage Assessment '-ran -read -n 0'
> Run Time 00:00:15.19
> Running: Storage Assessment '-scen 2009 -drive C:'
> Run Time 00:01:00.84
> Running: Storage Assessment '-seq -write -drive C:'
> Run Time 00:00:08.83
> Running: Storage Assessment '-flush -drive C: -seq'
> Run Time 00:00:05.46
> Running: Storage Assessment '-flush -drive C: -ran'
> Run Time 00:00:11.11
> Running: Storage Assessment '-hybrid -ran -read -n 0 -ransize 4096'
NV Cache not present.
> Run Time 00:00:00.01
> Running: Storage Assessment '-hybrid -ran -read -n 0 -ransize 16384'
NV Cache not present.
> Run Time 00:00:00.02
> Disk Sequential 64.0 Read 85.70 MB/s 6.3
> Disk Random 16.0 Read 1.11 MB/s 3.2
> Responsiveness: Average IO Rate 2.37 ms/IO 6.8
> Responsiveness: Grouped IOs 10.48 units 7.1
> Responsiveness: Long IOs 8.03 units 7.5
> Responsiveness: Overall 84.16 units 6.9
> Responsiveness: PenaltyFactor 0.0
> Disk Sequential 64.0 Write 96.97 MB/s 6.5
> Average Read Time with Sequential Writes 7.997 ms 5.0
> Latency: 95th Percentile 47.857 ms 1.9
> Latency: Maximum 413.502 ms 4.8
> Average Read Time with Random Writes 17.386 ms 2.9
> Total Run Time 00:01:53.29

C:\Windows\system32>

 

Since mine was the fastest so far at a minute 8 seconds gonna side with you on this one

Could be a faster overclocked extreme quadcore and memory may be a contributing factor to the overall time of the test.

 

6.3
3.2
6.8
7.1
7.5
6.9
0.0
6.5
5.0
1.9
4.8
2.9

well, your numbers vary much. ssds don't that much?

 

I think lower is better on that one...nevermind I think you are comparing to a G2 score that obviously had some issues with something else trying to access the SSD while the test was running as evidenced by his way higher than should be latency numbers.

 

That wouldn't explain my stock (no overclocked anything) VAIO and lowly P8400 though beating a G2 in 'anything'!

I don't see SSD's not varying much - they seem to vary within models more than mechanical HD's ever did, no?

 

well, all the intels from some posts before, and the one from gilmore, have no numbers below 6 actually. you have quite some much lower numbers.

 

btw, i got the post 2000 in here..