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

Any deals on the Intel 160GB right now? The price gauging is ridiculous.

 

I'm on AHCI mode. Tried it with both Win7 and the Intel drivers.

 

This is a known problem with the G1's. Since you say it is 'well used', I would vote for copying your data off, secure erasing it and reinstalling everything from scratch (sure, use a clone/image if you want, but I prefer a clean install so that Windows can have a chance to poll the performance of its hardware and install/setup itself properly).

If you still have a problem after that - you still have your Intel guarantee, right?

Cheers!

 

Clean install of Windows 7 ultimate on 40gb Intel took 18 minutes. Ran winsat disk as soon as the desktop appeared, no chipset or video drivers. Check out the 16k random reads -- more than double my 60 gb Summit. It takes longer to install stuff on the 40gb Intel but once you get your stuff installed it is fast!

 

AS SSD Benchmark 40gb Intel -- my Summit scores 131 in this bench.

 

Concerning guarantee... do all G1's have this problem, or is it a "faulty" disk? I can hardly RMA my SSD for something that's common with these disks.

Secure erasing would probably do the trick until every part of the SSD is used again, but then the same behaviour should return, right?

 

Oh, sweet. Well, that saves me much time.

Very much appreciate it! Yeah, these Samsung's have good resale value.

~Ibrahim~

 

Not with the latest firmware installed it shouldn't (if you don't abuse it, of course, running benchmarks etc.).

I don't think they will accept it for RMA if you don't try a secure erase though?

Good luck.

 

Just want to point out that he didn't save you time - you just know how it performs on his system and setup/use. You still don't know how it would be on yours.

Did you see the post above by sgilmore62? The Summit scores 131 and the 40GB value Intel scores 318. Something to think about, huh?

Cheers!

 

Haha, that's very true. However, I'm sketchy of buying an Intel now with Sandforce on the horizon which seems to blow the Intel SSDs out of the water except on some enterprise applications.

Interesting! Doesn't the Summit use Samsung MLCs? My score is considerably lower:



I will wait a few months to see how SandForce is priced. If I'm lucky, this Samsung SSD will net me good money, seeing how it is one of the encrypted kind.

~Ibrahim~

P.S. And what does "31K - BAD" mean? Something important?

 

man, SanFroce gonna kick all other SSDs .
I have a sample here, and its lightening.

 

I'm excited.

I think I made a mistake, guys. This should be Microsoft, right?



Do I just need to like uninstall and restart?

Damn it.....knew that looked funky.

 

@ ikjadoon: 31K - BAD means unaligned disk, see guide in my signature

 

anyone know if this is intel 80GB?
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Produc...yMark=False&VendorMark=&Page=1&Keywords=intel

it's only 198$...

 

@Tomy B.

Posted in that thread, I have some "Open Drive Failed" error.

~Ibrahim~

 

It would seem so, unless this info is incorrect:

 

yah, I saw that just after I posted... I think I'm going to buy it. it's an 80GB intel + goodies for a decent price!

 

yes, it is a 1.8" 80gb Intel G1 drive that comes with a 2.4" and 3.5" enclosure's for multiple interface adaption. Some users have complained that the cables that come with it for desktop applications limit it's bandwidth. The 40gb Intel drive comes with a 3.5" enclosure and screws for desktop applications.

 

really? what cables?

 

idk, it was in the user reviews @ newegg.

 

actually, it looks like it's just an issue with SATA I laptops... still thinking about it... 200$ for a 80GB intel... these are still 300$ here...

 

Never saw this before, more info! http://ssdtechnologyforum.com/index.php

PS, Dave P I have a Dell i7-860 on the way. Interest free load from Dell Than, I get my G3 and WOWOWOW!

 

Does anyone know why I don't see "msahci" on the driver spot there? I realize I need to align, but why isn't there anything there now, after I'm now on "Standard AHCI 1.0 Serial ATA Controller". Thanks in advance,

 

Here is my 80GB G2. The description of the drive looks little different compared to yours. The software doesn't state AHCI for mine; when I put the cursor over "iaStorV", it shows Intel RAID controller. Am I in AHCI mode? Is there a way to tell (other than BIOS, because there is no option there)? Thanks!

 

Try downloading the latest version of AS SSD Benchmark.
http://alex-is.de/PHP/fusion/downloads.php?cat_id=4

 

You can right click on SATA Controller in device manager to see which drivers are compatable with your system. Right click SATA Controller>update drivers>browse my computer>let me pick from a list.

You will see a list of compatable drivers. I would choose Standard AHCI 1.0 Serial ATA Controller if it is available. If it is not there will be one that says IDE. Either of the standard drivers supports TRIM be it the IDE one or AHCI.

 

I noticed while testing the 40gb Intel that it operates in UDMA mode 6 while the Samsung drives only support UDMA mode 5.

 

Hmm, does that mean my scores would increase if I realign my 160GB G2? Because they seem reasonable already.

 

@ hollis_f: they should increase, but I can't say how much

 

Why Intel makes pressure on KINGSTON to not deliver firmware update for TRIM for KINGSTON 40GB SSD ?
http://communities.intel.com/thread/9969?tstart=0

 

because kingston made pressure to be able to sell first? eating the cake and wanting it, too?

 

Apparantly the 80 and 160gb Kingston drives are co-branded with Intel but the 40gb Kingston drives are not. Nowhere in the Kingston 40gb literature does it say Intel. Newegg has the 40gb Kingston SSD at $129 -- the same as the X25V. If consumers stop buying the Kingston in favor of the TRIM enabled and SSD optimizer enabled X-25V the price of the 40gb Kingston should drop. If the 40gb Kingston drive drops to less than $100 is it a good buy? I think it would be because it still has wear leveling to keep the performance up but I'm not buying any drive that doesn't have a simple means to reset the NAND like with the SSD optimizer.

 

Thanks for the reply.

Here is the screen shot of my Device Manager. I dont see a SATA controller entry (only Storage controllers is there if they are the same thing)


When I click on the Storage Controllers entry I see the first picture. The second one is the only option I get when I click on the Update Driver>Let me choose, etc. No mention of the "Standard AHCI 1.0 Serial ATA Controller".





Just in case, this is what I see when I click on the disk drives and look at the driver for the SSD:

 

Is the speed difference between the 80GB G2 and the 160GB G2 noticeable and worth it?

 

Noticeable... I suppose only in sequential writes really... but then its 110 vs. 70+ (80) or MB/s - so if you do a lot of sequential writes - then yes.

 

mostly, the space gain per disk is worth it. else, i would buy 4x40gb intel drives, and raid0 them. but this only, if i have the space for 4 disks

 

lol... That's funny!

I'll consider a SandForce based SSD around 2012 or so - if they're still around and haven't imitated OCZ's to any degree.

Performance means nothing if the technology isn't dependable and reliable - something which only Intel has so far for consumer level SSD's.

Cheers!

 

ASAIK, you can't be using an iaStorV (RAID) driver without being in AHCI mode.

Cheers!

 

yeah, i don't consider the sandforce being a "blowing intel away" ssd. it is a a-bit-better-maybe-ssd than the intel, but i'm still happy with mine. in reallife, the sandforce gains are close to zero, so i have no need to upgrade, or not consider intel in the future.

they're stable, reliable and trustable. and they're hell fast.

so sandforce might be winner (by cheating, a.k.a. compressing) in some cases. but doesn't make the intel not close second.



edit: according to the latency numbers, a sandforce has a 50% higher latency, so a 50% lower snappiness-tendency than the intel. so in experienced performance, the intel might still lead.

 

I hope the intel's are not blow out of the water I just bough a M-18x 80GB G1(it was a great deal!) and it came with a 2.5inch adapter.

 

I see I'm among an Intel crowd, LOL.

Yeah, it isn't out yet. Of course there aren't going to be great tests on its reliability or dependability. That can be said for every single product in the history of the world when it was in production.

In some places, it beats the Intel handily. Others, it doesn't. But beating Intel, obviously, is a coveted accomplishment. Maybe "blowing out of the water" was my optimism kicking in too much, but that Anandtech review was pretty glowing.

Some people would call Intel's parallelism cheating...just perspective there.

But, like you said, end-performance is what matters. I don't care if it has to kill a kitten every time I turn it on, it just better be fast, lol, jk.

And if all else fails it should at least temper the price premium Intel charges for its SSDs.

~Ibrahim~

 

Thanks very much for the clarification!

 

I buy intel SSD because they are proven reliable my other G.skill died with in a year...

I agree if it takes compression to go fast I'm fine with that, at the end of the day speed is what I want, I don't care how it's achieved.

Sandforce will hopefully bring prices down. then I can afford to RAID 0 some intel's.

 

if parallelism is cheating, then all dual/quad etc cores would be cheating, too.

i mostly care about snappiness. there, intel delivers the world leading features

ssd:
up to 10 parallel jobs for great non-blocking experience
0.065ms random read access latency for very fast response

i5/i7/i9:
multicore for 2x,4x,6x the speed over a singlecore high processing task
hyperthreading for having 'always' another pipeline free to handle your mouseclicks and such even if the cpu is loaded with work
overclocking for if something suddenly blocks for a tiny moment (always single-thread issues), it gets a cpu supported boost to get over the block quickly


those are 5 points that, together, give me the most snappy computing experience ever. and that, sir, matters to me.

as i work with mostly non-compressable data on my ssds, too, the sandforce would lose their cheating.

why do i call sandforces cheaters, and not intels for their parallelism? because everything the intel ssd does is predictable INDEPENDENT on the actual data. if i process a movie, an audio file, some database data, or what ever, it all will have the same specs on which it works.

if i want to win on a sandforce, i should fill a huge file all with zeroes. it would copy at thousands of gigabytes a second (not really) onto the sandforce, as it could compress it to tiny bits. if i copy a fully compressed movie onto it, it will be slow.

and that, sir, is what i call cheating. any file i copy onto my intel will get written with 70MB/s if its a quite big file. the sandforce will vary, depending on the file. and that sucks.

and, it doesn't deliver the two other numbers the intel delivers, both very important to experience the speed of an ssd based system, a.k.a. SNAPPYNESS and RESPONSIVENESS

 

compression is data-dependent, so your speed will vary.

he then talks about the majority of writes aren't compressed. well, this depends.

one could try os file compression to see how this results on an intel, and get the same speedboost, sort of

 

@yuio

See, that's fine and I'm sure I would make a decision like that if my SSD died, but see how that's also a generalization? That you bought an Intel SSD because your G.Skill failed within a year? I'm sure you had other reasons why you picked it, but at the same time, there is at least a minute amount of generalizing going on. Perfectly normal, just pointing it out.

@davepermen

The issue is that while Sandforce DID slow down during the tests with compressed files, it doesn't even matter: it's still faster than the competition. That's like having a drive that does 500GB/s sustained, but sometimes it will drop to 350MB/s with certain files. No one really cares that it drops because it's still faster than what's currently available. If this performance drop is too much for you in that it selectively is slower (but still faster than everything else) in some tests, that's quite all right.

Granted, it did drop below the Vertex, but I think we're having an Intel debate here.

The best way to settle this argument: wait. Let's just wait for someone to do a review with extensive testing on all file types and see what happens. I mean, there are still a few firmware releases to go, I would imagine. If using the Sandforce controller for YOUR needs will slow down your productivity, go with whatever is best for you. If Intel works better for your compressed files, yeah, definitely, get an Intel!

But let's not outright bash the product on a circumstance that so far has not shown to be a game-ending detriment as it seems to be for you.

At the same time, you're more than welcome to point out issues that Anandtech didn't seem to give enough warning about....

~Ibrahim~

 

i just say it's not wow so amazing above the intel. the only thing where intel sucks is write performance (sequencial at that), and beating it there is nothing new.

for anything else, the sandforce is only at the lead thanks to it's compression. it's about even with the intel else (and will be interesting to see which benchmarks use random data, and which use somehow compressable data, and how they will differ).

so all i say is, okay, it's a bit faster. but nothing woah i have to kick my intels aways. if it would be 2x intel everywhere (that means 0.035ms latency, very important to gain percieved speed), then i would be like wow. this is just, well, a nice improvement over the now over 6 months old intel. that is a, yeah, nice, but, meh.

i'm not saying it's a bad drive. i say it's a drive that is designed to match certain environments more, and imho, focuses on wrong things to gain high benchmarks. latency is higher than on the intel, and if you calculate away the compression it's not much faster. so all in all, it won't be felt better than the intel as the results mostly are diminishing.

it's no game changer. it's a nice catchup. but no game changer. the intel was, back in it's days. so was mtron.

 

Have to agree with davepermen here (again!).

SandForce doesn't offer game changing performance and actually raises quite a few warning flags for me - (compressing data, writing only what it thinks the O/S needs stored, etc.).

Mostly SandForce is unproven in real world use. I agree Intel started like that too, as did everyone else, but in a little over a year Intel was unbeatable when you need to trust the SSD you're buying. Now, two years later that 'trust' is almost unshakable.

This is a generalization of course, but that does not negate the fact that if you trust your business to your equipment, Intel has rarely, if ever, let us down.

The 'overall best performance in a workstation setting' award is a nice, but almost extra bonus - that's how much the trust of Intel products is worth to me.

We need to 'bash' a product because we already have leaders that have achieved more, earlier and with less manipulating of our data. A key point that I would like to know is how the power usage is with these controllers. This is key because the first or second benefits mentioned for SSD's are their meager power requirements (which not all models live up to).

I have noted before that if Intel ignored/relaxed the power envelope for their SSD's (for desktops at least), then they could probably double their performance tomorrow on the existing designs - both G1 and G2 versions. So a faster SSD doesn't make me salivate until the power requirements are included too for the given amount of performance.

Also, do not forget that companies leapfrog each other as a natural state of evolution. When Intel's answer to the SandForce (if it becomes a real 'force' in SSD's) becomes available, you'll not only have all/most/more of the benefits of the new challenger, but you'll also have Intel's track record to back up whatever path they'll choose to follow.

Yeah, its hard catching up, let alone surpassing the leader - but from a business perspective it is potential suicide if you 'gamble' on the challengers too.

Cheers!

 

Haha, all right, we can agree with that.

But I'm all for lower prices, so I am rooting a bit that this Sandforce controller puts considerable pressure on Intel.

 

one thing i've fear about compression is this: when ever something compressed gets corrupt, you have about 0 chance to recover it.

what if something goes corrupt on the sandforce. what's with the data on there, then? unrecoverable? well, that would be fun