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

Depends on how good the flash modules are

It can be done - question is, is it necessary? And it can easily add a few tens or in a worst case hundred GB or writes to your SSD...

 

Thinking the files might get fragmented so much while installing, since different sizes of files gets written to available clusters. Thus the performance drop while looking for multiple clusters instead of looking for a single one in 0.1s.
Just a food for thought

 

It could - but shouldn't...
Unless you have a problem with your performance leave it.

 

Don't do it!

Because of wear leveling files won't be physically fragmented, just logically.

 

OK I will stick by your expertise.
Another question: do you work with files like excel word on your SSD and would they do any harm to SSD?

 

I do use them - can't see how they'd harm a SSD.

The temp files are only KB - those get spread out with wear levelling...

My photo editing is much worse.

 

So working with such files like excel, word and etc and saving them on a SSD OK?

Thanks for this, I won't.

 

Yepp no problem at all.

The only thing you don't really want to do is "fill it up, empty, fill it up, empty" continuously on purpose.

Else, use it just like a HDD.

 

Yes, definitely, most SSD's will handle those types of files very well.

 

So you got a be really carefull what you put on it. Put it for once and leave it.
I've gotta be really carefull then as I used to move things around so much in the past.

 

Not really.

As there is no application that will continuously fill it up and empty it.

I suppose Video Production,Music Production and Photoshop can put more wear than "normal" use on a SSD, but else? Don't worry.

And if you move things around - if you move it from drive A to B - it won't write it to any intermediary drives.

 

I meant myself moving large storage folders from one partition to another (my portable software. music, video folders and etc.). I used to move them around to utilise the HDD partitions better.

 

Torrents are another, I think. They do a lot of 4k writing and erasing, if I understand it right.

I have two SSDs in my machine, so if I do decide on photo editing or whatnot, I'll have to deal with the "extra" wear. So be it.

 

Well, with a SSD due to the lack of space too, find them a home and then "keep them" - on the other hand - partitions on a SSD? Why...
You don't need them - just one with the OS and place your files in the documents etc. folders - that works great.
The other thing is - if you move files around on one partition it just changes the file table

I think someone did mention them in the past...
Alternatively, don't use them the fewest uses for the are legal... so no real loss.
And Photo editing - I do that on my Intel - yes, it does add quite a few writes, but I'll worry sometimes later... in a year maybe... or later.

 

I wasn't talking about SSD partitions. I have partitions on my secondary HDD.
I have learnt too much for today thanks to you.

 

OK - so you have dual drives.

Well, if you move stuff around the HDD partitions it won't affect the SSD either.

Key thing with a SSD.
Don't regularly defragment - it can be done, but generally isn't necessary.

In terms of writes:
Only worry if you have something with excessive writes e.g. photo video editing.

Another way to "wreck" a SSD is excessive benchmarking - but else, just use it like a normal HDD and you'll be fine

 

This is one more thing to keep in mind for myself as I am a performance freak checking things time to time if they are OK.

 

Well, don't
(Unless you think something is actually wrong)

You'll just worry to no avail.

 

hey guys between kingston v+ crosair and intel ssd wise are they about equal

 

No. Go for the Intel

 

My SSD, Corsair NOVA, seems to have speeded up again. My test is opening a large folder with about 300 photos. It is usually pretty close to instant appearance of all the thumbnails.

For a bit there it seemed to lag, still not sure why. Maybe it needed to do trim and then did it?

Anyways, I am still loving it and really cannot see why anyone would use a spinner, with the possible exception of space.

 

Not really a useful, test... it will depend on whether the thumbnails are cached or not if you want to see those... and regarding opening such folders - they should be instant anyway.

 

Alright guys, I have just bought myself an Intel x-25m 80gb, * the performance gain for the 160gb just don't justify the price * Anyway, I swapped my old hd out and replaced the ssd. After a fresh install I do noticed that the superfetch is off and no new files in the prefetch folder. So, do you think windows successfully recognize it? I saw people were having problem with the windows not recognizing the ssd. Besides this, I would like to hear some recommendations regarding of how to use the ssd optimally. Can I fill up my ssd or should I reserve some space for it to run faster? If so, how many % should I be reserving? Your advices are much much appreciated.

 

There are Optimization Threads and a world of SSD information available everywhere (eheh). If you do not know if your system is recognizing the ssd, it must be do so wouldn't you think? I always suggest people do a Crytal Disk Mark bench and post it just to make sure all is well.

For the most part, Optimization will only either gain you some of your valuable ssd property back and/or speed up things such as boot time and ensure your ssd is in top shape. You will not see a significant performance jump in any particular thing with a ssd IMHO.

I would suggest that allowing about 20% of the drive to breath will get you the best performance and definitely shut down System Restore. I am running into people who are experiencing extreme slowing followed by lengthy Intel Toolbox Optimizations daily now where my suggestion to shut Restore down fixes their problem every time. I am confident that, in many cases System Restore allocation points prevent TRIM for working.

In any case good luck!

 

The 20% boundary - isn't that only Intels?

Aren't some other drives only able to reach top speed if 30-40% are empty?

 

True. Forgot about the caching. With a spinner, they would always be slower appearing. Or so it seemed.

I realize that is certainly not a real scientific test. But I am determined to go simply by "feel" on this drive. When I had a spinner, I almost never benchmarked it. I just tweaked it and tried to make it faster.

And since this drive is obviously faster by a nice fat margin, I am sticking with that plan.

I had a 16GB Mtron SLC. A early jmicron that I forced Newegg to take back. An Intel G2 that I liked, but had just cloned an old install with all its weirdness's and never had time to do a fresh install, which I felt would have been the only way to fairly judge that drive. The benchmark specs on it were good, but had to sell on Ebay for bills after a short time with it.

ANd although I cannot really remember the "feeling" of the Intel drive, I do feel that this Corsair NOVA, for my uses, is definitly in the same ballpark. Now, alhtough I did clone to this Corsair, it was a very fresh install, as compared to the time worn clone to the Intel drive.

One reason I clone is that I really want to get a feel for how "out of the box ready to go" these drives are. Because as I roll them out to clients, clients are for the most part NOT going to want to do a fresh install. Even though we here on this board know that a fresh install is ALWAYS best With clients, they need to have all their stuff and it would often take too much of their money to have me completely rebuild their system. And usually they have no CD's for Windows, Office, etc

The rarely SSD's often required new firmware and serious tweaking and then still did not work, and I am very glad to see that is changing. I am very happy with my cloned drive. 2 points for Corsair!

 

I don't think that there isn't anything concrete but, generally when I recommend this, it seems to be the magic number to getting someone back to full speed.

You may have a point though and I may watch a bit more carefully if i should increase the percentage recommended free for other than Intel drives.

 

Humph. My Crucial disconnected again when I opened up Steam and L4D2 started updating. This is getting annoying.

Is it RMA time or am I overlooking something?

 

I'd just say send it back.

A SSD is supposed to be like a HDD in terms of setting it up and using it too - so if it doesn't, just send it back.
Why should you do the beta testing?

 

I guess you're right. Sigh. Looking like a week or so without a game drive.

 

It started with software.... but its moving into every other department...

Products that aren't properly tested with 20 or more issues are released... and people are expected to test the product...
Its a bit ridiculous...

On the other hand... its people attitudes to blame - "the must have the newest now", just to be quicker than anybody else...
No matter if its rubbish or not, and companies cater to those needs

 

I thought the Indilinx Barefoot was proven, though? Hmm. I'm wondering if GC could be the culprit.

 

Looks like Crucial is planning to release a firmware fix for the TRIM bug on Tuesday May 4th.

Crucial's RealSSD C300 TRIM woes almost over :: TweakTown

You have the Indilinx SSD from Crucial? Ouch! The latest firmware release from Indilinx has data corruption issues and there is currently no fix.

 

I have a question, if I may, thats runs a bit off topic yet is still ssd related. I have been asked to provide input on what many feel is the best total benchmark program for the ssd in gaining a typical user methodology type testing....specific to SSD testing.

I know of PC Mark Advantage which runs common tasks such as media loading times and whatnot but does anyone have any input on others that have a pleasant appearance and cover typical users scenarios?

The difficulty I have with many in reviews is that they really arent user friendly and, for the most part, are unappealing...

Thoughts at all on software or specific companies that do this sort of thing and maybe have software to compile and graph the typical programs such as crystal. ATTO ASSSD and whatnot?

Tx ahead.

 

The problem with PCMark Vantage is that it costs $20, supposedly you can run the trial once but I was never able to get a proper result running the one shot trial.

AS SSD is pretty good for most users because it tilts scores highly in favor of the 4k random tests. Most users will benefit the most from high 4k random write scores and high random and sequential reads of all sizes.

I don't think there is an all encompassing benchmark for all usage requirements but again most users will benefit the most from fast access times and those high small write scores.

 

2x100gb VertexLE RAID0 IOMeter 4k random write test aligned on 4k boundries. If you are using Windows 7, writes are aligned on 4k boundries.

 

To be honest, the total methodology of benchmarking isn't a benchmark per say.
The reason the Intel drives are at the top of the heap is because of their consistent performance across platforms, chipsets, SATA modes and the like. It doesn't matter what motherboard or chipset you have you will still get the same benchmarks with an Intel drive. Every other drive I have tested has issues with various testbeds.

In particular, most SSD's show performance issues in IDE mode, anybody with a non -- Windows OS is running in IDE mode. Intel drives perform the same in IDE as they do in AHCI enhanced.

 

I haven't had data corruption, I don't think, it's just that sometimes my drive will disconnect.

Curse Intel and them not having a 200GB+ drive. I would have jumped on that immediately instead of this troublesome Crucial.

 

Reason:
Intel tries not to release half backed products as some other manufacturers did...

Another reason - there still isn't enough competition for their drives.

 

@ DetlevCM

+1 on the 2nd one

@ Forge

I'm curious why Crucial over Samsung 256GB?

 

It was cheaper ($380 versus $425+ for the Samsungs) and the reviews/specs of it made it look perfectly stable, so I went with it. If the drives as a whole are borked, I'll RMA it and resell it. I still have my Hitachi 7k500 around. I wasn't comfortable with the heat (43c) after I gamed on Crysis for an hour, but eh, I don't do it often. Then again, 43C isn't all that hot, is it.

I don't know though. You recommend Samsung over Crucial?

As for Intels, I eagerly await a 320GB. Even if the speeds aren't any better than the G2 series, I'd still go for it in a heartbeat.


On a secondary note, it looks like the newest IRST drivers don't pass on TRIM, despite what some techs on the Crucial boards said to me.

 

But on the Intel drives they apparently do?

 

Could say yes since I haven't seen a Samsung SSD (256GB) having any performance issue except for the older firmware which has no TRIM feature.

Just like my current Samsung SSD, its still performing smoothly after taking some abuse. (wrong formatting, secure erased multiple times, filled all 256GB space multiple times, reinstalled OS multiple times etc.)

Still getting 13.5 sec windows boot time.

TRIM on RAID setup: Not sure on this since I'm not very keen on going that route but just days ago I saw someone said the newest IRST still can't pass the TRIM command on RAID setup.

 

Actually, the Intel drive doesn't, either. After two weeks without running the SSD cleaner tool, the Intel got about 89 MB/s on the CDM sequential, and after I did the toolbox it hit 102 MB/s (This was the only number I remember off the top of my head; I forgot the other scores).

And the TRIM isn't on a RAID array. My SSDs are separate.

I would rather use the MS AHCI drivers, but they make my eSata hotswap all funky (I think I've said this like twelve times this week, haha), and hotswap is something I use fairly often.


And, I don't know. I'm so used to the reliability of the Intel drive I might just ditch the Crucial and replace the 7k500. It never gave me problems, but I'm always worried about the high temperatures. I hit 46C once when doing a virus scan, and that was with a cooler.

Choices, choices.

 

That's strange - I once didn't trim my Intel over a few hundred GB and it didn't loose any performance - at least not in any noticeable way, and CrystalDisk Mark was still over 100MB/s write for sequential, and oddly enough the 4K writes got quicker???

It shouldn't "degrade" that much.

 

What drivers were you using? If TRIM was running in the background you wouldn't have taken a notable performance boost from the toolbox since you were TRIMing.

And to be honest, I didn't notice any different performance. The numbers were all that indicated that I was "getting slower".

 

Vista Doesn't matter which drivers.
And the CrystalDisk Mark was pretty similar - not such a large difference as you had, and oddly enough 4K reads and writes were faster.

 

My 4k didn't change much, that I remember. But I did notice that the sequential and 512 writes were definitely lower when I benched.

I don't know. Maybe Vista just isn't as stressful on an SSD?

 

I don't know... did you "tweak"? (Except switching off Scheduled Defragmentations)

It shouldn't be much different.

 

Turned off superfetch and indexing, too. Defrag was already disabled from the get-go.