SSD for a ThinkPad

I was thinking for getting a SSD for my ThinkPad for the boot drive and throwing the 500GB 7200.4 into the UltraBay. ThinkPads of yore like mine limit the throughput on the SATA controller to 150mbps. I don't want to pay the premium for something like the X25-M because I won't be able to use it to its full capacity. I haven't really been following SSD market of late. I last had a OCZ Core drive. It's was terrible when writing. Thankfully I only lost a few bucks flipping it on eBay. Is there a drive that fits my needs? I don't really want something that's going to stutter while writing and I don't need the fastest drive because of the speed limit on the SATA controller. I'd probably want around 60GB for Vista or Windows 7. Then I'd probably have my music(4GB) and a couple movies on it, but that's about it. Thanks for any help.

 

well, the (i guess) best option would be to get an mtron 64gb ssd. but that's not cheap. 399$, that is.. (32gb would be 219$)

so i think a samsung would fit your needs more, but it feels slower than the mtron.

both of those should be fine for writing, and won't stutter ever.

a samsung mlc can be found for 200$ or so on ebay ( here) or the SLC version for 300$ ( here)

maybe you can find somewhere an slc version, too. haven't looked that close yet.

about ocz vertex and similar ones: i know they get capped on your system. i don't know if they like that. the intel doesn't like the capping resulting in some stuttering behaviour. maybe other disks that get capped behave in similar ways? you'd have to google that up, i don't know.

 

geeks.com and buy.com both have the samsung MLC 64gb for like $130. On a capped system you cant beat that!!! I would recomend vertex or like drive but as dave said i don't know how it would like your capped SATA...

edit: LOL turns out buy.com is just a reference to geeks.com

 

My recommendation would be a Samsung SSD. They don't stutter and you will be unlikely to get much better performance out of a faster sequential drive due to the caps on the R60.

I got the 1.8" SLC (MCCOE64G8-OVA) version off Newegg for $175, but they have deactivated the item so that's no longer an option. This was the SSD that the ThinkPad x300 originally used before switching to MLC.

Therefore, your best bet right now is probably the 64GB 2.5" MLC variant from Geeks.com @ $133. This is the 2.5" version of the SSD that Lenovo has been shipping with ThinkPads for months.

Performance on the MLC drive should be similar to the SLC variant. However, it will be about 10MB/s slower for both reads and writes and can be flashed fewer times (standard MLC limitation). You may want to read the SSD effects link in my sig to get an idea of the differences to expect between a Samsung SSD and regular HDD.

 

I'll put my vote down for a Samsung SLC or MLC as well. $133 is a steal for that 64GB MLC; I got mine for $200 just a couple months ago. I've been running both the SLC and MLC drive and they've been doing great. I don't really feel much difference between the two, and despite not being the fastest drives on the market, they're a huge step up from my old spinners.

 

After your previous experience with OCZ I can understand if you don't want to go down that road again but OCZ Vertex looks very promising. They've ditched the troublesome JMicron controller.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3535&p=5

 

definitely chose the Samsung. I have the 64gb slc in my T400 and it is awesome!! It has the lowest battery usage and does not stutter AND you can maybe find it for less than $200

 

Thanks for the replies. The Samsung does look interesting, but my current Seagate hits 80MBps while it looks like the Samsung does 90. I understand the seek times are much better, but I was hoping to get closer to the throughput limits. Since I didn't lose much on the Core, I don't hold a grudge against OCZ.

 

Too bad geek.com pulled the Samsung 64GB SLC for <$200. SSDs have constant sequential throughput and the Seagate figure should be a max value. Comparing values on CrystalDiskMark, 4K R/W can be up to an order of magnitude higher (HDDs have slow 4K writes, like 0.1 MB/s vs. SSDs having anywhere from 1-50 MB/s).

 

you really don't have to care about troughput. i have a sammy 220MB/s here, and a sammy 100MB/s. and an mtron at 80MB/s.

guess which one is fastest on daily usage? the mtron.. and i don't see a difference between the two sammies (except one is 128gb and one is 64gb). so just forget troughput. latency matters (and mtron is < sammy there), and possibly parallelism of the controller (so one slow read/write doesn't block the rest. like multicore systems, but for data-access ).

my next goal is the intels, they have lowest latency, and tons of parallel lines. should make some difference..

 

So which has the best latency?

 

Intel/Mtron > Samsung/Vertex it seems...

 

For those who have a SSD, how much of a difference does it make, which I know is subjective? I like the extra space on my Seagate, but who doesn't want things faster? On my old Core SSD, only the boot times seemed any faster.

 

This gives an idea: http://www.laptopmag.com/review/storage/intel-x25-m.aspx?page=6

 

nice link. i like the ocz under stress shows how terrible it is. and the sammy is a bit slower then, too.

i want my intel!!

 

Thanks for the link. Just looking at the numbers, I'd have to say it doesn't really look "worth it" to me. I'd probably very rarely be running in the stress or super stressed states. My machine is mostly for Internet, Music, Office and Movie type stuff. I'd don't even use virus software. An extra second and half in Firefox hardly seems worth even $130.

 

well, stress happens more often than you might think. instead of starting a program, starting a program by doubleclicking a file can mean more stress as it has to load two things in parallel.

and the extra second and half, you get that at each bigger data access on your system. all your apps, all your data, all your os switches and changes etc.

half a second here and there might not be much time, but gives a much better, much more snappy feeling about the os. worth 130$? i'd say yes. but that's your choise of course.

 

That's why I still use old fashioned hard drives. For my usage patterns (similar as yours) the benefit of SSD is quite small.

It was either 47 euros for 160GB WD or 130 euros for 30GB OCZ Vertex. I'm waiting for my WD16000bekt to arrive today.

 

You know, it's kind of like what it said on the AnandTech review. Going from HDD to SSD, you might not feel a huge difference, but going back from SSD to HDD, and you're gonna puke. And of course, there's the noise (or lack of it); that almost matters more to me than the boosts in speed.

I'm sure I don't save more than a couple minutes a day opening and closing stuff with my SSD(s), but every time I go back to an HDD system and wait for and listen to that wonderful HDD click-clack, it just drives me insane.

So maybe, it's more like drug use than anything of tangible benefit, but it's not like I'm telling you to start doing drugs

 

I've had like five Seagate's in a row and they've all been very quiet. Could be luck I suppose.

 

Can an SSD Save an Old Notebook? article by Laptopmag
http://www.laptopmag.com./advice/tips/can-an-ssd-save-an-old-notebook.aspx?page=1

Unfortunately they compared it with a 4200rpm hard drive.

 

oh yes, an ssd can save an old notebook. and this is the main marketing vector i target them, when talking with friends. all of them cry that their notebooks are old and slow and they want a new one.

then i say, i have a different solution for you

and this "unfortunately" is actually the main case i've started with ssd's at all. this was my starting situation.

 

OCZ Vertex looks very promising. It beats the Intel in some tests...
Full review here: http://www.laptopmag.com/review/storage/ocz-vertex.aspx

"We also compared the test results with those delivered by the fastest mechanical drive we’ve ever tested, the 7,200-rpm Fujitsu MHZ2320BJ (320GB)."

Interesting...

 

The Samsung, Vertex, and Intel all perform very close to each other (which is why they are considered the best of the consumer level SSDs), while Imation usually is behind them followed by the 7200RPM drive. Nothing really unexpected there, if you've been following the SSD thread.

 

How does those SSDs react in the ThinkPad with the SATA controller throttled?

 

I think there were some benchmarks in the Thinkpad forum? It pretty much only affects the sequential speeds (which for the most part are above 150MB/s).

 

If money were no object which SSD offers the best seek times without being throttled by the SATA controller?

 

Several SSDs get 0.1 acces time:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-flash-ssd-charts/Read-Access-Time-h2benchw-3.12,903.html

I think Intel X-25E is the fastest. OCZ Vertex may be the better deal.

 

you don't want to know.. (there are industry and server ssd's for wich you'd nearly have to win at "who wants to be a millionaire" )

i'd guess memoright would be best.

does an intel x25-e get stuttering and such actually? or "just" get capped. as the intel has the best access times anyways.