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

haha haven't checked the shipping well, it was late night

 

64gb summits shellshocker $129.00 after $30 mail in rebait expected to end, 1pm. I would buy two and RAID0 at that price but i don't like mail in rebaits. so i think i'm still waiting for maybe the intel or another deal...

Edit: And to daveperman's point, it seems that buy pricing, most would agree that the samsung drives are not as fast as the Indilinx drives. even though it was originally intended for the samsungs to be more expensive do to the reputations of both companies in the SSD market...

 

no worries, I just wanted to make sure some poor sole didn't buy it with out knowing that they are going to have to come up with 60$ for shipping.

I was going to order that last week, untill I saw the shipping.

 

i should start selling stuff for a dollar.. and not include shipping cost

*evil laught*

 

hehe, you know it will likely work.

 

The shipping on the unit in the link was $9.95 when I checked it.

 

There's a distinct difference between benchmark result and real experience using the drives. Most of the time, it's not going to make a difference, but in my case, the Samsung drive actually feels snappier than the Intel drive, mainly while I do a huge file transfer from an external HDD (4GB+, 30MB/sec average). The low sequential write speed of the Intel becomes the bottleneck, and the computer actually stutters a little bit, while the Samsung drive never stutters in this situation, nor in any other.
Again, that's how it is for me. If you guys don't encounter the same situation as me, then all the power to you
Also, even though the Indillinx drive may be faster than Samsung, its power consumption really turns me off, especially since most of my laptops are ultraportable, with power consumption of around 9W.

 

well, i don't do large file transfers often.. the large files are on my server (movies and such) and stay there, normally.

but i would not expect to feel a snappiness difference on large file transfers. they have nothing snappy in them anyways (but never had stuttering while doing it at all).

but when clicking stuff, opening stuff, manipulating stuff, saving stuff, all sorts of things (like changing the mp3 tags on a file while in explorer, just as a random example), the intel always responds on the click, the samsung always feels like "oh sorry, what have you said?".. it seems like it's not "with me", always a slight delay when i do such stuff with it. that is, what defines snappiness. a drive that acts like it's active with me, trying to serve me best.

and interestingly, still, one large disk write, namely hibernation, is faster on the intel than on the samsung..

 

HAHA newegg took the summit off of shellshocker but the price is the same! bummer its a d@amn OCZ mail in rebate...

 

It's not the sequential writes that's slowing down transfers between HDDs for Intel. It's something else, but I don't know what it is.

See, when I'm accessing the 2nd drive I have, it freezes the application(My Computer in this case) for a few secs and the icons won't appear for another few. But when I had the WD360 Raptor drive, there was no such thing. Raptor has nowhere near sequential write speed of the Intel drive, why does it not freeze in such a simple operation?

 

I hear ya. In general, I experience many little issue here and there with the Intel drive, which I do not experience with all three of my Samsung drives. That's why I still prefer Samsung over Intel. Again, that's how it is for me, and I'm not out to change anybody's opinion

 

It actually used to happen more often but with the firmware update it barely happens now. It does show up much more frequently when the capacity is filled to over 60% or so.

 

Hm, no such issue here. you're on sata2, right? (because back with the first intels, some had issues like this on sata1..).

and the reason, the samsung never has such problems, is, it's just too slow right from the start *now i have to run away really fast.. *

but i see the samsung that way, a slow, but steady "battleship". always moving, always progressing, no issues delivering it's stuff. just not that fast at turning to your 'target'.

but i never had the intel yet seen stuttering at all.. maybe because i have the 160gb one?

 

I've tried filling up the Intel drive to 90% before, and that's when more issues ensue, like lagging.
Also, I can't restore a partition using an external HDD via Acronis while using the Intel drive, but can do it just fine using the Samsung drive.
Yes, I know that Samsung drive always runs in degraded mode, but that makes it more comfortable to me, because I can expect performance not to vary too much.
I do think that you having the 160GB having to do with it, mainly because you never fill up the drive past 50%, correct?

 

it's around 50% or so, yes. but had more data on it sometimes. up to 70%, down to 30%.. that's about it.

the 80gb version would be too less for me, then

 

Wait, so the Samsung always runs in degraded mode, but the Intel needs to be filled above ~80% or so to start feeling it with it? Because as I recall, the firmware that helped fixed the G1's degraded performance still degraded from a clean install like 5% or so. Just curious about all this because you guys started mentioning different brands vs. degradation.

 

intel before firmware update == JUST FORGET IT, ITS THE PAST!

intel now: performs very fast, doesn't dramatically degrade, but does degrade when filled.

samsungs don't "degrade", but still, any disk has more work to do when filled, as the free space options get reduced, the managing of the wear leveling gets more complicated. or formulated different: a full ssd behaves like a fragmented, filled disk.

 

Nah, this is nothing like it. It doesn't seem to show in synthetic benchmarks. I have a feeling on next format I will reset the drive back to 74.5GB(currently at 61.1GB thinking it might help but that was before the firmware update) so I can have a little bit more breathing space.

 

I'm extremely disappointed! This from the guy that can run vista just fine with 16-32gb!?

 

So, tell me. If the Intel drives are light years ahead of the competition, then why haven't other SSD manufacturers go out of business already?

 

shhhhhht!!!!

of course i could run it well, but now that i don't have to care, i happen to have i think 3 os images lying around, and some other stuff..



i have yet to experience a slowdown. i filled my mtron sometimes to over 95% (the 32gb that where), and never noticed anything except a sudden "oh crap it's slowing down?! "blam no storage free" well that could be the cause ".

and so far, i haven't experienced a slowdown on intel as well, but never maxed it's storage out so far, and have no stress at doing so.

 

why isn't apple out of production? why sony? why tons of other companies that just sell overpriced stuff that you could get for cheaper, with similar sometimes better quality somewhere else? why are the car companies still around while others are much better?

because people buy it.

that's why.


and it's not lightyears better. it just does a lot of things out of the box right that others are still learning (ocz now "uh we do garbage collection like in the intel first specs a year ago *cough*" ). and it performs very well, still hitting tops at the benchmarks.

but lightyears, no.. what makes it lightyears is, it's from intel. a company that stops releasing it's new flagship product because of some tiny firmware error for over a month, just to not bring some customer into trouble. a company that states "that's how our ssd behaves", and it does behave that way. a company that doesn't sell crap crap crap till one day, it hits non-crap (ocz).

intel is more trustable than ocz or the others in the way they act. slow, well thought out movements. not put-the-next-cashcow-out-no-matter-if-it's-not-mature- again.

 

agreed....

 

Ocz offers value for money, you can spend more and get better that's true.
But I have no complaints about the ocz vertex here; they're quick to release firmware updates and their customer service seems quite good so far too.
This thread could do with a bit less ocz bashing and intel fanboyism

 

no, it couldn't. they messed up the ssd world for over half a year with their lies and products. they deserve all bashing

 

I'll stop being an intel fanboy when one of two things happens:

a) OCZ stops releasing betas (as that's what they are) on people as gold releases and then progressively implementing "post-op" fixes... I'm not a guinea pig... If OCZ wasn't alwAYS IN AHURRY TO BE #1 TO RELASE, THEY WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING HALFWAY DECENT ON THEIR HANDS!

b) Intel actually lets a pile of crap through and doesn't recall it to fix it. The fact that intel was smart enough to recall all the ssd's in spite of it being a problem for a small minority shows their dedication to their stuff. If it's not absolutely perfect, it doesn't see the light of the day.

 

Then why is 80gb intel G2 the same price as 60gb vertex? and why do they have all different versions of the same drive and charge more for each? you just haven't followed their ssd business practices long enough. I was of the same thought a year ago...

 

Some people don't mind doing some legwork especially if it can save them quite some money.
The new intel drives are atm the fastest consumer grade ssd's (well once theyre fixed ofc) they do ask quite some money for them tho even when they're cheaper to make now.
Price/performance wise the ocz vertex is hard to beat atm at least that's my opinion.
About ruining the ssd market, I think artificially bloating the prices of this "new" hardware ruins the market the most for consumers (and all companies are guilty of that).

 

Vertex is not priced competetively with the new intel pricing so you are way off there...

 

Here in Holland the OCZ Vertes is € 180 for 60GB. Intel gen 2 is € 187 for 80GB.

So yeah Intel is the clear winner.

 

hmm you're right about that well not 100%, over here I could get the vertex cheaper than the intel but not by a big margin that's true.
Still I don't mind doing some legwork tho and ocz is quick on releasing firmware for the vertex at least.
But I stand corrected, sir you are right

 

Looks like Solidata will be one of the 1st using the Sandforce SF-1500 controller. And it's MLC.

http://72.14.213.132/translate_c?hl...le.com&usg=ALkJrhjxBgbKz1X3QhdUpav7lHuR_xM14Q

250mb/s read and write, 30k IOPS. If priced right it could be a big contender!

 

on newegg.ca:
OCZ vertex 60GB 239$
Intel G1 80GB 235$

in Canada it's actually cheaper to get the intel.

 

yea it does seem OCZ charges a premium for what others sell for less. Example, I got an Indilinx based 64gb Super Talent SSD last week for $149, the same basic drive as the Vertex.

 

And, Athinu, that is why intel, though not light years ahead, is the clear choice for anyone with a brain!

 

Where you saw an intel G2 at 187 euros ?????

 

Since this thread has basically gone into everything not intel is bad, i just ordered a crucial M225 128GB (i need the extra storage) for under $300 (after bing cashback).

Hope it turns out to be a great drive.

 

LOL that's not at all what has happened here... your just offended because you got something not intel. Right now price/performance for intel is beating most of the competition.

the crucial drive is great if you don't wanna fork out as much $/gb

 

Actually the only thing that intels controller does best right now is 4K reads/writes.

Which while impressive, i'm not sure how much thats worth. There (for most users) will come a satration point where the number of IOPS going up will not matter.

The indilinix drives i think do a better overall job of making a good drive. Because not only do you get that (95%+ of peoples needs) satration of IOPS but you also get the very fast throughput from other size blocks... and if you stay away from OCZ you will get it at a better price point than Intel.

 

People are ignoring the rebates in their price comparisons. Yes, a lowered base price would be preferred over a rebate, but don't pretend like they aren't there.

Too many Intel preachers around. The 'believe in Intel and yee shall be saved' mantra is getting really old.

 

just read any review on SSD. I've not seen one SSD review that doesn't still state "i would still get an intel if i had the choice"

and for me, mail in rebates do not exist. they come way too late and i've heard too many stories OCZ especially about never making good on the rebates.

 

Just got the Intel G2 160GB SSD that I ordered last Friday at midnight from Newegg. I spent the afternoon imaging my old hard drive on to it, and it is working like a charm now. My personal benchmark (and ATTO) says that it is "really fast."

 

does anyone know what ssd dell uses in their e6500?
it says "128gb dell mobility ssd"

i got a great deal on it last nigh
e6500 + 2x 2408wfp + 2x mini 10v for $1800 shipped and taxed

 

It's encrypted too isn't it? I would assume some Samsung. You can tell us when you get it!

 

Im not offended at all =) I just wanted to make sure that other people still knew people were buying non intels. I know what Im getting myself into so although I want the 160GB intel very much (yes i wish i had the extra $150), i believe i will be very satisfied with my indilinix over my current 5400 super hot Fujitsu.

 

Dell uses Samsung drives.

 

its not encrypted. they had options for encrypted and non. the non was $25 cheaper

 

Ok then we on the same page sorry i misinterpreted (can't spell ) your first statement

 

hehe, I just grabbed another Intel G1 for my brother... my Laptop is going to be almost entirely manufactured by intel... Intel CPU, Intel GPU, Intel Wifi, Intel Chipset/mobo, Intel SSD.

 

In terms of manufactured parts, that's less than 10% of the notebook. The motherboard isn't even made by Intel, only the chipset. The screen, chassis, LAN, DVD drive, keyboard, touchpad, battery, power adapter, etc. are not by Intel...