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

Does anyone know why the 60gb APEX has a 50mb/s slower sequential write speed?

 

Yeah, too bad the Intel isn't 128GB or I would seriously consider buying it for $369. Actually, I probably would buy it... and probably a lot of other people as well.

 

What sort of issues are people having with the Titan?

 

just read the newegg reviews. i've even read a few minor things in this thread if i remember correctly. i mean I don't think i would have a problem with it but reliability is his #1 concern
Plus he is fine with 32gb so i would deffinitely go SLC

 

Try looking for samsung slc on ebay. Just make sure you get the sataII version vs. sata1 (i think sata1 has a B near the end of the product # and is much slower). 32gb should be less than 300, or try mtron mobi3500 from rocketdisk.com i think. Intel is probably the fastest but if you don't need all that space, you can probably get a little cheaper with the smaller drives.

 

for around 200$ you can get a 32gb mtron slc ssd. for around 4-500$ you can get the 32gb intel slc which is about twice as fast. so for a bit more than 2x the price a bit more than 2x the speed.

 

Some interesting SSD info here (regarding Windows 7 and the WEI):
http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/01/19/engineering-the-windows-7-windows-experience-index.aspx

 

Keen observation. It's not guaranteed that the production drives would have that distinction. Don't think I'll open my Titan up to find out, though.

I've had some drive corruption on my Titan. It had to be repaired by Vista and my OSX boot stopped working completely. It also seemed to have "catastrophic" stuttering when using VMWare in Vista, however it worked fine in OSX (when I could still boot to OSX), so I'm not sure the drive was the issue there.

 

We're still waiting on a 128 GB for the Intel SLC, right? Or is it the 256 that's lagging behind?

 

Hey guys, I've been a long time lurker but figured I'd contribute to this thread with some of my SSD purchases. It started out with my Fujitsu P7120 Subnotebook that had a pathetic 1.8" hdd and I had enough. About 6 months ago, I purchased an Mtron Mobi 3000 PATA SLC 32gb ZIF2 drive from Rocketdisk.com and it was probably the best upgrade I did to my aging 3 year old laptop. Boot up times, application loading, everything was just faster. I used to have a hard time watching streaming video because the HDD would stutter but after switching over to the Mtron, I can launch Outlook 2007, Picasa 3, Internet Explorer 7 and Windows Media Player 11 in 3 seconds, all at the same time, on a Single Core 1.2ghz Centrino Processor.

It felt faster than my Athlon X2 3800+ Running a Raid 0 Seagate set on my desktop PC.

Fast forward to 3 weeks ago and I talked to my sales rep over at Zones, they were selling off their Imation Mobi 3000 Series (Rebadged Mtron Mobi 3000) 3.5" 64GB SLC SSD and I purchased a couple to run in a Raid 0 Array. Here are some benchmarks.

Crystal Disk Marks


ATTO


HD Tune


Take a look at the Crystal Disk Marks 4k writes.

I'm working on my IOMETER test and I'm searching for examples on how to set it up. Unfortunately I can't have my SSD fill up entirely as it is my OS drive so if someone has a link to an Iometer test setup file, I'll be glad to run that.

I did forget to mention my setup.

Shuttle XPC SN25P
Nforce4 Ultra Chipset (yes it's old)
Running Raid 0 on a 64kb stripe set.
AMD Athlon X2 3800+
Windows XP Pro 32 Bit SP3

I'm thinking that since it's an older Chipset, and it's not exactly a hardware raid ( that's why I'm not getting the advertised 100/80 RW per HDD but pretty darn close.

 

Q4 09 -> Intel X25-E 128GB (SLC) and X25-M 320GB (MLC)

 

Roger that. Thanks.

 

thought this was interesting:

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=331879

 

Jafar, welcome to NBR. I read your posts over at leog with interest. Thanks for posting

 

Clear enough. Reliability+speed.

If I work for more than minimum wage, the Intel E is probably worth the ridiculous price.

Thanks. And now I wonder whether that software accelerator (MFT) will further improve an SLC Intel drive...

 

The MFT does not improve loading times/boot times, because those are read latency dependent(heavily).

What the MFT does is improve random write times of the crappy SSD. The modern SSDs like Intel uses similar technique to improve random write times. Of course the hardware variant is always faster due to the nature of being hardware.

 

I don't know if anyone's taken a recent look at the Intels on newegg, but apparently the Kingston MLC/SLC ssd's are rebrands of the Intels, including an Intel spec sheet on the Kingston website.

 

Sandisk MLC w/ 4 bits/cell and 32nm process...

http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=391038
http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=391036

 

uhh that'll get some nice storage-backends 2x the storage per cell, and around 2x the cells per squaremm. that'll mean 4x the storage. or otherwise, soon 1tb 1.8" storage disks

they definitely beat hdd density by much.

 

Hope they can pack 4 bits per cell reliably.

Even more hoping they get their new SSDs out sooner rather than later!

 

Doesn't MLC pack 4 bits per cell already?

 

as you get from that info: no. 2 bits. that's why similar vendors always have mlc = 2x slc in price and storage sizes

 

OK, then SLC must be only 1 bit? I still want SLC I do not care they are better chips and more reliable and smoother

 

Today's MLC stores 4 possible values (2 bits) in each cell (2^2).

4 bits per cell would be 16 possible values (2^4).

 

Guys, just found that the 64gb Intel X25-e SLC ssd is available already on some sites for purchase..

http://www.shopbot.com.au/pp-intel-x25-e-64gb-price-166010-3842266.html

bit pricey though

 

I'm seeing an 80GB SSD as an option in the Dell Latitude E6400. Intel? There aren't any other 80GB SSDs out there, so it must be?

 

Kingston... unless you consider that Intel too.

 

Kingston's ARE Intel's.

 

A seller on ebay has a X25-E 64GB for BIN $999. Zero feedback
http://cgi.ebay.com/INTEL-X25-E-EXT...QcmdZViewItemQQptZPCC_Drives_Storage_Internal

 

Yea of course. SLC= Single Level Cell

 

So I checked over at the OCZ forums and it seems the Vertex has been delayed yet again ... Feb. 27 is the new ship date ... although March/April are becoming more realistic at this point.
Thus a holiday 2008 release might yet become a Q2 2009 release.

 

Expletive deleted...

 

Same here

 

Why?OCZ has been nothing but dissapointment. Even the vertex are way overpriced. There are plenty of other players coming into the market.

 

That stinks... and I bet it won't even be worth the wait.

But I am waiting for a good deal on a Solid series or similar for an older notebook of mine ($70 range before rebates). I'd like to see how "bad" it really is. I bet it won't be too bad for the use that this older notebook gets.

 

Good catch.

And your math is suppported by this quote from the linked article:

The X4 controller, developed and owned by SanDisk, utilizes a first-of-its-kind error correcting code (ECC) scheme specifically developed for use in storage systems, and tailored to support the 16 levels of distribution needed for 4-bits-per-cell.

*bolding mine

 

Anyone heard of mostlydigital.ca? They are listing an imation mobi 3000 64gb for 42CADs! It's not in stock, and the 32 cost MORE, looks really wierd, but i'm willing to give it a try if anyone heard of it.

EDIT: Those were 3.5" drives, DOH! How about a PRO 7000 16gb at 20CADs?

 

Hurmm. I haven't see anyone mention solidata yet. Seems like their X series (both X! and X2) are from Samsung. Any thought on this? Apparently they have up to 512GB for X2 series (2.5" and MLC of course) but 256GB option already cost as much as $1100.

Oh yeah, I found out about them from dvnation.

 

Yeah, I was just messing around. If I have waited this long, I am certaibnly not waiting for the Vertex. Likely more crap. But, it is not out yet, and it is just possible that OCZ is taking the extra time to actually release a decent product. I really want an Intel quality 160GB for 300. Or, of course, better than Intel quality. If that is possible. Intel is an amazing company when it comes to quality control. When you really think about all the chips they make, and the level of complexity of manufacture and the VERY low return rate, I am in AWE.

 

it's funny. here in switzerland, the intel is in about the same gb/chf range as the newer ocz. so they're completely out of reach and interest in any way.

can't wait for the 4bit-mlc. i then want (finally) a combined ssd with slc, 32gb, and mlc, 128gb (that would be half the size for each part).

 

buy up all you can get for those prices!! and then sell them for twice the price here, or so

 

Hmmm, should SSDs such as Samsung OEMs or Mtrons (with the exception of the Intel) be run in ATA mode instead of AHCI?

 

yup seen solidata.. not sure their drives are samsung or not though.. can anyone confirm this..?

 

I would sure like one of those soliddata drives, very nice! So we are thinking that these are rebadged Samsung's that are coming soon?

 

I mentoyed them on this very thread *PEOPLE DON'T READ PEOPLE DON'T READ* **CRYING AROUND LOUD**

they're a bit on the expensive side. i somehow don't think they're rebadged samsung. they don't fit the samsung line 1:1 at least. i think..

 

At $1500 someone is smoking some weed

 

That laptop is probably one of the best P series notebooks that Fujitsu ever made. I had one and sold it to buy the new P8010 from Fujitsu but I believe the older model I had was quicker than this new one I have.

 

Looks like it will be a while before the prices of their current 64GB SLC SSD's drop

 

Samsung 256GB MLC SSD review(220MB read/200MB write):

Original: http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2009/0212/hirasawa014.htm

Translated:
http://translate.google.ca/translat...=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=68v&sa=G

The SSD uses 1Gbit(128MB) for "caching" purposes, it might be similar purpose for what Intel uses on their 128Mbit chip.

One thing interesting is the OCZ Apex results: The IOPS performance is particularly interesting because they gravitate in the single digit range.

But on the review they did before: http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2009/0205/hirasawa013.htm

The performance does not fluctuate as the newer benchmark. This has to do because after benchmarking the drive is essentially "full" with writes. This is a demonstration of the theory.

(Ignore the Intel X25-E SLC results too. The graph seems way too ideal and full capacity might not have been written yet)

The Intel MLC with 1/3 sequential writes still beat the Samsung MLC in random write performance and IOPS.

Truth is both the Intel and the Samsung drive in practice is no less equally suited to PC users. Even though the IOPS on the Intel is higher PC users will never need the IOPS figures Intel can achieve. The high IOPS is important on servers which highlights the fact the Intel MLC and the SLC drives use the exact same controller.

For most users, once the "stuttering" part is not felt, additional performance is absolutely not necessary. It would depend on usage yes, but the Samsung drive would have enough performance to satisfy perhaps all PC users.

No reviewers have even little bit of a clue what is truly going on. It makes me sad because all the benchmarks shown are basically inflated performance figures. True SSD performance is STEADY-STATE performance!!

 

Now I have some doubts. We're still awaiting arrival of the Toshiba R600 (almost released in the U.S.), in which we'll install an SSD. I had thought to buy the Intel E SLC, but in a laptop perhaps the less costly Intel M MLC will be as good. If that's so, then perhaps other less expensive units (Transcend, Mtron, etc.) will be as good...
The Intel E is $419 shipped - and that's a LOT.

My priority is reliability, then speed. 32GB is fine.