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

I don't think scaling upwards makes sense. You have taken my analogy and extended it to 33%. Most people who look at SSDs (IMO) aren't necessarily concerned about space but speed, lack of sound and battery life. Anyway, we can compare ad nauseum and it would never end, I could start comparing the x25 160 with the OCZ 120 and then you could counter with the OCZ 250...well you get the idea. My intent in demonstrating this was to make an informed decision given our limited budgets. I am sure many people are in my shoes in trying to decide what SSD to get to keep us (somewhat) future-safe.

 

Sorry, I'm not sure about PowerBook but I don't think it has SATA interface..

 

I think they're fairly reliable, but I find it strange that they seem to offer so many rebates on many of their products.

 

it's an easy way to make more money. they know most people don't use the rebates anyways. money for free.

 

How reliable are SSD's?

 

how reliable are hdds?

mine are great working since around half a year. no clue if they ilfe for 10 years. maybe they die tomorrow?

but in general, they should be very reliable if build well, as no shock can hurt them, unlike hdds.

edit: still, i just do backups as everyone should. i do them close to daily. automagically.

 

What concerns me is how many times a section can be overwritten without errors occurring. I'm sure most of us have owned a USB flash drive that has hit it's rewrite limit. They seem to degrade over time and with many multiple rewrites (not saying that discs don't, but they do seem to be a bit more reliable when compared to other forms of solid state storage that I have used).

 

it has wear leveling and if it's slc, 100000 write cycles. they should last for years thanks to wear leveling. google it up. my disks are rated for 80 years life if i use them as os disks.

 

Yup exactly, and I'm one of those ppl. You're right, there's no point arguing about whether scaling upwards or scaling downwards make more sense. For me, 80GB is just not enough, especially since I plan to get a mac and install both windows and OS X on it. Maybe I'm in the minority but I don't think so.

If I had to buy today, my preferences would be Corsair, Vertex, and the Intel, in that order.

If only Intel had a 120GB X-25m ...

 

how big is osx? everyone with osx cries about not having enough storage i have vista (the biiiig one) on a 32gb ssd and enough space for most of my data...

80gb should be enough

but yes it would be great if intel would release both a 40gb, and a 120gb version, too.

anyone knows when the 160gb 1.8" is available to buy? it should be out since some while, but i can't find it anywhere..

 

SSD has Wear Leveling..
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_leveling

 

I believe fresh install would need around 9-12GB depending on options you pick but you can removed other languages files and stuffs that you don't need to bring it down to around 6-7GB after the installation is completed using Xslimmer

 

The official specs say 9GB. Might be an underestimate or an overestimate, though. I can't imagine it being too much bigger or smaller than Vista.

Yeah, can't find it either. It'd probably cost a fortune if you could find it, though XD

As an aside, do you keep your pagefile(s) on your SSD(s), Dave ?

 

Well, we don't have a choice with the pagefile on our laptops and Windows really doesn't like it on different drives or even partitions. The one good option is to turn it off completely. I did it on my Eee and a nlited XP installation. Worked without a problem. Not sure how Vista would react. I am sure it would be fine (if you have upwards of 2GB of RAM).

 

Would any of you agree that the extra 40 gigs in the 120Gb vertex is worth it over the intel x25-m 80GB drive? (esp. if the vertex is cheaper) Or is the intel's performance over the vertex so high that i should get it instead?

 

Really, I feel like this question is like asking whether you're better off with a faster processor or memory... I think at some point it starts boiling down to what you are doing. Both the Intel and Vertex seem to be solid drives (well, the Vertex is still a bit green, I wouldn't totally trust it yet)... would you rather cut a couple seconds from whatever application loads you're doing or stuff another 40GB of apps on your drive?

I'd personally go for the former (likewise, partially because the Vertex is still new), but it's up to you, really.

 

to anyone on here: I KEEP EVERYTHING ON MY SSD, I DO NO TWEAKS.

that's what my ssd is for: replace and outperform my hdd in every way. there are no needs for tweaks then.

so yes, my page file is on disk. i only disable defragmenting.

and i wouldn't buy a vertex right now, too much have completely blocked disks after some days of usage. still too much russian roulette. other than that, the vertex looks quite nice. i'm still planning for an intel as next. the samsung is quite slower than the mtron in snappiness => i can't step back anymore

 

I agree, Intel is the way to go. Wait, I already said this today!

 

haha

now i would just have to get an 1.8" intel with 160gb. why 160gb while i'm the one always stating you don't need that much storage?

answer: WHY NOT?!!??!?!?! i just want to never think again about storage. with 160gb, i will never reach my limit anyways..

 

Hey what's going on here...doesn't the Samsung 256GB MLC drive not exist or something? Don't get me wrong i'm eye-ing Intel as well..at this present moment i'm thinking to snatch either the X25-E or the Samsung 256..i'm kinda undecided but leaning towards the Samsung a bit...maybe someone can enlighten me on why the Intel is superior to the Sam.

 

i don't care about 2.5" that's all.

 

Dude, one is like twice the price of the other.

 

Ordering Friday from Newegg UPS 3-Day should not take until Thursday of next week to get my Vertex. I'm going to complain and try to get my order discounted, I realize I ordered late Friday but that's just ridiculous.

I'll be putting a Windows 7 disc image on my Vertex so I'll let you all know how it works.

 

If you place an order on newegg before noon it should ship the same day.

 

Jlbrightbill: Vertex 60, 120 or two-fitty?

 

30 GB, it's very small but I picked it up for $83 which was all I wanted to put into it. It's going in my desktop so it's not like I have to worry about space, 30GB is plenty for an OS + apps, I've got over a TB in other drives to store everything else. I may just end up restoring my XP image instead to avoid the huge install size cost of 7 / Vista.

I ordered after 5 on Friday so I wouldn't expect it to ship that day, but for an order placed on the 20th, having an estimated delivery of the 26th is not acceptable.

 

Well.. I don't know about anyone else but I have 2x Samsung 256GB RAID0 in my MacBook Pro and loving it...

 

I don't think that's unreasonable... Ordered after 5 on Friday basically mean order it on Monday, getting it Thursday is not unacceptable at all.. unless you pay extra for rush processing and for one or 2 day shipping, in that case it is unacceptable..

 

Dude, 2x256 is the $h1tzle! I think it's one of the best setups anyone has. An expensive alternative to our dreams of affordable solid state storage.

 

Interesting! Perhaps it only exists to take market share from others? Not sure what their motivation to do that would be.

Also, here are some early benchmarks from Vertex's newest firmware (1275):
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=362053&postcount=39

 

Those tests are run with a queue depth of 4, and they're still performing very well. The Vertex is not an X-25, there's no debating that, but it's head and shoulders above the rest of the competition currently.

 

I'd love to see some side by side tests with the X25-M and Vertex. With it's new firmware its sequential read speeds are on par with Intel, so testing will reveal just how much difference Intel's IOPS advantage really gives.

 

Totally agree.
I especially would like to see reviewers do more real world testing with video.
They are reviewing these onthe internet and yet we remain stuck with text&chart reviews.

Just take a video of all these SSDs booting windows, starting apps, doing all kinds of stuff! And then edit the videos so you can compare it split screen ...

 

I think that quote from Intel has more to do with purchasing practices in the semiconductor market for the flash chips themselves, not the drive technology itself. A long winded example...

I used to work for a midsized electronics manufacturer. We'd buy a part, let's say flash chips from Samsung, in quantities of 1k,, or at most 10k per year for our popular products....which seems like a lot, but compared to Apple usage on Ipod products or Samsungs own internal SSD usage, which is in the millions per month....we were a very small user.

This becomes a problem when the flash chip supply dwindles(earthquakes in Korea destroys plant, etc) or demand increases(apple started selling Iphones and Ipods and SSD notebooks). Now samsung doesn't have enough chip production to sell to me, who buys 1k per year, and Apple who moves 10 million a month. In this situation, the smaller dollar customer usually gets put on "allocation",i.e. no chips until supply catches up to demand, because that's in the best interest of Samsung, who won't find another 10M per month customer, if Apple finds another flash chip vendor who can deliver on time. And if samsung loses us, oh well...its only 1k parts per year.

So how does this impact intel? I suspect Intel's SSD endeavor, while big compared to my company, is still very small compared to Apple's flash usage. Now imagine Intel designs an SSD controller that destroys everyone else in the SSD market( a real leap, I know) If they sole-source their flash only from Samsung, and then, say Samsung's SSD sales to Dell start dropping off due to this competition: Is Samsung still going to have enough flash chips to sell Intel? Or might there be a "sudden unexpected shortage" of flash to sell into Intel's competing SSD.

To defend against this, Intel has to have a reliable, captive flash chip fab to make sure they don't get stuck in the situation of having spent millions developing a great SSD controller, but no flash chips for that controller to talk to, and thus no drives to sell. So, flash is not a direct profit center of the Intel business, especially since flash is a commodity item like DRAM where margins are razor thin. Intel just needs to break even on the venture, so that it can keep gouging us on the controllers. Its a strategic decision, that doesn't help the bottom line directly, but helps ensure stability for the SSD product line's profits.

 

You all should already know that the performance will go down once every block on the SSD has been write to once.

This is the comparison of such occurrence on the 2x Samsung 256GB in Software RAID0
"Virgin" and "Used"

 

I thought the "virgin" or "used" problem only affected the write speed, since we have to erase first then write. Why did your tests show the significant decrease in read speed ? The read speed should stay solid no matter how used it is, right ?

 

Writing is dependent on reading.

 

4k reads HALVED!!! Wowwwww. How long are we talking about here poppap??

 

But reading shouldn't be dependent on writing. My understanding (based on the anandtech article) is that the way the drives are, reads should not degrade. In the anandtech he saw no decrease too. Wonder why you are seeing it. Can anyone explain this?

 

Thanks for your thoughts and welcome to NBR! A fine first post.

 

Agreed, very fine post. Never quite thought of it that way. Still waiting to POP for my first SSD, and I have been around since before the first post in this lengthy thread! I did spring once for a Gskill whatever for $150, but I forced NewEgg to take it back, minus restocking fee. GARBAGE for sure. Now I am waiting for Intel to get a little bigger and/or cheaper, or another CLEAR and RELIABLE contender to have as an option. Vertex??? Samsung??? SLC??? 80GB is simply not enough. And the 160GB is perfect, just cut the price in half and I will GO AT IT RIGHT NOW

 

Cape the new 256 GB Samsung that Dell is selling is an excellent drive.

 

You can't read a block that is being written. It has to finish writing. True, read speeds are mostly independent of writes, but not always.

I assume the drops could be bigger because of the RAID configuration.

 

yea!! only 700 or so. if you can find a coupon, the price will be cheaper

 

I can't decide between the 256GB Samsung and the 250GB Vertex.

Why would you prefer the Samsung over the Vertex?

I didn't buy the Vertex just yet because I wanted the firmware merry-go-round to stop first. Now I guess I wait to see what the results of their latest firmware will be.

 

I'd prefer the samsung over the vertex as there aren't yet reports after the first days of failures, how the drive locks up, etc. actually haven't heard of any such report from a samsung drive ever. ocz's ssd history is more than bad.

so in essense, because i trust samsung more.

 

I would get one in an instant if I can get it cheaper like that guy who got it under 600.

If say for light usage like surfing the net, emails or watching a movie, would a drive like transcend's 32gb with 74/45 read/write but sufficient. Planning on plugging it into my PB12" to run it like a netbook.

 

You see, I know that this is what really matters, but I am so seduced by the idea that the Vertex is faster. I guess that until the rational part of my brain wins out I will keep checking the OCZ forum to see if the bugs are gone.

 

Give it a month and they probably will be for the most part, plus the price will hopefully go down.

 

Samsung has a new drive 220 read/120 write. Considering the reliability, this would be a better be a bet, but too bad I only see a 64gb available.