The real reason for SSD, In my opinion

the main reason to get a ssd is not speed, its battery life! my timeline 4810t was hovering around the 8hr mark with the 5400 rpm drive in. I checked just then and I had 95% battery left and it was 11h 36min! WOW, and the speed is the huge secondary benifit of the setup.

Crazy battery life!

 

And the flip side to that is if you use your storage sub-system to its limits, the battery life will drain away like water in a sink.

I too have seen insane battery life gains on my U30Jc with an Intel 320 Series 160GB SSD installed. But if/when you take advantage of that storage speed, the battery life is worse than before.

What you get (as usual) is more 'work' done for the same battery charge - not simply more battery time, period.

 

Another Reason, I had an i7 quad and the cpu usage was only 15% , but if i was running a virus scan or defragging the hdd or some system process was running my notebook would virtually grind to a hault, but this does not happen when i am using my ssd.

 

- main would be speed;
- second would be reliability and security;
- and last would be the battery life.

^ IMO

 

different strokes. espically when you are traveling all day....no need to look for outlets, surf at the airport, watch on the plane, no problems...

the speeds are dandy but the battery life is where it's at for me..

 

Im at 89 percent with 9 hrs left.

 

take extra battery if you need to ...

.. but you cant put extra speed just like that if you need to, hehe

 

Uh, if you want to do more than 1 hours work on the x7200? You're going to need an outlet.

Nope. Not necessary.

Nope. Not necessary.

Definitely!!

Some of us are looking at crazy fast boot and compilation times for millions of lines of computer code. I've cut the amount of WAIT time by 45-50% in some areas. Time is money. Speed all the way for my line of work.

 

Hi, was just reading the thread, I have an Aspire 7720g, T7500 @2.2 ghz, 2gb ddr2, and 500gb western digital (250x2) hard drives.

I wanted to upgrade to SSD and was looking at a corsair 120gb force 3 ssd sata-III, and leave one 250gb western digital hard drive as a storage hard drive.

My question is, will the SSD be compatible with my laptop, and I am still running windows vista as I can't afford windows 7 yet lol, also is it worth upgrading to 4gb ram, is it a massive difference?
Thank You

 

Upgrade the RAM PRONTO!

Ditch Vista (use Win7 for up to 120 days (or even longer) 'free' while you save up for a license - simply reset the Win7 trial period).

Forget the Corsair (SandForce based... ugh!) and look at Intel 320 Series 160GB (or higher) models or the Crucial M4's 128GB (or higher) model SSD's.

Going to 4GB RAM from 2GB on Vista will feel like you did buy an SSD.

Also, consider the Seagate 750GB XT Hybrid with near SSD-like performance at a decent price and no capacity restrictions.

See:
Seagate 750GB Momentus XT 7200.1 SATA 2.5in Hybrid Drive w/ 32MB Cache at Memory Express


If your WD drives are 5400 RPM then the most bang for the buck will be the Win7, an XT and 4GB RAM - you won't believe it's the same system.


Good luck.

 

how do i get win 7 for 120 days, I only use vista coz thats wot i got with my laptop haha

And is the Intel X25-M 80gb as good as the 320 series, the only reason i wanted the Corsair force 3 is that it is 120gb for £125 on ebay and i heard it is as reliable and fast as the Intel X25-M 80gb which is £140

Oh and I wanted to get 2x 2gb kingston ddr2 667, but they i seen corsair value select for the same price, which is better? I thought maybe the corsair but value select makes it sound cheap and plain lol.
Thanks for the replies

 

Download a legal Win7 ISO (from this site) for free,

Install Win7 and follow these steps to use if for up to 360 Days in 'trial mode'.

See:
Reset Windows 7 No-Activation Period for 360 days Free Trial


See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/win...-7-download-links-just-like-vista-before.html


Good luck.

 

Thanks a lot for the quick reply!!
I'll try Windows 7 tonight, but I wish there weren't so many SSD choices, i have looked at some of them and found that the Intel X25-M 80gb or the Corsair force 3 120gb seem to be the best bets for around £150, what do you think about them both, this is my first SSD so don't have much experience regarding them, but recently I have had 2 western digital hard drives fail completely on me in 2 different computers so really want to get an SSD haha
Regards

 

Again; stay away from all SF based SSD's, including the Corsair.

The M4 Crucial would be another contender for the Intel 320 Series SSD's.

The Intel X25-M's, although once a great SSD, have been far surpassed by the two I note above.

Unless you have another system to use while you're getting Win7 installed, I would download at least the network (LAN) drivers and/or the wireless drivers for your system for the appropriate Win7 version (x86 or x64) you'll be installing.

Good luck.

 

Thanks again, sorry I am probably getting on your nerves now, but why is the Corsair using SF faster than the 320 series? is it just that intel's build quality surpasses that of the sandforce chips and has less issues?
Thanks again

 

SF based drives are faster in benchmarks and 'advertised' spec's because they are using unrealistic/non-real-world data: 100% compressible.

Intel's build quality goes beyond simple physical structures - it includes the integrity of the Firmware to ensure the best possible real world performance results with the highest reliability as a 'given'.

Comparing Intel's benchmarks to anyone else's (especially SF's) is like listening to someone who speaks the truth and comparing them to a liar. The liar will tell you what you want to hear, while the other will be provable in real world usage.

With SF based products being 12x (if memory serves?) less reliable than Intel products, it is an easy thing to simply skip them altogether. At least for the time being.

 

Haha thanks a lot, you sound a lot like me when I talk about mobile phones coz thats my thing lol, definitely going for an intel one now, thanks a lot again

 

get the intel 320. that what I have and its FAST. As for my original thoughts on this topic, I really like the increased battery and for most I guess they didn't read my other comments, the fantastic side effect is the kick*** speed my system now has!....I have the 7720 as well, im keeping the 320 gb drive for storage of files and running a intel 320 for OS and programs. I will upgrade to the t9300 cpu, the new SSD, max out the ram, add bluetooth, a new 1920x1200 screen and a black keyboard to break up the grey/beige color of the notebook now....

the 7720 is a great notebook tho. I may try vista on it first to see what it runs like with these upgrades..if its not snappy like my timeline, then I will swap in win 7.

 

All i have been doing all day is reading reviews, in benchmarks the intel 320 series 120gb seems like an older generation ssd and is slow compared to corsair force 3, crucial m4 and ocz.
Will intel release a new ssd that is fast like the new sandforce controller based ssds?

 

The sandforce numbers are for 100% compressible data and you will rarely attain those speeds in real world usage. Intel has already a SATA 3SSD: the Intel 510, yes the M4, Samsung 830, etc. are faster but it's unlikely you'll notice the difference other than by running benchmark software.

 

kojack, with Vista, you will (eventually) kill the performance of your SSD, fyi.

Just as surely as using an AMD platform will (the AHCI drivers don't pass the trim commands to the drive).


Edit: to back up my statement above, this really shows how bad an AMD + SSD setup is (among other things).

See:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i5-fx-6100-overclock-benchmark,3099.html

 

Ok,

I will use the 360 day trial trick with my rig until I get a win 7 64bit setup...my cousin is a purchaser for the local shop and I wait until he gets a really good deal for me.

the intel 320 is a super solid drive...the sandforce drives are flakey at best, my take is solid performance and reliability take a front seat to overall speed. just like processor speed now, back when they switched from p3 to p4 there was a huge difference in speeds of systems. for most things now, thats gone away, most systems now run fast. just how you use them dictates what gets used. my 4810t is faster than machines 2 years newer at the moment..

 

Speak for yourself !!! I personally enjoy taunting my friends and family on skype... :
"Sorry gotta reboot my laptop.... pffff windows update ya know?!"
Family or friend: "okay ttyl"
Don't hang up!!! Just press the restart button.... 30seconds later (WITH updates lol!!!) your skype is turned back on already and then you "receive the call" (Skype trying to reconnect... still hasn't figured out what just happened!!!!) and then you're like yo I'm back!!!
Family or friend: "WHAAAAAAAAAAAT?!"

 

i love that too. 7 min to install windows freaks my buddy out too.

Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk

 

[/QUOTE]

Just as surely as using an AMD platform will (the AHCI drivers don't pass the trim commands to the drive).
[/QUOTE]

It isn't true. AMD SATA/AHCI drivers supports trim from the v1.2.1.263. AMD AHCI TRIM Driver Support Included In Driver v1.2.1.263 - Rage3D Discussion Area

 

Doesn't matter if a 'check-mark' is a ticked off feature, did you see the link I provided?

Horrible, horrible SSD performance from the AMD based system (and all AMD based systems I have ever had the displeasure of working with an SSD with).

Sor horrible that the HDD is up to it in certain metrics. ugh.

 

I had my Intel 320 80gb in 3820TG (i3-380 and HD 6550), now it is in 6465b (A6-3410mx) and results in benchmarks are pretty the same.

 

zaanton,

That is good to hear - hope it keeps up like that for you (how long in the A6, btw?).

 

about 3 months.

 

In a client's AMD system - he was pretty impressed with how the SSD made his system respond - this lasted less than 7 months before he called me and asked me what we could do. Re-install I said (with a SE in-between) on an Intel based system. He laughed and said he wasn't made out of money.

A couple of months later, this system is sitting languishing in the corner (it's used maybe twice a month for a few hours...) and the client thinks this is good use of his money!

He doesn't need an SSD for the tasks he requires of that system, but it is definitely slower than a HDD, imo. Except for the all important shutdown and startup sequences.

When I'm using it is sure feels like a circa 2001 system to me. I wouldn't use it either, but I would at least sell it and reuse the good parts (RAM, SSD, HDD's). How bad is it? Well, right clicking Computer and selecting 'Manage' takes a good 10 seconds to come up (this is with Win7x64 and 8GB RAM.

Anyway, just curious what your workflow is zaanton on your system? Is it pressed into creating visual content or other files, or is it mostly used in 'consume mostly' mode?

 

It's just simple office work. Maybe your client used AMD driver which was not trim-supported?

 

I agree, for most users that want a responsive OS primarily from an SSD, battery life is a definite boon.

I also noticed on some of these low power consumption laptops I removed one of the two RAM modules and it tacked on another 30-45 minutes of battery life, so multiple RAM chips does have some measurable effect on power draw. Problem is AMD Llano GPU's take a significant performance hit when not using dual channel RAM.