What SSD for my Acer 4820 Timeline?

I'm considering adding a SSD to my Acer Aspire TimelineX AS4820T-5570 which has the Intel HM55 chipset. After reading countless SSD reviews and posts on here describing the performance hit I find myself very confused. Is the hit substantial enough to make purchasing a SSD not worthwhile if using the HM55 chipset? Assuming it is worth it, should I be looking for one with high read/write speeds or purposely go for a lower powered model if the chipset imposes a cap that eliminates what I'd gain from a better SSD?

What I'm looking for in a SSD are as follows:

• Low on idle power consumption so as not to decrease battery life or hurt any increases the SSD might provide.
• As powerful as my chipset will accomodate w/o "capping" it.
• Read speed being more important than write.
• Either 120 or 128GB.
• Ideally between $200-$260 though I could go as high as $300 if it was really worth it.

I apologize in advance for this post that doesn't help solve the problem this thread is regarding but I'm at my wits end trying to make a good decision selecting technology I'm extremely inexperienced with. I GREATLY appreciate any responses (you can email me so as not to clutter the thread) that provide some options you feel meet the criteria I stated above and your rational for choosing a particular SSD.

 

I suggest Crucial C300 128GB. It doesn't get much better than that for $254.
http://www.compuplus.com/Drives-and-storage/Crucial-Technology-128GB-Crucial-RealSSD-1146341.html

PS. applying a simple tweak removes the caps from SSD performance at the expense of a little battery life. I don't know how much.

 

kfinn360,

what are you doing with the notebook? What software will you be running on it?

Will you be needing the full 120GB space (or close to it) for all your apps and data?

Your answers above are more important than your budget right now to help you get the best SSD for your use.

 

Thanks for the responses guys.

Phil, It's my understanding that the Acer Aspire TimelineX AS4820T-5570 is only compatible with SATA 3Gb/s and not SATA 6Gbs/s which the Crucial RealSSD C300 uses to function at a high level. It says it's backwards compatible but is it still the best choice considering I won't be able to take advantage of its full functionality?

Tiller, For the most part I'll just be running the browser, MS Office, VLC player, nothing all that intensive. This isn't a gaming rig but I would like to be able to boot quickly, possibly extend the battery life, and run multiple programs with no slow down. As far as the space, I figured about a 40GB partition for the OS and core apps with the rest for data.

 

Yes it's backward compatible and it's the best 120GB SSD you can get for $250.

A Sandforce would be a bit better, but they tend to be a bit more expensive.

 

get the C300.. its one of the best... not as good as sandforce on SATA II but when u get a SATA III laptop , nothing going to beat it .. i've got one too and saw it as one of the best bang for the buck SSDs..

 

Ok I hear you guys saying the C300 is the best IF running a on a SATA III laptop. However, I don't plan on getting a new SATA III laptop or desktop anytime soon so I'm ONLY concerned with what's best on a SATA II.

If the Sandforce is definitely better, I'm seeing the G Skill Phoenix PRO for $280, the OCZ Vertex 2 for $255 and the Corsair Force $290 on newegg. However, the Phoenix Pro's power consumption (Idle): 0.7W and the Vertex 2's is .5W (couldn't find power consumption for Force). Part of the reason I want a SSD is to extend the life of my laptop's battery, not just to get the most powerful drive out there as I'm not planning on using it for gaming.

How do you guys think the more powerful Sandforce SSDs above stack up against the C300 (RUNNING ON SATA II ONLY) and something that uses far less power like the Corsair P128 (Read: 220MB/s - Write: 200MB/s Power Consumption (Idle): 0.15W)?

 

I'm well aware that you're on SATA II. You've said it three times now. I got it the first time

Check the review in my signature to see how it performs on SATA II.

The power consumption stated by manufacturers is highly unreliable. Check reviews for real measurements.

 

I'm using the Inferno SandForce based 100GB SSD and of a half dozen (different controller based SSD's) I've directly experienced, it has the fastest 'feel', by far.

I would not be looking to future proof an SSD purchase at this time as six months from now, the tables will be turned again and today's offerings will be not only history, but effectively obsolete too (except from a price perspective).

Just be sure to check out this thread and see if the tweaks offered give your SSD based system a noticeable boost.

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...et-can-not-take-full-advantage-fast-ssds.html


Note: I am recommending the SandForce drives specifically for your 'low-write usage' scenario you described and... if you can keep it (acceptably) filled at less than 70%.

Good luck.

 

I've had both Sandforce and C300 in my laptops. I can't tell the difference.

Here's how a fresh Sandforce drive performs (Patriot Inferno 120GB).



Here's how it performs when it's 95% full, after 55GB have been written to it in a matter of minutes.

 

Thanks for the info guys. I'm definitely getting closer to a decision.
Phil, I didn't mean to insult your intelligence on the SATA II VS III thing

One last question: Can anyone find ANY difference between these two drives?

1. 
   OCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD2-2VTXE120G
   OCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD3-2VTX120G

 

There is no meaningful difference between them.

I'd guess the SSD2 was the first version they sold when they found out first they could extended the capacity of the 100GB to 120GB. Now they're not selling 100GB anymore, only 120GB, so that might be the SSD3.

About the tweak, I've been doing some real world testing. Sofar the effects on real world SSD performance turn out far smaller than I thought, even when doing some basic multi tasking. In theory they could help when their is some heavy usage going on but it's seems impossible the CPU would still be in that power saving mode. I will be doing more benchmarking this week, I will update with results.

 

So I noticed the difference between the two was the form factor (2.5" and 3.5" respectively)

Thanks for the help. I'll definitely be checking in to see if more progress is made on a solution to the power limiting problem.

 

Oops that's a pretty important difference. Thanks for letting us know.

PS. the solution that's already there works very well.

 

So after you get your SSD you can try this tweak.

I can confirm now it makes a difference for real world performance.