X25-M vs 124Gb (64Gb x 2 Raid 0)

Ok, I tried to ask this question on Sony thread but no one is able to answer the question. I just purchased a z590uab and I was wondering if the x25-m is much better than the SSD included in the z590uab. I have not received the laptop yet but from what I have read, it has 64Gb Samsung SLC Raid 0. I have the x25-m NIB, so if it is better than the SSD included, then I think Im going to make the switch. I tried to use the search button but did not manage to get any info about the comparison. If someone have read about this somewhere, would be glad if you could help me on this.

 

The X-25M is okay, but I would keep the two Samsung SLC drives. SLC>>>>>>>MLC drives.
The Samsung SLC drive uses a Samsung controller, so the Samsung drive will not have the random hangs most SSD's face.
If you want, the X-25E is a good option for upgrade. Its the SLC based Intel drive. It also uses a Samsung controller, so it performs very well without the hangs almost all MLC drives have.

K-TRON

 

K-TRON, the intel x25-m doesn't suffer from stuttering, where have you on earth heard or seen this info!?

Haven't seen a complaint about the intel and stuttering, not at all.


AFAIK the intel doesn't use the jmicron as you state.


Both intel's x25-m or x25-e rocks the shorts out of all the competitors SSD's. Intel has the most reliable SSD's.

 

thats why the intels are so expensive, they dont use the jmicron controllers.

 

As fast as the X25-M is, I would think that two SLC 64GB drives in Raid 0 would be faster, especially on writes. No numbers to back that up, just my opinion.

P.S. K-Tron is completely incorrect on the Intel drives, stuttering, and JMicron controller (Intel developed their own "learning" controller).

 

The thing Intel drives stand out isn't the sequential writes but the random writes.

I can't believe KTRON didn't knew this.

 

One thing to consider is that switching to the x-25m would greatly reduce your laptops power consumption, if nothing else because you'd only need to power 1 SSD instead of 2. But as far as performace goes the RAIDed Samsungs will do better, probably.

And pretty much everything in K-TRON's post is inaccurate. The only true thing he posted is that in general SLC drives offer better performance than MLC drives, which is true.

 

okay maybe i was wrong, I thought I read on here a few days ago about stuttering on a Intel ssd.

K-TRON

 

So the conclusion I should change the SSD that comes with the z590uab? How fast do you think it will be..?

 

uhm.. you haven't read any of the threads in here, then, have you? there are quite some complains about stuttering. i currently guess it's not really the drives fault, but the fault of the s-ata connection. if it can't deliver full s-ata2 with 300MB/s it looks like the intel drive can get much stuttering as it's not optimised for such cases.

but definitely stay with the two samsungs, they should work just as well. and a bit more storage.

 

No, or else i wouldn't have stated that!
Can you please show me those threads then?
I've only seen people giving creds to the intel SSD's!

You mean that the drive is too fast it suffers from stuttering?


Merry christmas!

 

It was probably this thread then:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=208242

I hardly read that thread as it's so cluttered with information.

I do believe it has some stuttering, but it's nowhere near as bad as some OCZs have as far as I know.

 

if the drive gets throttled down because it's faster than the s-ata connection, then yes, this may be the reason to result in stuttering.

some sort of startup, oh have to wait for the cable and stop, and startup, oh have to wait, and stop which may result in some resonance the ssd 'learns' and fails to do right.

just check the main ssd thread at the top of the forum. there are some discussions about stuttering of the intel in there. there where other threads, as well as in other forii. but i don't know exactly where anymore.


edit: jlingo is one of the users with stuttering (see http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=4261532&postcount=1835)

 

Oh i see I don't tend to read that thread, because it's all cluttered as you say.

I see

Would be fun to see if you can do something about it by strangling the SSD's performance for example to the half on a SATAII notebook.


I haven't seen any reports on stuttering and intel SSD even over on a big swedish hardware forums i've been surfing on for the last 7years.

I'd like to see more argueable complaints about this though.

Thanks for the info though.

 

I wasn't aware ANY SATAII drive (SSD or NOT) had EVER reached full 300 MB/S speeds, can I have confirm on this? It sounds ridiculous.

If there is a stuttering issue in the Intel SSDs, I'd like to know if that drive is running on Vista or XP. XP doesn't do as well with SSDs.

Here is some data I suggest anyone with here-say knowledge of the Intel SSDs should read, http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403&p=1

Jumping straight to page 7 and you get some relative information about stuttering on OTHER SSDs. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403&p=7
also check out page 9, more information on where stuttering comes from,
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403&p=9

 

the problem is, not any s-ata chip is made for fullspeed which can result in stuttering.

the intel ssd can reach 240MB which is (together with communication overhead) close to the maximum of 250-300MB/s.

my ssd raid0 has 220MB/s.

doesn't sound ridiculous to me. i can just buy a third one and have a raid0 that maxes out my s-ata bus.

stormeffect, we know all that stuff. we're the builder of the huge ssd thread on top of this forum. we know about jmicron and it's faults, about slc vs. mlc, etc.

but there is a reason why intel wanted to only bundle their ssd's with known notebook configurations from vendors (like the newer hp elitebooks and such). it maybe they know that the auto-adapting feature of their high performing ssd may go crazy with a bad controller that can't handle the speed. it may be. it's just speculation.

still, thanks for your input. one can't spread that article around enough

 

My Intel X-25 got 270 mb/s + on HDTune http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=138761&page=36 #352

 

For RAID, isn't the SATA specced speed on each channel? I've experimented with raid0 before and i've got over 300MB/s via ICH9R for example, that should mean that it's 300MBps per channel and not for all channel totals, that would be useless on desktops for example that has 6 or 8 SATA-ports and if you populate them all would mean that you will have slow transferrates.

 

no clue, but i guess i won't get above 300MB/s..

if you want see really fast, you'll have to google "ssd flagship". 900MB/s on a raidcontroller with 9 mtrons.

I'd like to do that

 

I'm like 99% sure it is per channel, so you don't have to worry that anything is gonna be pushing down the performance for the raid

Hehe, yeah i've seen even faster SSD's, 1800MB/s, a single SSD via PCI express x16, it's a very long card Trying to find the url for it..


I think you mean this one?

Fast enough for anything imho

Or you could just create a ramdisk and you'll have 2000MB/s + on your laptop But the space is very limited hehe.

 

the one you talk about is the fusion-io card.

according to dvnation (which sell such fusion-io cards), they soon have new ssd's from solidata, which have 240MB/s read, 220MB/s write (SLC) or 170MB/s write (MLC). up to 512gb storage.

http://www.dvnation.com/SOLIDATA-SSD-Solid-State-Disk-Drive.html

 

Yeah fusion-io

That's nice, 512G with 200+ speeds, sweet! I hope the random writes are as good as any mechanical drive is so they won't be stuttering.

 

there isn't stuttering on any slc drive so far. harddrives have stuttering, too (but we're used to it and forget about it at least the one on my work notebook can hang the system for minutes if i do the wrong thing which result in tons of random small read ops).

and i think the stuttering issue goes away more and more the bigger the storage gets. as it gets more and more parallel and balanced, that an individual stutter doesn't block the rest of the disk. at least, i hope so

 

I am just wondering...
I have 4GB of RAM and I use Vista 64bit Home Premium version so I am not limited by the 32bit 3,2GB RAM limit.
Is it possible to create a ramdisk, let's say 1GB, just for the pagefile and would it be of any advantage in practise?Or does this solution gives any kind of problems, stability etc?

How do you create a ramdisk under Vista 64bit?

 

it's rather stupid to put the page file into ram, as data goes into the pagefile when the ram is full. reducing the ram means more goes into the page file, namely the same amount that would just have been in ram before.

just leave the pagefile as is, it's great that way. (you can read up on it in the windows section of this forum, search for pagefile).

i have the temporary internet files of ie on the ramdisk (on the work system, have to use ie there), as well as other tempfolders.

 

I see.You are right.I didn't think of that but it is very obvious to me now.Sorry for asking this stupid question!

That is a very interesting idea.Especially for those that have 8GB of RAM.Maybe I'll give it a try.

Thanks

 

huh what are are you on about? the limit for sata II is 300 MBps per port
u cant max out any raid configuration with any ssd or hd atm.