anyone install SSD in HP laptop ?

I just order this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820139030 and waiting for delivery

anyone have experience with SSD in HP laptop ?

 

I installed a Kingston V Series 128gb SSD on my son's tx2500 and it loads and shuts down faster. I just cloned the HDD to the SSD using Acronis. He has Vista Ultimate 32 installed. I have the same SSD and installed Win7 on my Asus netbook and so far so good.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820139030

I install this SSD in my laptop HP dv7-1270us.I am disappointed with this ssd.Yes,running cool like advertised but not much faster than my WD 7200 Scorpio Black.My windows score with that HDD was 5.6 now with SSD is only 5.9.I thought I get much better score.My boot time is just slightly better,60 seconds instead of 88 seconds.

Some peoples report 20 s boot time.it's possible?

 

You bought a jmicron based SSD. Kingston V-series apparently resolves the stuttering issues, but no performance leader as you've highlighted. Can you get a refund? Intel X25-M or Indlilinx based SSD (OCZ Vertex, Runcore ProIV, G.Skill Falcon, Supertalent GX) a better performance option.

 

Like nando4 says, you should check closely SSD performance. 20 sec boot time is impossible unless top of the line and even then i doubt.
Note that 88 to 60 sec is a reduction of 25%.

 

I'm running a Vertex 120 and get 28-32 second bot time with win 7 on an HDX 20.

I wouldn't buy any SSD other than the ones Nando4 listed as the other type (with jmicron controllers) have stutter and performance issues.

In the HDX, I get read speeds of >260MB/sec and writes >180 MB/sec which is more than they conservative state on their (OCZ) website. Most folks do.

What's also impressive about SSDs is the seek time which is a fraction of a HDD's seek time is. We're talking about seek times that are several hundred times faster than an HDD. When at the desktop, open a program and it "blinks" up.

A good SSD is the best investment one can make to drastically improve the performance of a notebook.

 

FYI:
Here is a very good read on the state of SSDs today and what to expect in the near future. The "Final Words" section provides an excellent summation.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3667

 

How would you guys rate this SSD?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227484

I've never bought one and I'm thinking of getting this one for a dv7t quad.

 

400$ for 60GB ???????

 

Yeah I know, but it's SLC and compared to similar Intel SSD's at $800, it seems like a bargain.

 

so this one is better ?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167005

 

SLC drives are larely a rip off for consumers. The Intel G1 does not, nor will it ever, support TRIM and is an older model. It is better yes, but still not a leader in performance. Look for the Intel G2, OCZ Agility, or OCZ Vertex for a good drive. OCZ Summit for almost as good performance for a lower price.

 

You know, I was thinking that it might seem like overkill with those drives especially at those prices. Don't get me wrong if I could spend less I would but it seems like all the MLC vs. SLC articles point to the SLC as being the better SSD.

The Intel drive that fantomasz provided a link for, would that be a good drive to consider?

 

so which one of these ? to many to chose

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010150636 50001550 1421439415&name=60GB

 

Avoid the Solid and Core series, they use old JMicron controllers (yuck). Agility and Vertex are good drives, about the best out there. Vertex Turbo is good, but not worth the cost. The Agility/Vertex EX drives are SLC, but unless you have a specific need for SLC it is not worth it at all.

MLC has come a long way from when those kinds of SLC v. MLC articles were written. At this point, the only thing SLC has over MLC is longevity. But MLC drives will easily last 3-5 years with normal usage (with some estimates indicating they'll last 10 years), and by then the drive will be obsolete and a new, better, cheaper drive will be available.

 

Now I may be wrong on this but what about performance degradation, if any, over time with MLC drives?

 

Turbo and EX are very expensive
so I look at these two

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227461

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227394

 

You won't be disappointed. I have (2) Vertex 120GB, (1) 60GB, (1) 30GB. Haven't had a single problem to date.

And as Greg pointed out, their life span will last longer than you would keep your computer.

Here's a link to a great write up of life expectancy: http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=404144

 

I recommend leaving at least 20% of the drive empty. So factor that in when buying.

Also ocz is hte only one with working trim even intel pulled their trim support from the second gen drives as they were killing the drives.

I'm hopping i can get a 60 gig vertex for under $200 on black friday. I got my original one for $180 on amazon after rebates.

 

somebody else post review and say that hes boot is 30s and score 7.1
I don't want to spend more money to just find out that will be same as my Kingston

 

Have a look at this review of the Kingston drive as it compares it to the other SSD's. From here you will have more than enough info to decide if you want to keep it or go with another. Boot time and WEI score shouldn't be your deciding factors. I get a WEI score of 7.3. But that doesn't show how the Vertex drive is about 30%+ faster in read and write speed.


http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=328&Itemid=60

In any event it's not a bad drive. But since you asked...

 

My vertex gets 6.9 and has been in use for 4 months now without trim.

So its really possible that with a fresh install and trim it will get 7.1 or the vertex turbo or second gen intels get a higher score. Also the 120 gig drives seem to be the sweet spot for performance.

This is on my desktop. it takes about 18 seconds for me to reboot btw. But thats because i keep almost nothing on start up.

 

Dell sells 256gb SSD for $479. I have a feeling they are from Samsung. I was debating in getting one for my XPS 1530. I wished they had more info on their drives to see if it's worth it but it is affordable.

 

Probably a stupid question, but will 60gb be enough just for the OS and programs?

 

Depends on what programs.

You want to leave 20% of the ssd free for optimal performance. So your looking at about 35gigs to use. win 7 can take up to 15 gigs of it. So 20 gigs left for programs.

You should look into an 80 gig or a 120 gig

 

But OCZ doesn't make any 80 gig and the 120 gig is pretty expensive.

The 80 gig Intel seems perfect but it sounds like everyone is recommending OCZ over Intel.

 

intel has no trim support.

If i were you , i'd make a list of what programs you want to have and how big they are and how big oyur windows install is. If its in the 30gig range then go for it.

I have 21.1GB free of my 59.6GB vertex. Seems to be the sweet spot. I made sure all my documents were on another drive though. But i run mine on my desktop.


The other question is do you have a free mini pci-e slot ? you can go with this
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227438


Its not as fast as the 2.5inch ones but its going to be faster than your hardrive an use much less power , seek times will also be really low. So you'd see good performance boosts on windows and in applications and then you can still keep your normal hardrive for storage. Or get one of these plus the 60 gig vertex and have a 120 gigs of space.

 

That works in a netbook with a custom mPCIe slot with a sata controller attached the the pci-e pins. Won't work with notebooks that don't have such a sata controller attached. Need to wait for the Samsung mPCIe SSD+sata to be released to use the mPCIe slot, but the HP Business notebooks have that slot whitelisted, so can't even use it then.

 

I order OCZ Vertex 60GB

 

Today I receive that OCZ Vertex and I install fresh Vista 64 with all drivers and my programs.

I have same 5.9 index score as with cheaper Kingston SSD.I don't see any difference in speed. !!!

Im pissed at this time because I spend 500$ for two SSD.

 

Run this benchmark on both...

http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/1137/ATTO_Disk_Benchmark_v2.34.html

 

Kingston SSD


OCZ Vertex

 

Again, WEI score is a poor way to make performance determinations.

As you can see from ATTO, the Kingston's write perfromance is "sloppy." That'll cause issues.

Run CrystalMark on both:

http://crystalmark.info/software/CrystalDiskMark/index-e.html

What's more, the Kingston isn't Win7 ready (TRIM) and its performance will seriously degrade over time. Run the benchmark once a day for a week and you'll see what I mean. Known issue with SSDs that OCZ has been diligent in addressing.

If your OCZ isn't firmware 1.4 you can use their wiper.exe program which manually trims the drive to ring it back to peek performance. If you are using win7, win7 automatically does this if the OCZ drive is firmware 1.4. Trim is sort of like defragmentation for SSDs. You can read more about it by googling.

 

I run Vista 64 and I have 1.4 on that OCZ
wiper.exe is only for vertex ex? i have vertex (no EX)

 

SLC has some performance advantages in terms of write/erase speeds compared to MLC; but read speeds today don't really matter any more. The write latency issue largely can be mitigated if the controller and the OS supports the TRIM command. SLC also has some advantage in terms of power consumption. And of course SLC lasts on average about 10X the lifetime.

Edit: there is also a difference in operating condition tolerance, such as temperature range. This is why most of the ruggidized machines would use SLC disks, although that won't matter at all to most consumers.

 

7200 HDD Scorpio Black have 5.6 score index on my laptop
SSD Vertex is only 5.9

 

Wiper.exe is for the Vertex you have.

 

5.9 is the highest WEI score goes in Vista. In Win 7, you see the SSD is higher than that. But again, ignore the WEI score. It's not for serious comparison.

 

I think the majority of the components of a storage benchmark does not reflect the area where SSD has the biggest advantage, which would be first access latency. SSDs have a pretty large latency advantage, and most of them have read latency of much less than 1 millisecond, there is minimal difference here between SLC and MLC drives.

The write latency is another story. Any empty SSD should have a substantial advantage over magnetic drives in write latency. For the MLC drives, this degrades over time as larger and larger percentage of the blocks must do read-modify-write to record any new data, as the drive fills up; and given MLC's inherently more complicated process of writing each bit (changing one bit in a cell that stores two bit, the threshold voltage of the cell must be read first before the cell is written again with a newly computed threshold voltage with two inputs of the old value + new input bit), it compounds the problem. But TRIM commands would allow the drive to avoid the majority of these incidences.

Edit, Forgot to add: MLC without TRIM command can end up with a write latency much larger than a magnetic disk, as the performance degrade; even though the initial write latency may be much better. That's probably why sometime people think that SSD's stutter when performing some basic OS operations.

 

lol, if i had the money to blow like that...

 

I will return Kingston
got RMA already

 

lol i wish i had an ssd
the 5400rpm drive in my dv7 is essentially the single bottleneck in its performance

 

Does compact flash count? I've been using a CF card in my HP for more than a year now. Can't find a regular PATA SSD that works and doesn't suck...

 

this is my original Hitachi 5400
now I use this as second drive for pictures,videos etc




I have also spare 7200 Scorpio Black but this drive run very hot,don't like