T400s SSD SLC or MLC

Looking to buy a T400s
I tried contacting Lenovo about the SSD, they knew nothing about them being SLC or MLC

It can be configured with a 64 or 128, they said both were Samsung

I'm guessing, that because of the options for the 64 is $25 cheaper than the 250 hdd, they're probably both MLC

In your opinion (if the 64 and 128 are indeed MLC), should i get the 64 sdd or 250 hdd

Please help me out

 

I believe the SSDs that Lenovo now use are all Samsung MLC SSDs. I would go with the 64GB SSD if you do not need too much space, since it will really be a lot faster than any 1.8" HDD.

 

Thats what i thought

Ya i was looking towards the 64 sdd
Since i'll be running Ubuntu, the OS and most programs take up much less room than windows.

 

I believe the T400s is exclusively using second generation Samsung MLC SSDs. Note that the 128GB version is supposed to be a fair bit faster (sequentially) than the 64GB version due to parallel reads and writes. However, both are so much faster than the hard drive that you should be very satisfied with either.

 

If you're spending that much already, it's worth considering the new Intel SSD that's about to come out. It's 80G, and will probably run about $350, but has far superior specs in terms of read times, and (especially) write times when the disk is full. See this article:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531

 

if i was buying a t400s right now and wanted an ssd, i absolutely would just buy lenovo's cheapest HDD option and buy my own intel g2 ssd to install on my own. there is absolutely no reason to spend your dollars on any other ssd on the market.

 

The Intel SSD is worth considering, but there are some serious caveats to deal with.

1. You will need the rarer x-18M as the x-25M will NOT physically fit in the T400s.
2. The second generation of the x-18M is not yet available.
3. The second generation of the x-25M is currently pulled from the market due to a firmware issue.
4. The Intel SSD does perform better, but the difference is not that significant for most workloads (both are MUCH better than an HDD).
5. The base price on the 1.8" HDD in the T400s is quite high, this makes getting the SSD from Lenovo more desirable (1.8" HDDs have little value on the secondary market) as it is a reasonably priced upgrade.

As I said, any Intel, Samsung, or Indillix SSD is very good, but we are splitting hairs. The practical choices for the T400s are 250GB HDD, 64GB Samsung SSD, or 128GB Samsung SSD (the Intel 80GB SSD may be available soon). Given those options I would happily take the Samsung SSD (either) over the 250GB HDD every time.

 

Do you know of any reviews of the Samsung SSD? Particularly with regard to speeds after the drive has been decently used, as opposed to fresh. It's unclear which one out of the anandtech article I linked it uses (if any).

You're right that the base price of the 1.8" is high, and it is a pity, However, most OEMs charge exorbitant prices for RAM/(SS|HD)D upgrades, as can be seen from the prices to get more RAM (100 for a 2G stick).

Alternatively, Lenovo used to offer an Intel SSD. Do you know when/if they'll be doing that again soon with the new model?

 

There's 1.8" RB-controller based Samsung 220/210 and 220/120 SSDs around. Also 1.8" Photofaster G-Monster V3 is basically a OCZ Vertex in a 1.8" chassis. Plus X18-M. All three offering better performance than 1.8" 100/80 or 90/70 Samsung SSD.

 

I believe the T400s is using the 1.8" RB controlled Samsungs (128GB is 220/210, 64GB is 220/120). Some of the other models of ThinkPads may still be using the 90/70 MB/s MLC Samsung (I've not heard confirmation of the model in quite some time). My x200 Tablet has the 100/80 MB/s SLC Samsung that Lenovo used before switching to the MLC variants.

 

it's interesting how very few previews, and almost no one except the reviewers mention the single biggest advantage of some, not all SSDs.
Intel is far superior to any other, with Samsung a not-so-distant second, in power consumption.

Well, this is a laptop on battery power, is it not? Most recent offerings are .5W idle, 1.5-2W sustained.
Intel first generation was less than .05 idle, with the second generation even less than that.
I am using a Samsung SLC and 9-cell batt. gives me 10 hours. Try that on an Mtron, or OCZ.

 

I agree power consumption is the most important stat with latency a close second (sequential speed is largely irrelevant after a certain point). See the SSD effects link in my sig and you will see I make the difference in power consumption as one of my dominant points.

However, I believe that Samsung SSDs (in particular the 1.8" 64GB SLC model that I have) are very slightly superior to the Intel SSDs in this mark (at least for sustained access).

 

I agree power consumption is important, too. However, it's second (in my mind) to not causing system stuttering - a problem with some of the original OCZ drives. That's tied in to the other problem I mentioned - the worst-case write times (have to copy page to cache, wipe, then flash again).

 

jonlumpkin - the original Samsung 100/80 or 90/70 SSD had lowish performing small writes which may also affect overall performance. We can see it's Crystaldiskmark here giving 5.3MB/s small file writes. Compare that to 57MB/s for the X25-M G2 shown here.

Have you tried to see if zflashpoint driver gives better performance? It buffers the small writes and dumps them in a larger write. Certainly made a noticable difference with my HDD performance, with lag especially when using Firefox. Previously I'd be scrolling a Window, a write would occur and it would jutter the scroller (sounds like a movie title?). Seems Firefox is doing a lot of small writes.

 

They also use Toshiba SSDs for the 128MB/256MB variants.

 

Interesting, any proof on that. I also thought Lenovo used SSDs exclusively through Samsung. The 64/128/256GB models should all be MLC from Samsung.

 

It's 5.3 MB not KB (attached), but I admit there is a difference due to the Intel's write combining. However, I have not noticed any stutter or lag with the stork firmware (especially compared to my old HDD).

I have not tried that driver. However, based upon the translation it looks like a 32-bit drives only, so no go for me.

 

I you don't believe me, ask the t400s owners. They'll be happy to confirm this statement.

 

I accidentally uploaded the wrong benchmark image. The appropriate one (14.82 MB/s small read, 5.337 MB/s small writes) is now uploaded. Compare that to the 0.315 MB/s small read and 0.787 MB/s small writes of the HDD that it replaced or 0.676/1.501 of my desktop WD6400AAKS.

If I'm feeling adventurous one day I may give the Flashpoint driver a shot. However, as I said I have been extremely satisfied with the performance of my SSD at stock speeds.

 

A number of the reviews for the T400s mentioned that theirs came equipped with a Toshiba SSD:
http://www.thinkpads.com/2009/07/10/thinkpad-t400s-upgrading/
http://hothardware.com/Articles/Lenovo-ThinkPad-T400s-Notebook-Review/
As well, a few people who ordered T400s have indicated that their SSD is Toshiba and not Samsung.

Also, just wanted to point out that Intel does indeed make a 1.8" variant of their MLC SSDs: http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10010801

 

OK, here is from T400s user

Here is my 128GB Samsung SSD:



And just for A/B, here is WD Scorpio Black (320GB 7200rpm) I put into ultra-bay as my storage drive:



Samsung 128GB is $240 option, and with ecoupons/discounts (in case when I ordered from Lenovo over the phone they offered over 20% discount), for me it worked out as $180 option. That is $180 for 128GB SSD drive with such performance!!! Make your own decision

 

Too bad there are no Toshiba SSD CDM yet. I wonder if these are the new Jmicron drives...

 

Note that they don't actually have any available. However, if/when they become available $223 is a good price for a high quality 80GB SSD.

 

I just ordered an 80gb intel for my new x200 tablet. Newegg has them for $229.

 

Enjoy. However, it was likely the 2.5" version and will NOT fit in the T400s or x301. Additionally you will see that the G2 drive is currently out of stock until a firmware issue is addressed.

 

my t400s came with a Toshiba SSD

 

Can you run CrystalDiskMark and upload the results? How do you find your SSD? What is the model of your SSD (from C:\ -> Properties -> Hardware)

 

Probably the same as the other ones, don't you think so?
http://www.toshiba.com/taec/news/press_releases/2008/memy_08_550.jsp

 

i'll do mark later, but the model is: TOSHIBA THNS128GG4BAAA-FDE

 

Just wanted to confirm if it is the new Toshiba's and his model is more descriptive than the general line in the link. I wonder if FDE means full disk encryption? Thanks zenit for taking the time!

 

Mine is Toshiba THNS128GG4BAAA-N

Here is my benchmark for C and D drive.
C is 65GB with 27.8GB free, and D is 48.7GB with 17.3GB free

Noted that I have done many of the XP SSD Optimization when I did the test.

 

Thank you for the benchmarks. I've incorporated that plus many of the other 1.8" sata SSDs discussed in this thread here. For 4kb read speed, where much of the perceived Windows loading speed is seen:

Mtron Mobi 3500 > Indilinx-based GMonster V3 > Intel X18-M > Samsung PB22-J > Samsung 100/80 SLC > Toshiba THNSxxx.

 

It was the old one. I was tempted to get a bigger drive of a different brand but I don't have the patience for spending that much money and not get something out that's of the box functional.

 

Intel will supposedly have the firmware fix out within the week and ZipZoomFly currently is listing a delivery date of August 15th, though I don't know how much you'd save if your order has already shipped.

 

In a review online I saw that it took about 44 seconds to boot which seems quite long for a laptop with a SSD in it.