mSATA - Thinkpad W520

I'm looking to purchase an mSATA SSD drive for the Lenovo Thinkpad W520. The main use of this SSD with be for the OS and frequently used applications. All other data will be saved on a 500 gb 7,2000 RPM drive. I'm posting here instead of the SSD section because I want input from those who have already installed an mSATA SSD in their W520 or those who know about Thinkpads in general.

I'm very new to purchasing SSD's so I need some help. As far I read, "SLC" SSDs offer the best performance but cost much more. The "MLC" on the other hand allows larger sizes but are less reliable and performance is sacrificed. Is this a large trade off or is the difference negligible?

Since I'm only looking to speed up the OS and a handful of applications, I'm open to smaller SSD's to get SLC (unless of course the price is exorbitant). My budget is between $100-$200, preferably on the $100 side.

I understand there are some problems with the "fingerprint reader" and "bitlocker" when doing a clean install (I read this is preferable to cloning the hard drive). Something to do with UEFI messing up..something. I've been trying to follow the forum and the owner's thread but all the acronyms are getting to my head. Can someone give me a concise description? From what I gather...it seems UEFI is a replacement for BIOS (or perhaps works along side it, but can be set to "UEFI only") and it allows the system to boot up faster by a few seconds but no other performance increase. It disables the finger print reader and bitlocker but there's purportedly a work around for it? Oh and what's "GPT"...

This is my First Lenovo, First Thinkpad, First Mobile Workstation, First SSD, First...nice laptop in general.

I found a couple mSATAs. I hear many people opt for the Intel 310 for reliability but I'm open to other options as well.

I also read somewhere that the smaller sized SSDs begin to throttle the write and read speeds quicker than would a larger SSD, after writing a large amount of data to the drive in a short time. I don't know how relevant this is to my search.

Renice K3VLAR

• 120 GB
• SATA II
• 50mm mSATA
• MLC

Purchase: Renice mSATA Solid State Drives | My Digital Discount

Review: http://forum.notebookreview.com/sol...sf1222-msata-ssd-user-review.html#post7389868

Super Talent MLC mSATA

• 16-64 GB
• SATA II
• 50mm mSATA
• MLC

I see no difference between the two below except for price?

Purchase 64gb: Amazon.com: Super Talent 64 GB MLC mSATA Full Size Solid State Drive for JEDEC MO-300B - SG64N85SM: Electronics
Purchase 64gb: Amazon.com: New Super Talent 64gb Mlc Msata Full Size Solid State Drive Jedec Mo-300b High Speed Performance: Electronics
Search: Amazon.com: Super Talent msata: Electronics

Elite III mSATA 50mm SSD

• 8-64 GB
• SATA II
• 50mm mSATA
• SLC

On the runcore site it states that one can buy 2-32gb in one location...8-64gb in another location...and the then 2-16gb in yet another. And you have to contact the headquarters in China or something to buy the drive...

The semiconductorstore is a little better with organization but they say you can't buy it online and have to call or ask for a quote.

RunCore Elite III mSATA 50mm SSD - RunCore SSD,PATA SSD,SATA SSD,PCIE SSD,ZIF SSD
RCE-III-I5032-SC - Elite III MSATA SSD, 32GB, Commercial Temp, SLC - RunCore - SemiconductorStore.com

MyDigitalSSD

• 32-128 GB
• SATA II
• 50mm mSATA
• MLC

MyDigitalSSD 32GB 50mm Bulletproof mSATA SSD | My Digital Discount
MyDigitalSSD 64GB 50mm Bulletproof mSATA SSD | My Digital Discount
MyDigitalSSD 128GB 50mm Bulletproof mSATA SSD | My Digital Discount

Can someone answer some of my questions and offer an opinion as to which SSD to buy?

LASTLY, can I install a regular SATA II in the slot using some adapter? There are very cheap deals going on for the SATA II drives: Kingston SSDNow Solid State Drives (SSD): V100 Series 2.5" 64GB SSD $60 after $60 Rebate, V100 Series 2.5" 64GB SSD Notebook Bundle $65 after $55 rebate, SSDNow V+ 100 96GB SSD $95 after $60 Rebate + Free Shipping - Amazon.com Deals, Coupons and Prom

If yes, is there any effect on performance by using an adapter?

EDIT: AMP INC.: Memory Products: mSATA 50mm, SATA Solid State Drive (SSD) SATAsphere Series- Client Class

another one..

EDIT 2: nice chart

http://www.mydigitaldiscount.com/solid-state-drives-msata-ssd

http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/28/intel-ssd-720-710-and-520-series-leak-out-larsen-creek-and-pai/

EDIT: New Runcore Models Added

RunCore T50

• 60gb ($198), 120gb ($358), 240gb(?), 480gb(?)
• SandForce SF-2218
• 6 gb/s
• 550 MB/s reads
• 470 MB/s writes
• 60,000 IOPS 4k random read
• 35,000 IOPS 4k random write

Runcore I50

• 60gb ($178), 120gb ($380)
• SandForce SF-1200
• 3 gb/s
• 280 MB/s reads
• 270 MB/s writes
• 45,000 IOPS 4k random read
• 30,000 IOPS 4k random write

Something seems wrong about the 120gb prices of the I50 vs T50

Runcore Lite

• 16gb ($28), 32gb ($38)
• 3 gb/s
• SandForce SF-2141

 

I've had the Intel 310 40GB for a couple months now, and have had no problems with it so far. I installed with Legacy BIOS option and my system boots in 12 seconds flat, with ~8GB free space left (UEFI was too much of a hassle, and seems to cause unexpected problems). So far the drive is very fast, stable, and I would highly recommend it.

Plus the 80GB (if you can find one) is supposed to be even faster than the 40GB.

 

I recently took delivery of a W520 . I went with the Intel 310 (80gb) because of Intel's reputation on the SSD market. The 310 is not the first SSD I own. I have a year old second gen. Intel X-25M on my Desktop...fast and reliable. I heard Intel is not the fastest but it is reliable. For me this matter more!

My Thinkpad came with the 500gb hardrive. After I made a backup of it, I uninstalled it physically from the laptop and installed the mSata drive. I did not create a mirror image of Windows but rather went for a clean install of the operating system. I didnt even bother changing anything on the BIOS. The mSata was recognized and took only a few minutes from installing Win7 professional dvd disc. I installed the fingerprint reader driver and had no problems with it. Never tried the bitlocker however.

To be honest I don't feel there is much different when using the legacy or UEFI when booting the laptop. Both seems fast to me. I don't run any benchmark so it is really hard for me to comment about performance except I only believe in real world usage.

 

The specs on the Renice seem much better than that of the Intel 310 so I'm considering it. It'll probably be easier to get my hands on it considering how quickly the Intel's are getting sold out. However I see that Renice is much more expensive than the MyDigitalSSD. Is it because Renice uses the NAND flash 34nm instead of the 50nm?

 

Thanks for the input! It seems its between Renice and Intel now.

The Renice is 2.333 cents per gig while the Intel is 2.375 cents. Seems like the Renice is a better deal since you're getting 40 extra gb at a lower rate per gb.

 

I have the Intel 80GB, albeit in a different Lenovo model. It's been a very good experience so far. It may be a slower drive in an absolute sense, but in practical terms, i can't bring myself to care.

For reasons that are not evident to me (and I don't suspect the Intel SSD), I had a hard time getting a clean W7Pro install to work, but the Intel/Acronis cloning software did a wonderful job in carrying over the factory install.

 

I thought the SF controller has lower random speeds than the Intel. Reliability is also less than Intels. But 34nm NAND costs far less than 50nm, so if they're charging more, than it's just more profit for them.

 

http://www.storagereview.com/renice_x3_msata_ssd_review

"The 32GB 34nm NAND used on the Renice X3 is Micron sourced and is partially responsible for the high price of the drive. Normally, manufacturers would be able to get away with using 8GB chips when given much more space to solder onto. With the mSATA card standard, you are limited to roughly four NAND pieces unless someone finds a way to drastically reduce the size of the memory to fit more in the same space."

sgogeta4, the Renice is cheaper per GB than the Intel

 

Why? What issue(s) did you hit?

 

add to the list
RunCore T50 mSATA 6 Gbps SSD Released | RunCore,T50,mSATA,6 Gbps,SSD,RunCore T50 mSATA 6 Gbps SSD Released

 

Add me to the list of Intel 310 80GB users. I just installed one on my Y560 about a month ago, I'm in love.

I went with Intel because of reliability, my laptop is for personal/work use, so that is priority. And like has been said, for everyday usem, will you really notice the difference in speed?

If you're vigilant on Newegg, you can usually pick one up there when they get back in stock.

Best of luck!

 

RunCore Releases Trio of SandForce-Driven mSATA SSDs

Chinese memory enterprise flash memory expert RunCore released a trio of solid state drives (SSDs) in the mSATA form-factor, that includes the high end T50 with its 6 Gb/s interface, mid-range I50 and entry-level Lite series, both of which have 3 Gb/s interfaces. The T50 uses SandForce SF-2218 controller, and can provide transfer rates of up to 550 MB/s reads with 470 MB/s writes, with 4K random read and write performance of 60,000 and 35,000 IOPS, respectively. Despite its tiny form-factor, the RunCore T50 comes in capacities of 60 GB, 120 GB, 240 GB, and even 480 GB; priced at US $198, $358, respectively for the 60 GB and 120 GB variants, with the upper variants' price yet to be disclosed. This makes the RunCore T50 480 GB look like the ultimate mSATA SSD.

The I50, on the other hand, looks to be using SandForce SF-1200 controllers, with transfer rates of 280 MB/s read and 270 MB/s write, with 4K random read/write performance of 45,000 and 30,000 IOPS, respectively. The I50 is available in 60 GB and 120 GB capacities, priced at $178 and $380, respectively. The RunCore Lite runs on SandForce SF-2141, and and is a low-cost, low-capacity SSD for OEMs, which means that retail availability is uncertain. The 16 GB variant is priced at $28, and 32 GB one for $38. The mSATA form-factor is prevalent in embedded systems, ultra portable notebooks, certain media players, and even some consumer motherboards that support Intel's Smart Response technology.

 

I don't recall enough to articulate the specific reasons, but it involved troubles with boot sequence and UEFI, as well as blue screens after installing certain drivers. So now obviously I'm running legacy mode, and the factory image.

I might try again in a month or two, if I get the itch.