So I've finally decided to jump in the SSD bandwagon and panning on getting a Kingston SSDNow V100 64GB hard drive 64GB for my OS and applications. Games and storage data will be on my 2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.12's in RAID 0.
From reviews, the SSDNow V100 reads an average of 250mb/s and writes at 120mb/s with a 0.5ms access time. I'm expecting a big performance boost from my current 7200.12's in RAID 0 that only does 170mb/s read and 170mb/s write with a 14ms access time.
All thought welcome,
From reviews, the SSDNow V100 reads an average of 250mb/s and writes at 120mb/s with a 0.5ms access time. I'm expecting a big performance boost from my current 7200.12's in RAID 0 that only does 170mb/s read and 170mb/s write with a 14ms access time.
All thought welcome,
Yes... I to have taken the next step and ordered an SSD. Newegg.ca - Crucial RealSSD C300 CTFDDAC064MAG-1G1 2.5" 64GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
There are so many to choose from I guess it just gets down to trial and error.. I hope mine won't be an error. I'm so looking forward to a fast boot up, fast program loading, and a nice WEI.
There are so many to choose from I guess it just gets down to trial and error.. I hope mine won't be an error. I'm so looking forward to a fast boot up, fast program loading, and a nice WEI. The Crucial RealSSD C300 is my second choice. It has an amazing read speed average of 350mb/s paired with a SATA-600 controller and the same reads speeds as the Kingston SSDNow V100 @ 250mb/s paired with a SATA-300 controller.
The only thing that I do not like about the Crucial is it's write speed of 80mb/s which is spot on from reviews regardless if you use a SATA-300 or SATA-600 controller. For an OS drive I think the write speeds are just as important as the read speeds.
I don't have SATA-600 onboard my motherboard so that would cost me extra plus the Crucial is a bit more expensive than the Kingston here in Canada. Thus, I'm leaning more towards Kingston but Crucial is a great choice.
However, I think the Crucial drive is more reliable than Kingston drive reading from reviews and Crucial has great support with frequent firmware updates for the C300.
The only thing that I do not like about the Crucial is it's write speed of 80mb/s which is spot on from reviews regardless if you use a SATA-300 or SATA-600 controller. For an OS drive I think the write speeds are just as important as the read speeds.
I don't have SATA-600 onboard my motherboard so that would cost me extra plus the Crucial is a bit more expensive than the Kingston here in Canada. Thus, I'm leaning more towards Kingston but Crucial is a great choice.
However, I think the Crucial drive is more reliable than Kingston drive reading from reviews and Crucial has great support with frequent firmware updates for the C300.
You want to focus on access time. Good SSDs have 0.1ms. The Kingston at 0.5ms would not be my first choice. Read/write speeds are of lesser importance because the system does not read or write big chunks of data - except maybe when you install a big program.
My first choice is the OCZ Vertex or the Crucial C300. And I have bought all mine from NewEgg who always treated me well.
PS: this is a good deal at $110 after MIR and sufficient for the OS http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-528-_-Product
My first choice is the OCZ Vertex or the Crucial C300. And I have bought all mine from NewEgg who always treated me well.
PS: this is a good deal at $110 after MIR and sufficient for the OS http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-528-_-Product
My bad,
The Kingston has an access time of 0.3ms but truth be told any access time under 7ms is already noticeably better on performing daily task plus multitasking when compared to normal desktop drives.
I remember when I got my first 10,000rpm 74GB Raptop, I paid $300 for 74GB back then but man was it worth it. Correct me if I'm wrong, the 74GB Raptop had an access time of 7ms and when compared to my old Hitachi Deskstar at the time the difference was like night and 2x day.
Thanks for input, I'll look into the OCZ. Looks like the OCZ may cost more than the Kingston and Crucial here in Canada.
The Kingston has an access time of 0.3ms but truth be told any access time under 7ms is already noticeably better on performing daily task plus multitasking when compared to normal desktop drives.
I remember when I got my first 10,000rpm 74GB Raptop, I paid $300 for 74GB back then but man was it worth it. Correct me if I'm wrong, the 74GB Raptop had an access time of 7ms and when compared to my old Hitachi Deskstar at the time the difference was like night and 2x day.
Thanks for input, I'll look into the OCZ. Looks like the OCZ may cost more than the Kingston and Crucial here in Canada.
Well time will tell I guess, It's been ordered so I can't change my mind. 
Live and learn.
It's been ordered so I can't change my mind. Live and learn. @ Beginning
Hopefully the Crucial drive arrive undamaged for you, regardless of the read/write speeds you''ll still see and feel a big performance boost from you current drive assuming that is not an SSD hard drive you have currently.
@ whs
The OCZ Vertex 2 50GB costs almost double the price of a Kingston SSDNow V100 64GB here in Canada: $100 vs $170. I think I'm better off grabbing one Kingston for now and when I need or want a bit more performance and disk space I'll grab a second Kingston and put them in RAID 0 for basically the same amount of money if I were to grab one OCZ Vertex 2 50GB right now.
Choices and options right now:
Kingston / Kingston (RAID 0) / OCZ / Crucial
$100 / $200 / $170 / $140 (SATA-600 Controller $20)
64GB / 128GB / 50GB / 64GB
250mb/s / 400mb/s / 250mb/s / 250mb/s (350mb/s) read
120mb/s / 200mb/s / 250mb/s / 80mb/s write
0.3ms / 0.2ms / 0.1ms / 0.1ms access time
Current setup:
Seagate 2 x 7200.12 500GB RAID 0 (1TB), 170mb/s read/write, 14ms access time
Hopefully the Crucial drive arrive undamaged for you, regardless of the read/write speeds you''ll still see and feel a big performance boost from you current drive assuming that is not an SSD hard drive you have currently.
@ whs
The OCZ Vertex 2 50GB costs almost double the price of a Kingston SSDNow V100 64GB here in Canada: $100 vs $170. I think I'm better off grabbing one Kingston for now and when I need or want a bit more performance and disk space I'll grab a second Kingston and put them in RAID 0 for basically the same amount of money if I were to grab one OCZ Vertex 2 50GB right now.
Choices and options right now:
Kingston / Kingston (RAID 0) / OCZ / Crucial
$100 / $200 / $170 / $140 (SATA-600 Controller $20)
64GB / 128GB / 50GB / 64GB
250mb/s / 400mb/s / 250mb/s / 250mb/s (350mb/s) read
120mb/s / 200mb/s / 250mb/s / 80mb/s write
0.3ms / 0.2ms / 0.1ms / 0.1ms access time
Current setup:
Seagate 2 x 7200.12 500GB RAID 0 (1TB), 170mb/s read/write, 14ms access time
I have taken the leap into ssd also. When i get home, i'll be setting up 2 x OCZ vertex in raid 0.
Interesting to read about the sata 600 controller. Need to check it out before the handbrake puts the OS onto it.
Do mobo's have them or are they an after market item??
Got an Asus Rampage III Extreme.
Interesting to read about the sata 600 controller. Need to check it out before the handbrake puts the OS onto it.
Do mobo's have them or are they an after market item??
Got an Asus Rampage III Extreme.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Nemix77 
The Crucial RealSSD C300 is my second choice. It has an amazing read speed average of 350mb/s paired with a SATA-600 controller and the same reads speeds as the Kingston SSDNow V100 @ 250mb/s paired with a SATA-300 controller.
The only thing that I do not like about the Crucial is it's write speed of 80mb/s which is spot on from reviews regardless if you use a SATA-300 or SATA-600 controller. For an OS drive I think the write speeds are just as important as the read speeds.
I don't have SATA-600 onboard my motherboard so that would cost me extra plus the Crucial is a bit more expensive than the Kingston here in Canada. Thus, I'm leaning more towards Kingston but Crucial is a great choice.
However, I think the Crucial drive is more reliable than Kingston drive reading from reviews and Crucial has great support with frequent firmware updates for the C300.
The only thing that I do not like about the Crucial is it's write speed of 80mb/s which is spot on from reviews regardless if you use a SATA-300 or SATA-600 controller. For an OS drive I think the write speeds are just as important as the read speeds.
I don't have SATA-600 onboard my motherboard so that would cost me extra plus the Crucial is a bit more expensive than the Kingston here in Canada. Thus, I'm leaning more towards Kingston but Crucial is a great choice.
However, I think the Crucial drive is more reliable than Kingston drive reading from reviews and Crucial has great support with frequent firmware updates for the C300.
provided you have enough RAM in your system the OS actually doesn't need to do a huge nuber of WRITES -- paging data is probably the most important and significant in OS Writes -- insufficient RAM or running too many applications at once will significantly increase the load on this data set.
Applications are another matter of course such as Photoshop. It would also be a good idea to allocate at least one Photoshop Scratch data to the SSD as well if you have Photoshop.
Things like Office / Word / EXCEL don't really need SSD performance but you will certainly notice a huge improvement in application start up time and when you save a document.
Cheers
jimbo
@ spinifex
The Asus Rampage III motherboard you have has onboard SATA-600 and USB 3.0. I don't know if the OCZ Vertex 2 would benefit from SATA-600 as it is a native SATA-300 SSD hard drive unlike the Crucial C300 which is native SATA-600 but backards compatible with SATA-300/150. My motherboard does not have have either SATA-600 or USB 3.0, I should have waited a two weeks when I bought my motherboard cause the newer revision of my exact motherboard has SATA-600 and USB 3.0 for the same price.
@ jimbo45
I couldn't agree more that write speed is not that important for an OS drive for most users since the drive usually reads data for loading application and programs already installed on the OS. But I think personally I'll greatly benefit from the extra 40mb/s write speed that Kingston has over Crucial cause I tend to work between two hard drives (in my case right now partitions). Thus moving files from my 1TB and creating new files eg. WinRAR, Photoshop, ripping DVD and browser cache would greatly benefit from higher write speeds.
My Setup: I plan on making a dedicated partition on my 1TB RAID 0 configuration just for the pagefile. Regardless of what others say, I always keep the pagefile no matter how much ram is installed. It's going to look like this:
- 64GB (60GB Real) SSD
60GB all used for Windows 7 and applications (no games, no pagefile), should have 40GB free for temporary files and temporary workspace.
- 1TB (930GB Real) RAID 0
10GB dedicated partition for pagefile (moved from OS drive) - *going to hide this partition*
270GB partition for games
650GB partition for storage and additional workspace
- 320GB (300GB Real) 2.5" External
300GB all used to media files, temporary file transfer and backup of important files
The Asus Rampage III motherboard you have has onboard SATA-600 and USB 3.0. I don't know if the OCZ Vertex 2 would benefit from SATA-600 as it is a native SATA-300 SSD hard drive unlike the Crucial C300 which is native SATA-600 but backards compatible with SATA-300/150. My motherboard does not have have either SATA-600 or USB 3.0, I should have waited a two weeks when I bought my motherboard cause the newer revision of my exact motherboard has SATA-600 and USB 3.0 for the same price.
@ jimbo45
I couldn't agree more that write speed is not that important for an OS drive for most users since the drive usually reads data for loading application and programs already installed on the OS. But I think personally I'll greatly benefit from the extra 40mb/s write speed that Kingston has over Crucial cause I tend to work between two hard drives (in my case right now partitions). Thus moving files from my 1TB and creating new files eg. WinRAR, Photoshop, ripping DVD and browser cache would greatly benefit from higher write speeds.
My Setup: I plan on making a dedicated partition on my 1TB RAID 0 configuration just for the pagefile. Regardless of what others say, I always keep the pagefile no matter how much ram is installed. It's going to look like this:
- 64GB (60GB Real) SSD
60GB all used for Windows 7 and applications (no games, no pagefile), should have 40GB free for temporary files and temporary workspace.
- 1TB (930GB Real) RAID 0
10GB dedicated partition for pagefile (moved from OS drive) - *going to hide this partition*
270GB partition for games
650GB partition for storage and additional workspace
- 320GB (300GB Real) 2.5" External
300GB all used to media files, temporary file transfer and backup of important files
Quote:
The OCZ Vertex 2 50GB costs almost double the price of a Kingston SSDNow V100 64GB here in Canada: $100 vs $170
Quote:
When i get home, i'll be setting up 2 x OCZ vertex in raid 0
This will give you nice numbers from the measurement tools. But for real life it will make little difference as compared to a single SSD because the access time does not change - Raid or no Raid.
@ Nemix77 " ...cause I tend to work between two hard drives... " Dadgumit! I hope that won't come back and bite me in the end. I too work usually between more then one drive.............
It's final, I've decided on getting a Kingston SSDNow V100 64GB and a 1TB Seagate Barracuda 7200.12. I'm going to give away one of my 500GB 7200.12 to little my brother cause he only has 320GB right now. I can only fit 2 x 3.5" + 1 x 2.5" in my case drive bays with a 80mm fan blowing direct through the hard drive (InWin Dragon Slayer) and one more 2.5" or 3.5" in the floppy bay but that's directly under a vibrating and warm running DVD burner with no direct fan blowing through so that's not an option for me.
My final setup:
64GB SSDNow - Main OS + Temporary Workspace
500GB 7200.12 - Pagefile + Games + Workspace
1TB 7200.12 - Storage + Media Files + Backups (I would go 2TB but I like having less platters)
*Canceled the external option. Only needed it cause of my drive bay problem anyway.*
Thanks, for all the input guys.
I'll make an updated thread and post my results for the Kingston SSDNow V100 64GB when it arrives and I get Windows 7 reinstalled, may take longer than planned.
@ whs
I'd still like to see your results of 2 x OCZ Vertex 2's in RAID 0, do post your results in HDTune if possible.
My final setup:
64GB SSDNow - Main OS + Temporary Workspace
500GB 7200.12 - Pagefile + Games + Workspace
1TB 7200.12 - Storage + Media Files + Backups (I would go 2TB but I like having less platters)
*Canceled the external option. Only needed it cause of my drive bay problem anyway.*
Thanks, for all the input guys.
I'll make an updated thread and post my results for the Kingston SSDNow V100 64GB when it arrives and I get Windows 7 reinstalled, may take longer than planned.
@ whs
I'd still like to see your results of 2 x OCZ Vertex 2's in RAID 0, do post your results in HDTune if possible.
Quote:
@ whs
I'd still like to see your results of 2 x OCZ Vertex 2's in RAID 0, do post your results in HDTune if possible.
I'd still like to see your results of 2 x OCZ Vertex 2's in RAID 0, do post your results in HDTune if possible.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Nemix77 My final setup:
64GB SSDNow - Main OS + Temporary Workspace
500GB 7200.12 - Pagefile + Games + Workspace
1TB 7200.12 - Storage + Media Files + Backups (I would go 2TB but I like having less platters)
64GB SSDNow - Main OS + Temporary Workspace
500GB 7200.12 - Pagefile + Games + Workspace
1TB 7200.12 - Storage + Media Files + Backups (I would go 2TB but I like having less platters)
@ Lebon14
From what I've read putting the pagefile on different physical disk minimizes read/writes on the main drive. For SSD's that really a good thing since more reads and writes decreases the life span of an SSD hard drive. I don't think putting the pagefile to a slower physcial disk in my case would help with performance but it's would not decrease performance either and could possibly increase life on the SSD and provide more free space (pagefile = 1.5x ram = 6GB in my case). Besides the pagefile is hardly used on system with 4GB of ram or more anyways, you may want to re-consider moving your pagefile to a different physical disk (6GB = Call of Duty: Black Ops and less hard drive thrashing).
From what I've read putting the pagefile on different physical disk minimizes read/writes on the main drive. For SSD's that really a good thing since more reads and writes decreases the life span of an SSD hard drive. I don't think putting the pagefile to a slower physcial disk in my case would help with performance but it's would not decrease performance either and could possibly increase life on the SSD and provide more free space (pagefile = 1.5x ram = 6GB in my case). Besides the pagefile is hardly used on system with 4GB of ram or more anyways, you may want to re-consider moving your pagefile to a different physical disk (6GB = Call of Duty: Black Ops and less hard drive thrashing).
With e.g. 6GBs of RAM it is neither here nor there. There will be hardly any pagefaults anyhow and the speed of the paging device will have a minimal impact on overall performance.
I keep mine on the SSD because I have plenty of space and I am too lazy to move it. With 6GBs (I have 3 and 4GB) I would probably reduce it to half. And deleting the hiberfile will also gain you a chunk.
I keep mine on the SSD because I have plenty of space and I am too lazy to move it. With 6GBs (I have 3 and 4GB) I would probably reduce it to half. And deleting the hiberfile will also gain you a chunk.
Beginning,
Don't worry my friend your are going to absolutely love the Crucial SSD. It scores 7.7 WEI in my system and I can't think of any component that has been so transformational to my computing enjoyment than this SSD. Yes I can't wait for larger less expensive Sata III SSD's coming down the pike. But for the moment and for my OS and Apps. this 64 gb drive has rocked my world as I'm sure it will your's.
Don't worry my friend your are going to absolutely love the Crucial SSD. It scores 7.7 WEI in my system and I can't think of any component that has been so transformational to my computing enjoyment than this SSD. Yes I can't wait for larger less expensive Sata III SSD's coming down the pike. But for the moment and for my OS and Apps. this 64 gb drive has rocked my world as I'm sure it will your's.
Thanks linnemeyerhere, for the peptalk. I'm sure I'll be impressed with the drive.. We all tend to get all up in the air about things we don't really understand. :P
Cheers!!
Now I'll go back to waiting, waiting, waiting, ..................... Sigh!
We all tend to get all up in the air about things we don't really understand. :PCheers!!
Now I'll go back to waiting, waiting, waiting, ..................... Sigh!
The highly advertised sequential read/write speeds have little impact on actual day to day useage.
Much more important is the access time and the random read/writes. The access time is what makes it so fast, random reads/writes is what the OS does the large percentage of the time.
Going from .3ms to less than .1ms is actually a big difference, it is noticeable.
You can check side by side benchmarks for two SSDs on the AnandTech SSD Bench site.
I hope you're getting the Kingston V+ series, the Kingston V series doesn't have very good reviews/benchmarks.
Whatever SSDyou get I'm sure you will be happy with the performance improvement.
Just remember a lot of recommended tweaks that you will come across are for Gen1 SSDs, Gen2 SSDs don't need very many. Win7 will do most of them if you install it to a bare, unformatted SSD.
You can check on the many SSD sites, for Gen2 SSDs they recommend leaving the page file on the SSD.
MS also recommends this:
Let us know how everything goes when you get it.
Much more important is the access time and the random read/writes. The access time is what makes it so fast, random reads/writes is what the OS does the large percentage of the time.
Going from .3ms to less than .1ms is actually a big difference, it is noticeable.
You can check side by side benchmarks for two SSDs on the AnandTech SSD Bench site.
I hope you're getting the Kingston V+ series, the Kingston V series doesn't have very good reviews/benchmarks.
Whatever SSDyou get I'm sure you will be happy with the performance improvement.
Just remember a lot of recommended tweaks that you will come across are for Gen1 SSDs, Gen2 SSDs don't need very many. Win7 will do most of them if you install it to a bare, unformatted SSD.
You can check on the many SSD sites, for Gen2 SSDs they recommend leaving the page file on the SSD.
MS also recommends this:
Quote:
Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs?
Yes. Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger sequential writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs handle well.
In looking at telemetry data from thousands of traces and focusing on pagefile reads and writes, we find that
In looking at telemetry data from thousands of traces and focusing on pagefile reads and writes, we find that
- Pagefile.sys reads outnumber pagefile.sys writes by about 40 to 1,
- Pagefile.sys read sizes are typically quite small, with 67% less than or equal to 4 KB, and 88% less than 16 KB.
- Pagefile.sys writes are relatively large, with 62% greater than or equal to 128 KB and 45% being exactly 1 MB in size.
@ Dave76
Given the fact that both the Crucial and OCZ SSD's cost 40-70% over the Kingston V100 it's really a no brainer for my decision. Others compared a 7200.12 to a WD Black and say it's a lot better and that's with just a 3ms reduction. Comparing my old 74GB Raptor to a VelociRaptor which both has a 7ms access time, the difference is only the SATA connection speed SATA-150 vs SATA-300 and read/writes times 70mb/s vs 105mb/s but benchmarks and real world performance shows the VelociRaptor pulls ahead a lot.
Considering the difference of only .2ms which is not even a 1ms with higher write speed over Crucial 40mb/s and a $40 reduction on the price tag. It's really no competition, if I were only to save $20 then I may have a dilemma. I'm almost positive a few months down the Kingston can probably be found for $80 which would give me 128GB RAID 0 option, 1.5x more read/writes times and only a $40 price bump from the Crucial now and the same cost as a OCZ right now. That's 64GB more disk space with reads speeds of the Crucial in SATA-600 (400mb/s) and write speeds of the OCZ (250mb/s) if I decide in the future go the RAID option.
I only considered getting a SSD because of the promotion going on for the Kingston right now, at regular price it would cost me $135 for the Kingston and obvious I would choose the Crucial over the Kingston both a regular price. On top of all that, I never considered a SSD to begin with, I'm perfectly happy with my 7200.12 in RAID right now.
Anyhow, I'm in the process of placing an order for the Kingston SSDNow V100 64GB along with a Seagate 7200.12 1TB and a MSI N460GTX HAWK 1GB videocard as an upgrade to my current XFX HD 5770 1GB.
Hope it all works out, thanks again to all for the inputs.
Given the fact that both the Crucial and OCZ SSD's cost 40-70% over the Kingston V100 it's really a no brainer for my decision. Others compared a 7200.12 to a WD Black and say it's a lot better and that's with just a 3ms reduction. Comparing my old 74GB Raptor to a VelociRaptor which both has a 7ms access time, the difference is only the SATA connection speed SATA-150 vs SATA-300 and read/writes times 70mb/s vs 105mb/s but benchmarks and real world performance shows the VelociRaptor pulls ahead a lot.
Considering the difference of only .2ms which is not even a 1ms with higher write speed over Crucial 40mb/s and a $40 reduction on the price tag. It's really no competition, if I were only to save $20 then I may have a dilemma. I'm almost positive a few months down the Kingston can probably be found for $80 which would give me 128GB RAID 0 option, 1.5x more read/writes times and only a $40 price bump from the Crucial now and the same cost as a OCZ right now. That's 64GB more disk space with reads speeds of the Crucial in SATA-600 (400mb/s) and write speeds of the OCZ (250mb/s) if I decide in the future go the RAID option.
I only considered getting a SSD because of the promotion going on for the Kingston right now, at regular price it would cost me $135 for the Kingston and obvious I would choose the Crucial over the Kingston both a regular price. On top of all that, I never considered a SSD to begin with, I'm perfectly happy with my 7200.12 in RAID right now.
Anyhow, I'm in the process of placing an order for the Kingston SSDNow V100 64GB along with a Seagate 7200.12 1TB and a MSI N460GTX HAWK 1GB videocard as an upgrade to my current XFX HD 5770 1GB.
Hope it all works out, thanks again to all for the inputs.
Sounds like you've made up your order.
Enjoy, I'm sure you will like it.
Enjoy, I'm sure you will like it.
Nemix77,
You'll be amazed at this upgrade of drives and GPU. Let us know how it all works out. Post some benchmarks before and after and some pic's !
You'll be amazed at this upgrade of drives and GPU. Let us know how it all works out. Post some benchmarks before and after and some pic's !
Thanks. linnemeyerhere
I really like to do a before and after pic but I'm not sure I can squeeze in the time to do so with with my schedule but I'll give it a shot. I'll take a picture of my XFX HD 5770 with Thermalright HR-03 (4 Heatpipes) 120mm Fan tonight before it's sold.
Another thing that made me jump into SSD is the fact that AMD AHCI drivers finally supports TRIM in the 10.11 package according to Crytalmark: AMD trim command support via AHCI driver? - GSKILL TECH FORUM
Couldn't be a better time for me to buy a SSD. Promotional Price + AMD TRIM Support = Win
I really like to do a before and after pic but I'm not sure I can squeeze in the time to do so with with my schedule but I'll give it a shot. I'll take a picture of my XFX HD 5770 with Thermalright HR-03 (4 Heatpipes) 120mm Fan tonight before it's sold.
Another thing that made me jump into SSD is the fact that AMD AHCI drivers finally supports TRIM in the 10.11 package according to Crytalmark: AMD trim command support via AHCI driver? - GSKILL TECH FORUM
Couldn't be a better time for me to buy a SSD. Promotional Price + AMD TRIM Support = Win
A good SSD benchmark: AS SSD
The upper left corner tell you the firmware version, driver version, if it's aligned (green font=ok, red font=bad), and total space.
This has many SSDs so you can compare the AS SSD scores.
AS SSD Benchmark thread
The upper left corner tell you the firmware version, driver version, if it's aligned (green font=ok, red font=bad), and total space.
This has many SSDs so you can compare the AS SSD scores.
AS SSD Benchmark thread
@ Dave76 and everyone else who joined/helped with the thread.
I have good and bad news:
The good news is, I've placed my order and all things are to arrive early next week and I'm finally done with hardware upgrades for this year.
The bad news is, I decided not to go SSD and chose a WD Caviar Black 640GB SATA-600 + Seagate 7200.12 1TB instead and still got the MSI GTX 460 HAWK.
Ultimately, I came down to my self conscious and now so much the extra cash. I cannot explain it but ultimately I chose to stay on a regular hard drive, though I thinking WD Raptor 150GB (add to basket button) during checkout but noise complaints from user reviews put me off.
I've learnt so much about SDD's from this thread and for future reference I know I won't have a difficult time picking out the right SSD hard drive.
I'm really looking forward to the MSI GTX 460 HAWK (overclocking ability). And now with the extra cash, I'm thinking of buying a Asus Xonar DX PCI-e souncard possibly in 2011.
Thanks again everyone.
I have good and bad news:
The good news is, I've placed my order and all things are to arrive early next week and I'm finally done with hardware upgrades for this year.
The bad news is, I decided not to go SSD and chose a WD Caviar Black 640GB SATA-600 + Seagate 7200.12 1TB instead and still got the MSI GTX 460 HAWK.
Ultimately, I came down to my self conscious and now so much the extra cash. I cannot explain it but ultimately I chose to stay on a regular hard drive, though I thinking WD Raptor 150GB (add to basket button) during checkout but noise complaints from user reviews put me off.
I've learnt so much about SDD's from this thread and for future reference I know I won't have a difficult time picking out the right SSD hard drive.
I'm really looking forward to the MSI GTX 460 HAWK (overclocking ability). And now with the extra cash, I'm thinking of buying a Asus Xonar DX PCI-e souncard possibly in 2011.
Thanks again everyone.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by whs Quote:
The OCZ Vertex 2 50GB costs almost double the price of a Kingston SSDNow V100 64GB here in Canada: $100 vs $170
Quote:
When i get home, i'll be setting up 2 x OCZ vertex in raid 0
This will give you nice numbers from the measurement tools. But for real life it will make little difference as compared to a single SSD because the access time does not change - Raid or no Raid.
Was not aware it would not make much difference. We have run Raid 0 on spinners, which appeared faster. Need to do some more research me thinks.
Still need more info on the faster sata, as the mobo has 2 of them, along side the 6 standard ones.
Can't do much whilst i am on the mine site as the connection is very slow and time on public computers is limited.
cheerio
Jon
Glad that you got your order in Nemix77.
The Hawk sounds nice, sure you will enjoy it.
Next time, when your ready, I'm sure you will able to find more 'opinions' on just about anything
The other thing no one remembered to mention, the Gen3 SSDs are due to come out in the next couple of months.
They are supposed to be faster and cheaper, the rumor is that they may be as much as half the current price.
I'll be impressed if they're 30% less.
The Hawk sounds nice, sure you will enjoy it.
Next time, when your ready, I'm sure you will able to find more 'opinions' on just about anything
The other thing no one remembered to mention, the Gen3 SSDs are due to come out in the next couple of months.
They are supposed to be faster and cheaper, the rumor is that they may be as much as half the current price.
I'll be impressed if they're 30% less.
Quote:
Thanks for your reply whs.
Was not aware it would not make much difference. We have run Raid 0 on spinners, which appeared faster. Need to do some more research me thinks.
Was not aware it would not make much difference. We have run Raid 0 on spinners, which appeared faster. Need to do some more research me thinks.
The extra speed you get from Raid0 is because it alternates the block writing between the raided disks and you therefore have a parallel write operation. That is a definite advantage when you move large amounts of data - especially in sequential mode.
However, for the current SSDs which are limited in capacity (and that will certainly change over time) and are primarily used for the OS, the data transfer speed plays a minor role. The operating system does not read or write big chunks of data (with maybe a few rare exceptions when you install a big program or edit a large video). The name of the game here is Access time. But a SSD Raid array has the same access time as a single SSD. I therefore think that in daily operations you will see little difference in performance between a single SSD and a SSD Raid0.
This will change the day we can afford 500GB or 1TB SSDs where we store and manipulate all our data. And if you want to practice for that day, that is a good thing too.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by whs Quote:
Thanks for your reply whs.
Was not aware it would not make much difference. We have run Raid 0 on spinners, which appeared faster. Need to do some more research me thinks.
Was not aware it would not make much difference. We have run Raid 0 on spinners, which appeared faster. Need to do some more research me thinks.
The extra speed you get from Raid0 is because it alternates the block writing between the raided disks and you therefore have a parallel write operation. That is a definite advantage when you move large amounts of data - especially in sequential mode.
However, for the current SSDs which are limited in capacity (and that will certainly change over time) and are primarily used for the OS, the data transfer speed plays a minor role. The operating system does not read or write big chunks of data (with maybe a few rare exceptions when you install a big program or edit a large video). The name of the game here is Access time. But a SSD Raid array has the same access time as a single SSD. I therefore think that in daily operations you will see little difference in performance between a single SSD and a SSD Raid0.
This will change the day we can afford 500GB or 1TB SSDs where we store and manipulate all our data. And if you want to practice for that day, that is a good thing too.
Then we can use the second one on another comp, like mine.
Jon
Jon, looks like you got yourself a SSD. I am glad I could talk you into it. LOL
Jon, that seemed to work out rather well for you
The speed you will have with a single SSD will put a smile on your face, the speed increase of using RAID'ed SSDs will likely need a benchmark to notice, according to info I have read as I haven't tried it.
As whs says, until you can get really big SSDs, then depending on your usage it may be helpful.
Enjoy your upgrade.
The speed you will have with a single SSD will put a smile on your face, the speed increase of using RAID'ed SSDs will likely need a benchmark to notice, according to info I have read as I haven't tried it.
As whs says, until you can get really big SSDs, then depending on your usage it may be helpful.
Enjoy your upgrade.
Thanks for your input whs and Dave76. I realise this was not my thread, but it has evolved quite nicely with a lot of user friendly advise.
And best of all as you stated, "I have myself an SSD". Now to convince the Handbrake she only needs one, after talking her into having 2 to go raid 0.
Jon
And best of all as you stated, "I have myself an SSD". Now to convince the Handbrake she only needs one, after talking her into having 2 to go raid 0.
Jon
what about intel x25 ssd's? i'm thinking of getting one as well but can't decide which one, 40GB will be enough for me to run OS and photoshop on it, rest of stuff will go on 1TB HDD
I for one would have to say that is an excellent choice, check my specs, mine has been great.
If you can wait a couple of months the 25nm Gen3's are due to come out.
Suppose to be faster at a lower price.
Still will recommend this SSD to anyone, it is very nice.
If you can wait a couple of months the 25nm Gen3's are due to come out.
Suppose to be faster at a lower price.
Still will recommend this SSD to anyone, it is very nice.
Devilz,
My only concern is going with a 40gb drive. I went with a 64gb and it's at 15.5gb free after OS, Office '07, ACT, Photoshop, AV, Quicken, MediaMonkey, all drivers and misc stuff. I think it's really the starting point and I'm really glad I didn't do a 32 or 40gb drive. I'm waiting for 128's and or 256's to fall even more over the next year. Heck I'm hoping we'll see 1/2 and 3/4tb drives coming at reasonable prices soon.
My only concern is going with a 40gb drive. I went with a 64gb and it's at 15.5gb free after OS, Office '07, ACT, Photoshop, AV, Quicken, MediaMonkey, all drivers and misc stuff. I think it's really the starting point and I'm really glad I didn't do a 32 or 40gb drive. I'm waiting for 128's and or 256's to fall even more over the next year. Heck I'm hoping we'll see 1/2 and 3/4tb drives coming at reasonable prices soon.
The way I operate, 40GB would be ample. I have 11.700 Program files in 1.611 folders (Office 2007, Macrium and all the "helpers" one can think of) plus one vBox virtual machine with Ubuntu. My used space on the SSD is 24.5GBs. The only tweak I have done is to delete the hiberfile and move most of my user data to the HDD (but some user data is also on the SSD).
So I think for a desktop with an additional HDD, a 40GB SSD can work very well - provided you do not have some of those mega games on the SSD. For my new laptop, however, I got a 90GB SSD because there I cannot offload stuff to the HDD (although I do have USB3 ports and a USB3 enclosure which I plan to use for imaging and in case I have really very large files). I like to get one of those 10.000 Rpm Raptors for the enclosure. But then I have to wire the enclosure to an outlet to cool the raptor.
So I think for a desktop with an additional HDD, a 40GB SSD can work very well - provided you do not have some of those mega games on the SSD. For my new laptop, however, I got a 90GB SSD because there I cannot offload stuff to the HDD (although I do have USB3 ports and a USB3 enclosure which I plan to use for imaging and in case I have really very large files). I like to get one of those 10.000 Rpm Raptors for the enclosure. But then I have to wire the enclosure to an outlet to cool the raptor.
whs,
You've got a great game plan there. I too am waiting for a 128 or 256 to drop in price as Sata III's push the price down on Sata II's. Then I'll snap up one for my lappy. Then wait for the new Sata III's to fall and with luck run a second SSD in JBOD. Any thoughts on that working out well rather than wasting the 64SSD in my desktop currently?
You've got a great game plan there. I too am waiting for a 128 or 256 to drop in price as Sata III's push the price down on Sata II's. Then I'll snap up one for my lappy. Then wait for the new Sata III's to fall and with luck run a second SSD in JBOD. Any thoughts on that working out well rather than wasting the 64SSD in my desktop currently?
�� Quote: Originally Posted by linnemeyerhere whs,
You've got a great game plan there. I too am waiting for a 128 or 256 to drop in price as Sata III's push the price down on Sata II's. Then I'll snap up one for my lappy. Then wait for the new Sata III's to fall and with luck run a second SSD in JBOD. Any thoughts on that working out well rather than wasting the 64SSD in my desktop currently?
You've got a great game plan there. I too am waiting for a 128 or 256 to drop in price as Sata III's push the price down on Sata II's. Then I'll snap up one for my lappy. Then wait for the new Sata III's to fall and with luck run a second SSD in JBOD. Any thoughts on that working out well rather than wasting the 64SSD in my desktop currently?
The main purpose of that laptop is for teaching my classes at the local computer club. This Sony laptop has a backlit keyboard which will be handy because during the classes I sit under the beamer in the dark. Up to now, I have managed with her laptop and a lamp. It can be discussed though, whether I need an i7 quad CPU, a HD screen and a 1GB graphics card for that. But that might be handy for video editing which I do a lot.
Ideally, I would also like a BIG SSD for the USB3 enclosure. But at the current prices, she would probably get a heart attack - and who wants that - LOL.
i guess 40GB will be enough cause i'll be installing OS, photoshop, openoffice, ashampoo and 3dmark vantage only. I'll be ordering SSD in first week of january, if funds allow then I might go with 80GB. Let see what happens
this seems promising
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Intel-X25-M-...2888843&sr=1-6
this seems promising
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Intel-X25-M-...2888843&sr=1-6
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Devilz i guess 40GB will be enough cause i'll be installing OS, photoshop, openoffice, ashampoo and 3dmark vantage only. I'll be ordering SSD in first week of january, if funds allow then I might go with 80GB. Let see what happens
isn't newegg is for US only 
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Devilz isn't newegg is for US only
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Devilz isn't newegg is for US only
amazon uk prices are quite similar to newegg
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét