04-01-2010, 06:40 PM
|
#21
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sunshine Coast
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
I'm waiting for the 80GB Intel x25s to go on sale one day.
|
Yeah, prices are dropping and I threw this up there, also so those interested but not yet ready to buy, could see.
|
|
|
|
04-18-2010, 02:00 PM
|
#22
|
|
GOAT!
|
So now that I've had the SSD for a while, I figured I'd download a quick drive benchmark utility to compare...
Code:
160GB G2 Intel SSD (System Drive)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]
Sequential Read : 248.713 MB/s
Sequential Write : 108.372 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 184.327 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 107.564 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 12.380 MB/s [ 3022.4 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 20.358 MB/s [ 4970.1 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 156.744 MB/s [ 38267.7 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 99.435 MB/s [ 24276.1 IOPS]
Test : 100 MB [C: 27.9% (41.5/148.9 GB)] (x5)
Date : 2010/04/18 13:47:03
OS : Windows 7 [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)
Code:
500GB v4 Seagate 7200RPM (Storage Drive)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]
Sequential Read : 93.345 MB/s
Sequential Write : 85.654 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 33.495 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 46.596 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.434 MB/s [ 106.0 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 0.936 MB/s [ 228.6 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 0.942 MB/s [ 229.9 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 0.910 MB/s [ 222.1 IOPS]
Test : 100 MB [D: 21.5% (100.3/465.8 GB)] (x5)
Date : 2010/04/18 13:52:37
OS : Windows 7 [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)
|
|
|
|
|
04-18-2010, 02:48 PM
|
#23
|
|
The new goggles also do nothing.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Yeah, it's those random read and random write scores that are the real killers for normal hard drives
Man I really really really want one. Just wait a bit longer...
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
|
|
|
|
|
04-18-2010, 02:54 PM
|
#24
|
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SW calgary
|
So...
I don't know much about the SSD dealio right now
Do they work in all laptops? Got a mid 2008 MBP, pre unbody.
From what I gather...are they worth it for non intensive users (Basic apps, occasional photoshop, website creation)
|
|
|
|
|
04-18-2010, 03:22 PM
|
#25
|
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by silentsim
So...
I don't know much about the SSD dealio right now
Do they work in all laptops? Got a mid 2008 MBP, pre unbody.
From what I gather...are they worth it for non intensive users (Basic apps, occasional photoshop, website creation)
|
They are worth it for non-intensive users. The performance boost is great no matter how you use the machine.
__________________
-Scott
|
|
|
|
|
04-19-2010, 01:01 AM
|
#26
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sunshine Coast
|
Here's what I get with the small inexpensive Intel SSDSA2M040G2GC.
CrystalDiskMark 3.0x64
READ...............................Write
Seq 188.6......................43.93
512K 134.9......................45.47
4K. 22.28.........................42.79
4K..23.63.........................44.96
QD32
|
|
|
|
|
04-19-2010, 07:48 AM
|
#27
|
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SW calgary
|
Is the difference in brand a significant difference?
If I go SSD i need at least 120gb, and looking for the cheapest route possible.
|
|
|
|
|
04-19-2010, 08:21 AM
|
#28
|
|
GOAT!
|
I think the 160GB Intel X-25M is the way to go, for both performance and price.
Part#: SSDSA2MH160G2R5
Last edited by FanIn80; 04-19-2010 at 08:28 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
04-19-2010, 02:13 PM
|
#29
|
|
The new goggles also do nothing.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
|
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
|
|
|
|
|
04-19-2010, 02:15 PM
|
#30
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Enil Angus
|
Do SSDs connect via SATA or do you need a seperate card to connect them?
|
|
|
|
|
04-19-2010, 02:26 PM
|
#31
|
|
The new goggles also do nothing.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
|
They connect via SATA, though you can get some that are stand-alone PCIe cards (but they are rare).
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
|
|
|
|
|
10-22-2010, 01:15 PM
|
#32
|
|
GOAT!
|
/bump
So what are people's thoughts on enabling drive compression on a Windows 7 system volume mounted on an SSD?
|
|
|
|
|
10-22-2010, 01:46 PM
|
#33
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Supporting Urban Sprawl
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanIn80
/bump
So what are people's thoughts on enabling drive compression on a Windows 7 system volume mounted on an SSD?
|
Why would you want to do such a thing? Is your porn loading too quickly?
edit: I can't see why it would be a good idea, but it probably wouldn't hurt too much, it has been a long time since I have used any sort of drive compression. I am too much of a performance junkie.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
|
|
|
|
|
10-22-2010, 02:47 PM
|
#34
|
|
GOAT!
|
Well, I just did it. It said it was going to take 12 hours to complete, but it was done about half an hour ago... so approx 60 minutes to complete.
So far, I haven't really noticed any difference in performance. I did get back 9GB on a 160GB drive though, so that's not too bad. It's all just system and program files too. All my consumable data is stored on a second drive.
|
|
|
|
|
10-22-2010, 02:59 PM
|
#35
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not sure
|
Question regarding these drives and WHS. If I were to buy one of these drives and simply restore my computer from a WHS backup, any reason that wouldn't work?
|
|
|
|
|
10-22-2010, 03:24 PM
|
#36
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Supporting Urban Sprawl
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay
Question regarding these drives and WHS. If I were to buy one of these drives and simply restore my computer from a WHS backup, any reason that wouldn't work?
|
No reason that I can think of. An image is an image and a hard drive is a hard drive.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
|
|
|
|
|
10-22-2010, 04:27 PM
|
#37
|
|
The new goggles also do nothing.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
|
For drive compression, the answer really is "it depends".
If it's a Sandforce based drive I can definitely say it'd be a bad thing.. the drive already has write compression built in and compressing the data at an OS level is just going to make the system even slower to no benefit. Plus going through the whole drive and compressing everything (in effect re-writing every bit of data) is going to have a pretty significant impact on the SSD's performance, its wear prevention stuff is going to kick in big time reducing performance noticeably.
I just did something similar where I had to repartition my SSD and I was dumb and put the new partition at the beginning and it basically moved every file... I checked my performance after that it it was half to 1/4 what it should have been! I had to secure erase the drive and restore from an image.
Mind you SSDs are still so fast 1/4 performance will probably not be noticed in most cases, but I'm performance minded.
Other SSDs will have different reactions to such a thing, controllers without compression might actually benefit from it somewhat from a data throughput point of view, but latency will increase due to the time compressing and decompressing.
I would rather have a big drive or network drive and offload some files rather than compressing the drive.
|
|
|
|
|
10-22-2010, 04:47 PM
|
#38
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not sure
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathji
No reason that I can think of. An image is an image and a hard drive is a hard drive.
|
That was pretty much my thinking as well but just wanted to bounce it off someone else.
Last edited by GoinAllTheWay; 10-22-2010 at 04:50 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
10-22-2010, 05:11 PM
|
#39
|
|
GOAT!
|
Here's post-compression rating... (compare to the one I posted earlier in this thread, from when I first got the drive)
Code:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]
Sequential Read : 248.753 MB/s
Sequential Write : 109.504 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 175.341 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 107.689 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 13.960 MB/s [ 3408.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 23.324 MB/s [ 5694.4 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 158.308 MB/s [ 38649.3 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 99.722 MB/s [ 24346.3 IOPS]
Test : 100 MB [C: 42.7% (63.6/148.9 GB)] (x5)
Date : 2010/10/22 17:05:41
OS : Windows 7 [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)
Looks like my performance did drop, although not to noticeable levels. I guess I have to weigh the performance loss with the 9GB storage gain. In reality, it's not like I even needed the extra hard drive space...
Hmmm...
|
|
|
|
|
10-22-2010, 05:29 PM
|
#40
|
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanIn80
Here's post-compression rating... (compare to the one I posted earlier in this thread, from when I first got the drive)
Code:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]
Sequential Read : 248.753 MB/s
Sequential Write : 109.504 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 175.341 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 107.689 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 13.960 MB/s [ 3408.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 23.324 MB/s [ 5694.4 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 158.308 MB/s [ 38649.3 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 99.722 MB/s [ 24346.3 IOPS]
Test : 100 MB [C: 42.7% (63.6/148.9 GB)] (x5)
Date : 2010/10/22 17:05:41
OS : Windows 7 [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)
Looks like my performance did drop, although not to noticeable levels. I guess I have to weigh the performance loss with the 9GB storage gain. In reality, it's not like I even needed the extra hard drive space...
Hmmm... |
You performance may have dropped statistically, but because the data is compressed, you’re moving more real information in a given MB/S.
In theory, you’ve also improved SSD lifespans, since fewer blocks need to be written to disk to store the same amount of data
__________________
-Scott
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to sclitheroe For This Useful Post:
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:40 AM.
|
|
