Show us your SSD performance

ignatzatsonic · 19 Dec 2011

The Anandtech article Hoppy linked:

AnandTech - The Intel SSD 320 Review: 25nm G3 is Finally Here

states, in reference to a 320 GB Intel SSD:

"That works out to be 320GB of NAND for a drive whose rated capacity is 300GB. In Windows you'll see ~279GB of free space, which leaves 12.8% of the total NAND capacity as spare area.'

Well, 279 is about 87.2% of 320, so they were obviously using 320 as a starting point, not the rated capacity of 300.

However---279 is also about 93% of 300--very close to the 93.13225746154785 percent differential to be expected between binary and decimal.

Hmmm.........

I don't see anything explicit at the Anandtech link clarifying this.

Hopalong X · 19 Dec 2011

I found what I could for everyone.

I did the best I can and hope you can fill in my blanks or have corrected my errors.
I'm doing the best I can to help all of you with info.

No argument wanted.

Ignatz if your right your right. I'm sure you are.

This is just discussion for me to learn more also.

Thanks.
Mike

ignat

Your original question you can OP more if you want. Leave it unallocated as we found out yesterday from snakeye.

It isn't necessary though on the Intel's with Toolbox. Can't hurt either.

ignatzatsonic · 19 Dec 2011

Hopalong X said:

Intel sizes in GB NOT GiB.

If that's true, then the question is answered. The 5.5 GB is not due to binary versus decimal.

I guess Intel is the only outfit not using binary?

No argument at all Hoppy---I am just confused due to the fact that 7% might be attributed to anything--binary/decimal or something else.

Maybe it is pure coincidence.

I have no idea, but if Intel uses decimal not binary, that would mean you are correct.

Hopalong X · 19 Dec 2011

ignatzatsonic said:

Hopalong X said:

Intel sizes in GB NOT GiB.

If that's true, then the question is answered. The 5.5 GB is not due to binary versus decimal.

I guess Intel is the only outfit not using binary?

No argument at all Hoppy---I am just confused due to the fact that 7% might be attributed to anything--binary/decimal or something else.

Maybe it is pure coincidence.

I have no idea, but if Intel uses decimal not binary, that would mean you are correct.

This is as far as I know from my reading. No specific paper or link to prove it.

Essenbe posted the Intel pdf specs link for the 320 earlier.
Maybe you can get more info from it also.
Mike

Everything at Intel is posted in decimal numbers I have found not binary. kB, MB, GB not KiB, Mib or Tib.

whs · 19 Dec 2011

OK, Understand. Never saw the GiB notion before.

Hopalong X · 19 Dec 2011

Here you go. Straight from Intel.> http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/...ification.html
Check the "Note".

1GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes

So it is sized in decimal 10 not binary.
I knew it was somewhere. I just had to find it.

ignatzatsonic · 19 Dec 2011

Hopalong X said:

Here you go. Straight from Intel.> Intel® Solid-State Drive 320 Series Product Specification
Check the "Note".

1GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes

So it is sized in decimal 10 not binary.

Good job, Hoppy---I'd rep you, but it's disallowed until I spread more around.

Hopalong X · 19 Dec 2011

I'll be fine after my nap. Where's my blankie?

Snakeyeskm · 19 Dec 2011

WOW ! Hopalong I am putting you in for sainthood.

whs · 19 Dec 2011

Hopalong X said:

Here you go. Straight from Intel.> Intel® Solid-State Drive 320 Series Product Specification
Check the "Note".

1GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes

So it is sized in decimal 10 not binary.
I knew it was somewhere. I just had to find it.

All disks are sized in decimal. But if you stick it into your PC, it will show the size in binary which is a number 7% smaller. But the capacity is the same. It is just another unit.

Am I fighting the wrong war here.