Intel X25-M 120GB SSD Released with Lower Holiday Price

[whs]

I really like my Intel X-25M 80GB Gen2.
Space is my only real complaint.

Cold Boot to Windows 7 Desktop in no time flat.

For bulk data you can always use a 2.5" USB powered external disk. Videos, music, pictures work just as well from an external.

 

[mickey megabyte]

...
For bulk data you can always use a 2.5" USB powered external disk...

or even an old-fashioned internal hdd.

 

[Dave76]

i'm poor and i live in the uk.

i've been looking at this drive, or maybe this or this...

any comments please?

i know they are small, but i'm thinking of just using it for my os and smaller programs - big bloaty software can go on the hdd.

I'm using the X25-V 40GB, the access times are very fast.
Read 0.092ms and Write 0.076ms.

This is an excellent place to start with SSDs, I have no problems with free space on mine, 45% free.
OS and all my programs on the SSD, personal data and files on the HDD.

Tom's Hardware, Used state:Access Time Read

Access time is the single best asset for a SSD.

For the price, this is a great SSD.

 

[mickey megabyte]

thanks Dave - i also notice that it comes with a 'Retail SKU Supplied with mounting brackets' - is this how you fit a 2.5" drive into a 3.5" bay?

would i have to buy one of these extra if i went for one of the other drives? or do they all have a similar thingy?

 

[Dave76]

The 3.5 adapter is used to fit the desktop drive racks.

Most SSDs come with them, need to check to be sure.

 

[mickey megabyte]

thanks again

 

[toughbook]

If anybody needs an adapter let me know. I have too many laying around.

I have them from my vast array of SSD's that have tilted the magnetic force of my debit card! I don't have a desktop, all laptops. Let's see, I have them from the
Intel 32GB SLC SSD
Patriot Warp 64GB SSD
Intel 80GB G2 SSd
Corsair 120 GB SSD

I should be ashamed of myself

I really don't see too many people talking about the Corsair F-Series SSD's around here. They are great drives with the much lovely SandForce Controller. I love mine too say the least.

 

[FliGi7]

I was all about the SandForce controllers until I saw the Access Times as compared to the Intel SSD's for cheaper. It's the trade-off of much higher throughput with that controller, I suppose. I just don't think a typical desktop machine would benefit as much from the throughput as compared to access times. That's just my subjective opinion, though.

 

[whs]

I was all about the SandForce controllers until I saw the Access Times as compared to the Intel SSD's for cheaper. It's the trade-off of much higher throughput with that controller, I suppose. I just don't think a typical desktop machine would benefit as much from the throughput as compared to access times. That's just my subjective opinion, though.

Absolutely correct.

 

[ionbasa]

The only problem I have right now is that there arn't any 500GB or more realistic 512Gb ssd that fit in my buget. Im thinking on holding out maybe another 6 months. By that time I should have a nice desktop and maybe a ssd Raid 0.

 

[whs]

maybe a ssd Raid 0

Raid 0 makes little sense for SSDs that are used for the OS. It will increase the data transfer rate but that is relatively irrelevant for the OS. And since a Raid does not improve the access time, you will hardly see a difference in performance compared to a single SSD. I would save the money for the second SSD.

This is, however, different if you do a lot of data operations and have a Raid setup large enough for that - e.g. video editing (provided your CPU can keep up with it).

 

[ionbasa]

maybe a ssd Raid 0

Raid 0 makes little sense for SSDs that are used for the OS. It will increase the data transfer rate but that is relatively irrelevant for the OS. And since a Raid does not improve the access time, you will hardly see a difference in performance compared to a single SSD. I would save the money for the second SSD.

This is, however, different if you do a lot of data operations and have a Raid setup large enough for that - e.g. video editing (provided your CPU can keep up with it).

What I meant was that I hope to see a full switch to ssd in the future, but if you are like me and cant aford a 512Gb ssd but scince I am enthusiastic about them it seems that 2 256Gb ssds in Raid 0 would be benefitial if you do alot of IO operations or need the data space.

 

[Dave76]

I was all about the SandForce controllers until I saw the Access Times as compared to the Intel SSD's for cheaper. It's the trade-off of much higher throughput with that controller, I suppose. I just don't think a typical desktop machine would benefit as much from the throughput as compared to access times. That's just my subjective opinion, though.

Couldn't agree more.

That is the key to SSD feeling of speed and performance.

maybe a ssd Raid 0

Raid 0 makes little sense for SSDs that are used for the OS. It will increase the data transfer rate but that is relatively irrelevant for the OS. And since a Raid does not improve the access time, you will hardly see a difference in performance compared to a single SSD. I would save the money for the second SSD.

This is, however, different if you do a lot of data operations and have a Raid setup large enough for that - e.g. video editing (provided your CPU can keep up with it).

What I meant was that I hope to see a full switch to ssd in the future, but if you are like me and cant aford a 512Gb ssd but scince I am enthusiastic about them it seems that 2 256Gb ssds in Raid 0 would be benefitial if you do alot of IO operations or need the data space.

That's some very expensive data storage space.
A 500GB SSD is about $1400+.

Most of your personal data doesn't need SSD speed, just keep it on a spinner.

Get a small OS and app SSD, store the data on a HDD.

When 500GB SSDs are $100 or even $200 then ya, why not.

 

[toughbook]

My test results are showing the Access times at 4K is 0.216ms. I can't remember what my Intel was. This is with my Corsair SSD.

 

[Wishmaster]

For the price, the V series Intel drives are really excellent SSDs. Especially for a budget drive.

Its downside is its only 40GB. but I have found thats more than enough space for Win7 and all my programs.
Just keep all your user DATA on spinners.

In fact, i like it much better than my Vertex Drive. it just feels snappier ruinning Win7 x64.
Even though the Vertex has faster Seq. read and Writes.
I use my Vertex for a few Games.

Both are good drives, don't get me wrong. I just think the the Intel is the better drive if you can by with, and do not mind, the 40GB size. Most should have no problems be just fine with it though.
Disabling the Hiberfile will free up a lot of space too, if you do not need the feature.

WEI, for what its worth, gives a 40Gb V series Intel a 7.6 score.
The 30GB Vertex a 7.2

 

[mickey megabyte]

yes, i'll probably be ordering one tomorrow

they're also giving away a free game to sweeten the deal here - which happens to be my fave buying site anyway, and i do like games. it's a shame that games are so big, with all that multimedia content goodness...

i'm going to have to seriously lighten my new install, as i've currently got 45 gigs :shock: in my steam folder alone! which is making a bigger drive look more attractive - why hasn't intel/oc.uk got a 60 gig drive available? oh i wish i had more money! :huh:

i'll be following Kari's advice re moving the users folder which will lighten the load a little, i don't use hibernation, and i guess it's time to read seriously all the other ssd threads...oh, i love upgrading!

at the moment i'm using a 1tb spinner, and i'm wondering how to best use it in conjunction with the ssd. obviously i'll be keeping my data on it, and big bloaty games - yes i'm looking at you, dirt2, with your near 11 gigs etc. it's the big games that will mostly benefit from an ssd, but also use it all up! :banghead:

is it best to keep my big hdd all as one big terrabyte partition, or do you recommend i keep my large games, movies, and other data on seperate partitions? is there any real benefit to keeping big movie files on its own partition with bigger data blocks/allocation unit sizes? what about swap file? it will be easier to defragment smaller partitions, but is it really worth it?

 

[whs]

There is really not much to learn with Win7 on the SSD since the installer does most for you (I assume you do a fresh installation with an installation disk- else, if e.g. you go via an image, things will be a bit more complicated). Just a few practical tips:

a) physically disconnect your other disk(s) when installing Win7 on the SSD
b) do not activate this Win7 before you have not deactivated the one you have now (assuming they come from the same source)
c) get rid of the hiberfile with the cmd command powercfg -h off
d) check that Defrag is disabled. It should be by the installer
e) make sure the Superfetch is set on automatic - I know some people recommend to disable it, but that is counterproductive.
f) leave the whole system on the SSD. Do not move system files - even not the page file which you may however reduce in size (e.g. 2GBs) if you have 3 or 4 GBs of RAM.
g) move all user files to the spinner - the games (or most of them) too.

The above you should be able to do in 30 minutes - and off you go to the wonderful world of the SSDs. Good luck.

PS: I would partition the 1TB spinner. Much more practical, and safer too.

 

[mickey megabyte]

vielen dank, whs - that answers most of my questions - unfortunately i can't rep you on this thread...

yes, i'll be doing a clean new install, using a thumb drive.

i've got a lot of ripped movies on my spinner (love that word) as big (2 gig +) mkv's (made from my paid-for dvd's) - is it really a good idea to have these on a separate partition formatted with a larger allocation unit size?

also, can you deactivate a technet activation? how? i plan to image my new activated install onto my spinner asap...

 

[Wishmaster]

While its true that games load faster on a SSD, I have found that overall theres not that much of a difference of performance increase to justify it.

And by that I mean, a large majority of games do load a level a bit faster. But once loaded, theres no performance gain to be had as its usually running from memory anyway.

However, there are a few games it does make a difference. Many with large open worlds that are constantly hitting the HD for more information on the fly.
For example, Obl;ivion, Fallout 3, fallout NV and other games that work similar in fashion.
These do see a noticeable performance gain during play.

On mine, I have my Intel 40GB with Win7 installed on it and all my apps.

I have a 30GB Vertex I install certain games too.

I then have a WD 640GB spinner that has 2 partiions.
1 at 555Gb thats just for Games, and the second partition just where downloads go.

Then I have a 1TB spinner where all my media goes (Music, Videos, Pictures Etc)

Even though the large majority of stuff is on spinners, theres still an overall performance gain.
Even Games load a slightly faster it seems, perhaps because the drive is never busy untill a game is launched.


Its your call, but IMHO, a large portion of Games do not gain enough performance to justify using space on a SSD.

 

[whs]

vielen dank, whs - that answers most of my questions - unfortunately i can't rep you on this thread...

yes, i'll be doing a clean new install, using a thumb drive.

i've got a lot of ripped movies on my spinner (love that word) as big (2 gig +) mkv's (made from my paid-for dvd's) - is it really a good idea to have these on a separate partition formatted with a larger allocation unit size?

also, can you deactivate a technet activation? how? i plan to image my new activated install onto my spinner asap...

I am glad you can use the information - and don't worry about the reps. I appreciate the thought.
Unfortunately I cannot answer your last question - I have no clue.

PS; for imaging you may consider my favorite: http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/73828-imaging-free-macrium.html?ltr=I