Show us your SSD performance 2

[jonnyhillow]

In my opinion, Bill is exactly correct. It will give some terrific benchmark scores, but I did not find any difference in actual usage. I think the reason is that the speed of an SSD is in the 4kb read speed and the access times. Those numbers do not change much, if at all. The rest of the numbers on benchmarks go up tremendously, but 99% of us will never see those numbers. That's my take on it.

I like that take actually , my thoughts on this is , if your not going to see noticeable improvements in everyday usage when compared to other high quality SSD's why bother lol.

You got to admit some folks really love posting those crazy #'s though , it's got to be our ego , more power , it's a guy thing (sorry A guy) not you.

 

[whs]

Yeah that's right. The SSD performance for the OS stems from the extremely fast access time. The R/W speeds are pretty irrelevant. That's why I always buy the cheapest SSDs. They are just as good as the expensive models. I can care less about benchmarks.

Even running systems from fast flash drives on USB3 is better than running them from a HDD. I use a 128GB stick with 0.7ms access time to run Mint. It beats any HDD installed OS. After all, the average access time of a HDD is 15ms.

 

[Layback Bear]

Thank you Wolfgang. It was a very good read.

Like I have posted many of times.
Install your SSD properly and just use it and enjoy.
Don't worry about read/wright.

I do like this information from the article.

The Corsair, Intel, and Kingston SSDs all issued SMART warnings before their deaths, giving users plenty of time to preserve their data.

 

[jonnyhillow]

Yeah that's right. The SSD performance for the OS stems from the extremely fast access time. The R/W speeds are pretty irrelevant. That's why I always buy the cheapest SSDs. They are just as good as the expensive models. I can care less about benchmarks.

Even running systems from fast flash drives on USB3 is better than running them from a HDD. I use a 128GB stick with 0.7ms access time to run Mint. It beats any HDD installed OS. After all, the average access time of a HDD is 15ms.

Wow, never even thought about using a flash drive to run the operation system.

 

[whs]

Wow, never even thought about using a flash drive to run the operation system.

Here I demo running Mint from said flash drive. It is possible to do the same with Windows, see here. It is, however, easier to install Linux, see here. That link includes the demo too.

 

[jonnyhillow]

Awesome thank you . Now i have to figure out where to get a Windows 10 iso lol. How much more system resources does Windows 10 use than Windows 8.1 if you know?

 

[whs]

Windows 10 TP is svelte. You can get the .iso from here:

https://www.tenforums.com/windows-10-news/1946-download-windows-10-technical-preview.html

A fast 32GB stick should suffice. 16GB may work but would be tight. This is the footprint in my virtual machine but I have hardly any programs installed:

 

[Layback Bear]

I have tested 2 Intel 730 SSD's and they both came out like this.

One at 659 and the other 673.

One was only formatted and the other had a image backup.

 

[Chris2005]

My new OSZ ARC-100 240 GB SSD:

 

[jonnyhillow]

I have tested 2 Intel 730 SSD's and they both came out like this.

One at 659 and the other 673.

One was only formatted and the other had a image backup.

View attachment 352703

Now those #'s i am familiar with , very fast access times . Thanks for posting

 

[jonnyhillow]

My new OSZ ARC-100 240 GB SSD:

Solid #'s as well with excellent access times.

 

[Chris2005]

My new OSZ ARC-100 240 GB SSD:

Solid #'s as well with excellent access times.

Aye, it's a very nice drive.

My previous SSD, the Intel 330:

 

[jonnyhillow]

Question is though , in real World usage with everyday tasks is there a noticeable difference or not that much ?

Now don't go blowing the general belief that in actual use there is not much of a difference now unless it's true lol.

Saying there's a night and day difference will cause me to heave my computer out the window and cause it to have an excruciatingly painful death when hitting the cars or pavement below.

 

[Icarus]

My raid array 4x240GB Intel 530 (not a big difference between 3 and 4 drives):

 

[Chris2005]

Question is though , in real World usage with everyday tasks is there a noticeable difference or not that much ?

Now don't go blowing the general belief that in actual use there is not much of a difference now unless it's true lol.

Saying there's a night and day difference will cause me to heave my computer out the window and cause it to have an excruciatingly painful death when hitting the cars or pavement below.

It seems a tad faster than my old SSD, especially when booting Windows, but it could be also due to it having a fresher install of Windows... lol

However, it's lightyears faster than the HDD that I used to use as my main Windows drive.

My raid array 4x240GB Intel 530 (not a big difference between 3 and 4 drives):

4!? $$$. xD

I do good to afford one of these puppies. xD Got the ARC-100 because it was on sale, not much cheaper than regular price, but still, it's cheaper.

 

[jonnyhillow]

Thanks guys , i also saw the Arc 100 on sale for a very good price awhile back , sounds like you made a good investment .

I agree , 4 separate 240 mb drives ? Dang man , you don't mess around.

 

[whs]

My raid array 4x240GB Intel 530 (not a big difference between 3 and 4 drives):

Nice nums. But what does that do in real life.

 

[Icarus]

I have three computers with single and multiple ssds. The ones in raid are snappier and load stuff faster (games somewhat, encoding/transfers big time.) Raid 0 makes a huge difference with mucking with movies/videos.

Honestly, not a big difference in normal daily use with the number of ssds other than the snappiness, but after using these it is quite a pain to use platter drives in a system! Even my single ssd seems slower at times (mind you its in a dual core system so is part of the issue.) So there is a difference to be felt, especially coming from platter drive systems.

Going from one ssd to multiple is still nice and not bad to implement (in my case,) as I needed the room and slowly bought them over time, and I redo my system once in a while anyways to keep it fresh or when it crashes (I like to muck about at times, sometimes beyond what I can fix!) Three ssds seem to be the sweet point in raid 0 now, as four made only a little difference. I have an older system downstairs with an OC'd i5 750 @ 4-4.2GHz and three Crucial C300 64BG ssds in Raid 0 and 1TB drive and its really nice to use (feels noticeably faster/snappy compared to any system I've used anywhere, even this new one! Friends/family etc that come over all comment on it.) Wait to buy them on sale is what I did even if you only get one or two. I back up my stuff too (usually )

 

[whs]

Thanks for the experience report. I have a lot of SSDs myself but never raided them. Most are in laptops with a single bay. Some I use externally on USB3 and eSata.

 

[Icarus]

I don't know why they haven't exploded in laptop use. They are perfect for them for durability and speed.