Show us your SSD performance 2

[Chris2005]

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

Cost, mostly likely. It's still rather expensive for a larger SSD.

 

[Icarus]

True, most likely.

 

[whs]

The main problem is that people are unorganized and think they need a lot of storage inside the system. I have 5 laptops with SSDs and the biggest is 120GB, the others are 90GB, 60GB and 30GB (which is actually an eMMC). I add to that USB sticks and microSD cards for daily operation and have never run out of space. For larger storage requirements like images or virtual machines I use external disks/SSDs.

 

[Chris2005]

I do a lot of CG work (right now, as a hobby), etc. so I'm always managing my space. I have a 1 TB HDD for my stuff.

My largest SSD is my main Windows drive and my now secondary smaller SSD drive is used to hold games.

 

[shinigami8671]

He guys, just got myself my very first SSD.
How is this score for 840 PRO series?

 

[shinigami8671]

Wasn't feeling good about the last drive so returned it and got Intel 730 240GB for 165$ instead. Quite a performance boost. Win 8.1 boots in 5 seconds and shutsdown in just 3 (Yes, THREE) seconds. This is a huge improvement from my previous Seagate HDD.

 

[ZaLiTH]

Wasn't feeling good about the last drive so returned it and got Intel 730 240GB...

Wow, the sequential read is way better on the 730... I would've assumed (from model numbers) that the 840 would be better. It's also got very nice 4K speeds by the way, that must be one nice snappy OS drive right there.

I haven't posted my speeds in a while.. Haven't actually even checked them in ages. These are most definitely slower than much of the market, but I can't say anything bad about the M500 just yet.



Something interesting though, not sure how common it is. While running the 4K-64 write tests, the 120 starts off at around 5 or 6MB/s for a while then jumps up to a 90-110 range, averaging at the 60-70 area. The 480, similarly, starts off at around 20 or 30, then sits at a 330-350 range, averaging a 280-290 sort of range. The strangest part though, is that its always a similar sort of min/max/ave process in a test.

Oh, and no access times unfortunately.. I've somehow been caught by the annoying "count not mount device" issue when running that test.

 

[Layback Bear]

I picked up 2 Intel 730 240 gigs around last Christ Mas on sale $119.00 @.
Test them and they work well. Don't do much with them as yet but they don't rot doing nothing. I will use them on my next build when ever that is.

The reason I choose Intel is because Intel anything has never failed me and they work as advertised.

Super fast today and dead tomorrow doesn't impress me.
It's also handy because I have a local Intel dealer.

The thing I don't like about Intel SSD's is seldom do they have a super sale. You have to really keep watch for them because they will be gone in a heart beat.

 

[ZaLiTH]

I picked up 2 Intel 730 240 gigs around last Christ Mas on sale $119.00 @.
Test them and they work well.

That (ignoring different economies and markets and stuff) is only a little bit more than my M500 120. Local dealer was getting rid of the M500s to make space for the M550s.. I did pick up two 120s and a 480 for almost cost price though, so I can't really complain.

Super fast today and dead tomorrow doesn't impress me.
It's also handy because I have a local Intel dealer.

That's one thing that scares me as well.. The internet is evil in that sense though, because the only people who really speak out are hardware review guys and people who've had one fail. :/ So the chances of a drive failing is present, but rare.. And most drives have safety mechanisms in place to do "read only" at signs of physical failure.. And..

All I really mean is.... I make regular off-drive backups.

 

[shinigami8671]

Wasn't feeling good about the last drive so returned it and got Intel 730 240GB...

Wow, the sequential read is way better on the 730... I would've assumed (from model numbers) that the 840 would be better. It's also got very nice 4K speeds by the way, that must be one nice snappy OS drive right there.

That it is
And This model in specific was $25 more than Samsung 850 pro 240gb so if it didn't even pass 840, would have been a huge mistake.

The reason I choose Intel is because Intel anything has never failed me and they work as advertised.

Super fast today and dead tomorrow doesn't impress me.

Yes exactly! This is my first SSD so I read up on SSD's quite a bit and researched thoroughly, and Intel SSD's had the least amount of complaints and longest life spans. Thats the only reason I went with Intel otherwise Samsung 850 Pro series is faster (from what I understand from reading so many reviews).

 

[jonnyhillow]

I am surprised by the Intel 730's performance , everything i read about it was not blowing me away . Great reliability of course but speed seemed average at best. Newegg had some great deals on them a while back.

I am noticing the Samsung Evo 850's have dropped big time in price , saw a 500 gig yesterday for around $179.00.

 

[jonnyhillow]

I picked up 2 Intel 730 240 gigs around last Christ Mas on sale $119.00 @.
Test them and they work well. Don't do much with them as yet but they don't rot doing nothing. I will use them on my next build when ever that is.

The reason I choose Intel is because Intel anything has never failed me and they work as advertised.

Super fast today and dead tomorrow doesn't impress me.
It's also handy because I have a local Intel dealer.

The thing I don't like about Intel SSD's is seldom do they have a super sale. You have to really keep watch for them because they will be gone in a heart beat.

Good point Layback Bear , i don't particularly care for dead myself actually , if you have an Intel dealer nearby that would influence me as well .

One thing i am curious about is how often Intel has firmware updates , seems like never lol.

 

[whs]

I wish they had never invented those benchmark programs. Everybody is staring at those fantastic Read/Write times that apply to large blocks - but the OS does not deal with large blocks. It reads and writes those itty bitty 4K (Kilobytes) records and that in a random fashion. The large block nums may apply if you use the SSD as a data storage and write masses of data - e.g. if you write an image to a SSD. But not for daily OS operation.

For daily OS operation you have to focus on the access times. 0.05ms access time is twice as fast as 0.1ms access time and 300 times faster than the average access time to a HDD which is 15ms. It is this stellar access time that gives you the fantastic performance advantage of a SSD.

The faster read/write speed may have a small impact on boot times because then the system pulls in a lot of data. But does it really matter whether the system boots in 10 sec or 15 sec. That is usually a once per day event. But all during the day you will not really notice the difference between a so called fast SSD and slow SSD. And if you are really a performance addict, buy 2 of the same SSDs and Raid them.

 

[essenbe]

WHS is correct, the response time is what makes it seem fast. We are measuring milliseconds (1/ 1000 of a second). I seriously doubt anyone could tell the difference in 1/1000 of a second and .5/ 1000th of a second, which is twice as fast.

 

[jonnyhillow]

Superb post WHS , very informative , you know that guys will always need to show their numbers though even if it doesn't add up to a dang thing lol.

It's all ego .

 

[whs]

Yeah, comparing nums is always fun - even if it means nothing or not much.

 

[essenbe]

Isn't that the reason they make Benchmarks? I believe there is a benchmark on everything there is.

 

[ZaLiTH]

I wish they had never invented those benchmark programs...

To paraphrase a friend of mine "Oh sweet, innocent, naive Wolfgang.."

All jokes aside, considering the tragic human tradition of "mine is bigger than yours", there really isn't any way to avoid it.. Then, only naturally, the marketing guys will bend it to their will. Benchmarks are just one innocent little snowflake in the grand avalaunch that is "modern technology.

These days, I fear our only hope is to make sure as many people as possible understand the "why" instead of just knowing the "what" about fast PC components, in the hopes that the majority won't go wrong in the future.. And now I feel this sudden indescribable urge to go re-watch Idiocracy.

 

[ICIT2LOL]

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

Well I use them and have done for some time in my laptops and though it might not be very important it does cut down on weight to those spinning things. My current ROG Asus has two bays and the transfer from the Samsung 850 EVO to the SanDisk Extreme is just awesome. The SanDisk is an older one but still very very quick and a brand I wish I could afford when the Samsungs are getting a bit out of my price range.

Now I am not sure because I do not really know but I would imagine the SSD's would be more robust when it comes to physical shock but I suppose I ought to read up on that. Heat would probably be the worst issue with them having such tiny transistor structures too but again I suppose the controllers on spinners would be affected by that too.

 

[whs]

SSDs don't get warm because they run on only a couple of Watts. I have a 240GB SSD in an external eSata enclosure that runs all day (it houses my virtual partitions). When I touch it now at 11PM the thing is still cold.

In fact I had a heat problem with one of my wife's laptops when it had a HDD. After I put the SSD in, the heat problem disappeared.

Example - 240GB Kingston: