Show us your SSD performance

[apollodominion]

I have afew SSDs but due to the prob i have with the Z68 chipset and Sandforce 3 chips on the SSDs i dont want to push my luck But mo need to fix it im replacing the CPU and Motherboard with AMD PhenomFX X8 4.4ghz and a AMD990FX chipset

 

[whs]

What's the bottom line on this idea of over-provisioning??

I have an 80 GB SSD with a single C partition covering the entire drive. Windows shows it as 74.5 GB total capacity.

I take that to mean that I have 5.5 GB of unallocated space available for "over-provisioning".

Who is to say that is not enough unallocated space? If I need more, how much more and how did you arrive at that number?

Does the need for additional over-provisioning unallocated space apply to ALL SSDs? Only certain SSDs? Which? With which controllers?

More clarification on these points requested.

Ignatz, You are going too scientifically about that. I would play it by ear. A little more or a little less - the difference will be marginal.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Intel 320 series as you and I have don't need over provisioning for GC/Garbage collection.

Install the Intel SSD Toolbox and run manual TRIM command once a week and you are good to go.

Thanks, Hoppy.

I assume you refer to "Intel SSD Optimizer" from the toolbox, which I have set to run weekly and automatically?

Windows says my 80 GB drive is 74.5 GB.

Does the 5.5 GB difference represent unallocated space that Intel has set aside for over-provisioning?

Or does it represent the well-known approximately 7% difference between the advertised and usable space found on traditional hard drives?

Or?

I'm clearly not clear on exactly how Intel drives are different.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Ignatz, You are going too scientifically about that. I would play it by ear. A little more or a little less - the difference will be marginal.

Well and good, WHS.

But that begs the question: If I am "playing it by ear", what do I listen for? How would I ever know one way or the other?

What evidence is there of any benefit whatsoever, if it cannot be quantified?

 

[Hopalong X]

The 5.5GB is the built in over provision by Intel.

Sorry I missed answering that question in your original post.

On the Intels extra OP isn't really a need since it does not use GC.

At least from info that I have been able to read in the past.

You set the TRIM for "Auto" so you should not have any problems.

That is based on what I understand of the info at this time.
Mike

 

[whs]

The 5.5GB is the built in over provision by Intel.

Sorry I missed answering that question in your original post.

Are you sure. It happens to be the difference of decimal 80 trillion bytes and binary 80 trillion bytes. I thought it was just to the binary reprensentation of the size versus what it says on the box.

 

[Hopalong X]

whs

That does not include the 8GB NAND chip used in conjunction with the controller. That is seperate.

My 120 is actually 128GB of NAND.

120GB for storage and one 8GB used in conjunction with the controller circuitry.

9GB of Freespace leaving 111GB usable.

 

[Hopalong X]

The 5.5GB is the built in over provision by Intel.

Sorry I missed answering that question in your original post.

Are you sure. It happens to be the difference of decimal 80 trillion bytes and binary 80 trillion bytes. I thought it was just to the binary reprensentation of the size versus what it says on the box.

If I knew what you were talking about here then I could answer maybe.???

 

[ignatzatsonic]

whs

That does not include the 8GB NAND chip used in conjunction with the controller. That is seperate.

My 120 is actually 128GB of NAND.

120GB for storage and one 8GB used in conjunction with the controller circuitry.

9GB of Freespace leaving 111GB usable.

Aha!!!

So, by inference, an 80 GB Intel SSD is actually 88 GB?

The 7% decimal/binary differential does not apply, at least to Intel SSDs?

 

[Hopalong X]

Where did this 7% come from?

I'm not sure what you are refering to with that.

Just trying to provide what memory serves to the best of my ability.

I had the specs for all the 320's but can't find them at the moment.
It had the number of chips etc. on each size.

Here is a pic of the Intel 320 80GB. More pictures here> http://en.expreview.com/2011/03/23/world-exclusive-review-intel-g3-ssd-80gb/15569.html/2

One of the NAND is used with the controller.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

A 1 TB drive has only 931 MB usable.

That's very close to 7%.

The usable capacity of an 80 GB Intel SSD is 74.5 GB.

That is also very close to 7%.

The question is:

What is the source of the differential in the case of Intel SSDs--overprovisioning or the well-known decimal/binary reason as on 1 TB/931 MB drives?

 

[whs]

Aha!!!

So, by inference, an 80 GB Intel SSD is actually 88 GB?

The 7% decimal/binary differential does not apply, at least to Intel SSDs?

I think it is the other way around. An 80GB (decimal) disk shows as 74.5GB (binary) on the screen. There you have your 7% difference.

If I knew what you were talking about here then I could answer maybe.???

I am talking about the decimal to binary effect. Each decimal capacity number on the box or in ads will show 7% less (in the GB range) when you see it in the system - because all nums in the system are in binary.

 

[whs]

Total confusion reigns - LOL

Divide 100 billion (100GB in decimal) three times by 1024 and see what you get.

The first one to figure it out wins the Speedy Gonzales prize.

 

[essenbe]

Specs for the intel 320.

 

[essenbe]

The difference being referred to is the reason a 1TB hard drive gives 931GB of useable space. But, AFAIK, all SSD manufacturers over provision SSDs for maintenance and nand replacement.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Total confusion reigns - LOL

Divide 100 billion (100GB in decimal) three times by 1024 and see what you get.

The first one to figure it out wins the Speedy Gonzales prize.

Well, I get 9.5367431.

My handy-dandy calculator won't accept 100,000,000,000.

So I used 10,000,000 and divided 3 times by .1024 instead.

Numerator and denominator both pre-divided by 10,000--to fit my calculator.

Not sure what it means!!!

 

[essenbe]

I get 74.505

 

[Hopalong X]

If you look at the bottom right NAND chip it is a different part number. Still can't find my list as usual.
So it isn't a straight 10x ? =80GB

One chip is used with the controller only for wear leveling and "Raid type parity".
Quotes are what Intel calls it I'm pretty sure.
So that takes one and the other 9 are storage.

 

[whs]

Well, I get 9.5367431.

You got close. Shift the comma one position to the right since you started with 10 billion and not 100 billion.

I get 74.505

You better put new batteries into your calculator. LOL

 

[Hopalong X]

Intel sent a 300GB version of the 320 for us to take a look at. Internally the drive has 20 physical NAND devices. Each NAND device is 16GB in size and features two 64Gbit 25nm 2-bit MLC NAND die. 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

Anandtech quote for 300GB. > AnandTech - The Intel SSD 320 Review: 25nm G3 is Finally Here

The I-29F16 is 16GB. New numbering system.
The I-29F64 is 8GB. Old number system exact same chip as X-25.

So one 16GB + 8x8GB = 80GB storage.
1 8GB is used with the controller as explained in my above post.

I had to figure it out from scratch since I couldn't find my list.

The difference is over provisioning. This isn't an HDD.
Read the anandtech page I posted above explaining the OP.