bit-tech.net

G.Skill Titan 256GB SSD

Comments 1 to 25 of 30

Reply
Teq 20th January 2009, 11:52 Quote
It will be interesting to see if the smaller OCZ dual controller (and even quad controller) drives perform equally as well, considering the price these units will fetch they could be a very real option for application and OS installation.
felix the cat 20th January 2009, 12:29 Quote
Third graph (page 3 I believe) the Y-Axis Legend (data description labels or whatever you want to call it) are a wee bit messed up.

Otherwise very nice review indeed. Anyone want to lend me 500 bucks??
Baz 20th January 2009, 13:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix the cat
Third graph (page 3 I believe) the Y-Axis Legend (data description labels or whatever you want to call it) are a wee bit messed up.

Otherwise very nice review indeed. Anyone want to lend me 500 bucks??

If it's the response time graph, there's not a lot I can do about that - the SSDs are so much quicker than the mechanical drives that their bars can't fit the data in on the same graph. I'll work with our developer to see if we can find a solution.
hyperion 20th January 2009, 13:15 Quote
Correct me if I'm wrong but looking at the charts there doesn't seem to be any real reason to buy an SSD or even the more affordable Raptor over the Baracuda and Samsung, at least in terms of all-round performance, storage capacity and price. Or have I misunderstood the charts?
Baz 20th January 2009, 13:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustor
Correct me if I'm wrong but looking at the charts there doesn't seem to be any real reason to buy an SSD or even the more affordable Raptor over the Baracuda and Samsung, at least in terms of all-round performance, storage capacity and price. Or have I misunderstood the charts?

As useful as the theoretical and read/write/copy tests are, it's the real world tests that you see the biggest jump from using a mechanical to using a decent SSD. Booting from off to working desktop in just 35 seconds is so much faster than a mechanical drive is capable of, and you'll notice the nippier hard drive performance in almost every aspect of OS use. yes, the price is steep and the storage limited, but this is the only reliable way to get performance on this sort of level in a single drive.
mauvecloud 20th January 2009, 14:02 Quote
You say you could build a RAID 5 array with some Samsung terabyte drives for the same price, so why didn't you include such a setup in the comparisons?
Dreaming 20th January 2009, 14:22 Quote
How good are SSDs in general for failure rates compared to standard disks? I would say that's a really big factor.
naokaji 20th January 2009, 15:56 Quote
Meh, so even with a dual controller there are still situations where SSD's are ~50% slower than mechanical drives, if they would atleast be faster than a mechanical drive in every situation, one could say it's ok that they are smaller and more expensive, but as it is I just dont see the point.
Well, maybe the OCZ Vertex which will come with Cache and a non Jmicron Controller will be able to beat the mechanical drives in every situation.
leexgx 20th January 2009, 23:08 Quote
SSD are norm more relable then HDDs and if bad sectors happen the disk should start to get smaller (if the hdd maker adds that option not likely on any jmicron SSDs) the bigger the SSD more likely the longer it will last as the wear leveling can work over an larger space of the flash, turning off any auto defrag (win7 off by default for SSD) is very important as it likey to shorting the life by a alot (as well as that pointless to defrag on SSD due to data is the same speed where ever it is accessed from and wear leveling)

its the access time on SSD that makes the system respond faster, the dual Jmicron is an intresitng idea seems to work well one side can be writeing other side can be reading
teamtd11 20th January 2009, 23:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mauvecloud
You say you could build a RAID 5 array with some Samsung terabyte drives for the same price, so why didn't you include such a setup in the comparisons?

My guess would be that g.skill provided the SSD for testing, but they don't have 3-4 1tb samsung's and a high end raid controller sitting around in the office.
Bindibadgi 20th January 2009, 23:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by teamtd11
My guess would be that g.skill provided the SSD for testing, but they don't have 3-4 1tb samsung's and a high end raid controller sitting around in the office.

We do have 4 Seagate 1Tb 7200.11s, but two or three of them are dead actually...

The RAID controller is another option: what do you go for, crappy CPU controlled onboard RAID or high end and expensive controller?

Also, if you want a 2.5" SSD the size, temperature, noise and energy consumption difference is also CONSIDERABLE between this and 3/4 1Tb 3.5" disks.

Dreaming - we just don't know yet to be honest.
ashchap 20th January 2009, 23:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leexgx
the dual Jmicron is an intresitng idea seems to work well one side can be writeing other side can be reading

I was wondering about this - what happens if the data you want to read is on the same side as you're writing to? would you occasionally get the same slowdown as the 128GB?
dylAndroid 21st January 2009, 00:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
Also, if you want a 2.5" SSD the size, temperature, noise and energy consumption difference is also CONSIDERABLE between this and 3/4 1Tb 3.5" disks.

Also, SSDs are more rugged than HDDs. In that sense, I'd expect they're a better bet for computers that will go through a lot, such as car PCs, some laptops depending on how they're used, and other computers that have to put up with a lot of jostling.

I'm guessing that it's the next generation of SSDs that are created that start to make them make sense for the mainstream.
Horizon 21st January 2009, 02:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
If it's the response time graph, there's not a lot I can do about that - the SSDs are so much quicker than the mechanical drives that their bars can't fit the data in on the same graph. I'll work with our developer to see if we can find a solution.

for the 'higher is better' graphs make the starting value 'x' instead of zero, 50 looks like a good number. As for 'lower is better' only thing i can thinl of is to make it a relative(%) graph instead of an absolute one.

once these babies hit the $0.90/GB mark I'm all over these like a fat man at a buffet.

Two more questions: Why wasn't the WD Velociraptor included? and what drive adapter would be needed?
mauvecloud 21st January 2009, 05:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horizon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
If it's the response time graph, there's not a lot I can do about that - the SSDs are so much quicker than the mechanical drives that their bars can't fit the data in on the same graph. I'll work with our developer to see if we can find a solution.

for the 'higher is better' graphs make the starting value 'x' instead of zero, 50 looks like a good number. As for 'lower is better' only thing i can thinl of is to make it a relative(%) graph instead of an absolute one.

once these babies hit the $0.90/GB mark I'm all over these like a fat man at a buffet.

Two more questions: Why wasn't the WD Velociraptor included? and what drive adapter would be needed?

Percentage wouldn't help much for the response time graph - what they really need is a bar graph generator smart enough to put the caption to the right if the bar is too small. I disagree with the idea of starting at non-zero for the "higher is better" graphs like the speed in MB/s, because that tends to exaggerate the differences. If there's really that big a difference, it'll still be visible in a zero-based graph.

If you want an adapter to mount one or two 2.5 inch drives in a desktop computer (whether SSD or mechanical), you'll probably want one of these:
http://www.startech.com/item/SATA35252X-35-Bay-to-Dual-25-SATA-HDD-Adapter.aspx
naokaji 21st January 2009, 08:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mauvecloud
I disagree with the idea of starting at non-zero for the "higher is better" graphs like the speed in MB/s, because that tends to exaggerate the differences.

+1

Graphs that start at non-zero are evil, especially if mixed with start at zero graphs in the same review, it just defeats the points of having graphs since you are going to have to read it very carefully then.
Tim S 21st January 2009, 10:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by naokaji
+1

Graphs that start at non-zero are evil, especially if mixed with start at zero graphs in the same review, it just defeats the points of having graphs since you are going to have to read it very carefully then.

They're also mathematically incorrect and, as a degree-level mathematician/scientist/engineer, I'm not going to publish graphs that aren't actually representative of the data.
DougEdey 21st January 2009, 10:03 Quote
SSDs are approaching a stage where they are being used on Enterprise hardware, so reliability is improving (unsure on G.Skill, but I know a manufacturer)
ashchap 22nd January 2009, 01:46 Quote
A logarithmic scale is the obvious solution but it would probably just confuse people more.
ayqazi 22nd January 2009, 23:45 Quote
You didn't have the test I really wanted to see, compile an application, like (for example) the Linux kernel.

Actually, what I really want to see is how long it takes to load up the test suite (something that happens before every test is run) in a Ruby on Rails application. I found that having to wait several seconds for it to load up on a slow 5400rpm drive really slowed down my development, especially since I develop in a test-first manner. But I can't expect you to do something so specialised. But compiling a Linux kernel is similar, and much more relavent to most Linux users.
ayqazi 22nd January 2009, 23:46 Quote
Whoops, forgot to say: I also wanted to see power consumption compared to regular 5400RPM laptop drives. That would have been super-interesting.
Anakha 23rd January 2009, 02:21 Quote
It took long enough, but someone finally answered my long-standing suggestion - a flash drive of RAIDed cells presented as a single "Disk".

I wonder just how this thing would perform being a 4x64 split, rather than a 2x128. And, indeed, when someone's going to make an MLC or SLC chip with integrated controller, so SSD makers can use RAID parallelism to split loads, and mitigate flash media's limited read/write bandwidth.
Bindibadgi 23rd January 2009, 10:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anakha

I wonder just how this thing would perform being a 4x64 split, rather than a 2x128.

It can technically be done - there's a JMicron controller out there that will handle four, but to be honest, I think it's a combination of diminishing returns and squeezing everything through one SATA 3Gbps port :|
leexgx 23rd January 2009, 23:51 Quote
if you still have them can you test the Write latency as thats what kills them
naokaji 24th January 2009, 08:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
It can technically be done - there's a JMicron controller out there that will handle four, but to be honest, I think it's a combination of diminishing returns and squeezing everything through one SATA 3Gbps port :|

Well, read speeds would run into the limitations of SATA2, but write speeds (the weak point of ssd's) should still profit. But what I think will help more is adding cache like the OCZ vertex will that will be out soon.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums