Published on 16th May 2011 by
Originally Posted by barrkelUnless I'm missing something, the C300 looks better than this drive, not obsolete; random reads are the key reason to get an SSD, and this drive is worse at them.
Originally Posted by BakesAs a suggestion, it would be nice to see some real-world ssd benchmarks thrown in (stuff like compressing a big archive, dealing with raw video etc), since big MB/sec numbers are kiiinda helpful, but don't tell me that much about improvements. For example, I appreciate that my new SSD has slightly slower random reads than my old one - but how does that affect me in actual real world usage?
Originally Posted by ClaaveHi all
We've played with many different real-world benchmarks - virus scans of 50GB folders, game load times, Windows boot times, compressing data and so on - but found them all to be very inconsistent. Even disabling all the Windows caching tech we can doesn't reduce the variability, and the more Windows features we disable, the less real-world the test becomes anyway. After all, what does it matter if one storage device is faster than another if Windows caches the type of data you're testing in memory anyway?
As ever, we're open to suggestions, but we're still committed to only posting reliable, consistent and relevant data to form our analysis.
As to the TRIM question: correct!
Originally Posted by BakesWell, that depends on precisely what you're doing. The caching issue would only come in if you were repeatedly opening the test file - so if you were looping, you'd end up with issues - it wouldn't happen in regular windows usage.
I'm not sure I'm completely happy with your argument - none of the examples you gave are particularly demonstrative of something that would be helped by a fast ssd - Windows is limited by stuff like loading drivers (try booting before and after nVidia drivers are installed for an example), whilst game load times are limited for similar reasons - and are generally fast enough that a five percent improvement would fall under experimental error.
Compressing data is cpu-intensive - and throughput is generally far lower than the actual read-write speeds because of this. Only if you're compressing at 'store data' speed will you achieve speeds near SSD saturation - and that's not really compression.
If we've got to a situation where SSDs can't be differentiated from each other in real-world use by bit-tech (note that they can by other sites), then surely bit-tech should be placing a much greater emphasis on price than on artificial performance benchmarks, which don't reflect real world performance accurately? Maybe even the differences in how trim and garbage collection are performed on different SSDs, which can lead to significant performance differences?
Originally Posted by SpreadieFrom the article.
I'm assuming this is just a cut n paste error; otherwise, how do you fill a 256GB drive with 100GB of data? Wouldn't half-filling it change the test results, albeit slightly?
Originally Posted by BazWe filled the drive with data; the 100GB is the size of the install on our SSD test rig; it's just consta-copied until the drive is full.
Originally Posted by Ph4ZeDI'm surprised the issue of price hasnt been mentioned. I'm in the market for 256GB SSD, and the Crucial M4 is actually the cheapest drive on Scan for near Vertex 3 speeds!
Originally Posted by BakesQuote:Originally Posted by barrkelUnless I'm missing something, the C300 looks better than this drive, not obsolete; random reads are the key reason to get an SSD, and this drive is worse at them.
That's what my suggestion was about. Random reads WERE the key reason to get an SSD, simply because hard drives were so crap at them - a normal 7200rpm hard drive might give you 0.5MB/sec because of the horrible seek times.
But what is the difference between 320x faster than a hard drive and 400x faster than a hard drive? You're getting a titanic advantage either way.
Intel Core i5-2500K (operating at 3.3GHz 33x 100MHz)
Asus P8P67-M motherboard (Intel P67)
6GB Kingston 1,600MHz DDR3 memory (3 x 2GB DIMMs)
Originally Posted by PabloFunkyHappy with my M4 512 so far, after my c300256 failed after 8 months.
The ud9s marvel controller in ahci is limiting mine to 380 read and 235 write though.
In some respects the c300 is better, but i went for size also.
Originally Posted by bobwya
Is it true that the non-Intel controller/built SSD's have a much higher failure rate (like double I think I read - 2% vs 4-5%)? Sways me towards getting another Intel drive. Especially their new tech. to map out damaged parts of NAND pages... I'll never forget seeing that ZDNET video where Rupert Goodwin's irradiates an Intel SSD with an Alpha source - no CRC errors and no drop in transfer speed!
What I like about SSD's isn't the speed but the smoothnes (500 Mb/s sounds great - but does the drive stutter with some workloads). My Intel 160Gb G2 SSD served me very well (till I had to sell it on due to poverty). Never had a glitch when I was gaming and it still had 99% wear-levelling capacity...
Intel fanboiiii or just being prudent??
(NB I would get an OCZ drive purely for their diligent work with Indilex on the original Vertex :-) )
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.
8th February 2016
4th February 2016
3rd February 2016
© Copyright bit-tech