|
Just ordered 2 of those M4's from Newegg. Can't wait to get one in my laptop.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
In a way I'm glad that deal's sold out because I cannot afford to drop $260 on ssd's right now like I tempted to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
Ooh man I'm glad I got one right before it sold out. I am gonna demote my BSODing OCZ Agility 3 down to my laptop so hard. After I finally get them to approve an RMA, someday.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
I bought a Corsair Performance 3 128GB in september last year, and did a fresh install of Win 7 on it. Even though I didn't run any benchmarks on it I was relatively happy with the speed increase. A week ago a friend asked me to test my SSD because he wasn't happy with his own. This is what I got:  What could be the reason for this abysmal performance? I'm guessing the percieved speed increase was because of the clean Win7 install. My motherboard is an Asus P5KPL, wich apparently doesn't support AHCI because of some licensing issue. The option doesn't exist in BIOS. But still, it supports SATA II so I should be getting much better results than this, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
Scored one of the 128GB Crucial drives this morning to throw into my desktop. It's chugging along with a pair of 2TB slow-rear end drives in it, and is constantly grinding. I've disabled the SATA3 controller on my mobo, because I didn't want to see its bios screen when I booted and it didn't matter with super slow platter drives, but now I'll feel bad if I'm not using it to its full advantage. Looking forward to a massive speed increase on this thing. And I'm glad to see SSD's come down to earth on the prices.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
gggiiimmmppp posted:Anyone have any glowing experiences with hybrid drives as primary drives in a laptop? Newegg has the 500gb seagate for 99 today. I'm using an ancient 60gb agility for the time being, but I've been loading out for a lower-end 120.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
Civil posted:Scored one of the 128GB Crucial drives this morning to throw into my desktop. It's chugging along with a pair of 2TB slow-rear end drives in it, and is constantly grinding. I've disabled the SATA3 controller on my mobo, because I didn't want to see its bios screen when I booted and it didn't matter with super slow platter drives, but now I'll feel bad if I'm not using it to its full advantage. You will love it. I bought one today, I have no clue what I am going to do with it but I couldn't pass up the price on it today. I now will have 3 128GB M4's (desktop, laptop and then this extra one). I'm sure Ill find a use for it, probably throw VM's on it or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Either that's the 100% shittiest motherboard/BIOS in the world, or you're overlooking something. AHCI is a de facto standard. What's the specific motherboard? I know this is from a bunch of pages back, but I think I might have the same dilemma. I was looking over the specs of my board and didn't see AHCI mentioned. Pretty sure I have revision 1.0 after looking at my board and the pictures of each on the site. http://www.gigabyte.us/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3305#sp Just how screwed am I? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
Shyfted One posted:I know this is from a bunch of pages back, but I think I might have the same dilemma. I was looking over the specs of my board and didn't see AHCI mentioned. Pretty sure I have revision 1.0 after looking at my board and the pictures of each on the site. From a search of "GA-X58A-UD3R AHCI" it appears that your board has AHCI and you just need to enable it in the BIOS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
LaptopGun posted:Before you had to burn the upgrade program to a CD and boot off of it. Thankfully Intel rewrote the SSD Toolbox to enable updates through the program. Install the latest SSD Toolbox from Intel's site, open up the toolbox, and click on Firmware Update in the left hand column. Follow the prompts and set aside a little down time. Works for Vista at least, since that's what I run, and I assume it works fine for 7 and XP. The notes say Mac OSX is supported. Awesome, thanks! japtor posted:Why'd you get the G2 over the 320, just a good deal? Reliability. The drives are going into a computer that I'm collocating, and the x25-m edges out the 320 in terms of reliability. Wish I could have found a deal though, the X25-Ms are at least 40% more expensive per GB than the 320.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
wanderlost posted:Reliability. The drives are going into a computer that I'm collocating, and the x25-m edges out the 320 in terms of reliability. Wish I could have found a deal though, the X25-Ms are at least 40% more expensive per GB than the 320.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
wanderlost posted:Awesome, thanks! You're welcome but unfortunately it looks like I'm wrong. Japtor quoted the release notes that says the toolbox only updates Windows instalations. Macs and Linux still need to burn and boot an iso for an update program.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
The foster posted:I bought a Corsair Performance 3 128GB in september last year, and did a fresh install of Win 7 on it. Even though I didn't run any benchmarks on it I was relatively happy with the speed increase. Alereon posted:What led you to believe the X25-M G2 would be more reliable than the SSD 320?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 10:53
|
|
|
japtor posted:Join in on that forum doing endurance tests Ended up benchmarking the drive again once it hit 271TB written and 21% life remaining: http://www.storagereview.com/ssd_performance_review_270tb_written Next up is seeing where it dies and pretty much starting over on some new hardware. So far none of the expected speed throttling yet... Maybe it comes in at 10% left when the P/E cycles are exhausted and you just have reserved blocks left?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 14:05
|
|
. Are you watching the write speeds too? I think the SF drives people were testing just slowed down/throttled if they were writing enough so they wouldn't kill themselves...well the SF drives that lasted that long in the first place.
|
Is there a guide out there anywhere for setting up encryption using TrueCrypt on SSD setups? I've got windows on an SSD and my user profile on an HDD and I want to encrypt all my drives, but I'm thinking problems will arise if I have to manually mount my user profile drive after booting windows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 15:51
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:Ended up benchmarking the drive again once it hit 271TB written and 21% life remaining: That's really cool and holy wow at writing over 270TB of data to the drive. I will never, ever, come anywhere remotely close to that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 16:30
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:That's really cool and holy wow at writing over 270TB of data to the drive. I will never, ever, come anywhere remotely close to that. Yea this was more of a proof of concept test for us to lead into other areas. Very curious what different NAND/controller packages can offer in endurance and performance nearing end of life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
The intel 520 series just seems to have a massive price cut (240GB went from 400+ euros to 285) , is this just to stay competitive or does it have issues I should be aware of before buying one?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 13:59
|
|
|
Ika posted:The intel 520 series just seems to have a massive price cut (240GB went from 400+ euros to 285) , is this just to stay competitive or does it have issues I should be aware of before buying one? Supposedly it's the most stable SF 2281 drive out there. Haven't really heard anything to contradict that, yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 14:25
|
|
|
The 5 year warranty would tempt me, too. Given price drops, it's definitely one to watch. As with everything though, regular backups. The prices I'm looking at scale pretty badly though, the 240 is a good chunk more than double the cost of the 120 (by £50!), yet the read speeds are the same, and the write speeds only 20MB/s different (500 vs 520). May be cause for the hated configuration of SH/SC - RAID 0. vv Ah, maybe. I hope the price drops aren't a mistake, because the current pricing makes no sense. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Mar 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 14:26
|
|
|
Here in germany the 240gb is 290 E, the 120gb is 156 E, and 180gb is 237, so the price per gb is best for 240, then 120, then 180, which makes no sense at all. Your link is showing 390 pounds, which is something like 500 euros, maybe the price drops havn't arrived in england yet?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 14:43
|
|
|
Tom's Hardware has a roundup of Sandforce 60GB drives (while comparing them with the M4 and 830) http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-60gb-benchmark-review,3137.html Adata S511 60 GB Corsair Force 3 60 GB Corsair Force GT 60 GB Kingston SSDNow V200+ 60 GB Intel SSD 520 60 GB OCZ Agility 3 60 GB OCZ Vertex 3 60 GB OWC Mercury Electra 6G 60 GB Patriot Pyro SE 60 GB RunCore Pro V 60 GB I haven't run one as a boot drive + platter for storage, but they are perfect by themselves for a netbook/laptop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 14:54
|
|
|
I have a pair of X-25M 80GB drives in RAID0 right now as my main partition, and with gaming and stuff I'm spending too much goddamn time moving games around with steamtool. What's the best deal to double my space without sacrificing much in the way of performance?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
Falcon2001 posted:I have a pair of X-25M 80GB drives in RAID0 right now as my main partition, and with gaming and stuff I'm spending too much goddamn time moving games around with steamtool. What's the best deal to double my space without sacrificing much in the way of performance? Buy a 320GB drive?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 15:59
|
|
|
Ika posted:Here in germany the 240gb is 290 E, the 120gb is 156 E, and 180gb is 237, so the price per gb is best for 240, then 120, then 180, which makes no sense at all. Actually, there's a consumer phenomenon called "irrelevant third option" effect. The existence of a third option that's a worse deal than either the cheap option or the expensive options tends to make people opt for the expensive options more often than they would if the third option didn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Buy a 320GB drive? Well, I was debating it, but wondering if the performance hit from moving to one drive would be worth it, and also wondering if anyone had any specific recommendations - I find it really confusing to shop for SSDs because of the arcane model numbers 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 16:37
|
|
|
Either a crucial M4 or a samsung 830 in the size you need should be peachy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 16:47
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Either a crucial M4 or a samsung 830 in the size you need should be peachy. Thanks! I think I'll probably just get the 2x 128GB 830s, as it's the same price as the 256 GB. I think that should be enough extra space, it's mostly just the static sizes of TERA and WoW that's filling up my drive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
Falcon2001 posted:Well, I was debating it, but wondering if the performance hit from moving to one drive would be worth it, and also wondering if anyone had any specific recommendations - I find it really confusing to shop for SSDs because of the arcane model numbers If you have SATA 3.0, 1 current 256GB drive is going to be faster than 2 drives from 2 generations ago. Probably even if you still have SATA 2. Then you have the whole 'single drive being more reliable than two striped drives' thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
And now you can TRIM, too!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 17:51
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:And now you can TRIM, too! X25-M didn't support TRIM. Only the G2 version.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
Thanks folks! I have an Asus P7P55 LX, which as far as I can tell is still SATA 2, the only info I can find on the specs is that it's SATA 3.0 Gbps, so I'm going to assume it's not SATA3. My SSDs are second-gen though, I remember specifically waiting for the TRIM feature and the model number on newegg order history is SSDSA2M080G2XXX. I'm getting the sense that in Raid-0, those don't TRIM though? I originally went RAID-0 because my PC is regularly backed up to my NAS and all my documents exist on that anyway, so the risk vs reward was a good tradeoff. That being said, right now on newegg 2x 128s is the same price as 1x 256, so I'm willing to go either way. Is there an advantage to a single drive over 2x Raid-0'd?(notably using my motherboard as a raid controller)
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
Falcon2001 posted:That being said, right now on newegg 2x 128s is the same price as 1x 256, so I'm willing to go either way. Is there an advantage to a single drive over 2x Raid-0'd?(notably using my motherboard as a raid controller) The only possible advantage of using 2x in RAID 0 is that if you're using Crucial M4 drives, they will be faster. But this extra speed will not be perceptible in any kind of normal use, and the disadvantages are numerous. Otherwise, a single drive is just better, period.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:The only possible advantage of using 2x in RAID 0 is that if you're using Crucial M4 drives, they will be faster. But this extra speed will not be perceptible in any kind of normal use, and the disadvantages are numerous. Otherwise, a single drive is just better, period. I always thought a single drive would run better as its internal data marshalling would be superior to any POS motherboard RAID controller.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:I always thought a single drive would run better as its internal data marshalling would be superior to any POS motherboard RAID controller. 128GB Crucial M4 drives use the same number of NAND channels as the 256GB drives (and they're pretty much the only ~120GB drives that do this). Even if the FakeRAID is pretty inefficient, it's still double the NAND parallelism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:X25-M didn't support TRIM. Only the G2 version.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:The only possible advantage of using 2x in RAID 0 is that if you're using Crucial M4 drives, they will be faster. But this extra speed will not be perceptible in any kind of normal use, and the disadvantages are numerous. Otherwise, a single drive is just better, period. Alrighty, that nails it. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:128GB Crucial M4 drives use the same number of NAND channels as the 256GB drives (and they're pretty much the only ~120GB drives that do this). Even if the FakeRAID is pretty inefficient, it's still double the NAND parallelism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
 Mine is on the right, on the left is one I found online searching for Samsung 830 benchmark. Why is mine about 50% the performance of his? I have AHCI enabled and it's a brand new drive, is it just because I'm using SATA 3gb/s? I didn't think the difference was that big...
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
Greedish posted:
SATA 3 Gbps tops out at about 285 MB/s. Your numbers are perfectly in line with expectations. What you won't see is a big difference in real-world performance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 22:25
|
|