|
Shaocaholica posted:Any caveats with the Mushkin Enhances Chronos 240GB? It looks pretty good for my needs! Is Mushkin on top of firmware updagtes? Should I even care about firmware updates? Bonus Edit: The Sandforce controllers these drives are based on are compellingly good at squeezing every last bit of performance from flash memory. This compresses the differences between the slowest and fastest flash memory in Sandforce-based drives. For example, a Marvell controller with Synchronous flash is very fast, but with cheaper Asynchronous flash performance would be weak. A Sandforce controller with Asynchronous flash is almost as fast as the Marvell+Synchronous example, but moving to Synchronous flash doesn't make it that much faster (because it's already spending most of it's time capped at SATA600). Alereon fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Dec 1, 2012 |
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:50 |
|
|
Alereon posted:It's pretty much a baseline Sandforce drive with asynchronous flash memory. I believe they keep up on firmware updates, but I have a SanDisk so I can't tell you for sure. You would want a drive with current firmware updates for the best TRIM/garbage collection performance, especially in a Mac. For a bit more performance there's also the Mushkin Enhanced Chronos Deluxe for $179.99 which uses Toggle flash, though the difference is tiny. Thanks! So why do they label it as "deluxe" and charge $15 more for performance that you'll never see? I'm trying to search for benchmarks of toggle NAND but not really coming up with any 'laymens' numbers. I'm mostly going to be using this SSD in an ultrabook for image editing, compositing and rendering on-the-go. Worst case scenario I can think of is reading many images(50-100x2-8mb) per frame at 24fps. I know I probably won't be able to do that in realtime but thats the usage scenario.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Thanks! So why do they label it as "deluxe" and charge $15 more for performance that you'll never see? I'm trying to search for benchmarks of toggle NAND but not really coming up with any 'laymens' numbers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
New Thinkpad x230 with Windows 7 is on its way to me now. If I want to stick an SSD in it for programs and the $30 difference between drives isn't a big deal, do I go with the basic Chronos or the Samsung 830? 256/240 GB versions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
What's the current best mSATA SSD? Crucial seems great from a price perspective but everyone's complaining about the firmware problem...
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
Bwee posted:What's the current best mSATA SSD? Crucial seems great from a price perspective but everyone's complaining about the firmware problem... I would wait about a month before buying a Crucial drive. The fixed firmware won't be ready for another two weeks, they've had a record for releasing bad firmware, and there's no "stable" version out for the mSATA drives yet. (The 2.5-inch drives can downgrade to 000F, but not the mSATA.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
idiotsavant posted:New Thinkpad x230 with Windows 7 is on its way to me now. If I want to stick an SSD in it for programs and the $30 difference between drives isn't a big deal, do I go with the basic Chronos or the Samsung 830? 256/240 GB versions. The Samsung is 'better' but you'd be fine with either. Remember to get a 7mm drive for an X230.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
idiotsavant posted:New Thinkpad x230 with Windows 7 is on its way to me now. If I want to stick an SSD in it for programs and the $30 difference between drives isn't a big deal, do I go with the basic Chronos or the Samsung 830? 256/240 GB versions. I have an X220T with a Crucial M4 (7mm). I opted for a 256GB model to have everything on And I wasn't disapointed. It'd say go for the Samsung 830 256GB. Pretty sure all the samsung 830s are 7mm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
How does it work when a laptop has a soldered on 'caching SSD' and you swap out the factory HDD with a SSD? Will your super fast new SSD be speed limited to the slower(?) onboard caching SSD? If so, should the onboard SSD be disabled or treated like another physical drive? I'm specifically talking about the Asus UX32VD which has a 24G soldered on mSATA SSD. I have a feeling its not all that fast but I could be wrong. Even if it is as fast as the best of the best SSDs, would there still be unnecessary overhead in using it as a cache to another SSD?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
My first SSD ever came in the mail earlier today an Intel 330 240GB. I installed a fresh copy of windows in under 20 minutes. I don't mean the install from disk took 20 minutes I mean that 20 minutes later it was installed, fully patched, and I already had all my programs and games reinstalled. Get an SSD they are really loving fast. Also I only have SATA II so my drive might not even be getting full speed but it doesn't even matter.
DrPlump fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 05:58
|
|
|
So now that I have my SSD, what's the easiest way to transfer my Win7 installation over to it? I really don't want to install fresh. I tried creating a restore image of my current OS drive on the SSD, then running a system restore with just the SSD plugged in and using that image, but that gives me this error:quote:System image restore failed. Error details: Windows did not find any disk which it can use for recreating volumes present in backup. Offline disks, cluster shared disks or disks explicitly excluded by user will not be used by Windows. Ensure that disks are online and no disks are excluded by mistake Sorry, I'm sure this has been asked in the thread before, but I don't see it in the OP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:34
|
|
|
What did you use to make the image/clone? I'd just boot Clonezilla to clone the OS partition/drive, then use something like GParted after to make sure its aligned to sector 2048.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 09:34
|
|
|
Nevermind, I got it working by switching from a Gigabyte-controlled SATA port to the Intel-controlled port and then using Acronis True Image rather than the built-in Windows utilities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 09:40
|
|
|
I noticed the OP was updated. No love for the SanDisk Extreme 240GB? It was one of the best options at my local Micro Center, and I know they sell out of them quickly (it and the Samsung 830 256 GB are sold out a lot there). I was wanting a Mushkin Enhanced Chronos Deluxe 240GB, but a Micro Center gift card pushed me locally to pick up a drive. They don't carry Mushkin, so that's when I discovered the SanDisk Extreme 240GB. It was reviewed quite well, and it's been out long enough to show some reliability (as well as a firmware update in October). Is it not a recommended drive? Also, as someone who loves defragging everything they own (I'm still trying to figure out how to defrag my TV), the point in the OP where it says "defragging doesn't improve performance significantly" should be expanded on. Due to logical mapping, wear leveling, and garbage-collection & TRIM shenanigans, I don't think defragging *can* alter performance on a modern SSD (significantly or not). With magnetic drives, running a defrag puts all the fun blocks together (sorta like watching a weird Tetris game, which is possibly why I like doing it so much). The data is (more or less) physically arranged on the drive as it appears in the degrag program. Ignoring the part about using up some write cycles, defragging an SSD will not place data together. Even if your defrag program shows all the blocks tightly packed together and every file in a single, contiguous block, the actual/physical data is more than certainly spread all over the drive (with many files still in thousands of fragments). The SSD has simply told the defrag program that all the data has been defragmented through the way it logically maps. Performance should be identical to how it was before the drive was defragged. So, defragging a SSD is purely a "cosmetic" procedure in the defrag program (if you like watching things defrag into neat, orderly segments), at the cost of some drive life. I'm assuming this has been discussed already. I just noticed that it has said the same old thing in OP about defragging, despite other parts being updated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 10:06
|
|
|
Xenomorph posted:I noticed the OP was updated. No love for the SanDisk Extreme 240GB? I removed the word "significantly" from the defragging section. I think there would be a miniscule performance boost post-TRIM, but it would purely be from the host requesting larger contiguous blocks of LBAs and allowing the drive to more efficiently order internal requests from the flash.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 14:30
|
|
|
Xenomorph posted:What did you use to make the image/clone?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 14:47
|
|
|
I used Macrium Reflect Free to move to a (larger) SSD with the following steps: 0. Cleanup anything unnecessary using CCleaner and other tools. 1. Install Macrium Reflect Free and image your system disk to the SSD. 2. When completed, use Disk Management to enlarge the system partition to fill the disk. Do this now to avoid issues. 3. Shut down. Disconnect your old harddrive. 4. Boot up, make sure the boot order is correct in the BIOS, enjoy life from your new SSD.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 14:56
|
|
|
Alereon posted:I used Macrium Reflect Free to move to a (larger) SSD with the following steps: This is similar to what I did, although I had to boot with a gparted live CD before this to shrink my system partition to fit (moved from a 640GB WD Blue to a 240GB SanDisk Extreme). You should disable hibernation before imaging if you don't use it, since hyberfil.sys can eat up a whole lot of space (6GB on my system, and I've never used it once). I'll also note that you can expand the partition size in the Macrium Reflect imaging process (just drag the right edge of the partition to fill the space), so you don't need to do it in Disk Management. Also make sure that when doing the imaging, you select the Vista/7/SSD (1MB) alignment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 15:19
|
|
|
Where's my best bet for a 250gb SSD that will work well in linux (with TRIM)? 830s are mostly out of stock at this point, and nobody is discounting them. I see deals on other drives but mostly on the don't-buy list. Honestly, the way I'd do the OP is "Here's a list of drives known not to suck. If you buy ANYTHING not on this list we will laugh at you." There's so many loving rebrands, relabels and 'model number may not correspond to contents of box (I'm looking at you, OCZ)' out there that are all garbage it seems pointless to list them all. Is the following list correct? Buy now: Samsung 830 Intel 520-series Mushkin Enhanced Chronos Corsair Force GT Buy but beware firmware issues: Samsung 840 pro Crucial M4 Never buy: Anything else, unless you are a reviewer endurance testing them Never buy, called out for name by people who can't read OCZ Crucial V4 Samsung 840 non-pro On the firmware issue front: Are the Intel 330/335 in the 'maybe' column now with their updates?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 17:05
|
|
|
The problem is that there's a large number of very equivalent Sandforce drives that are fine, so we can't just say "always buy this drive". There's also OCZ, first-gen Sandforce drives, and drives without RAISE. Thus, the best guidance overall is that a SATA600 Sandforce drive with a non-power-of-two size that is not OCZ is probably fine. The Intel SSD 330 is fine now. At this point I think it's been proven that Intel's lower-binned flash memory is equivalent from a consumer point of view to their regular stuff, though I'm not confident that that will extend to their 20nm flash on the SSD 335. The problem is that this is really only something we'll know after the drive has some reliability history in the market. I'll look at ways to reorganize/update to make things more clear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
Whats the deal with power-of-two vs non-power-of-two size drives? I didn't see anything in the op.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
It's in the "do not buy" list and mentioned elsewhere. On Sandforce drives you can disable the RAISE error-correction to go from 120/240GB to 128/256GB (power-of-two sizes). Disabling error-correction is a bad thing if you want a reliable drive for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
Alereon posted:It's in the "do not buy" list and mentioned elsewhere. On Sandforce drives you can disable the RAISE error-correction to go from 120/240GB to 128/256GB (power-of-two sizes). Disabling error-correction is a bad thing if you want a reliable drive for obvious reasons. I'm assuming that only applies to sandforce drives, as other chipsets have different ways of overprovisioning?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
Harik posted:I'm assuming that only applies to sandforce drives, as other chipsets have different ways of overprovisioning?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
Alereon posted:The problem is that there's a large number of very equivalent Sandforce drives that are fine, so we can't just say "always buy this drive". There's also OCZ, first-gen Sandforce drives, and drives without RAISE. Thus, the best guidance overall is that a SATA600 Sandforce drive with a non-power-of-two size that is not OCZ is probably fine. Thing is, the reason I said "If it's not listed we'll laugh at you" is because of the sheer amount of lovely race-to-the-bottom sandforce clones there are. Even if you ignore idiots making "branded changes" to firmware that they don't understand, you've got bargain bin "Huh, wonder if this still works?" NAND chips being used because the only consideration is price. I guess a list of "These are model numbers of generic sandforce drives that don't appear to be using the cheapest possible NAND chips." People ask about random brand in here all the time, so if someone does take the time to look into RandomBrand 256GB SSD x-x-x-treme edition, and decide it's using good chips, toss it in the 'probably not complete garbage' clone list in the OP. Harik fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
I don't think there's actually the level of brand-to-brand variability you think there is for Sandforce drives. With the notable exceptions of OCZ, everyone is using flash of about the same quality, and no one's doing custom firmware (aside from the RAISE thing, which isn't custom it's just a config option). The OP does list some recommended drives that will work well, but for Sandforce drives you can largely assume the drive is OK if it's SATA600, has a normal capacity, and isn't OCZ.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
Is the Samsung 830 256 GB still probably my best bet for performance/price, if I can get it for around 200 dollars? Is the 840 still "unverified" in terms of reliability?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
Turds in magma posted:Is the Samsung 830 256 GB still probably my best bet for performance/price, if I can get it for around 200 dollars? Is the 840 still "unverified" in terms of reliability?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
Alereon posted:I don't think there's actually the level of brand-to-brand variability you think there is for Sandforce drives. With the notable exceptions of OCZ, everyone is using flash of about the same quality, and no one's doing custom firmware (aside from the RAISE thing, which isn't custom it's just a config option). The OP does list some recommended drives that will work well, but for Sandforce drives you can largely assume the drive is OK if it's SATA600, has a normal capacity, and isn't OCZ. That's pretty clear - should put that in the OP. Turds in magma posted:Is the Samsung 830 256 GB still probably my best bet for performance/price, if I can get it for around 200 dollars? Is the 840 still "unverified" in terms of reliability? 840 non-pro uses cheaper flash that wears out fast. 840 pro may be as good as the original 830, but multiple review models bit the dust before they even finished testing. Samsung says they fixed the issue with pre-release firmware - it's your data to risk. Edit: Anyone know the difference between the Mushkin Enhanced Chronos and the -Deluxe version? Newegg compare says "SandForce SF-2281 SSD processor with unthrottled - IOPS firmware" But they both have the same 90k IOPS rating - the deluxe is even rated for 5MB/s lower than the cheaper version. Harik fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Look at one of the Sandforce drives recommended in the OP, otherwise yes it's a good option. Do not buy a Samsung 840/840 Pro for reasons clearly set out in the "do not buy" list. Ok yeah, I did read the OP, I just wasn't sure how often you updated that part (a lot can change in a month or so). Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
I've updated the "What SSD should I buy?" sections to focus primarily on Sandforce options and to be more consistent. The descriptions of each drive are now copied+pasted between sections with minor tweaks to relevance in each section. You'll notice the Intel SSD 330 making a much more prominent appearance. Overall I've reduced the amount of content in some sections to make it easier to skim, and I plan to continue doing some trimming (in particular the Mac section isn't too useful on its own anymore).
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
Bold the names of the SSDs in the avoid list and maybe do a quick list of what drives to look out for, in preferably order of how good they're supposed to be, assuming cost isn't an issue. Something like Samsung 830 > Intel 330 > Sandforce drives?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 23:29
|
|
|
I don't think I can bold anymore without complete breaking its ability to emphasize things, but I made some additional tweaks that should make it easier to see stuff. I'll think about a quick SSD priority list. Edit: Here's some rough thoughts: Recommended drives in rough order of decreasing performance/quality/price: Intel SSD 520 (Sandforce+5K-endurance Synchronous flash+Intel QA'd firmware) Sandforce-based drives with 5K-endurance Synchronous flash Samsung 830 (Samsung+Toggle-mode flash, performance not as consistent as Sandforce) Intel SSD 330 (Sandforce+3K-endurance Synchronous flash+Intel QA'd firmware) Sandforce-based drives with 3K-endurance Synchronous flash (questionable reliability) Sandforce-based drives with Toggle-mode flash (SanDisk MAY be better than others since they make their own NAND, can anyone else think of NAND manufacturers making Sandforce drives other than Intel?) Sandforce-based drives with Asynchronous flash Alereon fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:How does it work when a laptop has a soldered on 'caching SSD' and you swap out the factory HDD with a SSD? Will your super fast new SSD be speed limited to the slower(?) onboard caching SSD? If so, should the onboard SSD be disabled or treated like another physical drive?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
So Alereon, the only difference between the Intel 330 series and the 520 series is 3K and 5K? I picked up an Intel 330 Series 240 GB over the Black Friday weekend for $130 after MIR ($160 before) so it seems to be middle-of-the-road on your list... did I get a bad deal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
And that's why making a ranking list like that isn't very useful  The only meaningful difference is that the 330 is rated for only 3000 write cycles while the 520 is rated for 5000. I think the 520 expose some more SMART values related to wear and has a longer warranty, but in terms of performance they are pretty much identical. Since it performs like any other Synchronous drive $130 (or even $160) is a hell of a deal.To expand a bit, I have some concerns about the reliability of non-Intel 3K drives like the Kingston HyperX 3K, but I've made peace with the SSD 330. My initial concerns were that using lower-binned memory may have more reliability implications than the write cycle limit would imply, but at least on the Intel drives this doesn't seem to be the case. However, drives from flash manufacturers tend to be more reliable than others, so I'm not sure if I extend my trust to Kingston and other manufacturers using 3K-rated memory. Bonus bonus edit on memory binning: They test all the memory dies they make for various indicators of how they'll age. Memory that seems like it will age well gets sold as High Endurance Technology, or HET, for a substantial premium. Memory that seems like it will age worse than average becomes 3K endurance, and memory that is really bad but not outright broken gets sold under a special low-quality part brand to OCZ. For normal (5K) and 3K bins they seem to take the best of each category and reserve it for use in branded drives. Alereon fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Dec 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 03:02
|
|
|
Isn't the 520 quite a bit faster in incompressible writes than the 330?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 03:11
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Isn't the 520 quite a bit faster in incompressible writes than the 330?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Isn't the 520 quite a bit faster in incompressible writes than the 330?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:50 |
|
|
Edit: Whoops, I need to go to bed.
Bob Morales fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Dec 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 04:06
|
|