Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 33 to 48 of 116

Thread: Tracking SSD costs

  1. #33
    jim
    jim is offline
    HEXUS.clueless jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    11,349
    Thanks
    606
    Thanked
    1,590 times in 1,264 posts
    • jim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z
      • CPU:
      • i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Sandisk SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX650
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT03
      • Operating System:
      • 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2716DG
      • Internet:
      • 10 Mbps ADSL

    Re: Tracking SSD costs

    Quote Originally Posted by pp05 View Post
    They have got got to come below £100 before I'd even look at them. Its a lot to pay just to load the OS in 20secs.
    To be fair, they are a lot more than that. But they're still expensive for what they are.

  2. #34
    Senior Member Perfectionist's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    824
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked
    39 times in 30 posts

    Re: Tracking SSD costs

    Flicking through this thread focus seems to be mainly on OCZ ones, is there a particular reason for that? I am picking a SSD for my system so would be interested in any thoughts, I was mainly looking at Intel ones since they seem to have the best read/write MB/s speeds (out of SATA SSDs anyway, I am undecided whether I'm going to go for one of the PCI ones since they have 3x+ the speed of SATA ones it seems)

  3. #35
    jim
    jim is offline
    HEXUS.clueless jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    11,349
    Thanks
    606
    Thanked
    1,590 times in 1,264 posts
    • jim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z
      • CPU:
      • i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Sandisk SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX650
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT03
      • Operating System:
      • 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2716DG
      • Internet:
      • 10 Mbps ADSL

    Re: Tracking SSD costs

    Quote Originally Posted by Perfectionist View Post
    Flicking through this thread focus seems to be mainly on OCZ ones, is there a particular reason for that? I am picking a SSD for my system so would be interested in any thoughts, I was mainly looking at Intel ones since they seem to have the best read/write MB/s speeds (out of SATA SSDs anyway, I am undecided whether I'm going to go for one of the PCI ones since they have 3x+ the speed of SATA ones it seems)
    Don't see why you'd notice the speed difference with a PCI one rather than SATA, and last time I checked the PCI's weren't bootable, which is a pain in the neck.

    OCZ and the like were traditionally cheaper than the Intel equivalents, although not quite as good, so that's why they were in the list. With the new G2 cheaper Intel drives I'm not sure whether that's still the case, I haven't really been keeping track of the pricing.

  4. #36
    Senior Member Perfectionist's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    824
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked
    39 times in 30 posts

    Re: Tracking SSD costs

    Quote Originally Posted by snootyjim View Post
    Don't see why you'd notice the speed difference with a PCI one rather than SATA
    http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardwar...ches-z-cards/1

    SATA is the bottleneck apparently, PCI-E bypasses that for the faster speeds

    Corsair Extreme Series X256 GB ("240MB/s sequential read and 170MB/s sequential write speed") @ £533.57

    OCZ OCZSSDPCIE-ZDP84256G Z-Drive P84 256GB ("Read: Up to 770MB/s Write: Up to 640MB/s") @ £1149.99

    double the price but more than triple the read+write speeds of SATA...

    http://hothardware.com/Articles/Fusi...Match/?page=10
    Fusion-io's SSD technology circumvent the looming SATA bottleneck

    [..]the SATA interface itself might very well be approaching its twilight years.
    Quote Originally Posted by snootyjim View Post
    last time I checked the PCI's weren't bootable, which is a pain in the neck.
    Yeah, that's the big question really:

    http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News...x?NewsId=25975

    google.com/search?q=boot+OR+bootable+pci-e+ssd+-eee+-"mini+pcie"

    In the other thread someone said they have a delay before being recognised by the system which could slow boot times, but I'm not sure, it says plug and play in the article - they might be out of date too. I'm all a bit confused it's hard to know where to get reliable information, I wouldn't bother asking OCZ because I figure they'd just downplay any issues :/ Not many impartial reviews/testing that I can see... They really should send a couple free ones to reputable websites/magazines
    Last edited by Perfectionist; 01-11-2009 at 09:05 PM.

  5. #37
    jim
    jim is offline
    HEXUS.clueless jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    11,349
    Thanks
    606
    Thanked
    1,590 times in 1,264 posts
    • jim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z
      • CPU:
      • i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Sandisk SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX650
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT03
      • Operating System:
      • 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2716DG
      • Internet:
      • 10 Mbps ADSL

    Re: Tracking SSD costs

    Quote Originally Posted by Perfectionist View Post
    SATA is the bottleneck apparently, PCI-E bypasses that for the faster speeds
    I'm well aware that PCI-E allows a faster connection, but my point still stands - where would you notice that speed increase?

  6. #38
    Butter king GheeTsar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The shire of berks
    Posts
    2,106
    Thanks
    153
    Thanked
    260 times in 163 posts
    • GheeTsar's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3P
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5 2500k
      • Memory:
      • Corsair 8GB
      • Storage:
      • Samsung EVO 850 1 TB + 2 x 1TB Storage
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS Radeon R9 280X
      • PSU:
      • Tagan TG600-U33 600W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define R3
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Acer 24" 120Hz GD245HQ
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 100mb

    Re: Tracking SSD costs

    I installed my Intel X25-M this weekend and found while the boot time was improved, the main benefit was the response time between asking the machine to do something and it starting to do it. It really makes the whole PC *feel* much faster and it is certainly a worthy upgrade over my 150gb Raptor (now for sale if anyone is interested).

    Can I justify the £167 I paid for it? No, probably not. Effectively it is just a toy.

    PS. I found it a bit unnerving not hearing any HDD noise to start with, especially when installing W7!

  7. #39
    Pork & Beans Powerup Phage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    6,108
    Thanks
    1,530
    Thanked
    581 times in 497 posts
    • Phage's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Crosshair VI
      • CPU:
      • 1700x @ 3.9
      • Memory:
      • 16Gb Corsair LPX
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 960 512Gb + 2Tb Seagate SSHD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 1080ti
      • PSU:
      • BeQuiet 850w
      • Case:
      • Fractal R4
      • Operating System:
      • W10 64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Agon Gsync

    Re: Tracking SSD costs

    Hmmmm. Raptor ?
    How much ? how old ?
    Society's to blame,
    Or possibly Atari.

  8. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,561
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    244 times in 206 posts

    Re: Tracking SSD costs

    Quote Originally Posted by Perfectionist View Post
    Flicking through this thread focus seems to be mainly on OCZ ones, is there a particular reason for that?
    When I started this thread, the drive with Indilinx the controller was just out, and it was the only real alternative to the Intel (very good, but expensive). Okay, Samsung were fine too at the time, but I found it hard to differentiate their models, and I don't think it was on par with the Indilinx one anyway. I dismissed drives using the JMicron controller due to the infamous stutter issue. And I viewed (and still view) things like Fusion-io as a nice tech-demo of things to come, but not as something I, or the average enthusiast would buy (high price, non-bootable).

    So Indilinx it was. And OCZ was the first one to come with a drive using that controller (Vertex). As months went by, other drives using the Indilinx came appeared the market. The G.Skill Falcon was one of them, and it was also quite consistently cheaper than the Vertex. So I switched my focus to that drive. Later on, Intel introduced the G2, which was priced a lot more competitively. So I started tracking those too.

    Ultimately this is something I decided to do mostly for myself, so I picked product I was most likely to buy. I decided to post it here as a semi-permanent record so that I can compare the price of the same product months ago, and help other people interested in similar product.

  9. #41
    Butter king GheeTsar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The shire of berks
    Posts
    2,106
    Thanks
    153
    Thanked
    260 times in 163 posts
    • GheeTsar's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3P
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5 2500k
      • Memory:
      • Corsair 8GB
      • Storage:
      • Samsung EVO 850 1 TB + 2 x 1TB Storage
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS Radeon R9 280X
      • PSU:
      • Tagan TG600-U33 600W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define R3
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Acer 24" 120Hz GD245HQ
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 100mb

    Re: Tracking SSD costs

    Quote Originally Posted by Phage View Post
    Hmmmm. Raptor ?
    How much ? how old ?
    I'm probably looking for £40 plus postage costs (you can pick how it's sent). I bought it in March 08 and it has been my system drive until this weekend. It's not a Velociraptor I should add and I must warn you that Raptors are louder in operation than most drives. I should really make a FS thread on this to avoid this post going horribly off topic!

  10. #42
    Senior Member Perfectionist's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    824
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked
    39 times in 30 posts

    Re: Tracking SSD costs

    Quote Originally Posted by snootyjim View Post
    I'm well aware that PCI-E allows a faster connection, but my point still stands - where would you notice that speed increase?
    Anything that uses the hard disk? Searching, loading, you name it? The PCI-E MB/s speeds are more than 3x SATA SSDs...

    Quote Originally Posted by TooNice View Post
    things like Fusion-io as a nice tech-demo of things to come, but not as something I, or the average enthusiast would buy (high price, non-bootable)
    They are bootable, that one might not be but most seem to be:

    http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News...x?NewsId=25975

    google.com/search?q=boot+OR+bootable+pci-e+ssd+-eee+-"mini+pcie"

  11. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,561
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    244 times in 206 posts

    Re: Tracking SSD costs

    That's wasn't available when the thread was started. I actually remember that there were talk of a bootable Fusion-io, be it rumour or work in progress, but I quickly looked away when I saw the price tag. At the current price, OCZ's offering may be significantly than the Fusion-io 6 months ago, but it's still as much as I would spend on an entire PC.. with an SSD drive. But if you can afford that, or are interested to see how price for those drives change over time you are more than welcome to use this thread for that purpose.

    Still, you did get me curious and I decided to look up the OCZ Z-Drive. What interests me the most is 4k Random read/write. The reason why SSD is deemed more 'snappy' is not because of those 250+ MB/sec numbers you see plastered all over the place. Sure they are relevant, but SSD are more responsive due to the much lower response time (but there are no big differences between them) and MUCH faster random write of very small files (it's the sort of activity that occurs in the background while you are using your PC normally). 20MB/sec may not sound much, but keep in mind that a Velociraptor can't even manage 1MB/sec in such tests if I remember correctly. Actually, reading the rest of the review, the drive's main benefit is sequential transfers.

    The 500+MB/sec of sequential speed doesn't interest me as much. I don't shift massive files between multiple drives that often. It's nice to have it, but I wouldn't pay over the top for it. If I *needed it* (say, I do lots of HD encoding), a PCI-E SATA RAID controller with a couple of TB drives would probably be more suitable due to the capacity requirement (you'll fill that SSD in 10 minutes). For my money, I would definitely stick with a single 160GB Intel G2 (the G2 also does better than the Z-Drive for gaming and media application).
    Last edited by TooNice; 02-11-2009 at 04:06 PM.

  12. #44
    jim
    jim is offline
    HEXUS.clueless jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    11,349
    Thanks
    606
    Thanked
    1,590 times in 1,264 posts
    • jim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z
      • CPU:
      • i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Sandisk SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX650
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT03
      • Operating System:
      • 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2716DG
      • Internet:
      • 10 Mbps ADSL

    Re: Tracking SSD costs

    Quote Originally Posted by Perfectionist View Post
    Anything that uses the hard disk? Searching, loading, you name it? The PCI-E MB/s speeds are more than 3x SATA SSDs...

    They are bootable, that one might not be but most seem to be:

    http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News...x?NewsId=25975

    google.com/search?q=boot+OR+bootable+pci-e+ssd+-eee+-"mini+pcie"
    No, you wouldn't notice it when searching or loading.

    As TooNice pointed out, the only time that you might is when you're transferring a 20GB file. And that's not really typical usage for an SSD. So I still don't really get what you're talking about.

  13. #45
    Senior Member Perfectionist's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    824
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked
    39 times in 30 posts

    Re: Tracking SSD costs

    Ok, so I did some more research (I didn't know about the IOPS factor, as I've said elsewhere not had a SSD drive before), think you may be right here

    120GB OCZ Vertex
    4 KB random IOPS performance: 25.75 MB/s read / 12.10 MB/s write

    120GB OCZ Vertex Turbo
    4 KB random IOPS performance: 28.41 MB/s read / 67.81 MB/s write (someone said before the turbo version wasn't worth getting, hmm!)
    (note, the text in benchmark review says a different number of IOs, but in the picture it shows 17358 - it says it is 17358 IO writes for vertex turbo in the benchmarks for the below corsair drive too)

    256GB Corsair X256 CMFSSD-256D1 (Scan use this by default in their most expensive builds, there's no option for anything not Corsair)
    4 KB random IOPS performance: 29.08 MB/s read / 63.45 MB/s write

    160GB Intel X25-M G2
    4 KB random IOPS performance: 58.50 MB/s read / 34.50 MB/s write

    64GB Intel X25-E
    4 KB random IOPS performance: 55.90 MB/s read / 31.70 MB/s write

    500GB OCZ Z-Drive
    4 KB random IOPS performance: 17.63 MB/s read / 28.33 MB/s write
    (From the pictures attached further down the thread)
    It doesn't say whether it is the the e84 (fastest) "SLC Enterprise Series", p84 "MLC Performance Series" or m84 "MLC Mainstream Series" though, but interestingly, those forum benchmarks work out to 4.5K IOPS - the official information on OCZ's site gives no data for m84, "16k maximum" for e84 and "10k maximum" for e84 which of course I was wary of when I read since "maximum" in advertising-speak is the same as "up to" meaning it could well be less than half in actual use, with no differences between the sizes of the disk(s)

    So yeah, looks like Intel is the best for general use (using read more than write), hopefully they've sorted out that firmware thing now, reading around it seems like that goes back to July

    However if those OCZ ones are poor, it seems using other disks in a SATA 2 cage works pretty damn well:
    such as 2 x Intel X25-Ms or 4x (2 seems to give double the performance, 4 drives about 3x the IOPs)
    Last edited by Perfectionist; 02-11-2009 at 06:52 PM.

  14. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    290
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    13 times in 12 posts

    Re: Tracking SSD costs

    HD tune random numbers are just no where near a useful benchmark I'm afraid, other than showing the massive difference between mechanical and ssd, the numbers are near useless. IOPS numbers and HD Tune benchmarking is completely incomparable to numbers from Crystaldiskmark.

    http://www.myce.com/review/intel-x25.../Benchmarks-4/

    For instance the numbers you gave for the intel from a personalised benchmark in IOmeter from Anandtech don't match Crystaldisk results at all, varying drives slightly(maybe didn't check think the ones I linked are first revision of the drive) but basically you can't compare numbers from different benchmarks at all, identical benchmarks and even then often from the same reviewer so the same testing style will be the only way to really compare.

    Frankly all the ocz vertex based drives won't be far off on crystal disk mark results, and the intel's, all of them, will have about those numbers in the link I showed in that benchmark.

    At this point in time the choice is realistically Indilinx based drive, cheapest you can get one the better, or an Intel and no matter what you get you'll be very hard pressed to tell the difference once in your system under any normal home use and most other ways to use hard drives frankly.

    The intel only really shines in very specific area's and not many that people frequently use in any circumstances.

  15. #47
    Senior Member Perfectionist's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    824
    Thanks
    245
    Thanked
    39 times in 30 posts

    Re: Tracking SSD costs

    Well, that sucks. I had to search other sites because I couldn't find one reviewer that had done them all. Someone should really do that...

    HEXUS?

  16. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    290
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    13 times in 12 posts

    Re: Tracking SSD costs

    Hehe, yes, hard drive benchmarking is hard to compare because they aren't as widely benchmarked so harder to see comparisons on the same site in the same review. While any gfx card on most sites in the same review they show results in the same test done the same way for anything from 5-10 different gpu's.

    The biggest issue really though is, hdd benchmarking is very , odd. While games have game benchmarks that give you a rough idea what you'd get in that game. But you don't have say an encoding app with a nice little hdd benchmark to compare real world performance, just these artificial benchmarks which tend to always go after very specific types of data transfer which rarely if ever reflect real world performance.

    IOmeter isn't bad as you can record your own usage pattern, so you can set it too monitor the io requests when made say, loading windows, opening a game, playing for a while, closing, play another game, close surf, download etc, etc. But few sites use iometer and those that do don't use standard testing, its all what they consider normal usage, which is different from user to user and also incomparable from review to review.

    The oddest thing is, while benchmarks scores keep improving, realistically theres a certain cut off in performance with hard drives where diminshing returns become a huge issue. I can't see any difference whatsoever between a single 64gb crucial ssd, and 2 in raid 0, benchmarks are WAY ahead, almost perfectly scaled to double the performance, even in the key 4kb random writes(goes from 15mb/s to 30mb/s in crystal mark). However, in real world performance i simply don't see that performance difference, loading games, windows, pretty much anything its almost identical. The few things that would benefit from the higher sequential speeds would be unrar'ing downloads or moving lots of files. But I download to a bigger mechanical HDD to prevent excessive use of the SSD's anyway.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Excellent on SSD @ Anandtech
    By TooNice in forum Storage
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 29-03-2009, 05:45 PM
  2. Solid State Drives (SSD) - Worth it yet?
    By iranu in forum Storage
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-09-2008, 11:56 AM
  3. So SHOULD the BBC help cover ISP costs for iPlayer?
    By Steve in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 14-04-2008, 08:21 AM
  4. SCAN Delivery Costs have gone Crazy!!
    By funnelhead in forum SCAN.care@HEXUS
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-03-2007, 12:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •