well if you read that post someone on there says it takes 26 seconds to boot to vista which is about the same as mine ....so guess thats the norm ....heard few people say that 20 odd is normal so god knows how they get 10 seconds .
What SSD to get ?
- Thread starter karlos103
- Start date
Hi all
well thought i would start a new post ..
Im looking to get an SSD next week ...i want a 128gb one and want to spend around £270 ish ...
On my last post i was told that the G.Skill Falcon 128GB 2.5" SATA-II Solid State Hard Drive (FM-25S2S-128GBF1) was the one to get as it has TRIM .
I was looking at the Samsung PB22-J 128GB 2.5" SATA-II Solid State Hard Drive (MMCRE28G5MXP-0VB) but was told it has not got TRIM .
Overclockers say the Samy one is best ...but guess you lot know better
Is there any others worth looking at before i take the plunge ?
What about the OCZ vertex one ? i know its more money .
I was not going to get one till the price dropped and the technology moves forward but everyone on the forums has said to get one as its the bottle neck in my system ...twisted my arm lol
Any help most appreciated
Karl
This makes for interesting reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIM_(SSD_command)
i've just bought a corsair p128 old firmware and its just slightly slower than my raid 0 seagate 7200.12 500gb hard drives.
works fine in windows 7 and i read on the corsair forum theres going to be special optimisations for ssd drives.
i'm getting a tax rebate at the end of the month so i'm going to get another one should be amazinly fast....
one thought i was having is what if i get sent one of the new firmware drives would they be ok to raid 0 ?
when you work the costs out £80 for 1tb or £270 for 128gb takes some serious considerations.
works fine in windows 7 and i read on the corsair forum theres going to be special optimisations for ssd drives.
i'm getting a tax rebate at the end of the month so i'm going to get another one should be amazinly fast....
one thought i was having is what if i get sent one of the new firmware drives would they be ok to raid 0 ?
when you work the costs out £80 for 1tb or £270 for 128gb takes some serious considerations.
Am I reading this right, are you saying the Corsair ssd is slower than your HDD Raid0. This surely should not be.
Have you tried updating the firmware and I dont know if you have heard but Raiding SSD's is a pointless exercise (no increase in speed)
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2008
- Posts
- 2,168
- Location
- Sunny Wales.
It doubles the transfer rates in some case though. obs access times cant get much faster than 0.1ms.
Surely 64GB is enough for OS? You could get 2 and raid them if you really wanna spend the money
Aswell as the OS I am wanting to install games too.
Why buy two 64gb when I could just buy one 128gb as raiding them gives no extra performance?
Last edited:
HDD's in RAID yes but afaik there is no real benefit raiding SSD's.
Thats what I have read anyroad
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2008
- Posts
- 2,168
- Location
- Sunny Wales.
So getting 2 64Gb falcons is not worth the extra £30 over the 128Gb single drive?
Last edited:
bigger SSDs also last longer then smaller SSDs (the bigger SSD should be cheaper then 2 SSDs at smaller sizes)
reason why RAIDing SSD is pointless (Unless You really need High data rates not for epeen) the Access time is why HDDs are slow (12ms for single reads 15-40ms random and thats at most 9 IOPS) when you got 2 HDDs it improves data rate and can give better boot times as more data can flow in the same time but when random comes into it the raid can help with that with spreading it over the disks, with SSD the bottleneck is gone SSDs on avg access times is lower then 1ms<, so when you open something up even if it has lots of small files or big files it be instant response time you more like be CPU limited depending on the program/game below is some number,
so adding more SSDs all it does is make the data rate higher thats all in real world it may make the the system an little faster but most likely Not noticeable as its not 30% faster response time that an HDD would add, with SSD unless your playing with Large files (talking like 2-5gb or more) you not see much or any improvement as the IOPS are so high any way (to notice and speed improvement the system should go 20% or more faster for us to notice it if you have Never used SSD before 1 SSD (with cache) is faster then an 15000RPM SCSI hdd system response time with an SSD is like buying an new pc it makes the system respond so fast no hdd can match)
--------------
below (dono how to crop them in here i assume most have 19" or bigger monitors in here), yes i am using an S128 that is slower then an HDD data rate wish but IOPS and small file access is what Wipes the floor with HDDs
look all of the IOPS tests and you see its wipeing the floor with the hdd on basically all of them even when it gets down to 512b-64kb read speed is high compared to an HDD and thats why vista is slow
this test have an guess witch one is the hdd (before you look at the top of the pic)
reason why RAIDing SSD is pointless (Unless You really need High data rates not for epeen) the Access time is why HDDs are slow (12ms for single reads 15-40ms random and thats at most 9 IOPS) when you got 2 HDDs it improves data rate and can give better boot times as more data can flow in the same time but when random comes into it the raid can help with that with spreading it over the disks, with SSD the bottleneck is gone SSDs on avg access times is lower then 1ms<, so when you open something up even if it has lots of small files or big files it be instant response time you more like be CPU limited depending on the program/game below is some number,
so adding more SSDs all it does is make the data rate higher thats all in real world it may make the the system an little faster but most likely Not noticeable as its not 30% faster response time that an HDD would add, with SSD unless your playing with Large files (talking like 2-5gb or more) you not see much or any improvement as the IOPS are so high any way (to notice and speed improvement the system should go 20% or more faster for us to notice it if you have Never used SSD before 1 SSD (with cache) is faster then an 15000RPM SCSI hdd system response time with an SSD is like buying an new pc it makes the system respond so fast no hdd can match)
--------------
below (dono how to crop them in here i assume most have 19" or bigger monitors in here), yes i am using an S128 that is slower then an HDD data rate wish but IOPS and small file access is what Wipes the floor with HDDs
look all of the IOPS tests and you see its wipeing the floor with the hdd on basically all of them even when it gets down to 512b-64kb read speed is high compared to an HDD and thats why vista is slow
this test have an guess witch one is the hdd (before you look at the top of the pic)
Last edited:
sorry to bump this
i am now thinking of buying a SSD for my OS which will be windows 7.
say i have £200 to spend on a SSD, which one would you recommend?
i dont want to RAID it so one drive would do. I have other drives for games so would really just use it for OS.
I dont want to buy a 64gb drive and regret not buying a 128gb at a later date.
so i think im looking for the best 128gb SSD at £200 price range.
thanks!
i am now thinking of buying a SSD for my OS which will be windows 7.
say i have £200 to spend on a SSD, which one would you recommend?
i dont want to RAID it so one drive would do. I have other drives for games so would really just use it for OS.
I dont want to buy a 64gb drive and regret not buying a 128gb at a later date.
so i think im looking for the best 128gb SSD at £200 price range.
thanks!