M225 vs X-25M G2 - proper benchmarks?

fross · 18 Aug 2009 at 11:31

Hi all,

I've just been diagnosed with "bacon lung" (I prefer the term to swine flu), so thought I'd make the best use of my time when probably perenially bored over the next few days, and get an SSD and install Win7 on it. I'm interested of course in the two new "second generation" drives, the cheap M225 from Crucial and the new G2s from Intel. However, I haven't yet seen a side by side comparison of useful benchmarks (random reads, random writes, application load times), just lots of sequential reads and boot times. Does anyone have a link to the most relevant stats for SSDs, for both these new drives?

Thanks in advance!

fross · 18 Aug 2009 at 16:12

Wow, there are no decent benchmarks around anyone knows of? I'm surprised, given the interest levels!

Edit: found this on the other thread, for the M225:

--------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 2.2 (C) 2007-2008 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
--------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read : 231.328 MB/s
Sequential Write : 146.472 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 163.595 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 129.903 MB/s
Random Read 4KB : 26.567 MB/s
Random Write 4KB : 16.234 MB/s

Test Size : 100 MB
Date : 2009/08/17 14:24:35

If someone has figures for this for the Intel G2, I'd be interested

fross · 18 Aug 2009 at 16:18

Actually, just found these figures in another thread for the G2:

Thanks Fire Wizard, I'm hijacking your image

If random read 4k and 512k are the most relevant stats, the crucial is right behind the intel on the 512k and ahead on the 4k!, with the benefit of better sequential writes too... intel's random writes on 4k seem very high but not sure how useful that would be.

Anyone else got a view on this? I'm talking to myself here!

Nate Silvers · 18 Aug 2009 at 16:37

The Intels are just better that's all I know but you are paying a bit extra for the brand name. I still don't know which to get out of the two, with the Intel I get a better drive with bit more storage but for a cost. Then again I might not notice the speed increase from the Intel in real world performance.

The Intel is probably higher quality made and maybe is faster over time not sure.

andy.scott · 18 Aug 2009 at 16:59

fross said:
Actually, just found these figures in another thread for the G2:

Thanks Fire Wizard, I'm hijacking your image

If random read 4k and 512k are the most relevant stats, the crucial is right behind the intel on the 512k and ahead on the 4k!, with the benefit of better sequential writes too... intel's random writes on 4k seem very high but not sure how useful that would be.

Anyone else got a view on this? I'm talking to myself here!

Here's a quick bench from me:

Intel X-25M G2 80GB:

Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 500GB:

Gives you an idea!

Duff-Man · 18 Aug 2009 at 17:22

I'd like to see more "proper" real-world benchmarks as well. I'd like to see a comparison of SSDs (particularly intel vs indilinx drives) for:

* Load-times for a full suite of different games
* Times for opening a large number of applications simultaneously, both from idle and immediately after boot
* Raw boot times

I'd also like to see each drive in single mode and in RAID-0 mode

Unfortunately, most reviews seem to focus on bandwidth values for random / sequential reads / writes, or on PCmark scores, which are hard to translate into real-world performance.

Anyway, I agree that in a practical context the random reads value is likely to be the most important, and I'm a bit surprised that the intel isn't further ahead on this. Here the intel drive is over 50% faster than its closest MLC rival for random reads.

Anyway, it seems that any of the latest-generation SSDs will offer a massive improvement over existing HDDs. The difference between the SSDs seems much smaller.

ChileanLlama · 18 Aug 2009 at 17:25

Which Crucial drive are you considering the 64gb models are slower than 128gb ones...the ones quoted in your second post look to be from a 128gb or 256gb drive.

fross · 18 Aug 2009 at 17:27

Thanks Andy, good to have more stats. Your 512k score is significantly faster than Fire Wizard's, I wonder why.

And yeah, miles faster than a HD

Wonder if anyone has stats about opening applications with each SSD?

fross · 18 Aug 2009 at 17:30

ChileanLlama: ah I didn't know the drives varied in speed! I believe the stats I posted were from the 128Gb versions.

Duff-man: 58.5 in random read 4k in those stats, but the two sets we've got from people above, puts that value in the mid 20s, along with the Crucial. That is a HUGE difference, and I wonder what is causing it. Anyone own a G2 and is seeing much higher random read figures for 4k?

Duff-Man · 18 Aug 2009 at 17:37

fross said:
Duff-man: 58.5 in random read 4k in those stats, but the two sets we've got from people above, puts that value in the mid 20s, along with the Crucial. That is a HUGE difference, and I wonder what is causing it. Anyone own a G2 and is seeing much higher random read figures for 4k?

I think they're using different benchmarks. Anand creates his own algorithm to test random read / write performance, whereas the results in this thread are from CrystalDiskMark.

anandtech said:
To measure random read/write performance I created an iometer script that peppered the drive with random requests, with an IO queue depth of 3 (to add some multitasking spice to the test). The write test was performed over an 8GB range on the drive, while the read test was performed across the whole drive. I ran the test for 3 minutes.

andy.scott · 18 Aug 2009 at 17:49

fross said:
Thanks Andy, good to have more stats. Your 512k score is significantly faster than Fire Wizard's, I wonder why.

And yeah, miles faster than a HD

Wonder if anyone has stats about opening applications with each SSD?

I don't know why the difference there but it is quite marked!

Here's a HD Tune, it's a straight Win 7 install, with Office 2007 (inc. Project and Visio) and a few other apps on the drive too (42GB free still).

As you can see, I've had some fragmentation but I am waiting for Acronis to sort out the partition alignment problem with reimaging, as I don't have time to reinstall...

ChileanLlama · 18 Aug 2009 at 17:51

Duff-Man said:
I'd like to see more "proper" real-world benchmarks as well. I'd like to see a comparison of SSDs (particularly intel vs indilinx drives) for:

* Load-times for a full suite of different games
* Times for opening a large number of applications simultaneously, both from idle and immediately after boot
* Raw boot times

I'd also like to see each drive in single mode and in RAID-0 mode Unfortunately, most reviews seem to focus on bandwidth values for random / sequential reads / writes, or on PCmark scores, which are hard to translate into real-world performance.

Anyway, I agree that in a practical context the random reads value is likely to be the most important, and I'm a bit surprised that the intel isn't further ahead on this. Here the intel drive is over 50% faster than its closest MLC rival for random reads.

Anyway, it seems that any of the latest-generation SSDs will offer a massive improvement over existing HDDs. The difference between the SSDs seems much smaller.

fross said:
Wonder if anyone has stats about opening applications with each SSD?

I would have liked to have seen this too - before I bought one

The current reviews and comparisons all seem a bit hit and miss or very exotic setups - and not much in between.

It's going to be difficult to do some of the tests because some of them run so quick, the difference is likely to be fractions of seconds. E.g. It takes me about 2secs to open Photoshop. Seems fast, but won't be very accurate.

Don't think I'd trust figures and comparisons on a forum, so would at least need to be done by a reputable site with controls over the tests and the hardware/config setups to get a true like for like test.

drunkenmaster · 18 Aug 2009 at 17:58

Duff-Man said:
I'd like to see more "proper" real-world benchmarks as well. I'd like to see a comparison of SSDs (particularly intel vs indilinx drives) for:

* Load-times for a full suite of different games
* Times for opening a large number of applications simultaneously, both from idle and immediately after boot
* Raw boot times

I'd also like to see each drive in single mode and in RAID-0 mode Unfortunately, most reviews seem to focus on bandwidth values for random / sequential reads / writes, or on PCmark scores, which are hard to translate into real-world performance.

.

I know what you mean, there is one review at least that measure indilinx vs intel vs some others, including the corsair and whatever the lastest raptor is, gaming loading was maybe a 2second spread including the Raptor. Windows load was I think fastest on the Intel but unlike others, a one off load could take 2 mins for all I care, i'll go take a leak and come back.

The corsair, supposedly dramatically worse than both the main competitors, offered the same game load time, competitive windows load, and both the corsair and Indilinx were unsurprisingly seriously quicker than the Intel for copying large files, or even multiple files because the max write speed is simply so much higher.

People use pcmark as a way to choose how games/windows will work, but thats flawed as benchmarks are all writen by a SINGLE company, with their own style of coding that will be used across the board. In the real world the same app writen by two different people that work in different ways behind the scenes, could work very differently on different hardware.

A single benchmark that tries to recreate performance of several apps won't give a realistic view. Intel kills in that, yet in every real world test I've seen, its no different.

Frankly some games will load faster on the intel, and the indilinx and sdd's in some games will just all be massively ahead of a raptor, but not all games.

I do want to see a review that shows 10 different games, diff types of games, and loads of apps, and as you said, I have no idea how 2x 64gb compares to a single 128gb, or 2x128gb for that matter.

THe thing to take is, when you see the Seagate crystal mark benchy above, while the INtel is streets ahead of it, even a crap SSD will be 5-10times faster on the 4kb write, and maybe 20-30times as fast on the 4kb read.

Thats where ssd's show most of their advantages, quick loading, lack of hanging when trying to do a few different things at once. They simply don't get bogged down so everythings smoother and quicker.

Right now I'm unsure which way to go, 2x64gb or a single 128gb, could go nuts and buy them all, compare and sell on the spare drive(s).

andy.scott · 18 Aug 2009 at 18:01

ChileanLlama said:
I would have liked to have seen this too - before I bought one The current reviews and comparisons all seem a bit hit and miss or very exotic setups - and not much in between.

It's going to be difficult to do some of the tests because some of them run so quick, the difference is likely to be fractions of seconds. E.g. It takes me about 2secs to open Photoshop. Seems fast, but won't be very accurate.

Don't think I'd trust figures and comparisons on a forum, so would at least need to be done by a reputable site with controls over the tests and the hardware/config setups to get a true like for like test.

It's very much subjective but the thing I've noticed the most is web browsing. Obviously there are lots of writes of little files going on when browsing a web page and IE feels much "snappier" now under Windows 7 with SSD than under (spit) Vista with a HDD...

Boot times are quick too but again, I don't have data before and after... having a fresh install rather than a messy old one helps on that front!

fross · 18 Aug 2009 at 18:04

drunkenmaster said:
Right now I'm unsure which way to go, 2x64gb or a single 128gb, could go nuts and buy them all, compare and sell on the spare drive(s).

Well volunteered that man, we'll get our benchmark parameters to you shortly

ChileanLlama · 18 Aug 2009 at 18:06

Yep Andy...agree with you. Unless someone has the environment and all the hardware in one place...it's all subjective. That's a good indicator, but I'd like to see some real reviews and comparisons on these sites that make their living from it.

Other than the Anandtech review, most of the others are poor.

FWIW - Clean Vista SP2 and Windows 7 felt very similar in "snapiness" with HDs. Windows 7 with SSD moves it on a level of "snapiness" again

JaseUK · 18 Aug 2009 at 19:51

ChileanLlama said:
Windows 7 with SSD moves it on a level of "snapiness" again

The release of W7 just cant come quick enough for me. I did tinker with W7 beta/RC but one of the main reasons I went back to Vista was so when W7 is finally released it will feel new.

MR.B · 18 Aug 2009 at 20:51

I'm running two 160GB X25-M G2's in RAID-0. This is on Win7 RTM (final). I'd highly recommend getting RAID if possible, like two 80GB's instead of one 160GB.

I've also had other SSD's in the past. The last pair was OCZ Vetex drives, which are very good and still some of the best, but the intels are better, and it is possible to notice a difference in real usage, but not much. 5 - 20% faster i'd say depending of use.

BTW it's worth noting that the Intels have firmware that helps keep them upto speed over time, and after they have been filled up. I have no idea if the Crucials do. But being as you cant use the Win7 TRIM command when in RAID this feature of the firmware can be very helpful.

Cant help with the M225's though, but if you do go for the Intels then you wont be disappointed thats for sure.

Duff-Man · 18 Aug 2009 at 21:03

MR.B said:
I'm running two 160GB X25-M G2's in RAID-0

...

if you do go for the Intels then you wont be disappointed thats for sure.

If I could afford to drop £700 right now, I'd go for the same setup as you. 320Gb of super fast storage would be great

It seems to me (from looking at benchmarks not from personal experience) that the biggest gains from RAID-0 come in sequential read and write speeds. While these seem to scale around the 90% mark, the random reads (and to a lesser extent the random writes) seem to experience much more modest improvements. For this reason, I would go for the drive with the fastest random read performance with a RAID setup. That means the intel. For a single drive setup I think that the crucial and the intel are much more closely matched.

Anyway, times are tough right now so I guess I'll wait until later in the year before letting the moths out of the wallet

edit - damn, your entire system is top-notch. I'm a bit jealous now!

Nate Silvers · 19 Aug 2009 at 18:51

MR.B said:
I'm running two 160GB X25-M G2's in RAID-0. This is on Win7 RTM (final). I'd highly recommend getting RAID if possible, like two 80GB's instead of one 160GB.

I've also had other SSD's in the past. The last pair was OCZ Vetex drives, which are very good and still some of the best, but the intels are better, and it is possible to notice a difference in real usage, but not much. 5 - 20% faster i'd say depending of use.

BTW it's worth noting that the Intels have firmware that helps keep them upto speed over time, and after they have been filled up. I have no idea if the Crucials do. But being as you cant use the Win7 TRIM command when in RAID this feature of the firmware can be very helpful.

Cant help with the M225's though, but if you do go for the Intels then you wont be disappointed thats for sure.

Couldn't you UNraid them and use TRIM then put them back in raid? So you reckon 2 80GB Intels rather than one 160GB?