I've got a 64Gb M4 as my boot drive with W7 Ultimate on it. It's easily big enough for windows, BF3 and a few other games with the remainder running from my mechanical storage drive. SteamTool means I can split my Steam folder across drives. I'd not be able to cope otherwise!
DSR an SSD Drive?
- Thread starter Yosiah
- Start date
Well, all my documents etc are stored on my home server, I have already jammed 90Gb of stuff on my 120Gb drive. That includes my business software, BF3 (Just installed skyrim as well) and a few steam games! I do have 8gb ram and use hybrid sleep, plus pagefile, so I imagine theres a lot of system files there as well.
Installed on a SATA3 port, with a standard sata cable (probably a sata2, since there is no electrical difference
) and using ACHI, not IDE or RAID mode.
This is what I was looking at doing......W7 Ultimate, BF3, SkyRim, LightRoom and Photoshop and a few other small programs like zoomplayer would be about it.
Well, all my documents etc are stored on my home server, I have already jammed 90Gb of stuff on my 120Gb drive. That includes my business software, BF3 (Just installed skyrim as well) and a few steam games! I do have 8gb ram and use hybrid sleep, plus pagefile, so I imagine theres a lot of system files there as well.
Installed on a SATA3 port, with a standard sata cable (probably a sata2, since there is no electrical difference
Damn it, may have thrown a fiver away then! Nevermind, live and learn.
K, well I'm looking at just putting win7 HP 64 bit and BF3 and MW3 on there. Might whack itunes on as well and just leave all my music files on one of my other HDD's.
I'm assuming ACHI mode is standard for running a SSD?
Well if you buy a sata 3 drive, you will be able to use it to its full potential if you get a sata 3 motherboard. By using sata 2 instead of sata 3, it won't make much of a difference to your experience. The only diference will be read and write speeds, the seek times ( which make the biggest difference between an ssd and a mechanical drives) will remain the same. Basically the biggest advantage of an ssd will remain the same no matter what sata version you use.
You might want to get a sata 2 drive as it will be cheaper, but it depends on when you plan to upgrade your motherboard.
I installed a Crucial M4 64Gb two days ago on a sata 2 board. Windows 7 Ultimate installed, hibernate switched off, pagefile set to 200Mb and it's using 14.3Gb.
Speeds and snappyness of the disk response time is awesome, I'm very pleased with it even on Sata 2
Speeds and snappyness of the disk response time is awesome, I'm very pleased with it even on Sata 2
I installed a Crucial M4 64Gb two days ago on a sata 2 board. Windows 7 Ultimate installed, hibernate switched off, pagefile set to 200Mb and it's using 14.3Gb.
Speeds and snappyness of the disk response time is awesome, I'm very pleased with it even on Sata 2
Thats cool. That is pretty much what I want to do.
I have had my Force 3 for a few months now as has a good friend and a number of other people on this forum. Performance is up there with all the rest of the drives that cost much more.
No problems whatsoever and the latest firmware fixes the sleep bugs people reported before. It can be upgraded in Windows so nothing is lost.
Op's drive is either faulty or there's a problemw with his setup config somewhere.
Change SATA cable with a better quality one, change SATA ports, update your SATA controller drivers (Intel chipset software) and install Intel's Rapid Storage Technology driver. Check SMART data for the drive.
If all that fails to solve anything then get the drive replaced... simple.
If done right then an SSD is the single biggest performance enhancing PC upgrade you can ever do.
No, SATAIII drives are backwards compatible with SATAII, you just won't get the most out of the transfer speed of the drive but you won't notice any difference in OS performance. The SATA type does not change the access times of an SSD.
No problems whatsoever and the latest firmware fixes the sleep bugs people reported before. It can be upgraded in Windows so nothing is lost.
Op's drive is either faulty or there's a problemw with his setup config somewhere.
Change SATA cable with a better quality one, change SATA ports, update your SATA controller drivers (Intel chipset software) and install Intel's Rapid Storage Technology driver. Check SMART data for the drive.
If all that fails to solve anything then get the drive replaced... simple.
If done right then an SSD is the single biggest performance enhancing PC upgrade you can ever do.
No, SATAIII drives are backwards compatible with SATAII, you just won't get the most out of the transfer speed of the drive but you won't notice any difference in OS performance. The SATA type does not change the access times of an SSD.
Last edited:
I agree with mrk about updating the firmware if possible first - I've got the OCZ Vertex 3 and on my Sata II equipped computer (an asus rampage gene II) I got occasional lock ups and reboots with the drive then failing to detect in the BIOS.
Since I updated it to the latest firmware which your Corsair drive will have an equivalent of since they're all repackaged Sandforce supplied firmwares anyway - I have not seen the drive lock up once and it's been working very nicely since.
Since I updated it to the latest firmware which your Corsair drive will have an equivalent of since they're all repackaged Sandforce supplied firmwares anyway - I have not seen the drive lock up once and it's been working very nicely since.
nope. I have 2 and love them. I haven't managed to kill any yet and they work fine which, for me, is quite an achievement!!
Ok, i lied, i did kill one... but the rest are fine!!!
There's nothing wrong with SSD drives as a whole - I started with an Intel X25-M G2, went to a Vertex 2E and now i'm back on an Intel 320 series.
Personally I try to stay away from Sandforce as that's where a lot of the "reported" problems lie, but then my V2E was absolutely fabulous, never skipped a beat and was very quick.
I have to admit, I struggled when OcUK did the £499 offer on the 512GB M4. I'd only had the Intel a matter of days though, and didn't have that money lying around. Otherwise i'd probably have broken.
Personally I try to stay away from Sandforce as that's where a lot of the "reported" problems lie, but then my V2E was absolutely fabulous, never skipped a beat and was very quick.
I have to admit, I struggled when OcUK did the £499 offer on the 512GB M4. I'd only had the Intel a matter of days though, and didn't have that money lying around. Otherwise i'd probably have broken.
There's nothing wrong with SSD drives as a whole - I started with an Intel X25-M G2, went to a Vertex 2E and now i'm back on an Intel 320 series.
Personally I try to stay away from Sandforce as that's where a lot of the "reported" problems lie, but then my V2E was absolutely fabulous, never skipped a beat and was very quick.
I have to admit, I struggled when OcUK did the £499 offer on the 512GB M4. I'd only had the Intel a matter of days though, and didn't have that money lying around. Otherwise i'd probably have broken.
SandForce3 was the first of its kind for price<>performance though wasn't it. When a new technology like that comes in to the mainstream and you get everyone jumping on it from day one, problems will no doubt surface and it will look like that SF has a major problem (which has since been solved of course).
It's just a case of part ABC gets sold in high volume so is bound to have more reported issues than part DEF because it costs more and as such, sold in smaller numbers.
DSR, and get the m4
I had a Corsair Performance 3 which wasn't performing and got a refund.
There's nothing wrong with SSD drives as a whole - I started with an Intel X25-M G2, went to a Vertex 2E and now i'm back on an Intel 320 series.
Personally I try to stay away from Sandforce as that's where a lot of the "reported" problems lie, but then my V2E was absolutely fabulous, never skipped a beat and was very quick.
I have to admit, I struggled when OcUK did the £499 offer on the 512GB M4. I'd only had the Intel a matter of days though, and didn't have that money lying around. Otherwise i'd probably have broken.
I looked at the Intel 320....the 80Gb is reasonably cheap compared to the 64Gb M4....do you recommend it?