*****Intel 34nm SSD In Stock*****

K, I've received my drive(80GB), cloned the OS to it.

So far, it is fast and smooth but definitely not the second coming some people proclaimed it to be. Everything is not "instant" as people raved, and I'm comparing this to a laptop hard drive, IMO with a desktop drive once you start up and cache some apps it will be a pretty similar experience in everyday applications(firefox, sunbird, etc...)

Don't get me wrong it's an overall much smoother experience, and the annoying video stutter I had in Firefox 3 is no more but still don't get over hyped, unless you do frequent and very HDD intensive work, in everyday work it's not that instant and noticeable, although I've noticed that websites seem to load faster. I nearly purchased a 160GB version and I'd have totally regretted paying that much money for it, with 80GB, I'd say it's "fair enough".

Before I enabled AHCI
t8aiX.png


After I enabled AHCI
CFrA9.png

Using with GM950 chipset.

And here's a firefox start video...

HDD cached

SSD cached - I don't really know if SSDs have cache, but basically what it means is that I ran the app couple of times before the test.
 
Last edited:
Vitruviux said:
K, I've received my drive(80GB), cloned the OS to it.

So far, it is fast and smooth but definitely not the second coming some people proclaimed it to be. Everything is not "instant" as people raved, and I'm comparing this to a laptop hard drive, IMO with a desktop drive once you start up and cache some apps it will be a pretty similar experience in everyday applications(firefox, sunbird, etc...)

Don't get me wrong it's an overall much smoother experience, and the annoying video stutter I had in Firefox 3 is no more but still don't get over hyped, unless you do frequent and very HDD intensive work, in everyday work it's not that instant and noticeable, although I've noticed that websites seem to load faster. I nearly purchased a 160GB version and I'd have totally regretted paying that much money for it, with 80GB, I'd say it's "fair enough".
Click to expand...


I'd agree to an extent in that it's not super instant but personally I think they are fast enough to be more than noticeable and worth it if you can afford it.

A couple of things with your post though. The 160GB are faster than the 80GB and with the new firmware, for those that didn't brick their drives, the 160GB are even faster now.

Also you say you cloned your drive, did you look at the offset etc? Personally I would've installed from scratch, especially with Win7 as it is SSD aware.

And looking at your Crystal Mark results you are getting slower results than I do...

CDM_Intel.jpg


That Image of mine was from after running a fresh install of Win7 for a few weeks with about 50GB free at the time, iirc. And I have seen people on here post faster results than that on fresh installs on a new drive.

At the moment I have Win7 and a few apps/games installed on my SSD but then still have a normal HDD for my main apps/games drive and I really notice the difference when using the HDD. One really good test is have a folder with loads of pictures in it and set the view to show thumbnails. Scrolling through them in noticeably faster and more instant on the SSD.
 
Godsbrother said:
Anyone know what if any difference there is between the 2.5" and 1.8" version of the 80gb are? I can find the 1.8 for £135!
Click to expand...

The 1.8 at that price is most likely to be a generation 1 (50nm) SSD, indicated by having G1 in the model number, for which Intel is unlikely to provide a TRIM enabled firmware.

The generation 2 1.8 (34nm with a G2 in the model number) tend to be closer to the £200 mark.

Matthew
 
nalla said:
woo hoo bit the bullet and got one today anything i should know b4 i use this and install windows 7
Click to expand...

Not really. If you like you can install the firmware update and Intel SSD tools (was taken down, but i expect you can google it up)

Apparently if it does three reboots it's fine.

Mine has been fine the past couple of weeks on new firmware, but I've only had two reboots, been putting off the third since I heard about the troubles.


Tweak wise there's no real need to do anything, win7 will do the important ssd optimisations automaticaly when it detects an ssd during the performance test (think this runs after Installation, if not do it manually from control panel). The rest of the tweaks arn't worth the effort.
 
Last edited:
hi all just installed my new drive havent got anything installed to capture crystalmark scores so ill type them

read write
seq - 256.0 86.70
512 - 206.5 86.66
4k - 23.83 53.76

im pleased with it is a lot faster than my raid array that i was using, now dual booting with vista/win7

oh also i did nothing to the installation of win7 i simply installedand used, took about 12 mins to install from the screen where you choose which hd to install with, also installed microsoft office 2007 blue edition full install, didnt actually time it but it was only a minute or 2, i installed that on a mates laptop the other day and it took about 25 mins at least, gonna install adobe cs4 and some games now.
 
nalla said:
hi all just installed my new drive havent got anything installed to capture crystalmark scores so ill type them
Click to expand...

  • look to the right of the 'F' keys on your keyboard for a button labled 'Prnt Scrn', this is a built in tool for screen capture. Select a window and hold ALT to just capture the window selected.
  • Open up Paint and press Ctrl-V (or edit->paste, or in Win7 just click Paste on the ribbon)
    You can crop or annoate here too.
  • Save as a JPG, then go to www.imageshack.us
  • Upload the JPG you made and then copy the 'direct' image url it tells you
  • Insert the picture into your forum post using the 'Insert Image' button
 
Zarf said:
  • look to the right of the 'F' keys on your keyboard for a button labled 'Prnt Scrn', this is a built in tool for screen capture. Select a window and hold ALT to just capture the window selected.
  • Open up Paint and press Ctrl-V (or edit->paste, or in Win7 just click Paste on the ribbon)
    You can crop or annoate here too.
  • Save as a JPG, then go to www.imageshack.us
  • Upload the JPG you made and then copy the 'direct' image url it tells you
  • Insert the picture into your forum post using the 'Insert Image' button
Click to expand...

Or use the handy Snipping Tool in Win7. ;)
 
Odd score

x25m160gbg2.jpg

Hi guys, I installed my X25-m G2 160gb drive in a bit of an odd way, made a partition and formatted it using disk management in an existing windows 7 installation as it wouldn't format using the windows 7 boot dvd tool. I formatted it to NTFS defaults (MBR default allocation).

Then I formatted it again using the new windows installation, it took longer than I expected to install but I guess that's down to the X25's poor write.

I'm wondering what this stall is at the start of the benchmark? Could I be missing a tweak?

How can I check that windows has detected that it's an SSD and do I need to install any drivers? I left it to MS ones as I figure when TRIM comes out I'll be using those. I'm using a P5K Premium with ICH9.
 
The stall at the start of the benchmark is very common. 100% linear curves doesn't exist, and what your benchmark shows is perfectly normal.
 
Great, thanks very much for the advice, saw some much straighter benchies in reviews but they must have been under less general conditions. I guess all is well with my SSD, boot time is 9.x seconds according to boot timer :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom