Intel X25-M G2 Solid State Drives

I wouldnt have used that on your G2 drive, it wasn't made for it. You may not get the full performance improvement the G2's offer over the G1's now.
 
andyd said:
Much difference? :D
Click to expand...

There's a video of them putting an SSD in a PS3 on The Escapist (The Escapist Show episode 40), and it made zero difference anywhere. Seems either the hardware in the PS3 can't either cope, or as they suggest, that Sony might have physically limited transfer rates to provide standard across the board performance on all machines so that no weird timing issues happen with games, etc.
 
FlukeRogi said:
There's a video of them putting an SSD in a PS3 on The Escapist (The Escapist Show episode 40), and it made zero difference anywhere. Seems either the hardware in the PS3 can't either cope, or as they suggest, that Sony might have physically limited transfer rates to provide standard across the board performance on all machines so that no weird timing issues happen with games, etc.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say which SSD model it is, you're assuming its a good one for some reason. But i'm guessing it's a older one with poor performance.
Because theres a Intel G1 drive being tested in a PS3 here. Which makes over a 40% improvement in some things. I think the PS3's hardware limits it from being more.
 
Last edited:
Its not exactly a hardware limit put in there by Sony, its the fact that there is no hard drive work (or SSD) in progress, the bottleneck is the Read speed of the Blu-Ray drive. As you can see, as soon as you're just using the SSD the speeds improve.
 
Last edited:
explicit4u said:
Its not exactly a hardware limit put in there by Sony, its the fact that there is no hard drive work (or SSD) in progress, the bottleneck is the Read speed of the Blu-Ray drive. As you can see, as soon as you're just using the SSD the speeds improve.
Click to expand...

exactly, and whatever the blue ray drive isnt responsible for, its normally the cell processor doing the rest of the stuff
 
explicit4u said:
Its not exactly a hardware limit put in there by Sony, its the fact that there is no hard drive work (or SSD) in progress, the bottleneck is the Read speed of the Blu-Ray drive. As you can see, as soon as you're just using the SSD the speeds improve.
Click to expand...

To be fair... the PS3's hardware still does limit it somewhat. For instance if you used a standard slow 2.5" 5400RPM drive (thats in the PS3) on a reasonably high end PC, then swapped it out for a Intel SSD, there would certainly be more than a 40% improvement in lots of things. Ignoring the obvious limitation of the Blu Ray drive transfer speeds, the PS3 simply dont have the power or hardware to fully make the most of a good SSD.
 
My two 160GB's arrived yesterday, put them in RAID and installed Win7 RTM, and they're extremely fast (obviously).

In comparison to my OCZ Vertex SSD's in RAID, which are basically identical to the G.Skill Falcon SSD's (same hardware) these intel drives are faster.

Not much faster though when it comes to real world usage, it's a small upgrade as expected.
The Vertex/Falcon drives have higher sustained write, but as i've said countless times on here that does not matter at all, unless you copy single massive files. Random read/write performance is what matters. So for everything apart from copying a large file the Intel's are faster, and even when copying a large 2GB file they wasn't exactly slow at it.

I installed the Adobe CS4 master collection suite, which has every single adobe CS4 program. The install of this software suite is pretty well known for really stressing drives.
On my Raptor HDD's it used to take about 40mins to install the suite. On the X25-M's it takes about 20% of that time!
It was a little slower on the Vetex's but only by about 2 minutes.

Opening up software like Photoshop, Illustrator, DreamWeaver is a little quicker too, but in comparison to the Vertex's only by 1 second at most (Vertex's already loaded it in 2 - 3 seconds).

Game loading - from 5 - 20% faster than Vertex's depending on the game. I find whenever i'm playing online my computer is always the first to load the level/area before other peoples computers.
 
Last edited:
For Raid 0 I think 80GB is sufficient? As they will be combined to make 160GB.
I think getting two 160's is really pushing it. It is cheaper to use two normal HDD for storage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom