SSD Advice

SeanDrake · 12 Aug 2010 at 13:29

Hi was wondering if anyone has one of these http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-050-OC&groupid=701&catid=14&subcat=910
if so how you finding it?

I tried google and stuff and could not find a review but I want to use it for a bootdrive with a couple of my most used games so the size is appealing.

It appears to be slightly slower than some of it's rivals so I am open to ideas however I only have the sata 2 mb so c300 is out.

thanks
S.Drake

manishpatel80 · 12 Aug 2010 at 16:06

This drive used the older indilinx controllers. I would go with either the Crucial C300 64gb or the OCZ vertex 2e 60gb drives.

I go the Crucial one as I don't need fast writes, but want the faster read speeds. I have the Asus u3s6 card and the performance is amazing, getting over 350mb/s read, atto shows upto 389mb/s, compared to the Vertex 2e read of 285mb/s

dww · 12 Aug 2010 at 19:30

OCZ Vertex 96GB. If it's using an older controller, maybe that's why the price has dropped. But there's nothing else that holds close to 100 GB for the price. 64GB isn't enough for me, but most bigger drives are more expensive. I see it DOES have TRIM support (I run Windows 7). What would I miss if I bought this?

Nate Silvers · 12 Aug 2010 at 21:46

You wouldn't notice the difference according to annandtech but it doesn't half match the 4K writes and access time of the newer Vertex.

reygjabla · 13 Aug 2010 at 09:52

dww said:
OCZ Vertex 96GB. If it's using an older controller, maybe that's why the price has dropped. But there's nothing else that holds close to 100 GB for the price. 64GB isn't enough for me, but most bigger drives are more expensive. I see it DOES have TRIM support (I run Windows 7). What would I miss if I bought this?

You won't lose that much besides it's the access time that counts. Another thing to consider with that controller is its more effecient doing the windows "TRIM" function compared to Vertex2 which has a Duraclass Technology that controls the TRIM/GC of the drive which is a bit slower.

SeanDrake · 13 Aug 2010 at 10:58

So it's a pretty good drive then for the price and size, because I had a look at the C300 and while it's nice I would need the sata 3 card as well which would make it pretty expensive.

Zarf · 13 Aug 2010 at 12:07

SeanDrake said:
It appears to be slightly slower than some of it's rivals so I am open to ideas however I only have the sata 2 mb so c300 is out.

thanks
S.Drake

So it's a pretty good drive then for the price and size, because I had a look at the C300 and while it's nice I would need the sata 3 card as well which would make it pretty expensive.

The SATA specs are backwards compatible. c300 will work fine on SATA-II, you'll just be capped to SATA-II speeds (~265MB/s).

SeanDrake · 14 Aug 2010 at 12:58

Hi again so I went for the 96gb vertex just got a quick question I use win7 64bit is trim auto enabled or do I need to do somthing?

reygjabla · 15 Aug 2010 at 13:04

Yes but it's better for you to head to OCZ SSD forum to get more ideas on how to tweak Windows 7 on SSD.

ThomasTheTankEngine · 15 Aug 2010 at 18:04

Sean, have you run any benchmarks with it yet? I'm looking to get one myself.

SeanDrake · 15 Aug 2010 at 19:47

Yep ran the crystaldisk mine is the last one in the thread I think nvm here is a copy paste

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

Sequential Read : 224.318 MB/s
Sequential Write : 144.174 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 170.331 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 123.282 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 30.239 MB/s [ 7382.6 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 9.174 MB/s [ 2239.8 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 33.370 MB/s [ 8146.9 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 9.133 MB/s [ 2229.7 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [F: 2.9% (2.6/89.4 GB)] (x5)
Date : 2010/08/14 13:19:35
OS : Windows 7 [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)

as far as I can tell this being my 1st ssd it's pretty good for £141

macfanuk · 15 Aug 2010 at 20:18

Thats quite impressive for the size/price, but think I'll stick with the C300.

chronic86 · 15 Aug 2010 at 21:00

i nearly bought 1 my self went with the intel x25m instead which is basically in the same price range. heres the results.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

Sequential Read : 264.425 MB/s
Sequential Write : 84.297 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 205.058 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 86.473 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 22.842 MB/s [ 5576.8 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 63.647 MB/s [ 15538.9 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 119.840 MB/s [ 29257.8 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 80.504 MB/s [ 19654.3 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [C: 66.7% (49.7/74.4 GB)] (x5)
Date : 2010/08/15 20:59:20
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)