If I got one of these two SSD's, would I simply plug them in and install Windows 7 like I do with a SATA Hard Drive, or would I have to install some sort of driver with a floppy disk?
[url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820139030[/url]
[url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233090[/url]
I'm getting the cheaper one in a couple of weeks.
I don't think you would since it is like a SATA "device". How the storage works is laregely irrelvant, it's just the interface that needs drivers, which obv come with Win 7.
Though I might be wrong.
Nope, just plug in and use it. If your SSD doesn't have a cache I'd recommend this program a lot [url]http://flashfire.org/xe/[/url] it allocates some of your RAM to act as a cache.
[QUOTE=PyroCF;17006106]Nope, just plug in and use it. If your SSD doesn't have a cache I'd recommend this program a lot [url]http://flashfire.org/xe/[/url] it allocates some of your RAM to act as a cache.[/QUOTE]
Oh shit I didn't realize those two that I chose don't have a cache.
Actually none of them have a cache....Wtf? Are you sure I have to do what you said?
Most of the older ones don't have a cache, it's not much of a problem it's mainly for random reads etc. That program puts everything straight. You don't have to but you might as well for a free performance boost.
[QUOTE=PyroCF;17006189]Most of the older ones don't have a cache, it's not much of a problem it's mainly for random reads etc. That program puts everything straight. You don't have to but you might as well for a free performance boost.[/QUOTE]
Ok well in my new build I'll have a Core i7 and 6gb of ram so I'll use that program. Is it simple to use?
Edit: Sucks it doesn't support Windows 7 x64 bit. :\ Will I really notice a difference with this program?
[QUOTE=Picartman;17006316]Ok well in my new build I'll have a Core i7 and 6gb of ram so I'll use that program. Is it simple to use?[/QUOTE]
I guess so, think you just install it and off ya go :D
[QUOTE=PyroCF;17006375]I guess so, think you just install it and off ya go :D[/QUOTE]
But it's not supported with Windows 7 x64 bit which is what I want to run...
Don't worry about it then. With a rig like that you won't realise any slow downs. If you want one with a cache go for a crucial one, they are good.
[QUOTE=PyroCF;17006472]Don't worry about it then. With a rig like that you won't realise any slow downs. If you want one with a cache go for a crucial one, they are good.[/QUOTE]
Sure thing, thanks. Btw you mean Corsair one right? I have no Crucial SDD in there :P
Both of the SSDs linked have cache memory.
The Kingston one has a Samsung controller and 128MB of cache while the Corsair one has an Indilinx controller and 64MB of cache.
I'd suggest the Corsair one as it has a better controller. The controller is generally what separates the performance of SSDs.
Of course, if you can afford an Intel X25-M G2 - Go for that !
Also, cache helps to remove "stutter" from these drives, as the "worst case" random writes can be awful in some cases.
[QUOTE=yngndrw;17006684]Both of the SSDs linked have cache memory.
The Kingston one has a Samsung controller and 128MB of cache while the Corsair one has an Indilinx controller and 64MB of cache.
I'd suggest the Corsair one as it has a better controller. The controller is generally what separates the performance of SSDs.
Of course, if you can afford an Intel X25-M G2 - Go for that !
Also, cache helps to remove "stutter" from these drives, as the "worst case" random writes can be awful in some cases.[/QUOTE]
Well I don't want to spend that much but the Intel one is probably the best for 80Gb of space right? If you would have to choose, what would you get between the Kingston and the Corsair?
Yes the Intel is currently the best in terms of performance, in fact I've just bought two of them so I'm putting my money where my mouth is.
However, out of the two I'd go for the Corsair or any using the Indilinx Barefoot controller. The OCZ Vertex drives use the same controller but a slightly better (Custom to OCZ) revision of the firmware so that would be even better. The OCZ Vertex Turbo would be even better on top of that, if you can find it.
I'll dig up some benchmarks on them for you.
[QUOTE=yngndrw;17006818]Yes the Intel is currently the best in terms of performance, in fact I've just bought two of them so I'm putting my money where my mouth is.
However, out of the two I'd go for the Corsair or any using the Indilinx Barefoot controller. The OCZ Vertex drives use the same controller but a slightly better (Custom to OCZ) revision of the firmware so that would be even better. The OCZ Vertex Turbo would be even better on top of that, if you can find it.
I'll dig up some benchmarks on them for you.[/QUOTE]
Ah shweet dood thanks :D
Here's that G.Skill one
[url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231255[/url]
Intel one:
[url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167005[/url]
The write speed on the Intel is slower though... 70Mb compared to 135Mb on the G.Skill/Corsair compared to 140Mb on the Kingston.
G.Skill one.....DO IT
[QUOTE=PyroCF;17006984]G.Skill one.....DO IT[/QUOTE]
Well it's 20 bucks more but if it's the smartest choice then I can get that one instead.
G.Skill ? Who said about that one ? :P
That Intel one is the wrong one. It's the G1 version not the G2 version. (G2 is the new one - Fast and supports Trim when used with Windows 7.) The G2's model number is SSDSA2MH080G2C1 .
The write speeds listed are sequential which only represents what you'd get when copying files. The value you care about is the random writes, in which the Intel one would thrash any others on the market.
Take a look here:
[url]http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3607&p=4[/url]
Edit:
Intel X25-M G2, 80GB: [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167016[/url]
OCZ Vertex Turbo, 60GB: [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227469[/url]
OCZ Vertex Turbo, 120GB: [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227470[/url]
[QUOTE=yngndrw;17007081]G.Skill ? Who said about that one ? :P
That Intel one is the wrong one. It's the G1 version not the G2 version. (G2 is the new one - Fast and supports Trim when used with Windows 7.) The G2's model number is SSDSA2MH080G2.
The write speeds listed are sequential which only represents what you'd get when copying files. The value you care about is the random writes, in which the Intel one would thrash any others on the market.
Take a look here:
[url]http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3607&p=4[/url][/QUOTE]
This one?
[url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167016[/url]
Damn $80 more, but the benchmarks seem very impressive. Honestly I won't use more than 30gb of space, plus since this thing is super fast, this should probably last me around 5-10 years right? At least a very long time?
Yes that one.
How long it lasts depends on how up-to-date you like to be. SSDs are very new technology for this use and hence is constantly being improved. I'd expect new versions coming out quite frequently for a while.
Keep in mind that all flash SSDs have a limited number of writes.
[QUOTE=yngndrw;17007187]Yes that one.
How long it lasts depends on how up-to-date you like to be. SSDs are very new technology for this use and hence is constantly being improved. I'd expect new versions coming out quite frequently for a while.
Keep in mind that all flash SSDs have a limited number of writes.[/QUOTE]
Limited number of writes? What does that mean..... :\
lol, "solid state drive hard drive"
anyways get the intel one
Or you can just get 2 normal 7200 RPM hard drives and put them in RAID 0. I'm getting 3.5 gb/s burst speed, that's the speed that's important when it comes to loading applications etc.
[QUOTE=and;17007242]lol, "solid state drive hard drive"
anyways get the intel one[/QUOTE]
There I sort of fixed it. :P I can't change the title lol.
[QUOTE=Picartman;17007220]Limited number of writes? What does that mean..... :\[/QUOTE]
Search this Wiki page for "Limited write (erase) cycles":
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive[/url]
[QUOTE=PyroCF;17007293]Or you can just get 2 normal 7200 RPM hard drives and put them in RAID 0. I'm getting 3.5 gb/s burst speed, that's the speed that's important when it comes to loading applications etc.[/QUOTE]
This would result in poor sustained random reads and writes, which are required when loading [i]most[/i] applications. Anything which deals with lots of small files (Windows, Gmod, most applications.) only care about this.
The only practical usage for sequential / burst performance is for applications such as Photoshop when you're working with very large files as well as copying large files, ripping DVDs etc.
[QUOTE=yngndrw;17007575]Search this Wiki page for "Limited write (erase) cycles":
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive[/url]
This would result in poor sustained random reads and writes, which are required when loading [i]most[/i] applications. Anything which deals with lots of small files (Windows, Gmod, most applications.) only care about this.
The only practical usage for sequential / burst performance is for applications such as Photoshop when you're working with very large files as well as copying large files, ripping DVDs etc.[/QUOTE]
True that :) Only get 100 mb/s sustained
[QUOTE=yngndrw;17007575]Search this Wiki page for "Limited write (erase) cycles":
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive[/url]
[/QUOTE]
Wow that seems like a terrible flaw... I kinda don't want one anymore. :\
Someone worked out the life of a 60GB drive to be over 8 years when writing 100GB per day.
Nobody knows for sure, but also keep in mind that normal hard drives do have life limitations themselves.
It's always strongly advised to disable defragging when using a SSD.
[QUOTE=yngndrw;17008753]Someone worked out the life of a 60GB drive to be over 8 years when writing 100GB per day.
Nobody knows for sure, but also keep in mind that normal hard drives do have life limitations themselves.
It's always strongly advised to disable defragging when using a SSD.[/QUOTE]
You don't need to do it at all?
No, the SSDs controller actually purposely fragments files with its ware levelling algorithm.
As you get the same access times for files no-matter where they are in the SSDs memory, it doesn't have an impact on performance. All defragging will do is waste the erase/write cycles.
[QUOTE=yngndrw;17009399]No, the SSDs controller actually purposely fragments files with its ware levelling algorithm.
As you get the same access times for files no-matter where they are in the SSDs memory, it doesn't have an impact on performance. All defragging will do is waste the erase/write cycles.[/QUOTE]
Well shit writing 100gb per day is alot... How much is that realistically? Let's just say I play video games, browse the Internet, and sometimes listen to music. Also when all the write cycles are used up, what happens then?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
