It appears you have not yet registered with our community. To register please click here...

 
Go Back [M] > Madshrimps > WebNews
Six SSDs Compared To Intel's X25-M Six SSDs Compared To Intel's X25-M
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Six SSDs Compared To Intel's X25-M
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 18th May 2009, 16:43   #1
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,002
jmke has disabled reputation
Default Six SSDs Compared To Intel's X25-M

In the end, only three of the SSDs we looked at today are strong enough to earn TR Recommended distinction. Intel's X25-M remains the all-around performance leader, and even with a higher cost per gigabyte than its rivals, the 80GB model's $325 asking price is relatively affordable.


The Samsung PB22-J and its Corsair twin aren't quite as quick as the X25-M overall, and with these 256GB models running about $700, they're not as affordable. However, a low cost per gigabyte combined with frugal power consumption and solid performance makes these drives easy to recommend

http://techreport.com/articles.x/16848
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2009, 12:37   #2
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,002
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

TechReport reporting issues with the Indilinx drives (Vertex/UltraDrive) on their aging Pentium 4 test rig; you can read more about it here: http://www.techreport.com/ja.zz?id=404998

basically the Indilinx under XP with the older ICH don't perform as expected; thus the lower results seen in this review.



yah; wtf
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2009, 14:48   #3
Kougar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

As I remember isn't the first hint their disk test platform was causing performance issues.

Newly released OCZ Summit drives use the identical controller+cache as the Corsair & Samsung Indilinix drives.

Last edited by Kougar : 20th May 2009 at 14:55.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2009, 15:12   #4
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,002
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

on the other hand, it does paint a nice picture of how some SSDs don't play nice with older systems
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2009, 15:33   #5
Kougar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

XP is a bad choice for SSD's in general, for a myriad of reasons. Anyone using an SSD on it should expect a slight performance hit and other issues.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2009, 16:10   #6
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,002
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

I don't agree, any product released today should take into account an OS used by 80% of PCs
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2009, 22:49   #7
Rutar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I would say it isn't XP but the hardware.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2009, 01:17   #8
Kougar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke View Post
I don't agree, any product released today should take into account an OS used by 80% of PCs
I think you misunderstand what I am getting at. The issues and performance hit would be from the OS itself, not the firmware on the drive. The SSD firmware has zero control over:

What sector the OS first writes to (W7 writes to 0 first)
OS handling of I/O requests & queuing (Vista + W7 minimize I/O requests and queues & groups them at the OS level)
OS reduced number of small OS file writes/reads when SSD detected (Vista + W7)
OS will disable caching, prefetching, Superfetch, Readyboost, when detecting a "fast-enough" SSD (W7 disables these along with defrag utilities)
XP won't support TRIM and other upcoming new ATA-commands
XP does not natively support AHCI, few bother setting it up (AHCI is needed for NCQ, PCPR has shown it gives a 2-3x boost in small file writes)
XP is completely hard drive agnostic, it makes no optimizations whatsoever when an SSD is used.

Also real world figures generally place XP around the 61-68% mark, far cry from 80%.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2009, 10:01   #9
Madshrimp
 
jmke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,002
jmke has disabled reputation
Default

Quote:
Also real world figures generally place XP around the 61-68% mark, far cry from 80%.
ok, it's closer to 60% here at the site

-----

I never disagreed with the fact that XP is not optimized for SSD; but that doesn't mean it shouldn't work; if you want to leave 60% of the market untapped...

btw it's possible to tweak XP a lot to improve SSD speed noticeable; but it's far from end-user friendly and requires a proper clean install
__________________
jmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2009, 02:49   #10
Kougar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
I never disagreed with the fact that XP is not optimized for SSD; but that doesn't mean it shouldn't work; if you want to leave 60% of the market untapped...
Ah, but it DOES work in XP... just not work well. I am not sure how much optimizations they can do since most of it cannot be fixed by firmware. Especially if the OS does not (and may never) recognize the ATA commands and wouldn't recognize an SSD from a laptop hard drive.

As you said, it is indeed possible to heavily tweak XP to slightly optimize it. However, the MSDN article that covers Windows 7 said that not all cache/prefetch, etc disabling is beneficial to those SSDs with problematic controllers, in some instances it makes the situation even worse!

Many "people" suggest moving the pagefile off the SSD, not sure what the point is in having an SSD if they are going to slow their OS back down by having the paging file on a hard disk.

In the end, much simpler and better solution to just upgrade to W7 than to try and optimize a new install of XP and "make it work" as it should, in my opinion. Especially if XP never receives an update to support the TRIM and other ATA commands.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intel's 1.8 inch SSDs to get to 300GB next year jmke WebNews 0 5th May 2010 18:19
Intel's X25-V & Kingston's 30GB SSDNow V Series: Battle of the $125 SSDs jmke WebNews 2 21st March 2010 05:31
RAID 0 Stripe Sizes Compared with SSDs - OCZ Vertex Drives Tested jmke Articles & Howto's 11 19th January 2010 14:36
[M] RAID 0 Stripe Sizes Compared with SSDs - OCZ Vertex Drives Tested jmke WebNews 1 15th January 2010 16:43
Lyndonville is Intel's codename for new SSDs jmke WebNews 0 23rd December 2009 11:39
Intel X25-M, round 2 : 10 SSDs compared jmke WebNews 0 31st August 2009 15:10
5 SSDs Compared (FR) jmke WebNews 1 28th April 2009 14:13
Intel X25 SSD's Prices Slashed jmke WebNews 2 6th February 2009 10:30
Super Talent Launches MLC SATA-II SSDs for Notebooks jmke WebNews 1 6th May 2008 10:28
Five flavors of Intel's P35 Express Based Motherboards Compared jmke WebNews 0 26th June 2007 14:49

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:03.


Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO