Ao1, can you post your XLS file?
Ao1, can you post your XLS file?
I've posted the hIOmon PerfAnalysisExportFile here:
http://cid-541c442f789bf84e.office.l...x/.Public?uc=1
This was generated on the screen shot below. This time the CPU is over clocked to 3.5. The file opens 3 to 4 seconds faster.
• Fast IOPS 100% Read 100%
• Busy Time 95.01MS
• Max Read IOPS. 1.7
CPU - QX 6850. (3MHz stock) Graphics Card - ATI 6950 with 2GB RAM.
Err I meant the file that open at 3.6MB/s?;)
Same link. It's called AS SSD 4K.xlsx. 20.3MB.
Process Monitor seems to be monitoring at the logical disk level. With hIOmon it is possible to see that at the device level the SSD is not the cause of the delay. The max IOPs are really jumping out. 1.6/ 1.7. Its like the CPU is waiting to process an xfer before the next one is called. Don't know really, just a guess. It speeds up when the CPU is running faster. Would be interested to see what you think. In theory if your CPU is @ 3MHz it should take just as long to open even with 4 x X25-E.
I don't see this as being CPU bound I/O - the process is definitely CPU bound but by Excel processing not by I/O processing.
On my laptop, I see that 32KB I/O from Excel takes a mere 0.01-0.02 milliseconds to process, and if the CPU is running at half the speed it takes ~0.02ms most of the time. That does indicate the CPU speed plays a role, but I am guessing it has more to do with MEMORY speed (since fast I/O is mostly a memory copy operation).
I don't know how to read your hIoMon screenshot, but from that it seems the fast I/O takes 0.14ms at least to finish?
You can run IoMeter with 32KB sequential reads and see the response times.
At the volume level the read time was 0.0943ms to xfer 21,366,272B. Max read IOP time 0.0006. 165 IOPS Sequential (21,135,360B). 39 IOPS Random (226,816B). Avg QD 1.019 Max 2. Those stats should be more or less the same at the device level looking at post #99.
Even though the data xfer took 0.0943ms I still ended up waiting 15 seconds for the application to fully open.
Btw when I upped the CPU clock it automatically upped the RAM clock. :up:
Hence why I say it is not the I/O that is bottlenecking Excel but Excel processing itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ao1
Hmm, now I am not sure I expressed the right unit. It takes 0.01-0.02 MICRO seconds, not milliseconds for the fast I/O (procmon Duration column).
At 0.01-0.02 microseconds per 32KB, that's around 7-14milliseconds for 20MB. (seems like a lot if you think that's device transfer rate, but in reality it is memory transfer rate - so it is really low even).
So it's more than safe to say Excel is using the CPU - let's move on ;)
I know, hence the apparent increase of the fast I/O speed - since all it does is more or less copy the data in memory.Quote:
Btw when I upped the CPU clock it automatically upped the RAM clock. :up:
Just did a recheck, the Duration is expressed in SECONDS. So if the 32KB I/O takes 0.01-0.02 milliseconds that's quite a bit.
When wil the M4 be availble?
If this is possible, please someone let me know how.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRo
It's listed to be available 13 May here in Denmark :)Quote:
Originally Posted by -TYPHOON-
xcopy can copy files with Archive attribute or files modified after a certain date, but neither of those tell if a file is ACCESSED, rather if/when it is modified only.Quote:
Originally Posted by lowfat
You can surely do it with some copy utility that can consider file access time.
Have we decided whether to go with the M4 or V3 yet?
Since m4 is cheaper, I'm going m4 -- waiting for 512GB version for the lappy and a few for storage ;) (I'll be waiting 2 months though 'till I go back to Europe ;))
I found a great IDF 2011 paper by Intel on benchmarking SSD's. Not only does it discuss pitfalls of typical benchmarks (Anandtech included) it also looks at performance where it matters.
Even if it was assumed that benchmarks were correct any real life benefit is hamstrung by the OS/ Apps/ CPU/ GPU.
https://intel.wingateweb.com/bj11/sc...734BA3BAAF85A9
Great find, Ao1. I like the way the author of that presentation (James Myers) thinks -- it makes sense. The presentation emphasizes "bursts", periods when a lot of IO is taking place, and "hourglass moments", periods when the user is waiting on the computer to finish something.
Two points from the presentation that I found interesting:
1) The average QD during the bursts was about 20
2) The hourglass moments were 80% writes.
This suggests a theory (or at least a hypothesis): Sequential write speed and high-queue depth random write speed are important for minimizing hourglass moments.
yes i read this a few weeks back. i have emailed Intel about whether or not they have an audio on the presentation like they did on the last IDF> no response :(
looks to be moving to traces to measure ssd is the way to go. if you look at PCMark7 i believe they will be moving more towards this very method of quantitative measuring of performance, they do state that they will no longer measure theoretical peaks of bandwidth to measure storage performance.
that might be a bit of an oversimplified blanket statement there that would be hard to make given the data. there are differences, but they are hindered by OS/APPS/CPU/GPU, not eliminated. as he points out on page 25Quote:
Even if it was assumed that benchmarks were correct any real life benefit is hamstrung by the OS/ Apps/ CPU/ GPU.
that is a big difference. 3 seconds compared to 7 seconds is a large margin. percentage wise your looking at 67 percent difference.Quote:
Some SSDs in 3-4 sec range, others 5-7 secs
he does sum it up nicely towards the end by saying "ecosystem improvements needed to showcase "ssd class" performance.
we need new filesystems. also, new games that are coming will access data differently when they detect an SSD, and this is jut the beginning of apps that will change their access patterns when ssd are detected. just will take time. they talked alot about those changes in last years IDF.
it is VERY hard to make a complete reasoning from the PDF alone. we need the audio to really put it together. they did these for san fran IDF, but for Beijing i cant find the whole presentations. GAH i wish we could get them...
Hi John,
I picked up on the QD20 as well and it's been puzzling me. :confused:
I tried an experiment. I created a folder with 4,956 4k files. 19.3 MB (20,299,776 bytes).
I set hIOmon to monitor at 1 second intervals and monitored at the device level. (Not what happens at the SSD, but as close as possible within the Windows file system). I copied the folder from the E drive to the E drive.
Once it had started copying I copied it again. So, two folders were being copied at the same time. 38.6MB of 4k xfers. Surely this would show a high QD? Nope.
• Avg QD read = 1.0248. Max 2
• Avg QD write = 1.256. Max 9
If I look at the file log for \Device\Harddisk1\DR1 entries it tells me that the read time for a 25,385,984 bytes xfer was 1.27s with a 97.64% fast IOP count. (73% random/ 27% sequential).
That comes out at 19MB/s for 4K file xfers with an avg QD 1.024 ~ around the type of figure you could expect from AS SSD/ CDM @ QD1.
Maybe the QD is measured at the SSD or maybe I am missing a trick with hIOmon?
EDIT:
I tried copying the same folder 12 times. (All at once):
• Avg QD read = 1.0245. Max 3
• Avg QD write = 1.417. Max 11
Makes hardly any difference.
I spent a couple of hours trying to find the audio. No luck. I'm hoping Intel finish off their study and make a benchmark out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
Try something on a much larger scale - 4K files of say 100MB size total, copied 5 times at least. I can make a small Delphi app to automate it.
I would not expect much difference however, because what you see in terms of writes at the device level is what the cache manager sends to the device (presuming you are copying with Explorer). CM doesn't send a lot of data asyncrhonously (QD > 1), so even in the case I suggested you'll likely end up with the same QD measured.
All copy operations would get cached, and then dumped at the CM's discretion, not in parallel.
If you used the test scenario by utilizing a utility such as Total Commander or similar that can copy files while bypassing the cache you should see a higher QD - about as much as there are copy runs at the same time.
Thanks alfaunits :)
I tried copying 12 folders at the same time and I think once Windows figured the folders were all the same it stopped reading at the devive level and starting reading from cache. ~ 2GB of data got written at the device level, so all the copying ended up on the disk but only ~70MB was read from the disk.
I will try Total Commander now. Good idea. That should then read/ write to the disk and bypasses the Windows file system, so lets see what happens then. :up:
OK, using Total Commander, copying the same folder 4 times all at once. (Got one xfer going, then started the next etc)
QD Avg ~ 1.003
Max = 4.
One copy = max QD 1. Two Copies = max QD 2. etc.
are you measuring at device level A01?
from the presentation it says that loading mpeg2 and saving mpeg4 are very drive intensive. dunno if that is just an example or what...
Hi Comp, yep I recorded everything at the device level. I dont think QD changed much at any level.
Did you set up Total commander to use "Big file copy option" without restrictions? Its default is to use the Shell API which in turn use the cache.
It sounds rather strange that multiple transfers at once in TC would not get higher QD (presuming they did happen at the same time, with 20MB/s it's hard to even start 3 100MB copy streams at the same time).
The IDF 2011 presentation (SSDS002) that Ao1 mentioned in his post #115 is interesting. Thanks Ao1! :)
I haven't had the chance to look over the presentation carefully, but a number of questions immediately come to mind.
For instance regarding the "burst analysis" (slide 19), I am curious as to how many "burst" events were observed and when they were observed.
I would suggest that having such contextual, more-detailed information is important. Slide 17 indicates that the source trace was a "real" ;) office laptop user running Windows 7; moreover, this trace was collected over a 10-day period.
I wonder then whether this laptop had gone into hibernation mode some number of times during this 10-day period (and if so, what correlation there might be between these hibernation events and the "burst" events).
Overall, I am curious as to the particulars of the specific activities being performed when these "burst" events were observed.
Another quick comment: The "Burst Analysis" slide 19 mentions that the "resulting collection of bursts" totaled 50GB of transfers (it does not say the read/write percentage of this total). Back on slide 17 it mentions that the 10-day trace showed about 70GB of writes and about 120GB of reads (for a total of about 190GB).
So it appears then that about 25% of the total data transferred was involved with these "burst" events over the course of the 10-day period.
Now looking at slide 18 there is a "time plot" versus "cumulative KB transferred" graph. This graph shows a "spike" in the middle of the graph where it appears that about 30GB of read data was transferred (if I am reading the graph correctly). If this is the case, then 30GB of the total 50GB "burst event" data transferred occurred around this particular point in time.
I am curious as to exactly what activities were occurring during this time (and the possible extent to which these activities might have skewed the "averages").
As usual a tormenting glimpse through the smoke and mirrors from Intel. ;)
I was surprised to see that SysMark/ PCMark/ CrystalDiskmark use the spare area.
@ alfaunits
I had to open 4 separate instances of [total commander] at the same and instigate each xfer as quickly as I could. Not easy. I've been messing about trying to get a bat file to run them simultaneously, but failed miserably. I'm sure the QD would start going up anyway.
Crucial M4's available in the UK for less than the C300
- http://www.overclockers.co.uk/produc...=14&subid=1427
OCZ Vertex 3's on offer in the UK as well though...
- http://www.scan.co.uk/todayonly/index.aspx
From my understanding, I'm guessing the M4 is the better choice for myself (although I may be wrong).
M4 256Gb @ £350 vs. Vertex 3 @ £400...
Really just want a good drive for my OS/Networking/Games... Debated getting a small SSD for my OS and a 2nd drive for games but since everything is backed up anyway seems fine to have it all on 1 location...
It's $229 for the 128gb at circuit City right now. I'd grab one ASAP
So actually finding the C300 and the M4 at the same price the M4 is a winnner?
I'm not considering V3 seeing low random performance compared to the others. And costs more also
In the 120GB segment would you get the M4 or C300 over the Vertex 3?
Office use plus some gaming (SC2)
The question is rather - do you have ANY use of an SSD in an office rig for SC2?:)
I would go with the cheaper, though at this time probably with C300 - it's time proven, while m4 is still new (even though I reckon it's just C300 with different NAND).
I am IT engineer student so my laptop is my only machine :) so office use is a lot of programming and browsing. Then when I need some entertainment I game some SC2Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
I have a very old Vertex 1 60Gb and I look forward to see if I can feel a difference.
Oh that's not what most would consider "office". I dare say programming gets a BIG boost from SSDs. Especially if you do Delphi programming.
But would you notice ANY difference from Vertex 1? I doubt it. I frankly saw barely measurable difference when I moved from SAS15K (8 drives though) to Intel X25-Es. Yes the system was more responsive, but measurable parts did not differ that much (except VMs).
With that in mind I doubt you would notice a difference going from V1 to V2 except in your wallet.
Well the main reason for upgrade atm is space, 60GB and Win7 + a few games is just too little, but thought about getting http://www.mydigitaldiscount.com/ren...sata-pci-e-ssd so I can use that in X201 with the adapter until I get a Thinkpad W520 and then I can use the mSata + the original drive
Im happy with the 3 60gb c300 drives i have running in RAID0 :) , they do the job , good price, and i got enough storage.
I have a laptop so raid is a no goQuote:
Originally Posted by Aedubber
The Intel 310 comes in mSATA format and there is an 80GB version. 200MB's read/ 70MB's write. 35K IOPS read/ 6.6K IOPS write
A couple of my 256gb c300s are on fleabay, used drives are going for around 320$, pretty good deal I think. There is breslin in the seller name. Get excellent drives at an excellent price. :)
The M4's random performance isn't anything stellar - in some reviews it's worse than the V3's. The C300's are in a class of their own when it comes to random reads - that's it. None of the new drives come close to the C300 random read performance. Now you have to ask yourself if you're going to actually notice the difference in random 4K read performance in real life. Very highly doubt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SubZero.it
I'm keeping an eye out; just not sure if I have the cash for a 256gb drive right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by mbreslin
I could get a 128gb drive for $230 M4, but not sure if its worth it for me. I can also get another new C300 128 for $195 through ewiz. :shrug:
No worries, someone will grab them!
My 9260+Fastpath shot up to over 300$ like 10 minutes after listing, I don't think I've ever bid on any auction that wasn't in the last hour, don't see the point.
bottom line..if u use ur pc for gaming what is the ssd of choice? also is it really worth it or would a good 6gb hard drive be sufficient?
SSD game loading will be faster compared to HDD, but I doubt you will see any difference in game play once the level has loaded. Maybe certain games that load during game play may run smoother, but other than that no real benefit once the level has loaded.
What SSD? You will be hard pushed to notice any difference between different SSD's in real life. Go for reliability/ price. If I was buying now it would be between the C300, M4 or 320 Intel.
ok thx for the reply
I'm looking at the c300 on ewiz for $195. I've read through, and if I'm understanding correctly, the higher seq. reads and writes of the newer drives are pretty negligible in an OS environment if it's just used to launch applications and keep them running, correct? It's if we were to use, say the V3 as a scratch disk to retrieve large files constantly, then the higher speed comes into play and become more noticeable to its performance.
Just ordered a Vertex 3 128GB Max IOPS , its not in stock though so might take a while before the shop gets a new shipment, but then my Vertex 1 can finally retire^^
I saw an unmistakably noticeable performance increase swapping an Agility 120GB for a Vertex3 240GB in my 3year old gaming notebook with SATAII :)
like Night and Day
I think how a game responds depends entirely on the game and how frequently it loads a new map.
Agility 120GB - Notebook
http://db.tt/wDKA4Zq
Vertex3 - Notebook
http://db.tt/5wb0oY9
Agreed. I can hardly tell the difference between an X25-M G1, an X25-E, or an ioXtreme. Difference in load times is like 5% faster if that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ao1
he is actually saying between an HDD and a SSD. not between different versions of the ssds themselves.Quote:
Agreed. I can hardly tell the difference between an X25-M G1, an X25-E, or an ioXtreme. Difference in load times is like 5% faster if that.
I guess reading comprehension > me. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
lol. of course i totally disagree that there is no difference between HDD and SSD once the game is loaded.
and here is the source....if you watch the entire presentation from IDF you will be suprised, i am sure of that :)
the problem is making a quantitative analysis of the metrics used for identifying just what a "hitch" or lag is. Intel has come up with a means of doing so.
heres the deal , to keep it very simple and easy to understand. If you have two predetermined points on the end of a large map, and you run between them for instance.
you can actually take a stopwatch, and see that on a HDD it takes LONGER to cover the same distance, than on a SSD. that is part of the hitching/lagging problem. they cover it in the presentation.
this is evidenced by the first graph below. as you can see the SSD made it much further into the trace than the ssd in the allotted time.
the first graph is NOT plotting disk usage. it is plotting "interframe" measurements. or pauses hitches lags in normal gameplay, which they measure by the pixel response. then they go on to show how that correlates directly between disk activity in teh two graphs below it.
http://intelstudios.edgesuite.net/id...4/SSDS004.html
http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u...llie1/idf3.png
http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u...llie1/idf4.png
http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u...llie1/idf5.png
Map loading between SSD & HDD is undoubtedly faster. That said according to that Intel presentation only 40% of the SSD bandwidth is utilised. That is why you will hardly notice any difference between different SSD's during game loading.
Once the map is loaded the difference between SSD & HDD is significantly diminished. Why? Because the data is in RAM. If content is not in RAM and needs to be extracted from the storage system then sure speed matters, but what Intel describe is a process where game developers utilise "tricks" to mitigate any delay from the storage device. If the data does not arrive in time there is a fail gracefully process where proxy geometry enables low level detail representations of the geometry to be utilised.
The hitching that Intel talk about is based on playing a game at the highest possible settings. Hitching cannot be detected by FPS, which is insufficient to capture the visual phenomena that Intel demonstrated.
Character Hitch = Pixel changed from frame to frame. Less than 0.1% of all pixels change for a duration of at least 5 frames.
So, in conclusion:
Games are designed within the constraint of a HDD storage system capability, consequently only 40% of SSD bandwidth can be utilised.
SSD will provide a better gaming experience when compared to HDD. That will only however be really noticeable during map loading. If you are running at max settings you might notice smoother game play. Notice however how hard it was for Intel to quantify this impact.
Sure games could be much richer if SSD speeds were utilised in the game design, but that is unlikely to happen until SSD's become mainstream.
SSD has blown the bottleneck of storage, but now bottlenecks lie elsewhere. For the time being anyway.
Here is a example of better gameplay http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shZWyhsJmBc much faster load of car pictures in GT5
That is game loading isn't it? (Not game play) No surprise that a 5400 HDD is much slower than a SSD.
I do not say that SSD will not improve game play, just that the difference will not be as noticeable as game loading and any benefit will be dependent on the game settings & GPU. Games also load differently, so you may see more benefit on one game compared to another.
Quote:
That said according to that Intel presentation only 40% of the SSD bandwidth is utilised.
well duh. its not the bandwidth that matters, it is the access time. you should know that one :) it only just happens to be THE number one advantage of using an SSD over HDD.Quote:
consequently only 40% of SSD bandwidth can be utilised.
also, flip side of the coin, it also shows that HDD bandwidth can be used to 90 percent, which we know how slow they are. can you imagine the latency of a 4k random transfer from an HDD during 90 percent loading? it is horrible. that is where the lagging/hitching comes in :)
not tricks. this is how most games are designed simply because the HDD is so slow. it is such a common practice in many games that they are developing built in monitoring software for future games that will detect the ssd, and then request information in a different manner from it, thus actually utilizing the SSD much more.Quote:
but what Intel describe is a process where game developers utilise "tricks" to mitigate any delay from the storage device. If the data does not arrive in time there is a fail gracefully process where proxy geometry enables low level detail representations of the geometry to be utilised.
false. do you game much, and if so, is your overall system fast enough to realize the differences?Quote:
That will only however be really noticeable during map loading.
backtracking?Quote:
If you are running at max settings you might notice smoother game play.
Not hard at all. its just that no one had found a way to quantify the difference yet. People had noticed, they just hadnt found a way to measure it. Intel leads the way again:p:Quote:
Notice however how hard it was for Intel to quantify this impact.
amazing that they can go up there with third party independent game developers who have reached the same results, and present the information in a clear, coherent manner, with all sorts of data produced by professionals as rock solid proof, yet you discount it.
maybe instead of disk utilization they should present latency information for you?
funny how people, respected storage gurus, have even shown a tangible difference in min/max FPS just by using different SSD's, yet you discount the evidence of even a hitch?????
Hi Comp,
I can only base my conclusions on what I read and then relate to my own experience. To be fair I am not a game guru. I only really play MW2. I use the highest setting with a screen resolution of 2560 x 1600. In game play I can't tell the difference between HDD & SSD. All I try to point out is that YMMV. Would I recommend SSD over HDD - of course. :up:
Intel hit the nail on the head below. Outside of benchmarks the benefit of SSD is underutilised. There are hundreds of vids showing boot times comparing SSD & HDD. I haven't seen one that shows SSD vs SSD. I have also not seen a vid that shows game play differences between SSD vs SSD or HDD vs SSD. - That Intel presentation did not actually show the difference on the presentation. Not saying differences don't exist but I've yet to see them.
I always stand to be corrected however. :up:
http://i.imgur.com/7HUW1.png
SSD newb here. Got my Crucial m4 128GB today. Plugged it into the Marvell SATA3 port on my Gigabyte X58A-UD5. I turned on AHCI, installed the drivers. Let me know if this is bad or can use improvement. Single drive. Boot drive. Turned off indexing, superfetch. Any advice on where to put my page file? My secondary HD is a WD Black 1TB.
yes, i agree. However, there is a lrage difference between being underutilized, and there being no benefit. just because they arent utilizing it 100 percent doesnt mean that you dont see large large gains, especially under load. Your processor idles about 90 percent of the time, it is underutilized. but once you need it, that is where you use it. same as SSD!Quote:
Outside of benchmarks the benefit of SSD is underutilised.
this goes back to the OS not being coded for the SSD. ties in to the under-utilization bit.Quote:
I haven't seen one that shows SSD vs SSD.
they did have an actual working demo at the presentation. you can hear him referring to it saying "look here as the character stops moving and becomes jerky" or something to that effect. unfortunately we do not have the benefit of video of that presentation.Quote:
That Intel presentation did not actually show the difference on the presentation. Not saying differences don't exist but I've yet to see them.
older gen SSD it was easier to see a difference between the devices. in the newer ones, it is smaller differences amongst them.Quote:
I have also not seen a vid that shows game play differences between SSD vs SSD or HDD vs SSD
However, differences in overall FPS have been noted. especially minimum FPS, where the differences are the largest. Minimum FPS is the most relevant number, as you spend more time closer to min than max during gaming sessions. The reasons the HDD is failing so miserably at minimum FPS is it is holding/hitching/lagging while being accessed. so a large reason while the game sputters and hits these low FPS moments (at times very bad, even if just for seconds) is directly correlated to storage performance.
the latency is the key. 12.0 for a HDD.------ .10 for an SSD
now, this shows differences here that are large. and this is just the difference in FPS< not a measurement of stutter. Stutter would be a very small thing in comparison to differences in FPS. if there are appreciable differences in overall FPS just from the speed of your storage solution, then there damn sure should be some difference in stuttering as well, the hitches/lags when you go into different areas, when the game is streaming off the disk.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2614/14
http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u...1/anadtech.png
That's the best you'll get out of the crap Marvell controller - need a P67 rig to get the full speed of a 6G SSD.Quote:
Originally Posted by dmo580
All right Comp you got me beat :poke: (But what I conclude and what Anandtech conclude aren't that different if you look at his statement at the end of the image you attached).Quote:
Originally Posted by Computurd
I have generation 2 SSD in one hand and a Vertex 3 in the other. Regardless of how I utilize them, the difference is overwhelmingly in favor of the Verterx3. It's not always about how quickly an app or game level loads but this is how must of us tend to judge it. Feel is also judged by how quickly we can move from one task to the next, whilst windows performs thousands of other IOP's concurrently to the drive. How quickly we forget how much other background work is accomplished by the operating system while we're gaming or whatever, the more efficient the drives and subsystem cope with this the sooner we move on to the next task.
;)
I guess that depends what you "Generation 2" SSD is. For example, the Intels weren't that hot in overall performance as compared to others, but they were solid. I'd imagine a jump from one of those to a V3 would be rather large.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian[Frozen]
By that I assume you agree the difference can be noticeable between SSD's not just SSD's to HDD's, in some cases the difference between one SSD and another SSD can be huge! which I hope helps the gamer on a previous page make the decision to upgrade or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antioch
Not "huge" but different.
pretty much read the whole thread, my feeling is there really isnt much between the SSDs - in day to day use. My only other question is reliability, then.
i heard some really bad things about the ocz vertex 3 and the new corsiar force 3, the later been recalled!
So between intel 510 120gb and crucial m4 128gb, or even c300 if still in picture, what would you guys recommend for someone who multi-task a lot - browsing/office etc... with some photoshop, gaming, and high bitrate hd playback/encoding?
Thanks!
For price/performance/capacity Crucial C300 128GB or M4 128GB and 3 years warranty.Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldma
For more capacity, Intel 320 160GB has a good price and 5 years warranty.
thanks! i was going towards the c300 or m4, but out of the intel 320 and the other two which would you get? i.e. which would give me the best real-world performance and is more reliable (this goes to intel i guess)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilgamesh
thanks again mate.
M4 128GB > C300 128GB > Intel 320 160GB, but difference are barely visible in real world performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldma
I have an C300 128GB on Amd SB850 from last october, and I'm very satisfied of it. But today, M4 128Gb is better.
For reliable, perhaps Intel (old X25-M G2 and new "320") is the best consumer ssd, until someone doesn't try the opposite :)
awesome, thanks a lot for the info! excatly what i wanted to know, i'm gonna go for the m4 128gb, price is not bad either! £170 here in UK - saves me £30, was going to spend £200 on the vertex 3, before i discovered all the SF issues...
Well with Corsair recalling their SandForce 2200 based controller SSD - Force 3 series and the OCZ Vertex 3 based on the same controller having huge problems at the moment, I would be giving any SandForce 2200 controller based drive a wide berth at the moment and either waiting for a definitive fix or going with a different controller based SSD like the Crucial or Intel.
I picked up an M4 and am completely happy. Smooth install, no bugs, very fast. Huge improvement over my old sata drive. I was worried I wouldn't be able to tell the difference but even my girlfriend noticed that the comp was faster.
Hey All,
Looking for a 128/256GB Drive.. Anyone explain why so many SKU's of same capacity on newegg??
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...1&name=Crucial
Have a 780GX/Phenom II 965 setup now w/ 8GB XMS3 (upping to 16GB)
No SATAIII controller; but might find a PCIe to add in.
Mostly interested in running a bunch of VM's simultaneously w/o hiccups.
All things being equal $$ C300 or M4?
Two generations (C300 and m4) and two types (just the SSD, or the SSD and a USB adapter), and some 1.8" drives in there. Also newegg is acting weird, I'm not seeing the usual choices to narrow things by capacity, interface type, size, etc.
I doubt you will notice a difference between the C300 and the m4. I'd watch for a special on one of them and get the less expensive one.
Thanks! yea the SKU's that are within the same family of drive m4/256 has several listed. Figured it was 2.5-3.5 bracket or some extras versus just a drive, etc.
64 for $104 and 256 for $444
Hoping the transformation is awesome :-)
English review is out
http://www.behardware.com/articles/8...l-510-320.html
Im new to ssd thing So excuse my ignorance. But would the crucial m4 - 3400 be a better choice over the ocz vertex 3? If so why?
I would go for the M4 every time, stability being concern # 1 with the vertx 3.
At the present moment the Vertex 3 is experiencing severe problems with stuttering and BSOD as an apparent result of a firmware upgrade. A new firmware to (hopefully) correct the problem was release yesterday so it's very early days to see if all the problems have been fixed. The crucial M4 on the other hand seems as solid as a rock so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptfam
If both drives were problem free then the vertex 3 is about the fastest SATA 3 drive available at the price.
Do some research before you buy. Reliability not only speed is very important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by therat
Fastest at writing zeros at QD32, whilst in an un-throttled state. :p: At QD1, writing normal data, it is not the fastest by a margin and its more expensive than faster alternatives.
Picked up a Crucial M4 128GB today to replace my old 320GB WD OS drive that died, I really like it so far.
Has anyone managed to view the charts on the pages where they group the charts together and tell you to hover over the links to view them? I see nothing but a broken picture icon when I hover over the links or even click the links.Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
http://www.behardware.com/articles/8...l-510-320.html
http://www.behardware.com/articles/8...l-510-320.html
http://www.behardware.com/articles/8...l-510-320.html
http://www.behardware.com/articles/8...l-510-320.html
http://www.behardware.com/articles/8...l-510-320.html
^ Same here.
Ok thanks for the infoQuote:
Originally Posted by therat
Few q's because although I've read loads , I think my brain is now fried with too much info...
- Is TRIM still a necessity? Or can we manager without?
- And if TRIM isn't needed, what can I expect from 2x SSD's in RAID 0 on my CHIV on board SATA ports?
- Looking at the Crucial M4 or the Corsair Force 3 but heard there were issues with the new Corsair's? (have these been resolved?)
Kinda wish I'd pre-ordered the M$ 512Gb since they were dirt cheap (~£500 as apposed to £600!) but still have the opportunity.
Just got a 320 40GB for my sisters laptop, so I thought I'd run a couple of benches before handing it over :D
Attachment 116832
Attachment 116833
That would depend on the controller and the version of firmware. On the drives with GC built into their firmware the answer is definitely NO, trim is not a necessity. Whether we have seen the last of trim, who knows? But for now if you have GC as part of the firmware then you do not have to care if you have trim capability or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by RCG_Bex
Which ones have a gc and which ones only have trim? (between the M4,Intel 510 and the newer sandforce)
ah ok, I'll maybe look at RAID0 M4's then...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian[Frozen]
Which is the best choice?
Corsair Force Series 3 120GB
Crucial M4 - C400 128GB
?
Crucial M4 - C400 128GB!Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptfam
Feedback > Customer Reviews of the Crucial CT128M4SSD2
Feedback > Customer Reviews of the Corsair CSSD-F120GB3-BKQuote:
***** 68% (27) **** 5% (2) *** 5% (2) ** 0% (0) * 23% (9)
My CT128M4SSD2 (jack SATA2)Quote:
***** 33% (16) **** 14% (7) *** 4% (2) ** 4% (2) * 45% (22)
Attachment 117421
Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 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 : 267.528 MB/s
Sequential Write : 169.865 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 249.661 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 178.199 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 23.792 MB/s [ 5808.5 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 56.690 MB/s [ 13840.3 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 184.899 MB/s [ 45141.4 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 153.375 MB/s [ 37445.1 IOPS]
Test : 1000 MB [S: 47.3% (56.4/119.2 GB)] (x5)
Date : 2011/07/02 12:04:48
OS : Windows 7 SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)
I'd like to know as well. could even add the Force GT in there too. C300's are supposedly still good drives too.Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptfam
Newegg reviews do not tell us anything and we cannot base our decisions on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dis07
What is with the "us...we"? Are you royalty? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by INFRNL
Newegg reviews definitely tell me something, and that information usually does factor into my decisions.
I agree with johnw, the customer reviews are one of the few places where "we" (I assume you mean joe average) get to have our say, be it good or bad. I never buy anything hardware related without reading those reviews first.
Force 3 = OCZ Agility specs....
More interested in M4 vs. GT
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnw
I guess I should have just spoke for myself; a lot safer. However I do know that many people do not rely on newegg reviews as there are a lot of people that post reviews make a lot of them hard to rely on.Quote:
Originally Posted by therat
I have bought many items with many bad reviews without issue. I find them to be very inaccurate. There are times where they may come in handy ,but I buy based from more accurate resources
Certainly the newegg reviews should not be used without careful consideration. As you suggest, there are some clueless people posting reviews. The trick is to ignore such reviews, and give greater weight to the better reviews. Or to do straight A / B comparisons of products where the clueless reviews do not matter as much since they should have about the same effect on both products.
yes you have to read them. you certainly cant glean any info from a star rating. but there ARE certain manufacturers and devices where there is just a HUGE amount of negative feedback about RMA/Support/Quality (we all know the major few) and those should be taken into consideration.
A big problem is that alot of the people are noobs who have no idea what the :banana::banana::banana::banana: they are doing. you can usually tell these by the stuff they post. ignore those reviews. you can also tell who knows their stuff.
BUT, it doesnt take a computer genius to be able to tell us when they receive bad support and questionable customer service.
this same argument is always brought up so let me summarize the next few argumentative posts:
the argument from here will travel to the fact that you cannot ascertain any statistical information from the reviews, as the good experiences are almost never posted, or are at a rate of 1 to a 100. this is true.
same argument always.
and the same consensus will come down to : use them as one tool in a toolbox of methods to make an informed purchase.
Seems like the corsair force 3 drives were having issues?
Are they sorted now?