Printable View
2 accidental event...Quote:
Originally Posted by felix_w
one defrag (scheduled)
one avi file not compressed.
ok is accidet, but with my drive i wanna make everythink.... not worries about longevity.... but i need costant performance from the first to the last days....
Ok, i see..
defrag issue will be the same with every ssd product i guess....but since compressed/incompressed file performance of SF drives has a large gap, M4 may be a fine solution
ok defrag is useless, but if i accidentally run on NON SANDFORCE drive, the performance remain the same....Quote:
Originally Posted by felix_w
with sandforce.... 2 solutio:
secure erase (too much time to do it)
Whait a pair of day's (LOL)
sandforce FAIL (for me)
SSD are still too ridiculously expensive. I just cannot see spending that kind of money and trusting my data on a drive/technology that has not been time tested to the extent that Magnetic HDD storage has been.
I would have thought after what 3 years now these things would be at a reasonable price point to encourage people to start transitioning over by the masses.
What is the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
I agree with you, this put the To at more of 1000 dollars (and again, here it's more 1600dollars ( 400dollars for a 240-256) .... who is completely crazy when you can buy a WD Black 1To Sata6 for ... less of 100$ ..Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
But personally i use SSD's only for the software and main C:, all files are stored in 2 HDD of 1to + i have 2 old WD blue 500go for my old files ....
There's absolutely no interest to use a SSD for storage..
1st user reports, I wish I knew enough japanese to ask this guy some questions.
http://translate.google.com/translat...%26prmd%3Divns
http://translate.google.com/translat...%26prmd%3Divns
Edited post. (wrong ssd previously, here is Force 3) http://club.coneco.net/ImgPopUp.aspx...&rd=66707&ps=1
here is another post which looks good: http://translate.google.com/translat...%26prmd%3Divns
My reluctance is with the initial data writing to the O.S prior to it being written to the storage Array. Most people work with Data within the Operating System prior to saving it. Like I initially stated the technology has not been put through the paces for years by the majority so I will not trust it for my data prior to that being done. So, I will stay with time proven and tested slower magnetic recording technology until that time comes. Although SHA-1 & MD5 Checksum generation and validation on the grounds of a personal scientific study could answer these questions and concerns that I raise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanek
Perhaps at some point I may be inclined to carry these tests out to satisfy my own personal curiosity.
here are benches from different people http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/6994/ssdze.jpg
Not as impressive as I had hoped considering this program shows maximum throughput.
http://translate.googleusercontent.c...pgsVfpGkZ_7yOw
http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/3041/26590586.jpg
AS SSD (my c300 does better than this):
http://www1.axfc.net/uploader/Sc/lin...=Sc_239109.png
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
Corsair Force Series GT ~ OCZ Vertex 3Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
Corsair Force Series 3 ~ OCZ Agility 3
The Force GT and Vertex 3 uses Synchronous NAND which are more expensive than Asynchronous NAND and are faster with uncompressed data
I always have the exact same thoughts. I'm always on the fence on buying an SSD BUT I simply can't justify the purchase. I can deal with the slower load times and such because the money for one really isn't anywhere near worth it at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
Well, ssd for data storage is absurd for the time being.Quote:
Originally Posted by th3pwn3r
However, i see you bought 36gig raptor which was around 30% faster than normal 7200 drives and cost per GB was 3x.
SSD for system/programs gives you MUCH MUCH MUCH more speed than 30% .Theres no point at this time to NOT have an ssd for a boot drive.
It really makes all this inefficient windows os/NET framework much more bearable.
Im new to this but what do you mean by uncompressed data?I just got a corsair force sata 2 ssd and dont know if I need to compress it to get faster performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
So the force gt is going to be even faster than this drive?Im about to upgrade to a faster drive and will hold off if the GT is that much better.
Yea, I bought that drive back when I was like 20 years old(I'm now 26) and living paycheck to paycheck while living in a craphole, party apartment with 4 buddies =/ These days I wouldn't spend on something like that. I'm actually surprised the drive is still going to this day, my cousin purchased one from the same batch and his went down over a year ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
5 reviews so far. Not stellar. I'm disappointed in this, thinking of refusing the order. Which drive is as reliable as the c300 but will be noticably faster other than M4?
http://translate.google.com/translat...%26prmd%3Divns
Intel 510 is fast as M4.Quote:
Originally Posted by scwam
(Intel 510 250GB = Crucial M4 256GB performance, perhaps 120GB little less than 128GB).
Really. Why have a lot forums said the Intel 320 is faster than the 510? I kept reading people recommending it over the 510. If it's faster than the 320 than I might get the 510 instead because I was considering the 320. I'm strictly speakign of the 120gb models.
Same performance as the Agility 3 and Solid 3 drives I have here. People are jumping head first because of the 85000 IOPs marketing. Once the IOMeter configuration screenshots were posted this result should have been put in perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by scwam
Yes, and OCZ wasted no time to "correct" specifications: :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Praz
http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-ver...i-2-5-ssd.html
http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-ver...i-2-5-ssd.html
http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-agi...i-2-5-ssd.html
"Maximum 4K Random Write: 85,000 IOPS"
"Small file I/O performance is measured using Iometer2008, Queue Depth 32, 4KB Aligned; Logical Block Address (LBA) range: 85% of total drive capacity"
"Small file I/O performance is measured using Iometer2008, Queue Depth 32, 4KB Aligned; Logical Block Address (LBA) range: 8GB Incompressible"
Oh, I love marketing :rofl:
who was it who bit into the corsair spin??????Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilgamesh
all we did is show apples to apples which is what people blinded by spin need to see ;)
For me, this was a good opportunity to reveal that Ocz tests its ssd with 85% of total drive capacity and not with "whole drive used for test file" ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
Your post was in response to mine. And IOMeter tests had nothing to do with my post. The CDM/AS SSD results that users are starting to post are the same or slightly less then what I am getting with the Solid 3 drive. So users are paying a $30.00 - $40.00 premium for a product that brings nothing more to the table over the Solid 3. And as long as you are going to quote OCZ specified performance claims why not also post that AS SSD results are also shown? Or would this not fit the current agenda?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilgamesh
Finally one review. Just hope it's not biased and another comes in soon
http://www.kitguru.net/components/ss...gb-ssd-review/
...an same of Agility3. So user are paying no premium price for Force3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Praz
Perhaps will pay for Force GT, who known?
And my reply have to do with this:
"Once the IOMeter configuration screenshots were posted this result should have been put in perspective."
And what was the problem with that comment that I made? You could not see how the IOMeter config files were tuned to reach a predetermined outcome? If those files didn't put things into perspective for you a benchmark that cannot be altered should.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilgamesh
http://www.pilipali.info/misc/asbench.jpg
http://www.overclock.net/ssd/1028614...corsair-2.html