Intel x25-V

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

03-02-2010, 08:19 AM
jalyst

Everything I've read indicates that for typical use on an OS drive, the x25-v is better.

Yes vertex smokes 25-v for sustained writes, but that's irrelevant for most usage patterns.
An example for a home user where it becomes useful, is if you're regularly installing large programs or games.

Random small r/w usually happen far more often and in that area the Intel is much faster.
And it's decent at sustained reads...

5-9 most interesting...
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/sho...spx?i=3667&p=6

Not sure if Kingston supports TRIM now, but I know X25-V does.
It may even be a bit cheaper than the X25-V, assuming they still sell the 40GB SSDNow.
But if the difference isn't much I'd prolly stick with the Intel...
03-02-2010, 08:38 AM
SteveRo

Quote:

Originally Posted by jalyst

Everything I've read indicates that for typical use on an OS drive, the x25-v is better.

Yes vertex smokes 25-v for sustained writes, but that's irrelevant for most usage patterns.
An example for a home user where it becomes useful, is if you're regularly installing large programs or games.

Random small r/w usually happen far more often and in that area the Intel is much faster.
And it's decent at sustained reads...

5-9 most interesting...
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/sho...spx?i=3667&p=6

Not sure if Kingston supports TRIM now, but I know X25-V does.
It may even be a bit cheaper than the X25-V, assuming they still sell the 40GB SSDNow.
But if the difference isn't much I'd prolly stick with the Intel...

Most of the time we load games either from optical media or occasionally over cat5/6 - so in those scenarios I suspect there is NO advantage in having the higher sequential write speed of the vertex (the bottlekneck is the source in these cases?).
03-02-2010, 09:09 AM
jalyst

In those scenarios correct, sustained read is irrelevant for both.

I'm just forming a solid basis as to why there's little inherent advantage in picking the Vertex over the X25-V.
So far I've no found any strong reason/s why in my imagined usage patterns the Vertex would be advantageous.

$/GB is a tad better, but the difference is so small it's negligible.
03-02-2010, 09:17 AM
Ao1
^
Spot on.
The key differentiators for me are:
- Longevity. Which drive has the best wear leveling.
- Stability. Which drive will give me the least amount of problems.
- Price.
The V drive is great value any way you look at it.
03-02-2010, 02:28 PM
Ao1

Assuming 100% sequential write speed and assuming that my math is correct the time difference in sequential write speeds is really minor.

Anything under 60mb of size is not really going to be noticeable. Anything above 60mb is going to be notable if you have a stop watch handy and you spend all day writing large files.

Compare this to the worst case scenario of the OCZ Core random 4k write speed. (Just to show the extreme). On average it took half a second to complete a random 4KB write request.

I guess this is why most people say that small random read/ write speeds are what really matter and not sequential speeds.

http://www.freestylehair.mobi/4k.jpg
03-02-2010, 09:11 PM
jalyst

Interesting chart ...

But the differential on sustained writes is even more than 60MB/s <--> 200MB/s when it comes to Vertex Turbo Vs X25-V.
So sustained writes might actually become quite noticeable for anything at approx. 40MB or higher.
But generally if someone's going to write many large files to small drives like this it's only going to be once, so does it really matter?!

It'd prolly be more like 200MB+ before it becomes noticeable on the reading side, and how often does one do that!?

This is a good pt, but it's not just $50 extra here in Australasia...
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthre...3#post29455303
03-02-2010, 09:53 PM
jalyst

I'm actually thinking of jumping up to x25-m...
$/GB is slightly better at $4.3 Vs $4.8, and of course everything is slightly better performing, & sustained writes are much better.

Pretty handy guide for those whom may be thinking of going for the slightly cheaper kingston's
http://ssdtechnologyforum.com/Thread...pid=845#pid845

The difference between the cheapest Kingston x25-m I've found Vs the cheapest Intel, is only a $25.
So personally I'll prolly just fork-out the extra cash....
03-05-2010, 11:34 PM
jalyst

audienceofone/anyone?

Cheers :)
03-06-2010, 12:49 AM
Ao1

The Kingston is just a rebranded Intel. The only difference is $$. I have a G2 but I got that before the V drives came out. Right now things are moving quite fast. This time next year there will be much lower prices, faster drives and more choice. The V drive is great if you want to get on the ssd bandwagon but minimise the loss of upgrading later to better technology. You get nearly all the benefit at a much lower cost. Then again the G2's are really good drives. My choice would be a V drive for a laptop and a g2 drive for a workstation.
03-06-2010, 03:31 AM
SteveRo

I have a total of 5 intel drives (80g1's, a 80g2 and 40v's) - all in different machines - both laptops, desktops, both intel and nvidia controllers - they all just work great - not a single problem (yet).
03-06-2010, 06:10 AM
jalyst

Actually I'm seriously considering a 50gb sandforce-based OWC instead of the 80gb g2 now.
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3751
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/defau...139&p2=125&c=2
Prices need to be a little bit better though I think....
03-06-2010, 07:01 AM
SteveRo

Quote:

Originally Posted by jalyst

Actually I'm seriously considering a 50gb sandforce-based OWC instead of the 80gb g2 now.
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3751
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/defau...139&p2=125&c=2
Prices need to be a little bit better though I think....

Yes, based on what I have seen the OWC 50 looks to be a very nice drive for the price.
Do you plan on using a pretty much standard controller - intel ich?
That would be my only concern if you where trying to pair the sandforce with some less popular controller.
Also, the sandforce does not yet have the track record of the intel drives - but for newer faster devices - this is probably always going to be the case - the risk of the early adopter.
03-06-2010, 07:19 AM
jalyst

Yes I'll be using ICH from a H5x based board.

Yeah $/GB is still quite a bit higher than the Intel 80GB G2...
And considering in real world terms it's only slightly faster, I think it needs to come down a little more 1st.

Not sure if I can wait around for that....
03-06-2010, 09:11 AM
Metroid

Quote:

Originally Posted by jalyst

Actually I'm seriously considering a 50gb sandforce-based OWC instead of the 80gb g2 now.

I think would be better to wait for the OCZ Vertex 2 50GB. It is coming around April - May time-frame.
03-07-2010, 09:51 AM
jalyst

Quote:

Originally Posted by jalyst

Yes I'll be using ICH from a H5x based board.

Yeah $/GB is still quite a bit higher than the Intel 80GB G2...
And considering in real world terms it's only slightly faster, I think it needs to come down a little more 1st.

Not sure if I can wait around for that....

Actually, I had a closer look at actual prices and it's pretty damn good.
$263.55 AUD for the 50GB OWC (only avail OS, this price inc. shipping)
$345 AUD for the 80GB X25-M G2 (best aussie price, can prolly be bought os for markedly less)

OWC don't rape you with shipping/insurance (very cheap) otherwise it could be substantially higher.

That works out to approx 5.27/GB Vs $4.31/GB for the Intel drive...
I'd prolly still put the better value stamp of approval on the Intel drive.

But if one doesn't need that extra space, the cheaper 50GB OWC is looking pretty damn hot to me! :D
Aside from the Anandtech one, there's some other impressive reviews around:

This one sounds a tad biased...
http://macperformanceguide.com/Revie...y_Extreme.html
then again the conclusion doesn't seem to reflect that
http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-SSDMacPro.html

Another one...
http://www.barefeats.com/hard130.html

A thread has kicked-off, rocky start for the 1st owner thus far:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/25...ercury-extreme
03-08-2010, 07:34 AM
jalyst

anyone else looking at these?
03-08-2010, 05:14 PM
INFRNL

They look nice, but not for $4.60/gb in US :down:
03-08-2010, 07:55 PM
jalyst

Yeah def. not as good value, but it is cheaper all up, not /GB.
Even if I could find a better deal for the x25-m overseas, it would still be a tad cheaper.
And as it's to be an OS/core apps drv, it's plenty of space...
03-08-2010, 08:51 PM
Metroid

You can always wait, 8 months to go.

X25-V 40GB 34nm = $129 = $3.2 per GB
X25-V 80GB 25nm = $129 = $1.6 per GB
03-08-2010, 08:54 PM
jalyst

damn that's good, nah cant wait, will sell for x25-m 80GB 25nm goodness, or whatever's hot at the time ;)
03-08-2010, 10:30 PM
INFRNL

I think if you can get the OCW drive cheaper, then you should get it and let everyone know how it is. Supposed to be faster than Intel.

Slightly off topic, sorry: Would 2 of the v series drives in raid be better than the 80gb g2 Intel? For us in the US, price is the same, but from what I read, performance of the 2 drives would be better? I could just wipe the drive when performance drops and reload image or fresh install?
Whats the best route to take. I plan to run Intel now which seems to be the best most reliable option for good cost. Then at end of year will upgrade to larger, better, lower cost drive and move whatever I buy to a different system. Thanks
03-09-2010, 03:02 AM
SteveRo

Quote:

Originally Posted by INFRNL

I think if you can get the OCW drive cheaper, then you should get it and let everyone know how it is. Supposed to be faster than Intel.

Slightly off topic, sorry: Would 2 of the v series drives in raid be better than the 80gb g2 Intel? For us in the US, price is the same, but from what I read, performance of the 2 drives would be better? I could just wipe the drive when performance drops and reload image or fresh install?
Whats the best route to take. I plan to run Intel now which seems to be the best most reliable option for good cost. Then at end of year will upgrade to larger, better, lower cost drive and move whatever I buy to a different system. Thanks

2x x25-v in raid0 performes very well, the only downer is no trim - http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/4...ch1orwrite.jpg

and if you where to pair them with an Areca 1231 - http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2183/zzzzzst.jpg
03-09-2010, 07:32 PM
INFRNL

How fast would performance degrade with a set in raid? You could make an image and just wipe and replace image when performance degrades, correct? so trim is not necessary, or is trim still the way to go? Thanks I am so lost on what to do; I am helpless:rofl:

How much does that areca card cost, few hundred?
03-09-2010, 08:12 PM
jalyst

i think i recall reading that's one of the good things about sandforce based drives, degradation doesn't happen, might not be the right review.
http://macperformanceguide.com/Revie...y_Extreme.html
03-10-2010, 02:28 AM
SteveRo

INFRNL - Yes, depending on your usage I would want to manually wipe most of today's MLC based raids - I would hope something like monthly would be sufficient.
I would probably run AS SSD and CDM when the array was new and then compare to periodic runs later to see how the array degrades over time/usage
When it looks like performance has dropped significantly image, wipe and restore. I would hold off on buying a 1231 at this point - new controllers coming out (areca 1880 series). Also there is a chance the new areca 1880 controllers will be no faster than the previous generation AND the LSI 9211 and 9260 controllers/HBAs are catching up quickly in performance. The areca 12XX - depending on # of ports and cache memory option you buy can be expensive - they tend to run anywhere from $640 up to $1400 (sata ports from 12 to 24, DDR2 cache memory from 512MB up to 4GB).

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page