SSD roundup: Vertex 3 vs M4 vs C300 vs 510 vs 320 vs x25-M vs F120 vs Falcon II

[lowfat]

he is actually saying between an HDD and a SSD. not between different versions of the ssds themselves.

I guess reading comprehension > me.

[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

[Ao1]

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.

[Mech0z]

Here is a example of better gameplay http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shZWyhsJmBc much faster load of car pictures in GT5

[Ao1]

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.

[Computurd]

That said according to that Intel presentation only 40% of the SSD bandwidth is utilised.

consequently only 40% of SSD bandwidth can be 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.

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

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.

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.

That will only however be really noticeable during map loading.

false. do you game much, and if so, is your overall system fast enough to realize the differences?

If you are running at max settings you might notice smoother game play.

backtracking?

Notice however how hard it was for Intel to quantify this impact.

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

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?????

[Ao1]

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.

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.

[ImportantAwareness89]

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.

[Computurd]

Outside of benchmarks the benefit of SSD is underutilised.

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!

I haven't seen one that shows SSD vs SSD.

this goes back to the OS not being coded for the SSD. ties in to the under-utilization bit.

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.

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.

I have also not seen a vid that shows game play differences between SSD vs SSD or HDD vs SSD

older gen SSD it was easier to see a difference between the devices. in the newer ones, it is smaller differences amongst them.

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

[Brahmzy]

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.

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.

[Ao1]

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!

All right Comp you got me beat (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).

[Ian[Frozen]]

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.

[Antioch]

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.

[Ian[Frozen]]

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.

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.

[Antioch]

Not "huge" but different.

[arnoldma]

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!

[Gilgamesh]

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.

For more capacity, Intel 320 160GB has a good price and 5 years warranty.

[arnoldma]

For price/performance/capacity Crucial C300 128GB or M4 128GB and 3 years warranty.

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)?

thanks again mate.

[Gilgamesh]

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)?

thanks again mate.

M4 128GB > C300 128GB > Intel 320 160GB, but difference are barely visible in real world performance.

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

[arnoldma]

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...

[therat]

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.

[MRip]

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.

[d1c1ple]

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?

[johnw]

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.

[d1c1ple]

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.