.Sup
be nice
+2,646|6424|The Twilight Zone
  • Intel X-25M G2
  • Raid array: /
  • Capacity: 80GB
  • TRIM enabled: yes
  • OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x86
  • Crystal Mark benchmark:

Last edited by .Sup (2009-11-06 01:32:51)

https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png
some_random_panda
Flamesuit essential
+454|6361

I thought TRIM was automatic.

Guess I should read up on SSDs.
GC_PaNzerFIN
Work and study @ Technical Uni
+528|6384|Finland

*  Intel X-25M G2
    * Raid array: no
    * Capacity: 80GB
    * TRIM enabled: no
    * OS: Windows Vista x64 Ultimate SP2
    * Crystal Mark benchmark:

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/24208/cdiskmark.png
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
jsnipy
...
+3,276|6493|...

amazing speed
joker3327
=IBF2=
+305|6568|Cheshire. UK
G.Skill Falcon 64gb
230mb read
135mb write

waiting for a firmware update ...or I am going to flash it to an OCZ firmware..
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6467

joker3327 wrote:

G

waiting for a firmware update ...or I am going to flash it to an OCZ firmware..
let us know how that works out.
Microwave
_
+515|6625|Loughborough Uni / Leeds, UK
Intel X25-M G2 80GB

Latest firmware

https://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz183/jh0lt/Computer/ssdspeed.png

Run 2

https://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz183/jh0lt/Computer/ssdspeed2.png

Last edited by james@alienware (2009-11-06 07:08:45)

IrishGrimReaper
Field Marshal | o |
+142|6691|Ireland | Monaghan

* Intel X-25M G2
    * Raid array: no
    * Capacity: 80GB
    * TRIM enabled: Yes
    * OS: Windows Windows 7 Home Prem 64bit
    * Crystal Mark benchmark:
https://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l109/IrishGrimReaper/Untitled-9.jpg
Intel Core i7 CPU 920 @ 4GHz || 3x2 GB OCZ 1600Mhz DDR3 || 80GB Intel X25-M Gen 2 || KFA2 GTX 480 1536Mb ||| Samsung T220 || Xonar DX 7.1 || AV 40 || P6T Deluxe V2 || Win 7 HP 64 Bit || Lian Li P80
liquidat0r
wtf.
+2,223|6597|UK
Why can they write faster than they can read? Seems illogical to me. Or is that the same for all HDD's?
max
Vela Incident
+1,652|6538|NYC / Hamburg

On the 4k writes, you're probs just seeing the advantage of a large cache.
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot  xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
GC_PaNzerFIN
Work and study @ Technical Uni
+528|6384|Finland

liquidat0r wrote:

Why can they write faster than they can read? Seems illogical to me. Or is that the same for all HDD's?
Write speed is secondary in terms of benefits for normal user. 90MB/s is pretty much more than enough for everything, you are not doing crazy large writes on SSDs. The write speeds of -M (Mainstream MLC) series capped to about 90MB/s so they don't steal the market from the -E series drives (Extreme: high price, high write speed, SLC).

As a result you won't see the drives lose any of the write performance over time as there is HUGE 100MB/s overhead that the drive could physically do. That + the wear leveling techs like TRIM.

So in short: random read and write are most important. The drive will do a lot tiny read and writes during tasks. At this the Intel drives absolutely rape the competition.

E: whoops ment random, not sequential....

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2009-11-06 10:05:00)

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6552|SE London

I don't have flashy Intel drives. They're a bit on the pricey side (I got ny drives for £100 each (price has jumped since then), whereas the Intels are about double that).

   * Crucial M225
    * Raid array: yes
    * Capacity: 64GBx2
    * TRIM enabled: No
    * OS: Windows Windows 7 Ulimate x64
    * Crystal Mark benchmark:

https://files.me.com/r_phelps/vq6df8

As you can see, RAID isn't helping much. Burst speed is insane (I haven't included burst speed benchmarks - but read speeds can exceed 400MB/s!) and write speeds are damned high - but it has a serious negative impact on small non-sequential write speeds. I'm thinking about not running them in RAID.

HDD Tune Random Access:

https://files.me.com/r_phelps/vvb8dk

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-11-07 05:09:22)

chuyskywalker
Admin
+2,439|6818|"Frisco"

For others reading to compare, some tests from my XP box:

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/2/wd250.jpg
2 x 250GB WD (somethings), RAID 1

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/2/4xraptor36.jpg
4 x 36GB 10k WD Raptors, RAID 0
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6552|SE London

chuyskywalker wrote:

4 x 36GB 15k WD Raptors, RAID 0
They made 15K Raptors?
chuyskywalker
Admin
+2,439|6818|"Frisco"

No, no they didn't. Got my numbers wrong.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6552|SE London

chuyskywalker wrote:

No, no they didn't. Got my numbers wrong.
I thought maybe they released a SCSI version or something...

Was just curious.
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,629|5758|Catherine Black
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/33829/lmao.JPG

  • Hitatchi 250GB 7,200 RPM
  • Raid array: None
  • Capacity: 250GB
  • TRIM enabled: wat
  • OS: Tiny 7 32 bit


Lmfao.

Last edited by Finray (2009-11-07 06:24:18)

https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
CrazeD
Member
+368|6643|Maine
https://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a283/crazed_rider/1tbwd.jpg

Western Digital 1TB 7200RPM
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,629|5758|Catherine Black

CrazeD wrote:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a283/ … /1tbwd.jpg

Western Digital 1TB 7200RPM
I think we should leave.. we dun has SSDs..
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
CrazeD
Member
+368|6643|Maine

Finray wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a283/ … /1tbwd.jpg

Western Digital 1TB 7200RPM
I think we should leave.. we dun has SSDs..
*cries*
chuyskywalker
Admin
+2,439|6818|"Frisco"

Finray wrote:

I think we should leave.. we dun has SSDs..
True, I was just posting so the SSD marks could be put into perspective. Sux2bUs.
.Sup
be nice
+2,646|6424|The Twilight Zone
Np guys you can keep on posting. Jsnipy gave me a great idea to make this thread a benchmarking thread so go ahead and post benches of your HDDs if you like.

Here's the data of my buddie's SSDs:

  • 2 x OCZ Vertex
  • Raid array: 0
  • Capacity: 2 x 30GB
  • TRIM enabled: no
  • OS: Windows XP SS3
  • Crystal Mark benchmark:



His raid is doing pretty good, Bert could you possibly post what mobo/raid controller you are using?

If a mod could rename this thread to "SSD/HDD benchmark", that would be great, thanks.

Last edited by .Sup (2009-11-07 15:13:37)

https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png
jsnipy
...
+3,276|6493|...

4 seagate 640GB sata2 drives, raid 1+0
https://img265.imageshack.us/img265/4118/84072210.png
Sup3r_Dr4gon
Boat sig is not there anymore
+214|6297|Australia
*  WD Velociraptor
    * Raid array: No
    * Capacity: 150GB
    * TRIM enabled: -
    * OS: Windows XP Home edition

https://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i235/The_R4ptor_M4gnum/150vrcm.jpg

My question is, do the huge SSD numbers make any difference in real world apps? I'm tossing up between getting an 80GB Intel drive or another Vraptor for RAID0. Would the speed advantage of the SSD make it worth the huge price tag and small size, seeing as I could get another raptor for $AU200 (as opposed to the $AU500 for the Intel?).
dill13
Member
+67|6164

https://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb21/dill132007/Untitled-28.jpg
pretty decent writes dont know why such bad reads
wd 640gb 16 mb cache
Edit: this is the one
http://ncix.com/products/index.php?sku= … gital%20WD

Last edited by dill13 (2009-11-08 00:36:22)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard