Patriot SSD 64GB Review


Recommended Posts

Patriot Memory SSD SATA Warp

With the world quickly moving to more efficient devices and higher performance, I felt it was time to try out Solid State Drives (SSD). The world seems to be in a slow transition to Solid State Drives (sometimes known as Solid State Disks; however it?s not actually a disk in the sense we normally perceive a disk). I was looking for a simple, yet effective solution. At this time most drives are still in the $200+ range for a 64GB. I happened to pick up two Patriot Memory SSD Solid State Disks for $179 each, after a $50 rebate on each drive from Newegg.com. The drives are both version 2 drives, which correct some issues that existed in the original Patriot Memory SSD drives. The drives are available in 32/64/and 128 GB models.

The drives I purchased where model number PE64GS25SSDR which are listed as SATA I / II drives. The drive is around the standard 2.5? hard drive size. Their dimensions are listed as 3.9? wide by 2.8? deep and only 0.4? high. The drive only weighs about 3 ounces. A nice feature of the SSD drive is it is certified to be used in RAID arrays, some SSD drive manufactures do not suggest you use their drives in a RAID array due to its writing patterns, however, this drive claims it supports RAID0, 1 and 0+1. The drive is RoHS compliant also. One of the real nice features of SSD drives are the fact they are very resistant to external shock, such as dropping a laptop or using it in a car over a bumpy road. The max shock for this drive is listed at 1500G for 0.5ms. The max vibration resistance is 20G at 10 to 2000 Hz. The Mean time before failure (MTBF) is also listed at 1,500,000 hours or about 171 years.

index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=206028

p><p><a class=post-47883-1223780423_thumb.pngow to format a drive with 512 byte allocation units in vista<[/b]png' alt='b]png'> (This is just one test out of many averaged together)

How to format a drive with 512 byte allocation units in vista

I know it sounds like a duh, just format it answer. The problem is though, if you run setup for windows vista and click format there, it defaults to 4KB with a 1024 block sector offset. SSD drives are created with a physical 512 byte unit. To get the best performance out of them, you should format the drive to match the allocation unit of the drive. For the patriot SSD drives, it is of course 512 bytes. If you need to create, partition your drive and format it in vista setup, before you go into the actual setup you can go into command prompt and do this manuall. When you are on the Windows Setup screen that has the button to go into the main installation wizard, at the bottom there is a system tools / recovery link, most people never notice this link. If you click it, it takes you to system tools, such as memory diagnostics, and command prompt. Launch command prompt. Use the command DISKPART to create your primary partition. You can do that by running DISKPART, then LIST DISK to get a list of drives in your system, type SELECT DISK #, replace number with the drive you want to create a partition on, then type CREATE PARTITION PRIMARY, this will make the partition the whole size of the drive, or HELP CREATE PARTITION PRIMARY for more options you can use. After this you need to assign a drive letter, after selecting the disk, do a list partition to get the partition number then SELECT PARTITION #, after that type ASSIGN LETTER=C to set it to the C: drive for windows. Now we have a partition manually set up, format it! Exit out of diskpart by typing exit. After this type FORMAT C: /FS:NTFS /V:VolumeLableHere /A:512 this will format the c: drive in NTFS with the specified volume label and the 512byte allocation unit size. Now you can exit out of command prompt, you should reboot the computer, as reboot and shutdown are the two options in recovery mode in Vista setup, then proceed to setup the system like normal, be sure not to format or create new partitions in the setup screen for selecting a hard drive to install to! This will erase your 512byte allocation unit you just setup ower Usage Comparision<disk and click next. This should help improve the speed of the drive and use it to its max potential.

Power Usage Comparision

I used a small device called a ?Kill-A-Watt? to compare the power usage of the system running in RAID0 mode with two 7200K RPM hard drives versus the same system running with 2 Patriot memory drives in RAID0. To max out the power usage, I did a full disk wipe (DoD standard) for one hour 4 times each setup then figured out the power consumption averaged. The RAID0 7.2K RPM system used ~49 watts more energy in the time then the Patriot Memory SSD drive setup!. The total power consumption of the system running with SSD was 112 Watts, while when running with standard hard drives in RAID it was almost 167 watts. This was with the drives working at max capacity. There is defiantly a power advantage to SSD, as the drives consume as little as one watt of power per drive on max load. The Patriot memory drive however does not havether drive Information<t as already low power. You cannot shut off the drives completely unless a full system power down occurs.

Other drive Information

Some other things that the drives do not support, Power Management, Acoustic Management (of course), NCQ (Native Command Queuing), they are not firmware upgradable, they do not support HPA?s (Host protected areas) and do not have a write cache. Write cache would be nice because when the drives are under high load, the system does see performance drops. This is something that can be mitigated in standard hard drives with larger write caches onboard. Write caches are usually RAM and much faster than the flash memory or rotational media. In my opinion, SSD makers need to add at least 8MB of roblems Noticed<memory to the device to remove some of the bottle necks that are caused by read and writes while using the system.

Problems Noticed

As I just mentioned in the other information section, there are problems you notice with SSD drives. One of the largest ones is when you are writing to the drives, it can cause system locks for a second or two if the system simultaneously tries to read. This is something that is mitigated by write caches on rotational media, but on current generation SSD drives there is usually no high speed write cache to save money. I have noticed that when installing applications, the time it takes grew about 35% on average. Windows Vista x64 which took about 30 minutes to go from install to first launch desktop on a rotational media RAID0 setup, now took 43 minutes. However, after the installation things did run faster eat and Sound generated vs. standard drives< is significantly larger then x86 versions of vista which install in about 19 minutes)

Heat and Sound generated vs. standard drives

These drives seem to generate virtually no heat. My standard rotational media drives generate a good amount of heat during heavy usage; I have noticed almost no increase in heat from the SSD drives. They after 5 hours of usage, feel cool to the touch.

Sound wise, it feels odd not hearing your computer doing things. It sometimes feels like the system is stopped because of the lack of noise from the SSD. There is no noise at all from the Patriot Media v2 SSD he big issue with some, defragmentation< who love silent systems. If you want rid of noise, I would highly recommend these drives.

The big issue with some, defragmentation

People like to tell you ?do not defragment a SSD drive, in fact disable automatic defrag?, I think this is incorrect. Even with the higher access times, having to read random locations on the media still slows down the drive?s performance. I ran tests on a new vista install and saw that a fragmented SSD drive showed similar slowdowns as you would get on a standard hard drive. The decrease in performance of course is not as great as a standard hard drive, but it still slows down. Upon defragmenting the drives, there was a large improvement in performance. One test I did was to backup 39 GB of information using Acronis TrueImage 11 Home edition. The SSD drive fragmented severely took 28 minutes to back up with maximum compression. The same drive defragmented (using Disonclusion<ssional) only took 19 minutes to backup completely. Both backups where done to external media that can write at about 30MB/ps.

Conclusion

If I was to pick between Standard rotational media and SSD drives from Patriot Media, I?d have a hard choice, the speed is great with SSD, but the lack of write cache causing random slowdowns in the system go get annoying fast. All other factors included I would say the SSD is the way of the future, and hopefully Patriot memory and other SSD creators can improve and fix some of the current issues. I would rate the Patriot Media 64GB SSD v2 an 8.5 out of a possible 10.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/680212-patriot-ssd-64gb-review/
Share on other sites

If anyone wonders why I tested two 80GB Hard drives, instead of something newer and larger, I was trying to keep the drives as similar as possible and 80GB was the closest I had to 64GB laying around

Very nice review! :)

Just out of curiosity for people who own or know about SSD's, are their models out there with the 'Cache memory' which neufuse advises his drives have? Or are they all the same? As in, no/low high speed cache?

Nice review, I'm impressed :) As for fragmentation, I think we need the OS and SSD to work together to eliminate it and add other features. I heard that there was a problem where access would slow down around boundaries of banks of memory on the SSD. As far as I can see, this could be eliminated by running a staggered RAID 0 array where one RAID SSD had a starting point of the centerpoint between the start and the next boundary.

? Sequential Reading ? 157.0 MB/ps

? Sequential Writing ? 68.20 MB/ps

? Random 512KB Reading ? 137.90 MB/ps

? Random 512KB Writing ? 35.90 MB/ps

? Random 4KB Reading - 14.71 MB/ps

? Random 4KB Writing ? 1.81 MB/ps

? Average Access time 0.2 ms (barely one fifth of a millisecond!)

??Forth Test ? Two SSD?s in RAID0t ? Two SSD?s in RAID0

This was the same test as the hard drives in RAID0 test. This test was also run with an Intel MATRIX RAID controller with a 128KB strip in RAID0. The volume was formatted with 512 byte allocation units as per the drive?s storage specifications.

? Sequential Reading ? 244.9 MB/ps

? Sequential Writing ? 140.1 MB/ps

? Random 512KB Reading ? 225.5 MB/ps

? Random 512KB Writing ? 76.23 MB/ps

? Random 4KB Reading - 16.26 MB/ps

? Random 4KB Writing ? 2.262 MB/ps

? Average Access time - 0.2 ms

? Burst Rate 134.7 MB/ps

Absolute ownage. I need to get my hands on one of these SSDs ASAP. Surely beats using an 30GB iPod Video (Black/5G) as an external HDD.

I would rate the Patriot Media 64GB SSD v2 an 8.5 out of a possible 10.

I'd rate it a 9/10. The tests was amazingly good; I rate your experiment a 10/10. Great job.

Absolute ownage. I need to get my hands on one of these SSDs ASAP. Surely beats using an 30GB iPod Video (Black/5G) as an external HDD.

I'd rate it a 9/10. The tests was amazingly good; I rate your experiment a 10/10. Great job.

While 9/10 would be a nice score, the slow down issue would do my head in badly to be honest.. :/

While 9/10 would be a nice score, the slow down issue would do my head in badly to be honest.. :/

Point taken, but that would just require a routinely scheduled defragmentation which I do once every two weeks. It wouldn't be a huge problem. Defragmentation is necessary for all HDD, including SSD.

Point taken, but that would just require a routinely scheduled defragmentation which I do once every two weeks. It wouldn't be a huge problem. Defragmentation is necessary for all HDD, including SSD.
Problems Noticed

As I just mentioned in the other information section, there are problems you notice with SSD drives. One of the largest ones is when you are writing to the drives, it can cause system locks for a second or two if the system simultaneously tries to read. This is something that is mitigated by write caches on rotational media, but on current generation SSD drives there is usually no high speed write cache to save money. I have noticed that when installing applications, the time it takes grew about 35% on average. Windows Vista x64 which took about 30 minutes to go from install to first launch desktop on a rotational media RAID0 setup, now took 43 minutes. However, after the installation things did run faster in terms of launch times. (This is Vista x64, which is significantly larger then x86 versions of vista which install in about 19 minutes)

I was more on about this point which I've bolded. I don't know very much about SSD's or if it's just a problem with the low-end SSD's compared to the high-end expensive ones.

I was more on about this point which I've bolded. I don't know very much about SSD's or if it's just a problem with the low-end SSD's compared to the high-end expensive ones.

Just to point one thing out, I only noticed pauses as long as a second or two when installing software, windows unrelated to the installation would just pause or go to "Not Responding" when interacting with them.. during normal usage this isn't as noticable

Just to point one thing out, I only noticed pauses as long as a second or two when installing software, windows unrelated to the installation would just pause or go to "Not Responding" when interacting with them.. during normal usage this isn't as noticable

Umm, I think I would need to personally use them to make my mind up to be honest. Though, the whole idea of SSD is brilliant, I don't know if I should wait another year or 2 so the prices can come down. Imagine 4 of these in RAID-0? Or 8 of them doing RAID-0+1 or RAID-5? LoL

Umm, I think I would need to personally use them to make my mind up to be honest. Though, the whole idea of SSD is brilliant, I don't know if I should wait another year or 2 so the prices can come down. Imagine 4 of these in RAID-0? Or 8 of them doing RAID-0+1 or RAID-5? LoL

I actually have my hands on 8 of them right now, and we've been testing them in RAID 1+0, and well, let's just say, it puts our SAN to shame... *LOL* we were getting read speeds as fast as 500 MB/ps but this is on a high end RAID controller with 512MB cache and battery backup, in those tests... thought the people here would be more interested in desktop tests :)

Which I think I should of added to my review.. the fact you can buy dedicated RAID controllers with dedicated RAM for write caching... even with one drive you can still take advantage of this! You can get them as cheap as $99 for one with 128MB of write cache RAM, no batter backup though... good ones will cost you $$$ though

The cheap Intel MATRIX RAID controllers don't have dedicated write cache memory... they are designed for home use only, we solved our speed problem by using a dedicated $99 RAID controller card

Edited by neufuse
I actually have my hands on 8 of them right now, and we've been testing them in RAID 1+0, and well, let's just say, it puts our SAN to shame... *LOL* we were getting read speeds as fast as 500 MB/ps but this is on a high end RAID controller with 512MB cache and battery backup, in those tests... thought the people here would be more interested in desktop tests :)

Which I think I should of added to my review.. the fact you can buy dedicated RAID controllers with dedicated RAM for write caching... even with one drive you can still take advantage of this! You can get them as cheap as $99 for one with 128MB of write cache RAM, no batter backup though... good ones will cost you $$$ though

The cheap Intel MATRIX RAID controllers don't have dedicated write cache memory... they are designed for home use only, we solved our speed problem by using a dedicated $99 RAID controller card

Would be nice to see some real world examples of the speed, like Application installation and so on! :)

Would be nice to see some real world examples of the speed, like Application installation and so on! :)

I wish I had some more time to do some home use examples, but at work we are testing it with SQLIO (the Microsoft SQL Server I/O Simulator) and it gives a relatively good improvement on our SQL Server performance in the test environment... but this is in the 8 SSD drive RAID 1+0 array, our standard SQL Server array is 14 drives in 1+0 with hot spares of course... so 8 SSD disks are keeping up and out performing 12 RAID 1+0 drives (2 hot spares) but this is of course with a high performance RAID controller... I wish I had Office Bench or some other benchmarking software around to do some real software tests!

Nice review, I'm impressed :) As for fragmentation, I think we need the OS and SSD to work together to eliminate it and add other features.

Apparently the main problem with fragmentation and SSDs is free space fragmentation that causes slower writes. According to teh Google, Diskeeper and Apacer are currently collaborating to optimize SSD performance. It's not entirely clear how the Hyperfast optimization software works (probably proprietary info) but the numbers in the whitepaper seem to indicate that the performance difference is significant. :huh:

http://downloads.diskeeper.com/pdf/HyperFast.pdf

Apparently the main problem with fragmentation and SSDs is free space fragmentation that causes slower writes. According to teh Google, Diskeeper and Apacer are currently collaborating to optimize SSD performance. It's not entirely clear how the Hyperfast optimization software works (probably proprietary info) but the numbers in the whitepaper seem to indicate that the performance difference is significant. :huh:

http://downloads.diskeeper.com/pdf/HyperFast.pdf

That's exactly what I was seeing, fragmented SSD's slow down write speeds, and have some impact on read speeds also... yet most people that haven't tried it will tell you "you should never need to defrag a SSD" I know I've heard that before, even from experts in the field... yet, in pratice, it just doesnt work... the "access time" being so fast was theoretically supose to compensate for fragmentation, but you still have to jump all over to get to it, just in a different way now (no head move and rotational delays)... in the end, defraging the drive in my tests at least showed a significant improvement in read and write speeds

That's exactly what I was seeing, fragmented SSD's slow down write speeds, and have some impact on read speeds also... yet most people that haven't tried it will tell you "you should never need to defrag a SSD" I know I've heard that before, even from experts in the field... yet, in pratice, it just doesnt work... the "access time" being so fast was theoretically supose to compensate for fragmentation, but you still have to jump all over to get to it, just in a different way now (no head move and rotational delays)... in the end, defraging the drive in my tests at least showed a significant improvement in read and write speeds

gotta agree

but you wouldnt need to defrag it as much as as a HDD ,not the current gen of SSDs at least

gotta agree

but you wouldnt need to defrag it as much as as a HDD ,not the current gen of SSDs at least

Yep, I agreee, you dont need to defragment as much, but still a full defrag every month or so would probably help, or have diskeeper do its thing as it sees fit

Good review!

But regarding the defragmentation issue, Technically, any time you need to jump around and try to read/write data in multiple pieces, despite the type of medium used, there's going to be a slowdown. Heck, that's why there're even RAM defragmenters! I just don't think any manufacturer has officially stated that you don't need to defragment SSD drives. They simply suggest users not to defragment these SSD drives because these are MLC-based flash memory devices which have very limited write cycles (as low as 10,000). Therefore, excessive writing processes will kill the drives faster! SLC-based flash drives don't have this downside as they are as durable as normal HDD's (1+ million write cycles).

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • GitHub removes manual model selection from Copilot free and student plans by Karthik Mudaliar GitHub is removing the ability to manually select an AI model from its Copilot Free and Student plans, making its automatic routing system the default and only way to choose a model. This means users on these tiers will no longer be able to deliberately select a particular OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or Microsoft model for a task. In its announcement, GitHub said Copilot Auto will dynamically choose what it considers the best model for each request. Free and Student accounts will retain access to models from multiple families, although the available selection will continue to depend on the restrictions attached to each plan. GitHub did not identify a fixed pool of models that Auto will always use, and its documentation warns that model availability can change over time. GitHub describes Auto as more than a random fallback system. On supported surfaces, its task-optimization technology evaluates the complexity of a request alongside real-time information about model health and availability. Straightforward prompts can be routed to faster and less expensive models, while more demanding coding tasks may be sent to higher-cost reasoning models. The company says this approach should reduce rate limiting, latency, and failed requests. Auto generally selects one model along natural prompt-caching boundaries rather than repeatedly switching models during a session, as GitHub found that mid-session changes increased costs without producing sufficient improvements in output quality. Users can still check which model generated a response. In Copilot Chat, the information appears when hovering over an answer, while Copilot CLI and the Copilot cloud agent display the selected model alongside their output. Auto is available in Copilot Chat, Copilot CLI, and the cloud agent, with the exact implementation and release status varying between supported development environments. The latest restriction follows several months of adjustments to Copilot’s individual plans. GitHub temporarily halted new Pro, Pro+, and Student subscriptions in April as it sought to manage demand and service reliability. It later introduced token-based billing and began gradually reopening individual-plan registrations on June 17. Alongside the picker change, GitHub is retiring the “Preview” label from Microsoft-developed models. It argues that the label is no longer necessary because Auto handles model routing and models are continuously updated behind the scenes.
    • Look up 'inflation' kid. Ask an AI for the numbers between both games.
    • Google reportedly set to lose two key Gemini and DeepMind researchers to Anthropic by Karthik Mudaliar Google is reportedly preparing to lose two more prominent artificial intelligence researchers, with Gemini contributors Jonas Adler and Alexander Pritzel planning to join rival AI developer Anthropic. According to a report from Bloomberg, both researchers are viewed internally as important contributors to Google’s flagship Gemini model family. Adler worked on Google’s AI coding efforts, while Pritzel was involved in the process used to train AI systems. Neither company has publicly confirmed the moves. The report also does not say when the researchers will formally leave Google or what positions they will hold at Anthropic. Training a large AI model requires decisions covering its architecture, data preparation, distributed computing infrastructure, and post-training methods that shape how the finished system behaves. Researchers with experience operating at the scale of Gemini are consequently difficult to replace quickly. Both Adler and Pritzel have previously contributed to Google DeepMind’s scientific research as well. They are listed among the authors of the company’s work on expanding AlphaFold protein-structure predictions across entire proteomes, alongside AlphaFold researchers including John Jumper. The reported departures arrive shortly after another important change within Google’s Gemini organization. Gemini co-lead Noam Shazeer is leaving Google for OpenAI, after returning to the search company in 2024 through its deal with Character.AI. Shazeer is particularly well known as one of the authors of the Transformer paper, whose architecture became the foundation for most modern large language models. Anthropic, meanwhile, has been recruiting recognizable figures from other leading laboratories. OpenAI co-founder and former Tesla AI director Andrej Karpathy joined Anthropic’s pre-training team in May. His move, followed by the reported recruitment of several Google researchers, suggests Anthropic is strengthening the research teams responsible for the core capabilities of future Claude models rather than concentrating solely on product and enterprise sales. The competition is complicated by the companies’ extensive commercial relationships. Anthropic competes directly with Google’s Gemini models, but it also relies on Google as an infrastructure partner. In April, Anthropic announced an expanded agreement with Google and Broadcom covering multiple gigawatts of next-generation Tensor Processing Unit capacity. TPUs are Google-designed accelerators used to train and run large AI models. via Bloomberg
    • This article makes my head hurt. Lots of confusing words
    • Google adds built-in computer control to Gemini 3.5 flash by Karthik Mudaliar Google has added Computer Use as a built-in tool in Gemini 3.5 Flash, giving developers a single model that can reason about a task and operate graphical interfaces across browsers, mobile devices, and desktop environments. The feature is available through the Gemini API and Google’s Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, although it remains a preview feature for now. Computer Use enables an AI agent to examine screenshots and return actions such as mouse clicks, scrolling, and keyboard input. A developer’s application must execute those actions, capture the resulting screen, and send it back to Gemini, creating a continuous loop until the task is completed. Google says the integration can be used for activities including repetitive form filling, application testing, research across multiple websites, and longer enterprise workflows. Gemini 3.5 Flash can work with browser, mobile, and desktop environments, whereas Google’s earlier standalone Computer Use model was primarily positioned around browser interaction. The main change is consolidation. Computer control was previously offered through the separate Gemini 2.5 Computer Use preview model. As Neowin reported when that model was introduced, it was designed to interpret a visual interface and generate actions without requiring a website-specific API. Google later brought Computer Use to preview versions of Gemini 3 Pro and Gemini 3 Flash in January 2026. The latest release now incorporates the tool into the stable Gemini 3.5 Flash model rather than requiring developers to select a specialized model solely for interface automation. Gemini 3.5 Flash itself was announced in May as Google’s latest fast model for coding and multi-step agent workflows. It supports a one-million-token input context window and up to 65,000 output tokens, along with adjustable thinking levels that let developers trade additional reasoning for lower latency and cost. Google also added that Gemini 3.5 Flash received targeted adversarial training for computer-use scenarios. The company is also offering safeguards that can require user confirmation before sensitive or irreversible actions and automatically stop a workflow when suspected prompt injection is detected. Its developer documentation describes configurable protections for areas such as financial transactions and changes to sensitive records. Google isn't the first to bring Computer Use to its platform. Anthropic has made computer control available through Claude, while OpenAI has continued improving computer-use performance in its recent models. Microsoft has also applied the concept to business workflows, including a Computer Use capability for the Researcher agent in Microsoft 365 Copilot.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
    • One Year In
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      463
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!