DDStriker Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 sorta half off topic here but has anyone noticed that warcraft 3 does not seem to benefit at all from a faster drive? i was rather disappointed when i created a 2GB ram disk to hold warcraft 3 and its map just to sit there at the loading bar with no gain in speed was tested on a core i7 920 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pasty2k2 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Well... I've just bought a 128gb Crucial M225 drive for ?200 which isn't that bad... The intel drive was nearly ?150 more and I really didn't see the point considering how fast the tech is moving.I only intend to install Windows on it and keep a few games/apps on it. I'll see about doing a review when I get hold of i:D:D I'll probably raid 1 my main data drives now (500gb) I'd read that review! Will be lookin around for i;);) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrmgic Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 I love my vertex.. those ATTO numbers seem a little low.. I get around 130MB/sec write and a little over 200MB/sec read on my 30GB Vertex. That said, the real world performance is probably on-par.. this is the best upgrade I've ever done to my machine.. It is insanely fast and it is painful to use a hdd-based machine sometimes after being used to the speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orien Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Great review... can't wait to pick up a SSD sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToneKnee Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 @Jdawg683 I'm just wondering if you can update your SSD's firmware to the latest one which was announced over the past couple of days to deal with Garbage data problems? Well... I've just bought a 128gb Crucial M225 drive for ?200 which isn't that bad... The intel drive was nearly ?150 more and I really didn't see the point considering how fast the tech is moving.I only intend to install Windows on it and keep a few games/apps on it. I'll see about doing a review when I get hold of i:D:D I'll probably raid 1 my main data drives now (500gb) Get another hard drive and do RAID-5!:):) More space, more speed more reliability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Isn't another drawback of SSD's the relatively limited amount of read/write cycles before probable failure compared to mechanical hard disks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToneKnee Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Isn't another drawback of SSD's the relatively limited amount of read/write cycles before probable failure compared to mechanical hard disks? We've always been aware of this problem from the start, SLC based SSD's don't have much of a problem, but MLC's will die a lot faster than SLC based ones. But saying that, it would take a few years of writing to the same cells (actual writing to them and not reading them) before this started happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViZioN Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Nice review! I'm definitely looking at picking up an SSD when the prices drop a bit more. Then I can upgrade my rig and get an SSD at the same time. Well... I've just bought a 128gb Crucial M225 drive for ?200 which isn't that bad... The intel drive was nearly ?150 more and I really didn't see the point considering how fast the tech is moving.I only intend to install Windows on it and keep a few games/apps on it. I'll see about doing a review when I get hold of i:D:D I'll probably raid 1 my main data drives now (500gb) Looking forward to the review! I was looking at one of these too, overclockers have the 64GB version for ?102. Found a review of the 256GB version and they seem to rate it pretty highlReview here/b> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 We've always been aware of this problem from the start, SLC based SSD's don't have much of a problem, but MLC's will die a lot faster than SLC based ones. But saying that, it would take a few years of writing to the same cells (actual writing to them and not reading them) before this started happening. What is the difference between SLC and MLC SSD's? don't really know a lot about SSDs to be honest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViZioN Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 What is the difference between SLC and MLC SSD's? don't really know a lot about SSDs to be honest Found this on guru3d: SLC and MLC (single and multi level cells) SLC stores one bit per cell, MLC doubles it. MLC - we see a lot in flash-memories used for example in your digital camera. If we break it down: SLC is faster, and has around 10,000 up-to 1 million write cycles MLC is somewhat slower but cheaper, unfortunately also less reliable (sometimes as few as 10,000 write cycles). And that's where we land at limited write cycles. The reality is that you purchase a SSD drive on borrowed time. By its very nature, flash memory cells can resist only so many write cycles before they are prone to failure. Typically SLC flash storage will wear out after hundreds of thousands of write cycles, while high endurance flash storage is often marketed with an endurance of 1-5 million write cycles. Special file systems or firmware designs mitigate this problem by spreading writes over the entire device (so-called wear leveling), rather than rewriting files in one place. Wear leveling is designed to prevent rewriting the same cell constantly. Pretty much: data is constantly spread out over the entire drive so that all cells will be written equally over time. Wear leveling isn't done in hardware, it is done in firmware on the SSD. It will spread the writes over the whole range of the NAND storage, so you can't really wear out one area while the rest stayed untouched. At this very moment the life-span of a typical SSD drive MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure) is 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 hours, and honestly... that number means just nothing. Fact is, we just do not know how long a drive will last or how long it'll take before it wears out. The limited write cycles is per cell, not per disk, and all controllers have had wear leveling (using different cells) for a few years now. Any 'bad' cell will be mapped out just like a bad block on a hard drive (transparently). MLC lifespan then, how long will it really last? Well, only the future will tell... However, with modern flash technology and error correction, the reliability of the drive in a PC could exceed 10 years with normal usage. This remains a gamble though. Most manufacturers will therefore grant a two year warranty. We would very much like to see a 5 year warranty from manufacturers, there's nothing worse than data-loss. If the industry makes a commitment, we as consumers would certainly feel more confident in purchasing an SSD. More here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjf288 Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Reads are free, writes are not and will eventually wear out the cells... Depending on how effective the wear levelling is and the quality of the controller and memory chips - will dictate the life of the drive. Thats why alot of people go for intels.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjf288 Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 That's what he did.... What's wrong with using a 30Gb SSD as a OS boot drive? Enough space for Windows 7 Ultimate, MS Office and a couple of other software. You still need a HDD for normal data storage. The guy with the 3000MB/sec ramdrive? Sure and pigs fly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Found this on guru3d:[/size][/font] More here That clears it up, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts