PDA

View Full Version : What a solid state hard drive won't necessarily give you.



mortoma
12-28-2010, 07:30 PM
About two weeks ago I got an Intel X25-M 160Gb solid-state hard drive for my laptop. I'd like to lay to rest some popular misconceptions, as I have had it long enough to give it a review.

Myth#1. Solid-state hard drives will give you more battery life. Maybe! Fact is it might give you more battery life. But only might. For me it did not give me any noticeable gain in battery life at all! I didn't get for that reason though. In my case, I use my laptop almost exclusively for surfing the internet and since doing so is not hard drive intensive, there's absolutely no gain in my battery life. Now if I used my lappie to watch movies that are a file of some sort on my hard drive ( not on a DVD ) then it would significantly do better than a electromechanical hard drive. I didn't get my old hard drive platters to spin much so the fact that this thing doesn't spin at all, helps me not at all.

#2. Everything will be faster with a SSD. Fact, it won't be faster at everything. Even my boot up is not a huge bunch faster. It is faster up until Windows comes up ( icons and the rest appear ) but then the internet becoming available is no faster. Since the important thing ( for me ) is getting on the internet, I'm a little disappointed in this regard. Apparently, since my virus scanner hogs up so much bandwidth when my wireless network adapter initializes, it still takes forever before I'm actually able to bring up my browser and start surfing. There are also a few Windows programs that hog up the network along with my piggy virus scanner too. Most of them services I'd be ill-advised to turn off.

#3. SSDs don't run a temperature. Not true! In my testing my new SSD hard drive gets pretty toasty after a few hours work.
Mine gets almost hot. There are still electrons flowing through them so like anything electronic, they will get warm.

My verdict is still that it was worth it to me to get this SSD. Overall I'm still faster and I really don't need to use my battery packs much anyway.

M_Gunz
12-28-2010, 07:36 PM
This is like complaining that your new electric car that you don't drive past the corner isn't saving you much gas compared to your old car that you didn't drive past the corner. Etc.

How much did you spend to find that out?

Charms or Tootsieroll Pop or just the plain old kind, perhaps lime flavor?

But the big question: why the confession?

VW-IceFire
12-28-2010, 07:59 PM
Hrmm interesting experience. I recently put in a Mushkin Callisto 60GB, reinstalled Win7 64bit on it and now my start up time is about 22 seconds and that is all up and online and ready to go. This is a desktop system so it's a slightly different story than a laptop. The time taken to initialize the wireless doesn't have much to do with the hard drive so I'm not too surprised that it didn't help.

I would think that the battery life would be improved but as you say, your usage pattern doesn't really help you out too much here.

I guess the biggest thing I'm surprised at is that you didn't have a huge increase in Windows start times. Mine starts in a snap and I can open all of Office 2010 in under a second. More usefully I can open whatever document I want to work on in no time at all and get to working rather than waiting.

What anti-virus are you using? I switched to Microsoft Security Essentials about 6 months ago and it's been great. Not bloated yet. AVG had become bloated a bit so I wanted to try something else.

mortoma
12-28-2010, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
This is like complaining that your new electric car that you don't drive past the corner isn't saving you much gas compared to your old car that you didn't drive past the corner. Etc.

How much did you spend to find that out?

Charms or Tootsieroll Pop or just the plain old kind, perhaps lime flavor?

But the big question: why the confession? What's your problem dude? And how much I spent is of little consequence because I don't flip burgers for a living like you probably do. I can actually afford things.

And if reading comprehension was your thing you'd also see that there is no complaining in my post and very little surprise. And perhaps with the reading comprehension lesson we could throw in one in civility and maturity.

Really, why the not so subtle attack? If we had some order in here in this forum flamers would be banned for a week or two. Look at Icefire's nice response, he didn't attack me.

mortoma
12-28-2010, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Hrmm interesting experience. I recently put in a Mushkin Callisto 60GB, reinstalled Win7 64bit on it and now my start up time is about 22 seconds and that is all up and online and ready to go. This is a desktop system so it's a slightly different story than a laptop. The time taken to initialize the wireless doesn't have much to do with the hard drive so I'm not too surprised that it didn't help.

I would think that the battery life would be improved but as you say, your usage pattern doesn't really help you out too much here.

I guess the biggest thing I'm surprised at is that you didn't have a huge increase in Windows start times. Mine starts in a snap and I can open all of Office 2010 in under a second. More usefully I can open whatever document I want to work on in no time at all and get to working rather than waiting.

What anti-virus are you using? I switched to Microsoft Security Essentials about 6 months ago and it's been great. Not bloated yet. AVG had become bloated a bit so I wanted to try something else. My anti-virus is F-Secure, it's a good one but it wants to take over your PC apparently. I'm paid up on it until
next August so I'll stick with for a while. It's a resource hog at power up.

Friendly_flyer
12-29-2010, 04:32 AM
I dumped my F-secure for exactly the same reasons you cite. I now use ESET, and it has shortened the loading time considerably. I pay a modest yearly fee, and just to be free of Norton and F-secure is worth the price allone!

Airmail109
12-29-2010, 07:31 AM
So is there any reason to upgrade to one of these from my nice cool running fast and reliable velociraptor HD?

K_Freddie
12-29-2010, 10:59 AM
If I'm not mistaken about the SS disk technology = FlashRam.. you not going to see much of a speed improvement, and I'll go to say that some legacy HDisks are faster than SSDisks.
The amount of disk usage windoze uses is outrageous, so power requirements are going to be high.

Errr.. I haven't used an AntiVirus for years... never had a bot or a virus - I'm just tooo smart http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

M_Gunz
12-29-2010, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by mortoma:
Really, why the not so subtle attack?

LOL! ROFL! LMFAO!

Urufu_Shinjiro
12-29-2010, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
If I'm not mistaken about the SS disk technology = FlashRam.. you not going to see much of a speed improvement, and I'll go to say that some legacy HDisks are faster than SSDisks.
The amount of disk usage windoze uses is outrageous, so power requirements are going to be high.

Errr.. I haven't used an AntiVirus for years... never had a bot or a virus - I'm just tooo smart http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Actually, you're slightly mistaken. SSD uses NAND flash, even the slower models of SSD are a good bit faster than the average 7200rpm HDD. Now the Velociraptors and some SCSI/SAS drives are faster than the slower SSDs but a fast SSD like the OCZ Vertex2 simply cannot be beat by a single HDD. Power usage is generally lower for SSD than HDD. The only places where HDD beats SSD on average is capacity and price per gigabyte, both of which have and will improve over time.

Urufu_Shinjiro
12-29-2010, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
Really, why the not so subtle attack?

LOL! ROFL! LMFAO! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gunz, knock it off, seriously...

M_Gunz
12-29-2010, 07:36 PM
Look, he pretty well deconstructed himself and I was just laughing at that.

PanzerAce
12-30-2010, 02:28 AM
The things about SSDs is that for most people, it isn't the HDD that's slowing their computer down in the first place. It's an old CPU, insufficient RAM, or something of that nature. Computers like that are going to see little to no improvement after replacing the HDD with and SSD. Now, if you're building a system for pure speed, with top of the line components, THEN you'll notice a HDD vs. SSD difference.

Pirschjaeger
12-30-2010, 08:06 PM
Mort, when I read your first post, regarding the speed, the first thing that came to mind was software and the second was ram.

I'd like to see how SSD + plenty of ram + Puppy Linux work together. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Just to give you an idea of what software can do........

I had 1946 running on XP and start up took about 60 secs and loading a game took about the same time. On the same rig I installed Ubuntu and then 1946. Start-up was 4-5 seconds and loading a game was about 2 seconds.

I'm guessing your anti-virus is hogging your rig.

Choctaw111
12-31-2010, 10:19 AM
The question I really have is in regard to any increased performance when accessing and loading new data into RAM in the middle of a task.
Say, for instance, when playing a game(Oblivion was notorious for this), you would wander about the game world and a new area needs to load.
Will the Solid State drive create stutters that a regular HDD would?

Urufu_Shinjiro
12-31-2010, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Choctaw111:
The question I really have is in regard to any increased performance when accessing and loading new data into RAM in the middle of a task.
Say, for instance, when playing a game(Oblivion was notorious for this), you would wander about the game world and a new area needs to load.
Will the Solid State drive create stutters that a regular HDD would?

This is one are where SSD WILL improve game performance, SSD has much faster read speeds than HD and a seek time so low for all intents and purposes it's 0. HDD's in that situation would need to spin up if they had not already, then the read/write head would need to seek for the data (more if you haven't defragged lately), then proceed to read it to the system. Whereas an SSD, read it to the system, and quickly.

iroseland01
01-04-2011, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Choctaw111:
The question I really have is in regard to any increased performance when accessing and loading new data into RAM in the middle of a task.
Say, for instance, when playing a game(Oblivion was notorious for this), you would wander about the game world and a new area needs to load.
Will the Solid State drive create stutters that a regular HDD would?

This is one are where SSD WILL improve game performance, SSD has much faster read speeds than HD and a seek time so low for all intents and purposes it's 0. HDD's in that situation would need to spin up if they had not already, then the read/write head would need to seek for the data (more if you haven't defragged lately), then proceed to read it to the system. Whereas an SSD, read it to the system, and quickly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes.. read times with DDS are king. At work we just rebuild our content management system with the METADATA on SSD. There is a log of metadata 100+gigs worth. Searching it before was a mess of slow. Now, what used to take several minutes takes several seconds.

Wanna see real fast? Stripe a couple of ssd's across a decent raid controller.

kimosabi79
01-04-2011, 02:02 PM
About the internet load times, Mortoma, what browser are you using and what's your connection speed?