difference between velociraptor & Intel X25-M 80GB

[hclarkjr]

i am seriously considering getting this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820167023 to use as my boot drive to replace my velociraptor but seen this review on newegg - " Pros: Everything as advertised.

Cons: I little tough to use as primary boot disk for Win 7. Took me 2 tries to get it right.

Other Thoughts: I got this thinking that it would be crazy fast. However I was using a 150GB VelociRaptor (10000rmp 6BG/sec), upgrading to this SSD really hasn't been very noticeable in everyday usage.

I expected near instantaneous load times in games, but it actually doesn't seem much faster (if at all than when I used the VelociRaptor). " any others here who made the same switch?

 

[Voo]

You won't notice a lot of speedup at game loads, because the majority of reads and writes there are sequential and not random. Ergo the difference between a raptor, ssd or even a normal 7.2k rpm drive will be rather small there.
As a matter of fact chances are good that the raptor would be slower than a 500gb platter drive. The SSD will no doubt be faster than the alternatives, but the Intel even has low sequential writes which will cost a bit. All in all not much difference.

Nothing new.. though I've got no idea how installing a SSD should be any harder than a normal HDD. Using AHCI is also a good idea for HDDs, so it's exactly the same.

 

[coolVariable]

At this point you should also get one of those indilix drives (better than the intel, better support, etc.)

 

[hclarkjr]

At this point you should also get one of those indilix drives (better than the intel, better support, etc.)

would this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227461 be one of those drives you refer too?

 

[VirtualLarry]

i am seriously considering getting this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820167023 to use as my boot drive to replace my velociraptor but seen this review on newegg - " Pros: Everything as advertised.

$224.99 for the 80GB. How does that price compare to recent history? Is that a "buy" price, or a "wait" price for these things? I haven't been following too closely.

I got slightly burned on a Kingston 40GB G2 Intel drive, because they never released the TRIM firmware. (Yes, I know about the hack.)

That's still sitting in the box, but I paid $90 + tax for it from buy.com.

So that Intel 80GB seems slightly expensive by comparison, although the 80GB would have double the sequential read/write, since it has 10 NAND flash chips instead of five.

 

[jiffylube1024]

You won't notice a lot of speedup at game loads, because the majority of reads and writes there are sequential and not random. Ergo the difference between a raptor, ssd or even a normal 7.2k rpm drive will be rather small there.
As a matter of fact chances are good that the raptor would be slower than a 500gb platter drive. The SSD will no doubt be faster than the alternatives, but the Intel even has low sequential writes which will cost a bit. All in all not much difference.

Nothing new.. though I've got no idea how installing a SSD should be any harder than a normal HDD. Using AHCI is also a good idea for HDDs, so it's exactly the same.

A Velociraptor will definitely not be slower than a 500GB platter drive. Compared to the brand new WD Caviar Black 1TB (WD1002FAEX) the original Velociraptor is neck and neck with the Cav. Black, and a good 30% faster on random 4K reads/writes:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3636/...ociraptor-vr200m-10k-rpm-at-450gb-and-600gb/6

With that said, a Velociraptor is quite close in performance to a new 500GB 7.2K rpm drive. The Raptor will be a bit faster as a boot drive because of the reduced seek times of a 10,000rpm spindle speed but otherwise will be quite similar in performance in desktop use.

The various Indilinx-based drives (OCZ Vertex, Agility, etc.) are better at this point.
You will also get better support from the company vs. intel.

Only some specific server centered uses might benefit from the intel's higher theoretical I/O.

Or things like, you know, booting your computer, launching several programs, multitasking, etc.

The Indilinx drives are competitive with the Intel X25-M series, but the Intel drive is definitely faster.

I own both a new 60GB Agility drive (one with the faster 34nm Intel chips) and an 80GB X25-M and the Intel drive is faster in theory and in practise.
-----------

Random read and write speeds are what ultimately matter for an SSD to perform and feel faster as a boot drive, and the Intel's are about 3-4x faster. Anand has the best review on this IMO:

http://anandtech.com/show/2829/22

A red herring that fools SSD buyers time and time again is the X25-M's slow ~70MB/s write speed, compared to ~130MB/s on the Vertex/Agility series. How often are you writing massive gigabyte+ sized files to your SSD, which is probably a boot drive?

The main thing an SSD gets used for is reading small files (booting windows, launching programs, multitasking, etc.) and occasionally reading large files (games with very large textures, etc.).

And when you do need that quick read speed, the Intel still wins, the X25-M has a sequential read speed of ~260MB/s for the 160GB version, and ~200MB/s for the 80GB version; the 120GB Agility/Vertex reads sequentially at ~240MB/s and the 60GB Agility/Vertex is around 170MB/s.

 

[Voo]

A Velociraptor will definitely not be slower than a 500GB platter drive. Compared to the brand new WD Caviar Black 1TB (WD1002FAEX) the original Velociraptor is neck and neck with the Cav. Black, and a good 30% faster on random 4K reads/writes:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3636/...ociraptor-vr200m-10k-rpm-at-450gb-and-600gb/6

You see that I said that modern drives will have better SEQUENTIAL reads/writes and that those matter most for game loads, do you? And we can easily prove it with that nice review you've linked.

Sequential read:
Barracuda XT 2TB: 137.MB/s
300gb Raptor: 120.7MB/s

Sequential write:
Barracuda XT 2TB: 132.8MB/s
300gb Raptor: 119.7MB/s

And if we're already using synthetic benchmarks, then I think we should stick to the AT gaming bench, since that's exactly what we're talking about:
Intel G2 80gb: 315 IOPS
Barracuda XT 2TB: 139 IOPS
300gb Raptor: 118 IOPS


I'm not sure where you get your absolute certainity that one of the older raptors won't be slower for loading games than a new 500gb platter drive, but it sure isn't that AT review

Is it faster for random read/write? Sure. Is it better as a boot drive? No question (if we're comparing to 7.2k rpm drives that is). Is it better for large sequential reads/writes that are important for most game loads? Nope.
On that matter everything where a raptor is better than a 7.2k rpm drive, the SSD outclasses it. But if you're mostly interested in sequential r/w than the differences between a SSD and a HDD won't be that noticable like other characteristics and a 7.2k rpm drive will be at least as good but probably better than a raptor.


PS: You know why Anand stopped comparing real world application starts? Because the difference between the drives was too small. You can always find benchmarks to show the differences between the drives, but normal usage scenarios won't show much of a difference

 

[coolVariable]

would this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227461 be one of those drives you refer too?

I believe it is:
Crucial > Vertex > Agility

 

[Compddd]

I was going to make the same post as this haha

I just switched from a 300GB Velociraptor to a Intel 160GB G2

I guess I was expecting a lot more. I don't notice any difference at all really. The only upside is that the SSD makes no noise at all.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

If I hear ringing it my ear, I now know it isn't my old Vraptor.

I picked up a Sandforce 1500 controlled OCZ Vertex 100g LE and while I am on a new OS install (Win7) I do notice two things.
1.) Upon the first time I open my mail client, it opens and is loaded faster than on my Vista machine with the 300g VR
2.) Firefox opens and is loaded-n-ready to go, alot faster.

Boot time is alot faster. From the point after the bios loads, it takes under 10 seconds to be loaded and ready to go. I can time it; brb.

EDIT: ok 10 is a little optimistic; I used my phone stopwatch and it was 15 seconds.

 

[hclarkjr]

damn, i am still torn on if i should get one!! some are saying it is worth it and some are saying it is not. decisions, decisions!!!

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

damn, i am still torn on if i should get one!! some are saying it is worth it and some are saying it is not. decisions, decisions!!!

Which? the Vertex LE? I'd wait on it. This is faster than the other drives like the Intel drives but 400$ is alot. the 369$ deal is over. Although I do hear there is a new firmware coming for the Sandforce 1500 controllers that the OCZ tool-kit will work with

I do love mine though; I want another one!

 

[hclarkjr]

i was refering to the intel 80gb SSD

 

[hclarkjr]

how reliable is this chart http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/hdd_lookup.php?cpu=SAMSUNG+SSD+RBX+Series+128GB+M

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

how reliable is this chart http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/hdd_lookup.php?cpu=SAMSUNG+SSD+RBX+Series+128GB+M

IMO I think PCMark Vantage & Anand's Storage Bench are the results you should focus on. Sequential read and write, from what I gather, apply to only 30% of real world use.

 

[hclarkjr]

thank you for those benchmarks, that makes the intel look better for me. i am looking to spend in the $200 area so that is what i am considering

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

It's a solid drive!

Good Luck

Get it

 

[pcslookout]

I was going to make the same post as this haha

I just switched from a 300GB Velociraptor to a Intel 160GB G2

I guess I was expecting a lot more. I don't notice any difference at all really. The only upside is that the SSD makes no noise at all.

Same here as well. Went from a 150 GB Raptor to a Intel 80GB G2. Was expecting a lot more. Wasn't really wowed by the speed difference. Won't be buying another SSD until one knocks my socks off in speed.

 

[pcslookout]

Which? the Vertex LE? I'd wait on it. This is faster than the other drives like the Intel drives but 400$ is alot. the 369$ deal is over. Although I do hear there is a new firmware coming for the Sandforce 1500 controllers that the OCZ tool-kit will work with

I do love mine though; I want another one!

How fast are these? Will they wow me and knock my socks off with the speed difference?

 

[Voo]

Depends fully on what you're doing. Since you don't really notice the difference between a raptor and a SSD I'd say with your usage no, not really.

The difference between different SSDs (even the new Sandforce ones and old Intels) are much smaller than between SSDs and HDDs..

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

This is my first SSD drive and so I can't give a fair comparison, but I only use it for light desktop stuff. I'd say they are probably the same as the access speed is, what?, .01ms for both? Through-put I'd say the OCZ is faster as shown here & here.

 

[hclarkjr]

just bought the intel x-25 today. finally pulled the trigger!!!

 

[jimhsu]

Any non-JMicron (1st gen) drive is a massive improvement over hard disks for OS loading and application use. Seriously, ANY. Even the stupid 1st gen Samsungs that are no longer on sale. That's how big the 2 order of magnitude difference in latency makes.

Yes, I keep linking people back to this post, but people find it helpful. Basically some games have a massive improvement in SSDs; many others don't.

For some math:

Avg mechanical disk seek = 15ms
Avg SSD read seek = 0.1 ms
HDD sequential read speed = 100MB/s
SSD sequential read speed = 200MB/s
We'll assume 3 bytes/pixel (uncompressed)

Typical wow texture size: 256x256x3 = 196KB
Typical "modern game" texture size: 1024x1024x3 = 3.1MB * 3(diffuse, normals, glow) = 9.4MB. The diffuse, normal map, and glow map are typically contiguous in the packed file, so random access is insignificant here.

An SSD fetches a wow texture in 0.1 + (196KB/200MB/s) = 0.1 + 0.98 = 1.08 ms
A hard disk does it in 15 + (196KB/100MB/s) = 16.96 ms. Notice that even with a huge RAID 0 array you can't get this below 15 ms.

Performance advantage = 15.7x

For the modern game texture, an SSD does it in 9.1MB/200MB/s + 0.1 = 45.6 ms
The hard disk does it in 9.1MB/100MB/s + 15 ms = 106 ms. The SSD lead here is not so impressive anymore. With a 2 disk RAID 0 array, this becomes 60.5 ms. With enough cheap disks, we can easily beat the SSD in cost.

Performance advantage = 2.32x

This all goes back to the latency vs bandwidth argument. Here's a really old but decent review on that:
http://www.stuartcheshire.org/rants/Latency.html

For perspective, accessing data via ethernet on a remote computer with SSD (0.3+0.1 ms) is many times faster than accessing data locally via a standard hard drive.

 

[Glenn]

If you really want to experience the difference between your raptor and your new Intel 80gb G2, do a fresh install with the g2 get everything just the way you like it and use it for 2 weeks. Then clone that setup back to your old raptor and pretend you don't have the g2 anymore! I promise you will feel a significant difference.

I have been buying and selling different flavors of SSD's for the past year and a half and I am currently using my 640Black after selling my last 160 G2. I really want to try one of the new C300s but I'm waiting for a killer deal somewhere.

 

[Old Hippie]

I have been buying and selling different flavors of SSD's for the past year and a half

.

Why and what have you learned?