G.Skill Titan 256GB SSD

[kY]

Originally posted by: genec57
I moved the Firefox cache to my Data array and the problem has not recurred.

Your non-SSD data array?

 

[genec57]

Yes, Seagate 250s.

 

[louden]

So, now that you've been using it for a few days, can you run benchmarks to see if there's any "steady state" drop off in performance?

I'd like to see some empirical evidence if this is, or is not the case.

Thanks!

 

[genec57]

HD Tach burst =4085.2
Average read = 356.3
More important that the numbers - these scores have not changed since I first ran them.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: taltamir
Not for everyone... intel for example makes their own, and it shows. I remember there being a startup or two who entered the SSD market YEARS ago who ALSO make their own...

There's always the exception to the rule that can be dragged out. Micron and Crucial were no different for DRAM and they will be no different for SSD's.

The flash Intel uses in their SSD's are actually not produced directly by Intel but rather by a company called IM Flash which was jointly formed between Intel and Micron (ergo IM...Flash). Just like with Crucial, it will only be a matter of time before the Intel SSD division is allowed to buy Flash chips from whoever will sell them the cheapest on the open market. If Samsung undercuts IM Flash prices for Intel SSD's there will be no loyalty to IM Flash at some point.

All these joint ventures devolve to this, they have to because Intel management is beholden to Intel shareholders and not IM Flash shareholders. But we are digressing waaaay off-topic here.

I think its unlikely this will happen with IM Flash. They will be the first to 34nm with flash memory and it will have bunch of advantages over other manufacturers which one of them is cost. And being joint venture by Intel, its possible its cheaper for Intel to get.

 

[FireChicken]

Originally posted by: genec57
HD Tach burst =4085.2
Average read = 356.3
More important that the numbers - these scores have not changed since I first ran them.

Are you using dedicated RAID controller or on board controller?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: taltamir
Not for everyone... intel for example makes their own, and it shows. I remember there being a startup or two who entered the SSD market YEARS ago who ALSO make their own...

There's always the exception to the rule that can be dragged out. Micron and Crucial were no different for DRAM and they will be no different for SSD's.

The flash Intel uses in their SSD's are actually not produced directly by Intel but rather by a company called IM Flash which was jointly formed between Intel and Micron (ergo IM...Flash). Just like with Crucial, it will only be a matter of time before the Intel SSD division is allowed to buy Flash chips from whoever will sell them the cheapest on the open market. If Samsung undercuts IM Flash prices for Intel SSD's there will be no loyalty to IM Flash at some point.

All these joint ventures devolve to this, they have to because Intel management is beholden to Intel shareholders and not IM Flash shareholders. But we are digressing waaaay off-topic here.

I think its unlikely this will happen with IM Flash. They will be the first to 34nm with flash memory and it will have bunch of advantages over other manufacturers which one of them is cost. And being joint venture by Intel, its possible its cheaper for Intel to get.

What do you think is unlikely to happen with IM Flash? That Intel will be allowed to buy SSD flash on the open market, be it IM flash chips or someone else's, or that even if/when Intel goes that route then they will still find themselves buying IM Flash chips because those chips will still be superior performance and cost than what ever else is on the open market at the time?

If you mean the latter then I agree, given their current trajectory and starting conditions it seems unlikely that IM Flash will be eclipsed in process tech and performance for at least another 10 yrs (4-5 generations) so Intel will likely always buy those chips despite not being contractually obligated to do so.

 

[genec57]

On bosrd ICH10

 

[DrKlahn]

Just to provide my own experience. I purchased a single Titan 128GB to replace my 74GB Raptor. I disabled indexing, defrag and superfetch. I enabled write caching, moved the paging file and I created the partition using a 128k offset. I have only experienced slight stuttering (less than a second) when performing patches with several tasks running. I haven't done any tweaks to Office or Firefox and haven't had any issues with either. Running multiple Firefox windows with multiple tabs has not caused any stutters or crashes on my setup.

The performance has been very impressive. Games load much faster. Windows loads much faster. My current board is an Abit AB9 (a 965 board) that used the ICH9 chipset. Sandra puts the reads speed at about 162MB/s. HDTune shows reads topping out around 190MB/s which I suspect is a limitation of the chipset.

 

[FireChicken]

Originally posted by: genec57
HD Tach burst =4085.2
Average read = 356.3
More important that the numbers - these scores have not changed since I first ran them.

I am interested in getting these ssd's. Mind running crystalmark Crystal diskbench

Interested to see how this set up handles the random write tests

Thanks

 

[genec57]

Sequential Read = 250.7 Write = 105.6
512k Read = 181.4 Write = 32.4
4k Read = 21.55 Write = 3.503

 

[FireChicken]

Originally posted by: genec57
Sequential Read = 250.7 Write = 105.6
512k Read = 181.4 Write = 32.4
4k Read = 21.55 Write = 3.503

Wow that was fast. Thanks!

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: taltamir
Not for everyone... intel for example makes their own, and it shows. I remember there being a startup or two who entered the SSD market YEARS ago who ALSO make their own...

There's always the exception to the rule that can be dragged out. Micron and Crucial were no different for DRAM and they will be no different for SSD's.

The flash Intel uses in their SSD's are actually not produced directly by Intel but rather by a company called IM Flash which was jointly formed between Intel and Micron (ergo IM...Flash). Just like with Crucial, it will only be a matter of time before the Intel SSD division is allowed to buy Flash chips from whoever will sell them the cheapest on the open market. If Samsung undercuts IM Flash prices for Intel SSD's there will be no loyalty to IM Flash at some point.

All these joint ventures devolve to this, they have to because Intel management is beholden to Intel shareholders and not IM Flash shareholders. But we are digressing waaaay off-topic here.

I think its unlikely this will happen with IM Flash. They will be the first to 34nm with flash memory and it will have bunch of advantages over other manufacturers which one of them is cost. And being joint venture by Intel, its possible its cheaper for Intel to get.

What do you think is unlikely to happen with IM Flash? That Intel will be allowed to buy SSD flash on the open market, be it IM flash chips or someone else's, or that even if/when Intel goes that route then they will still find themselves buying IM Flash chips because those chips will still be superior performance and cost than what ever else is on the open market at the time?

If you mean the latter then I agree, given their current trajectory and starting conditions it seems unlikely that IM Flash will be eclipsed in process tech and performance for at least another 10 yrs (4-5 generations) so Intel will likely always buy those chips despite not being contractually obligated to do so.

intel consistently shows they are the only ones with the willingness to invest large amounts of money in new and specialized equipment which gives them a manufacturing advantage. And that has been their greatest power, making a node upgrade every 2 years, without missing a single upgrade since 1989. It means that they always have a manufacturing advantage, and they are doing the same for IM chips. For intel to be competitive with a manufacturing advantage they need to not be VASTLY inferior in design, if they are merely slightly inferior or even equal in design, their manufacturing advantage puts them on top... And recently intel has been investing a lot in making sure they combine superior design with superior manufacturing. I honestly don't see how anyone can compare.

 

[imported_TimBob]

Well, I had an amazon gift certificate and with the major drop in prices, I decided I wanted to try out the Intel x25-m. Installed Vista Ultimate x64 last night along with all my software/drivers in about an hour. It was nice being able to install multiple apps/windows updates all at the same time without a hitch.

Crystal Disk Mark 100MB
seq 242 read, 77 write
512k 207 read, 76 write
4k 23 read, 58 write

Better in all areas than my Titan except in sequential write. The Titan would get up to 150k there although it wasn't consistent. Other times it would only get around 50. The Intel gets approximately the same scores every time I've run it. So far, I love this thing.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: taltamir
intel consistently shows they are the only ones with the willingness to invest large amounts of money in new and specialized equipment which gives them a manufacturing advantage. And that has been their greatest power, making a node upgrade every 2 years, without missing a single upgrade since 1989. It means that they always have a manufacturing advantage, and they are doing the same for IM chips. For intel to be competitive with a manufacturing advantage they need to not be VASTLY inferior in design, if they are merely slightly inferior or even equal in design, their manufacturing advantage puts them on top... And recently intel has been investing a lot in making sure they combine superior design with superior manufacturing. I honestly don't see how anyone can compare.

It is these facts that make me more and more convinced Larrabee will be a success come hell or high-water.

Regardless how stellar the NV and AMD GPU designs, they simply don't have access to the top-notch process technology on a timeline even remotely close to Intel.

Kind of like exactly what has happened in the CPU world...

 

[Denithor]

TimBob, how would you compare the X25M to the Titan overall? Looking for you take on the "feel" of the drives, not so much the numbers...

 

[IntelUser2000]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: taltamir
intel consistently shows they are the only ones with the willingness to invest large amounts of money in new and specialized equipment which gives them a manufacturing advantage. And that has been their greatest power, making a node upgrade every 2 years, without missing a single upgrade since 1989. It means that they always have a manufacturing advantage, and they are doing the same for IM chips. For intel to be competitive with a manufacturing advantage they need to not be VASTLY inferior in design, if they are merely slightly inferior or even equal in design, their manufacturing advantage puts them on top... And recently intel has been investing a lot in making sure they combine superior design with superior manufacturing. I honestly don't see how anyone can compare.

It is these facts that make me more and more convinced Larrabee will be a success come hell or high-water.

Regardless how stellar the NV and AMD GPU designs, they simply don't have access to the top-notch process technology on a timeline even remotely close to Intel.

Kind of like exactly what has happened in the CPU world...

I'm iffy on Larrabbee. Process technology always brings out the secondary benefits. It's not like Intel is on 16nm while Nvidia/AMD is on 90nm. It's only one generation. Athlon 64 vs. Intel P4, Core 2 vs. Athlon X2/Phenom tells me that design superiority won't be mitigated by one generation process tech advantage(actually really half, Intel is 1 year ahead of AMD not two).

Timbob: Your write speeds will drop to ~50MB for sequential writes and ~40MB for random writes. Remember, that's still not steady-state yet...

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: taltamir
intel consistently shows they are the only ones with the willingness to invest large amounts of money in new and specialized equipment which gives them a manufacturing advantage. And that has been their greatest power, making a node upgrade every 2 years, without missing a single upgrade since 1989. It means that they always have a manufacturing advantage, and they are doing the same for IM chips. For intel to be competitive with a manufacturing advantage they need to not be VASTLY inferior in design, if they are merely slightly inferior or even equal in design, their manufacturing advantage puts them on top... And recently intel has been investing a lot in making sure they combine superior design with superior manufacturing. I honestly don't see how anyone can compare.

It is these facts that make me more and more convinced Larrabee will be a success come hell or high-water.

Regardless how stellar the NV and AMD GPU designs, they simply don't have access to the top-notch process technology on a timeline even remotely close to Intel.

Kind of like exactly what has happened in the CPU world...

I'm iffy on Larrabbee. Process technology always brings out the secondary benefits. It's not like Intel is on 16nm while Nvidia/AMD is on 90nm. It's only one generation. Athlon 64 vs. Intel P4, Core 2 vs. Athlon X2/Phenom tells me that design superiority won't be mitigated by one generation process tech advantage(actually really half, Intel is 1 year ahead of AMD not two).

Timbob: Your write speeds will drop to ~50MB for sequential writes and ~40MB for random writes. Remember, that's still not steady-state yet...

I thought it was a pretty big deal that ATi migrated to 55nm while NV stayed on 65nm...65nm really being an Achilles heel of NV's chips at the time from a power-dissipation standpoint causing a clockspeed limit that enabled R700-based SKU's to trump them.

Node shrinks are very much NOT supposed to bring merely secondary benefits. If that's all the entitlement you extract from a node shrink then you are most decidedly doing it wrong and your competitors will seize on your incompetence and leverage it against you in the forthcoming 12 months.

I can't think of too many examples where a node shrink resulting in realization of only secondary benefits was NOT the harbinger of bad things to come...I can think of a few examples where it was a harbinger though...90nm prescott, 65nm phenom.

If Intel can not or does not leverage their superior processing tech against their competitors in the GPU industry then they have already lost the war before the first battle has been fought.

 

[imported_TimBob]

Originally posted by: Denithor
TimBob, how would you compare the X25M to the Titan overall? Looking for you take on the "feel" of the drives, not so much the numbers...

So far, I prefer the Intel because I've not had a single issue/stutter. Other than that, they feel approximately the same. No noticeable difference in load or boot times. If not for the occasional Titan stutter, I probably wouldn't know which drive I was using.

I think I've hit the performance drop that others have mentioned when the drive hits "steady state." My benchmark write speeds have dropped to around 45 from 75. I haven't noticed any difference in usage though so doesn't bother me.

The Titan is working well as my secondary drive now. Also benchmarks more consistently without having to deal with OS & background processes.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: TimBob

Originally posted by: Denithor
TimBob, how would you compare the X25M to the Titan overall? Looking for you take on the "feel" of the drives, not so much the numbers...

So far, I prefer the Intel because I've not had a single issue/stutter. Other than that, they feel approximately the same. No noticeable difference in load or boot times. If not for the occasional Titan stutter, I probably wouldn't know which drive I was using.

I think I've hit the performance drop that others have mentioned when the drive hits "steady state." My benchmark write speeds have dropped to around 45 from 75. I haven't noticed any difference in usage though so doesn't bother me.

The Titan is working well as my secondary drive now. Also benchmarks more consistently without having to deal with OS & background processes.

Geez, that's a pretty big drop from 75 to 45 How long have you been using this drive for (how long did it take to get to this decreased level of performance)?

 

[imported_TimBob]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: TimBob

Originally posted by: Denithor
TimBob, how would you compare the X25M to the Titan overall? Looking for you take on the "feel" of the drives, not so much the numbers...

So far, I prefer the Intel because I've not had a single issue/stutter. Other than that, they feel approximately the same. No noticeable difference in load or boot times. If not for the occasional Titan stutter, I probably wouldn't know which drive I was using.

I think I've hit the performance drop that others have mentioned when the drive hits "steady state." My benchmark write speeds have dropped to around 45 from 75. I haven't noticed any difference in usage though so doesn't bother me.

The Titan is working well as my secondary drive now. Also benchmarks more consistently without having to deal with OS & background processes.

Geez, that's a pretty big drop from 75 to 45 How long have you been using this drive for (how long did it take to get to this decreased level of performance)?

Well, now I just ran Crystal Disk Mark 500mb 5 times and back up to the 75ish range. So not sure what was going on the other day. I've only had it for a few days and currently have 25GB available space on it.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Originally posted by: TimBob

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: TimBob

Originally posted by: Denithor
TimBob, how would you compare the X25M to the Titan overall? Looking for you take on the "feel" of the drives, not so much the numbers...

So far, I prefer the Intel because I've not had a single issue/stutter. Other than that, they feel approximately the same. No noticeable difference in load or boot times. If not for the occasional Titan stutter, I probably wouldn't know which drive I was using.

I think I've hit the performance drop that others have mentioned when the drive hits "steady state." My benchmark write speeds have dropped to around 45 from 75. I haven't noticed any difference in usage though so doesn't bother me.

The Titan is working well as my secondary drive now. Also benchmarks more consistently without having to deal with OS & background processes.

Geez, that's a pretty big drop from 75 to 45 How long have you been using this drive for (how long did it take to get to this decreased level of performance)?

Well, now I just ran Crystal Disk Mark 500mb 5 times and back up to the 75ish range. So not sure what was going on the other day. I've only had it for a few days and currently have 25GB available space on it.

Remember CrystalDiskMark shows the highest of the 5 scores as the final score. You'd want to actually sit through the benchmark process and see what the numbers are. If the numbers are: 30, 45, 36, 50, 78, the final score is 78.

 

[imported_TimBob]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000

Originally posted by: TimBob

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: TimBob

Originally posted by: Denithor
TimBob, how would you compare the X25M to the Titan overall? Looking for you take on the "feel" of the drives, not so much the numbers...

So far, I prefer the Intel because I've not had a single issue/stutter. Other than that, they feel approximately the same. No noticeable difference in load or boot times. If not for the occasional Titan stutter, I probably wouldn't know which drive I was using.

I think I've hit the performance drop that others have mentioned when the drive hits "steady state." My benchmark write speeds have dropped to around 45 from 75. I haven't noticed any difference in usage though so doesn't bother me.

The Titan is working well as my secondary drive now. Also benchmarks more consistently without having to deal with OS & background processes.

Geez, that's a pretty big drop from 75 to 45 How long have you been using this drive for (how long did it take to get to this decreased level of performance)?

Well, now I just ran Crystal Disk Mark 500mb 5 times and back up to the 75ish range. So not sure what was going on the other day. I've only had it for a few days and currently have 25GB available space on it.

Remember CrystalDiskMark shows the highest of the 5 scores as the final score. You'd want to actually sit through the benchmark process and see what the numbers are. If the numbers are: 30, 45, 36, 50, 78, the final score is 78.

Hmmm...I assumed it was an average. Guess my numbers so far don't mean much then.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: TimBob

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000

Remember CrystalDiskMark shows the highest of the 5 scores as the final score. You'd want to actually sit through the benchmark process and see what the numbers are. If the numbers are: 30, 45, 36, 50, 78, the final score is 78.

Hmmm...I assumed it was an average. Guess my numbers so far don't mean much then.
[/quote]

Me too, thought it was an average of five-runs.

But once again I confirmed IntelUser2000 is a poster who knows what he's talking about. It's true, watched it with my own eyes.

It really should report both simultaneously (avg, max, and min too I guess) as that would convey all the info a user would want to know/see.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Thanks.

There are both advantages and disadvantages of user reviews and professional reviews like Anandtech. User reviews generally expose information that is not shown by the professional reviews but the data has to be heavily scrutinized before believing they are legitimate claims. The professional reviews don't look at the small part and they are often looked at too quick, which comes out to be an accidental mistake in reviewing devices like SSDs.

You do get what you paid for(plus or minus 30% for price which is a reasonable leeway ).