Intel Launches New 40G SSD.... $125
- Thread starter Scataphagos
- Start date
It is said that MLC drives are good for about 10,000 writes (that's for each cell... that is, "write over the entire drive 10,000 times"). For SLC drives, it's said to be 100,000 writes.
Regardless of the power of your argument, you've not dissuaded me from defragging mine.
Oh brother!
The "V" is the same as the "M"... same controller, same nand chips... only difference is the "V" has less nand.
I would use the "V" in any place I'd use the "M" or even the "E".
Computer's drive controller has an effect upon performance. The above was on a T3400. Some other mobos are faster. Notebooks tend to be slower... not the fault of the drive, of course.
Products in perfect spec are top of the line. Products with deficient spec (but still meeting min spec) will be graded lesser.
Do you like Campbell's Chicken Noodle Soup?
At the chicken packing houses, chickens which don't meet spec for temperature are loaded onto an unrefrigerated train car headed to NJ to be made into soup.
Think of that one next time you slurp some noodles and broth.
Mmm...mmm...rotten!
Go ahead and buy run of the mill product for your most important function (life aside) and get what you pay for. I'd rather pay more then take the chance.
Just the same as you won't find me in a three cylinder roller skate on the interstate. F=MA.
Actually, never saw where Intel used the term "V = Value"... They say "M" = Mainstream, and "E" = Enterprise.
You could of course be right, but if (1) generally lesser spec (as opposed to simply being smaller) wouldn't lesser spec rate a lesser warranty?, and (2) One SSD comparo ranked the X25-V as "fastest boot"... ahead of all competitors tested, including the Intel "M" and "E" models.
Somehow I doubt the quality of the drive has anything to do with it being "V"... simply size.
F=MA! Yeah, and E=MC^2
RealSSD C300 64GB for $150
I'm building a new computer and was targetting the RealC300 128GB as my primary boot drive. C300 is at or near the top as one of the best performing drives.
The new brother should be a winner too, probably better than the Intel.
One possibility, raid 2 64gb, read performance should be off the chart.
I'm building a new computer and was targetting the RealC300 128GB as my primary boot drive. C300 is at or near the top as one of the best performing drives.
The new brother should be a winner too, probably better than the Intel.
One possibility, raid 2 64gb, read performance should be off the chart.
I just bought an Intel 40GB SSD and played with it. Installed in on one of my i7 boxes. I needed to re-install Win7 OS to use the SSD as C: and my original platter disk as data storage.
My first impression: I have to say I didn't see much of benefit to me as far as speed. I did only 2 tests so far.
1. To start up TradeStation. I have 8 monitors with 40-50 charts, many with custom indicators.
On platter disk: 1 min 40 sec
On SSD: 1 min 29 sec
(only shave off about 10 seconds)
2. To reboot Win7.
On platter disk: 1 min 20 sec
On SSD: 1 min 7 sec
Only shave off 13 sec.
I read somewhere (I think) that rebooting Windows on SSD only takes like 20 seconds. I didn't see that happened on my setup. Wonder if I did anything wrong in setting up the disk. But I couldn't think of anything else I could have done.
To buy a SSD is extra expense, that's one thing. But the extra time needed to be spent in re-installing the operating system, customizing it, re-installing all the application software, migrating the app data (such as layout, pages, indicators, etc..)... it is a lot of work. If the SSD is useful in only speeding up reboot time (once every few days) or the app start up time (only once a day), it may not worth going through this trouble. Conceivably if will speed up program execution - if your program has a lot of disk I/O. Perhaps when back-testing (which I don't do). I do use a lot of indicators fetching and plotting data in real time. But I think my bottleneck would be more on the network throughput than on the disk I/O throughout the day.
So... to SSD or not to SSD... depends on your computing need.
My first impression: I have to say I didn't see much of benefit to me as far as speed. I did only 2 tests so far.
1. To start up TradeStation. I have 8 monitors with 40-50 charts, many with custom indicators.
On platter disk: 1 min 40 sec
On SSD: 1 min 29 sec
(only shave off about 10 seconds)
2. To reboot Win7.
On platter disk: 1 min 20 sec
On SSD: 1 min 7 sec
Only shave off 13 sec.
I read somewhere (I think) that rebooting Windows on SSD only takes like 20 seconds. I didn't see that happened on my setup. Wonder if I did anything wrong in setting up the disk. But I couldn't think of anything else I could have done.
To buy a SSD is extra expense, that's one thing. But the extra time needed to be spent in re-installing the operating system, customizing it, re-installing all the application software, migrating the app data (such as layout, pages, indicators, etc..)... it is a lot of work. If the SSD is useful in only speeding up reboot time (once every few days) or the app start up time (only once a day), it may not worth going through this trouble. Conceivably if will speed up program execution - if your program has a lot of disk I/O. Perhaps when back-testing (which I don't do). I do use a lot of indicators fetching and plotting data in real time. But I think my bottleneck would be more on the network throughput than on the disk I/O throughout the day.
So... to SSD or not to SSD... depends on your computing need.