SSD makers respond to power consumption claims

By on July 3, 2008, 5:46 PM
Solid state disks have been a hot topic this year, with prices dropping considerably while capacity and speed claims by manufacturers continue to grab headlines. A report by Tomís Hardware, however, has recently brought one of the often-touted benefits of SSDs to question: power consumption. While itís almost a common belief that the solid-state approach saves power (after all, SSDs have no moving parts), their tests show how switching to SSD could actually cost you anywhere between 5% and 30% of battery life.

Their results have not gone unchallenged, of course, and today at least a couple of manufacturers have chimed in to shed some light into the matter. According to STEC, data used in the test applies to the current first-generation mass-market SSDs but not necessarily to upcoming drives, which will supposedly come with optimized drivers for better power management. Micron Technology echoed concerns that the review used legacy drives, adding that other factors should be taken into account as well, such as how an SSD-equipped computer might handle more work in the same amount of time.

All valid points, indeed, and are perhaps a reminder that sometimes is best to wait for a second (and improved) generation of any new technology. In any case, there are also other potential benefits to consider besides energy efficiency when buying a SSD, such as speed and reliability Ė two aspects in which solid state drives apparently excel. Check out Micronís statement after the jump.
To be attributed to Dean Klein, vice president of memory system development for Micron:

ďThe controllers analyzed in the Tomís Hardware review are early-generation, multi-chip and in some cases even use FPGA's, which can be quite power hungry. As with many other first and second generation drives, these drives are not delivering on the full potential of the NAND and are not delivering properly on the performance promise.

There is another factor to be aware of. If the CPU spends 25 million clock cycles waiting for random HDD data, but only part of that waiting for SSD data, the actual increase in notebook power consumption may be in the CPU. A useful metric is how much processing gets done per watt. If you are willing to scale back performance to that of an HDD-based system, an SSD-based system should deliver significantly longer battery life.

Finally, consider that many of today's applications and operating systems are not optimized for SSDs, but for rotating media. As an example, Vista has a background defrag utility that is not needed, and in fact is not desired for SSDs.Ē




User Comments: 2

Got something to say? Post a comment
thomasxstewart said:
In Test Case I Do Believe that SSD Was being abused by slow ddr2 400 ECC/Reg memory, with lots of latency to slow fast SSD ability to communicate internally. Also, most of SSDs' tested where almost as good as HDD tested in test system(except SanDisk which was lousey). I believe Writer intentionally skewed test.Best result is promised Next generation, to better control SSD, to avoid such home built albatrosses NOT too well integrated tech specs.Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.
BMfan said:
Just bring down the pricing,would love to use a 128gig in my PS3.
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.