Budget Sub-$150 Solid State Drive Round-up

By on September 8, 2010, 6:40 AM
Recently there has been a surging demand for solid state drives that sacrifice space for speed and more affordable price tags, and manufacturers have been racing to deliver just that. Most of the drives featured in this round-up offer 32GB - 40GB capacities, while a few others top out at 64GB. As limiting as a 32GB drive might appear, they can still be extremely useful in enhancing a PC's performance when set to run as the boot drive. These smaller drives can also accommodate for select programs where they can greatly speed up the use of the application, for example, Adobe Photoshop.

Today's round-up is comprised of the following contenders: OCZ Agility 2 40GB ($135), OCZ Vertex 2 40GB ($124), OCZ Onyx 64GB ($130), OCZ Onyx 32GB ($85), ADATA S596 Turbo 32GB ($83), Intel X25-V 40GB ($100), and the Kingston SNV425-S2 64GB ($125). In addition to these affordable SSD offerings we have added to the mix the Seagate Momentus XT ($135), a highly-touted hybrid drive that attempts to deliver the best of both worlds by offering huge storage capacity at a reasonable price, with the added performance boost of NAND flash memory for caching data.


We'll be putting each drive through a set of tests including four synthetic benchmark programs plus our own file copying and load time tests.

Read the complete review.




User Comments: 61

Got something to say? Post a comment
kyosuke said:

So you are saying we can select the programs to run on a solid state drive while keeping our hard drives?

If so that would be worth it for iTunes on windows xp is horrible!

You guys should do some tests on simple tech things, like converting movies, gameplay, DivX to DVD burning etc.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Kyosuke I think you meant to leave it as iTunes is horrible

Simple tech tings would cover loading Windows 7 would it not and a level in a game?

Also stuff like DVD burning sees no performance gain when using SSD technology, nor does gameplay or converting movies (for the most part). They all focus on CPU and GPU performance rather than storage performance. Thanks for the feedback though.

Leeky Leeky said:

So you are saying we can select the programs to run on a solid state drive while keeping our hard drives?

If so that would be worth it for iTunes on windows xp is horrible!

you guys should do some tests on simple Tech things, like Converting movies, gameplay, Divx to DVD burning etc.

I haven't read the review yet, but I'm fairly certain what is meant is to install the OS on the SSD, along with some choice items of software (that are intensive and you want starting faster), and use another hard drive to place all your other installations in.

I use a Crucial 256GB SSD for all of my Windows and Linux partitions, and both OS' software, and pretty much all applications have seen a definite decrease in startup times. All my personal data is stored on a 1TB hard drive, with all my critical data then backed up onto a 500GB hard drive.

That said, the one scenario where I haven't seen any increase whatsoever is when I open an application up by opening a file from my documents hard drive. It might well open the software (for example Acrobat pro 9.2/Word 2007) really fast, but it then sits there for a couple of seconds finding, then opening the file from my other hard drive. If I place the same file on my SSD, it opens it instantly.

Staff
Per Hansson Per Hansson, TS Server Guru, said:

Steven; actually for World of Warcraft I noted a tremendous speed increase by having it on a small SSD, this was a 16GB Mtron SATA-1 SSD I was "testing" for my work place (was going into a CNC machine)

The loading times where improved tremendously, as was the loading of characters when you where finally in game

This was compared vs a WD Raptor 150GB mechanical HDD

SSD; 28 seconds to load game fully into Dalaran, another 4 sec as characters load

HDD; 77 seconds to load game fully into Dalaran, another 30 sec as characters load

Leeky Leeky said:

Steven; actually for World of Warcraft I noted a tremendous speed increase by having it on a small SSD, this was a 16GB Mtron SATA-1 SSD I was "testing" for my work place (was going into a CNC machine)

The loading times where improved tremendously, as was the loading of characters when you where finally in game

This was compared vs a WD Raptor 150GB mechanical HDD

HDD; 28 seconds to load game fully into Dalaran, another 4 sec as characters load

SSD; 77 seconds to load game fully into Dalaran, another 30 sec as characters load

So the WD Velociraptor HDD is actually considerably faster than the SSD?

Staff
Per Hansson Per Hansson, TS Server Guru, said:

Leeky said:

So the WD Velociraptor HDD is actually considerably faster than the SSD?

Doh!

Fixed that epic spelling mistake in the original post, thanks!

Leeky Leeky said:

Doh!

Fixed that epic spelling mistake in the original post, thanks!

No problems, although I was convinced you had it correct, as I know the 'raptors are fast.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Steven; actually for World of Warcraft I noted a tremendous speed increase by having it on a small SSD, this was a 16GB Mtron SATA-1 SSD I was "testing" for my work place (was going into a CNC machine)

The loading times where improved tremendously, as was the loading of characters when you where finally in game

This was compared vs a WD Raptor 150GB mechanical HDD

SSD; 28 seconds to load game fully into Dalaran, another 4 sec as characters load

HDD; 77 seconds to load game fully into Dalaran, another 30 sec as characters load

That's right the load times were improved just as we showed when testing with StarCraft II. How many more frames per second did you receive? I was addressing gameplay as in the kind of FPS benchmarks we use on GPUs that would not be appropriate for this test.

That said obviously any game that loads large amounts of data from the drive while playing will be much smoother when using an SSD but most games are optimized to load everything or just about everything before the game begins, purely because hard drives are so slow.

KG363 KG363 said:

Really should've added the Crucial c300. I hear it's great and I was hoping that you would include it. It's $10 dollars over the limit, but I still think it should be included. Not too late!

Leeky Leeky said:

Really should've added the Crucial c300. I hear it's great and I was hoping that you would include it. It's $10 dollars over the limit, but I still think it should be included. Not too late!

While it's only 10 dollars, you have to draw a line somewhere I guess, otherwise it'll very quickly end up being a round up of much more expensive SSD's and therefore worth nothing as a review.

The other way of looking at it would be to save that $10 and get one you know from benchmarks is good.

I'll certainly be getting another one to run my virtual os' from in the not too distant future; I find it vastly improves the performance during use, but I just can't stomach losing almost 60GB of my main SSD.

hellokitty[hk] hellokitty[hk], I'm a TechSpot Evangelist, said:

For whatever reason, Anandtech's reviews always seem to be more thorough...interesting variety of tests though.

Isn't the Agility 2 supposed to be cheaper than Vertex 2?

grvalderrama said:

I was looking forward to buying a Momentus XT but I see it doesn't work as fast as I expected. However, in this review there are many programs I don't use or hardly even know... So, may I ask how does this drive work for the purposes I intend to use, which are games, and other small aplications, such as music, movies, chatting.... above all, games. I would use this drive in a desktop computer. Thanks and really great and useful review.

tonylukac said:

Wow, 12 second windows boot time? Are you sure?

Staff
Steve Steve said:

, post: 931325"]For whatever reason, Anandtech's reviews always seem to be more thorough...interesting variety of tests though.

Isn't the Agility 2 supposed to be cheaper than Vertex 2?

Not sure what more we can do for you, I felt this was pretty in-depth. You have to draw the line somewhere, after all I am just one man. Also Anandtech is one of the largest if not the largest tech site on the net and its also one of the oldest so I guess being compared to them can be taken as a complement.

I was looking forward to buying a Momentus XT but I see it doesn't work as fast as I expected. However, in this review there are many programs I don't use or hardly even know... So, may I ask how does this drive work for the purposes I intend to use, which are games, and other small aplications, such as music, movies, chatting.... above all, games. I would use this drive in a desktop computer. Thanks and really great and useful review.

We have tested where these drives will improve performance and that is seen when loading large applications and games. An SSD is going to do nothing for your MSN, e-mail or Internet surfing experience, or at least very little anyway. As I have said with gaming you will not see more frames per second but level loading and things like that where the hard drive is used heavily will be much faster.

The tests included are designed to show you how the drives compare, not so much how SSD's compare to hard drives, that would be a separate article altogether.

tonylukac said:

Wow, 12 second windows boot time? Are you sure?

LOL pretty sure.

vangrat said:

Personally, regardless of the FPS increase in a game, the boot time would be worth it alone. There is nothing worse in gaming then waiting for 2 to 3 minutes for a screen to load; this takes away from the immersion factor that the game creators are aiming for. Also, the loading time creates a subjective experience of the speediness of the game; if you have a slow loading time, then you are more likely to think the game is sluggish and boring, then if you had a super fast loading time.

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I pre ordered the Momentus when I heard about it, then around the time it was ready to ship I decided to get a SSD instead, but when I went to cancel my order it had just shipped.

It does run pretty fast. The Vista start items all pop up almost instantly, certainly much faster than they do on my i7 with 2 Velociraptors in Raid 0 running Windows 7. it boots pretty fast too, although Asus bios seem to crawl these days.

Leeky Leeky said:

Wow, 12 second windows boot time? Are you sure?

Its quite believable on a new install, with limited software installed.

My PC will shut down in less than 10 secs. I timed it, and thats with all the software that starts with my PC still running in the backround.

PC start up is slower though, as BIOS takes about 10 secs from the time the Gigabyte logo appears to the time it finishes POST and shifts over to the SSD to load. I then have quite a few programs that load up into the backround when W7 starts, but including the welcome screen I have to enter my login password for, loaded to a fully working (and idle) desktop is still only around 30 seconds - From the moment I press the power button to it idle on the desktop.

Its definitely MUCH faster than using the previous 160GB 7200rpm hard drive!

I also reckon if I removed my password to login, it would speed things up a few seconds as well.

, post: 931377"]Not sure what more we can do for you, I felt this was pretty in-depth. You have to draw the line somewhere, after all I am just one man. Also Anandtech is one of the largest if not the largest tech site on the net and its also one of the oldest so I guess being compared to them can be taken as a complement.

I find all the reviews on here to be fair, honest and accurate. Its clear all those involved in the backround take a great deal of time, effort and pride in the writing and testing, not to mention all the unseen work required to make these reviews possible.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Thanks for the feedback Leeky I appreciate it.

Also the Windows 7 boot test was not measured from the second you hit the power button, not that you are implying it was Leeky but maybe that's what tonylukac thought. Here is a quote from the opening sentence "The Windows 7 boot time test begins from the moment the initial loading screen appears to the time the Windows desktop is fully loaded."...

The Windows 7 loading test saw impressive results from the SSD drives but it was the multi-tasking test where we load several applications at once right after Windows itself has loaded that provided the most impressive results.

Leeky Leeky said:

I would imagine so, although its impossible to be fair about loading times when different motherboards take different times to POST, so its the only way of doing it for the purposes of this review.

In contrast, its only taking my computer 15-18secs to load up from the moment the windows startup kicks in on boot, allowing 2-5 seconds for me to enter my password, so it still goes to show that even on a system with massive amounts of software installed, and GB's of updates and many applications starting in the backround on boot up that its still bloody fast.

To me, the SSD is the most important link in my hardware chain. While my hardware is not what you'd call cutting edge, its still worthy by todays standards, and the SSD really perks it up. Its like the rest of my hardware can now run unrestricted, whereas with the previous hard drive it lagged behind the rest of my hardware thus slowed the whole PC down with it.

Staff
Per Hansson Per Hansson, TS Server Guru, said:

[-Steve-] said:

That's right the load times were improved just as we showed when testing with StarCraft II. How many more frames per second did you receive? I was addressing gameplay as in the kind of FPS benchmarks we use on GPUs that would not be appropriate for this test.

That said obviously any game that loads large amounts of data from the drive while playing will be much smoother when using an SSD but most games are optimized to load everything or just about everything before the game begins, purely because hard drives are so slow.

The minimum FPS gets a very nice boost, with a mechanical HDD when textures are loading the FPS drops, very noticeable in Dalaran in WoW

Or if you play Crysis, when you enter a new big area the minimum FPS will also take a big dive, untill everything is loaded, then the minimum FPS goes up

You can easily test this by using the built in benchmark in Crysis, only look at the first run, the one which is normally discarded when used in reviews.

But still quite relevant when actually in game because the level you enter will not be preloaded into RAM (not on my system with 8GB of RAM anyway)

grvalderrama said:

My motherboard doesn't not show POST, but it takes longer to start than Windows 7 to load though. It takes about 40 seconds to get to W7 and ready to use it. I only have antivirus software, sound card and video card drivers running with boot.

grvalderrama said:

Per Hansson said:

The minimum FPS gets a very nice boost, with a mechanical HDD when textures are loading the FPS drops, very noticeable in Dalaran in WoW

Or if you play Crysis, when you enter a new big area the minimum FPS will also take a big dive, untill everything is loaded, then the minimum FPS goes up

You can easily test this by using the built in benchmark in Crysis, only look at the first run, the one which is normally discarded when used in reviews.

So, if I get a Momentus XT, will I see an improvement at least in games' loading times and when windows starts? They are more than enough reasons to go and get it xD

SSD drives are just way too expensive for me and they lack of capacity, so I'm not considering buying one until I'm rich lol (a 60GB Ocz Vertex is U$S190 or $760 and a Vertex 2 same capacity U$S290=1160). Sorry for the re-post, thanks again!

Staff
Steve Steve said:

The minimum FPS gets a very nice boost, with a mechanical HDD when textures are loading the FPS drops, very noticeable in Dalaran in WoW

Or if you play Crysis, when you enter a new big area the minimum FPS will also take a big dive, untill everything is loaded, then the minimum FPS goes up

You can easily test this by using the built in benchmark in Crysis, only look at the first run, the one which is normally discarded when used in reviews.

But still quite relevant when actually in game because the level you enter will not be preloaded into RAM (not on my system with 8GB of RAM anyway)

I have not noticed this at all but then the graphics card that I game with produces such a high frame rate that's not surprising. As you say when benchmarking the first run is discarded but then again I have not notice the SSDs producing higher results, I will have to look into it. Still as I said this has had no impact on my gaming experience what so ever.

So you could put that down to it being the games I play which I can assure you does not include WoW :P or the fact that the rest of the system is fast enough to sustain a high-end frame rate that the hard drive does not impact performance as much. I would assume anyone spending the kind of money it takes to acquire an SSD would already have a decent graphics card.

At the end of the day if you do see a performance increase that is great, it just adds to everything good we have been saying about SSD technology. After all I believe SSDs do enhance the gaming experience, I just feel most should expect to see better load times more so than improved frames per second performance but as with everything there is the exception.

So, if I get a Momentus XT, will I see an improvement at least in games' loading times and when windows starts? They are more than enough reasons to go and get it xD

SSD drives are just way too expensive for me and they lack of capacity, so I'm not considering buying one until I'm rich lol (a 60GB Ocz Vertex is U$S190 or $760 and a Vertex 2 same capacity U$S290=1160). Sorry for the re-post, thanks again!

Well I found Windows loading was much faster but not game level loading though this might vary depending on the game. I would recommend going for an SSD instead like one of the models we suggested in the conclusion. Yes the capacity is small but the performance was consistently impressive and you only need to install the applications you are using on the SSD and store things like high-res images (if you have lots), movies and music for example of a secondary hard drive.

Guest said:

The author doesn't make much distinction between Single-Level Cell (SLC) and Multi-Level Cell (MLC) SSD drives. Of which, the MLC drives are cheaper than SLC drives but sacrifice some performance in the process. All the drives listed here are MLC drives (since there was a price cap) and we would see better performances out of their more expensive SLC counterparts.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

The author doesn't make much distinction between Single-Level Cell (SLC) and Multi-Level Cell (MLC) SSD drives. Of which, the MLC drives are cheaper than SLC drives but sacrifice some performance in the process. All the drives listed here are MLC drives (since there was a price cap) and we would see better performances out of their more expensive SLC counterparts.

I'm waiting for the and which leads to your point...

In past reviews where SLC was an option we discussed the merits of it, we have even reviewed a few SLC based SSDs.

[link]

As you said there was a pricing cap on this article and anyone on a budget that wants to get a taste for what SSD technology is about is not going to worry about anything using SLC memory as the cost is astronomical.

Guest said:

Well after reading this article, just bought 2 x Kingston SNV425-S2 64GB. I don't play as much Starcraft 2 as I play World of Warcraft, but I can imagine it's the same deal. Thanks for the good article!

Guest said:

I didn't see any reference to TRIM support for any of these SSD drives. Without that (and an OS that implements it like Windows 7), none of these drives will stay very fast very long.

Please indicate which, if any, of these supports the TRIM function.

Guest said:

You guys have never used computer with windows 7, right? If you HAVE used you would know that SSD nowadays are waste of cash. Windows 7 just by itself will take 16GB. Nowadays to have proper Boot Drive it has to be around 100GB to cover the ESSENTIAL crap that all those useless companies offer like:

-Adobe Pgotoshop CS5+ other = 10GB (why somebody would wish more than Photoshop 6.0?)

-Itunes + apps like navigon = 5GB

-MS Office = 2GB

-Adobe REader = 150MB (WTF???? just for reading) - use foxit reader instead - 5 MB and does more than adobe reader will ever do.

-Shall I stop or continue???

- ...

In real live you end up with atleast 60 - 70 GB of crap you must have on the boot partition/drive. You need to have at least 20% free in order not to defragment every week...

Don't waste time reading useless comparisons or waste money in SSD. if you want to be pimping and money is not problem for you, buy yourself two computers and do the job simultaneously or I can give you my Paypal account to donate.

Leeky Leeky said:

You guys have never used computer with windows 7, right? If you HAVE used you would know that SSD nowadays are waste of cash. Windows 7 just by itself will take 16GB. Nowadays to have proper Boot Drive it has to be around 100GB to cover the ESSENTIAL crap that all those useless companies offer like:

-Adobe Pgotoshop CS5+ other = 10GB (why somebody would wish more than Photoshop 6.0?)

-Itunes + apps like navigon = 5GB

-MS Office = 2GB

-Adobe REader = 150MB (WTF???? just for reading) - use foxit reader instead - 5 MB and does more than adobe reader will ever do.

-Shall I stop or continue???

- ...

In real live you end up with atleast 60 - 70 GB of crap you must have on the boot partition/drive. You need to have at least 20% free in order not to defragment every week...

Don't waste time reading useless comparisons or waste money in SSD. if you want to be pimping and money is not problem for you, buy yourself two computers and do the job simultaneously or I can give you my Paypal account to donate.

Huh?

I run 64 bit W7 Professional, Office 2007 Ultimate, Project 2007, Adobe CS5 master suite, Virtualbox, Crysis, Mass Effect 2, and thats without mentioning the 60+ other items of software, and I'm only using 30GB of my SSD. (Its 256GB, 238GB usable, 198GB remaining)

Your speaking absolute rubbish!

Staff
Per Hansson Per Hansson, TS Server Guru, said:

Please don't feed the trolls Leeky

grvalderrama; I have the 500GB Momemtus XT in my Dell M1710 laptop, the boot speed is very much better than a normal HDD

The drive works by looking at the most used LBA addresses, it puts these in the 4GB SSD Flash memory (so the speed increase works with any filesystem, FAT, NTFS, EXT or even a RAID filesystem)

Due to this reason the speed increase will not show untill you have used a particular application enough times so it gets put into the SSD cache.... (Could be why in some reviews the benefits are bigger than in others)

I.e. if you install just Win7+Crysis and start only that I would imagine you will see a bigger performance increase vs if you have a bigger set of applications that you use the same number of times each (since they wont all fit in the small 4GB cache)

Steven; Just look at for example run 1 & 2 & 3 of the Crysis benchmark, in my case run 2 & 3 are very similar, but run 1 is much slower with a mechanical HDD

With a SSD all three runs are very similar in both average and minimum FPS for me...

Staff
Julio Franco Julio Franco, TechSpot Editor, said:

@Guest, it was promptly mentioned in the article that TRIM is supported by all drives. Here's also a larger explanation of how we tested to simulate used state on the SSDs:

[link]

@Guest2, funny how you mention defragmentation (on an SSD???)... that's all I'm going to say.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

You guys have never used computer with windows 7, right? If you HAVE used you would know that SSD nowadays are waste of cash. Windows 7 just by itself will take 16GB.

No you are right we have never used Windows 7, we just test with it. I still use Windows ME because it fits on my boot drive better and loads faster

How is your copy of Windows 7 16GB by itself? That is impressive for a program that comes on a single DVD and even then only takes up 3.4GB of that DVD, phenomenal compression going on there, the program should take 3 days to install.

Sorry Per troll feed.

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

, post: 931799"]No you are right we have never used Windows 7, we just test with it. I still use Windows ME because it fits on my boot drive better and loads faster

How is your copy of Windows 7 16GB by itself? That is impressive for a program that comes on a single DVD and even then only takes up 3.4GB of that DVD, phenomenal compression going on there, the program should take 3 days to install.

Sorry Per troll feed.

First Per says don't feed'em...the Steve feeds'em...I'm so confused

Staff
Per Hansson Per Hansson, TS Server Guru, said:

red1776 said:

First Per says don't feed'em...the Steve feeds'em...I'm so confused

Yea, but he did say he was sorry

Guest said:

Just as a quick aside. I use the Kingston SNV425S264GB and it works well, but I've always wondered about how well it uses TRIM. Is there any way in the present iteration of Win7 for users to see how TRIM is working, and how long it takes for TRIM to do its job? i.e. is there a utility or a way to see how much nand needs to be returned to state 1 and how long it will take for TRIM to return everything to 'like new'? When you are using Perfect Disk, or Diskkeeper for instance, you are able to see something like 54% done, 23 minutes remaining etc.

Thanks in advance,

Norm

Staff
Per Hansson Per Hansson, TS Server Guru, said:

No, Trim is done when you delete a file, format a disk etc

I.e. it is constantly being done, it is not like "Defrag" which you run when the disk has degraded

Think of it more like a constant defrag, however a defrag it is not at all, so now forget that thought

An SSD should NEVER be defragemented, it hurts the drive...

And no, there is no way to even know if TRIM is working properly (bar benchmarking the drive when it has been secure erased/is new, fill the drive with files, delete those files and test performance again)

Guest said:

Defragmentation puts all the little chunks of file in sequence to reduce the latency when opening/reading files. If you have a chunk of file on platter1 and a chunk on platter 4 then the next chunk on platter 3, with a seek time of 1.8ms, that will take a while (hence the delay when opening files). De-fragmentation solves this.

SSD's do not have platters or anything mechanical. The seek time is 0.1ms on my Vertex2 meaning every sector can be accessed with the same 0.1ms delay, no matter where they're located. In this case, De-fragmentation is useless and as I put on my blog, should NOT be done.

And to the guy who said 30GB is not enough for a windows install with apps...

I have a 60GB Vertex2 and I have a 28GB windows partition and the rest are linux partitions. Everything else is mapped to my gigabit NAS and in linux, I actually made a 'ramdisk' where I mount /tmp into the RAM, completely saving the SSD from temp file writes (firefox cache, etc).

As for windows, I have Office2010, Photoshop, Crysis Ware-head, SQL server, Oracle, IIS7, VirtualBox, Opera,Firefox,Chrome(Browsers), Ultravnc, Foxit(pdf), infraburn(4MB freeware burning suite, snappier than Nero) and some other things.

You can do it in 32GB EASILY. Just be sure to disable things like System Restore, Hybernation, defrag, indexing, firefox cache, etc. Also map your docs, etc to network storage or a mech drive.

-Paul

grvalderrama said:

Leeky said:

Huh?

I run 64 bit W7 Professional, Office 2007 Ultimate, Project 2007, Adobe CS5 master suite, Virtualbox, Crysis, Mass Effect 2, and thats without mentioning the 60+ other items of software, and I'm only using 30GB of my SSD. (Its 256GB, 238GB usable, 198GB remaining)

Your speaking absolute rubbish!

No, he's not speaking rubbish, W7 Ultimate 64-bits installed takes 16GB from your hard-drive. And yes, it's a great compression, the greatest I've ever seen myself, but, there's a illegal "repack" of Alien vs. Predator that the .iso it's 2.37 GB and once the game's installed it sucks 25GB!!! How much does it takes to install? "90-240 minutes, no joke" But I've not seen it yet.

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I ran some unscientific benchmarks comparing the Momentus XT and the 300 GB Raptors in Raid 0.

Both are running ASUS motherboards, 890GX and X58.

I started counting from the time I hit exit on the Express Gate and then counted until the BIOS stopped and the windows loading screen started, and then counted until the logon field came on.

The XT: 16.4 seconds to get through BIOS, and at 41 seconds the logon field popped up.

The Raptors: 28 seconds to get through BIOS, and at 1:01 minutes the logon field popped on.

I logged in simultaneously, and I did notice that some of the startup items were almost instantaneous, while a few like ESET and Steam took a bit of time to load up. But just looking at them side by side the XT does seem to function relatively well as a boot drive, at least as compared to the Raptor RAID.

But then I usually put both of my computers to sleep, so boot up time is almost instantaneous anyway.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

No, he's not speaking rubbish, W7 Ultimate 64-bits installed takes 16GB from your hard-drive. And yes, it's a great compression, the greatest I've ever seen myself, but, there's a illegal "repack" of Alien vs. Predator that the .iso it's 2.37 GB and once the game's installed it sucks 25GB!!! How much does it takes to install? "90-240 minutes, no joke" But I've not seen it yet.

I just installed Windows 7 Ultimate (64-bit) on a 40GB SSD from the official DVD and then downloaded all the updates. The size on disk is 10.3GB so maybe the other versions are installing more language packs or something like that, I have not looked into it. I knew my install could not be that big because on the 32GB drive I installed Win7, StarCraft II, Office 2007 and Photoshop CS4 and still have a few gigabyte's to spare.

princeton princeton said:

I found the one time ever where they won't **** Canadians over!

[link]

Right after I read this review I saw it. Thanks guys. I'll pick one up asap.

grvalderrama said:

[-Steve-] said:

I just installed Windows 7 Ultimate (64-bit) on a 40GB SSD from the official DVD and then downloaded all the updates. The size on disk is 10.3GB so maybe the other versions are installing more language packs or something like that, I have not looked into it. I knew my install could not be that big because on the 32GB drive I installed Win7, StarCraft II, Office 2007 and Photoshop CS4 and still have a few gigabyte's to spare.

I don't remember W7 having any other language but english, I had to download spanish MUI. Now I'm running W7 Professional 32-bits (I guess it's official, since it's original) and takes 9.21GB from my drive (plus updates), in fact, I had to change my W7 ultimate 64-bits to 32-Bits because it was just to heavy for my liking. The problem is not that I don't have space in the drive, the partition I made (for windows Xp by that time) it's just 50GB... too small for that O.S. Now I can't complain, this O.S it's great very reliable. So, I'm thinking of buying a Momentus XT and +2GB of RAM, so that I have W7 64-bits and enough room for games and everything else. Does any of the Momentus XT users have more that 1 partition? Could someone tell me if it affects the drive performance having 2 partitions.... Sorry for the bother, this is all brand new to me. Thanks!

Guest said:

Comparison review was great though i have a few notes...

I purchased a Vertex 2 50 GB a week ago with a fresh install of win7 64bit, all my scores were around 25 % higher than your Vertex though my hardware is over 2 years old.

Keeping in mind that my scores where very close to yours before upgrading my firmware from 1.0 to 1.11 in addition to changinf the drive from ide to ahci mode.

Did you do any firmware updates to those drives before running the tests ?

Are they all running in AHCI mode ?

Thanks and great work !

Staff
Steve Steve said:

All drives were in AHCI mode and using the latest Firmware.

Guest said:

My understanding of the XT (momentus XT) drive is that it "learns" which sectors are loaded most often. This really only begins to show itself after about three or more boots. Therefore a review like this (I presume) will not show ANY of the benefits of the hybrid. Also all the benefits are in reading only and due to the SSD may actually slow it somewhat when writing. I have seen other reviews which show the Intel SSD as being the best all rounder. And no-one ever says what the XP holdouts should do to keep their drives in trim, without trim. or what linuxers or OS warped should do. I am waiting for December when the new process node (28nm?) drives should be on sale. Twice the space, Twice the speed, and Half the price. Oh joy

Guest said:

Leaving out the Crucial C300 64GB was a huge mistake. It would dominate in CrystalDiskMark and AS-SSD, and all read tests. It it is $145 from newegg.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Funny you should mention that. We now have the 256GB version of the Crucial C300 and while is indeed faster when it comes to read performance it was unable to beat many of the cheaper drives featured in this roundup when it came to the real world testing such as Windows 7 loading, multi-tasking and game level loading. I agree it would have been nice to include but we were unable to get a sample and had already purchased quite a few drives for the article. Mistake or not I think there is plenty of good info there that should really help anyone looking at buying an affordable SSD.

Leeky Leeky said:

Out of curiousity, what happens to all the tech that is purchased for reviews (those that aren't donated) after the reviews?

Staff
Steve Steve said:

It is used for comparison in future reviews and gaming articles. Basically I have a truck load of hardware waiting to be tested again. Some of it also finds its way into my PC

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.