2009 SSD vs 2015 SSD

[shady28]

Thought some might find this interesting.

I just upgraded my Corsair P128 SSD, a model circia 2009, to a Samsung EVO 250GB.

These are the CrystalDiskMark benches before and after.

From a user standpoint, the difference is nowhere near this dramatic. It is 'noticeable' though.

 

[Berryracer]

Other than benchmarks and bragging rights, an SSD is an SSD.

I can't feel the difference between my first LiteOn 128GB SSD vs Samsung 840 PRO that I had before vs SanDisk Extreme PRO 960GB vs the current Intel 750 PCIe SSD 1.2 TB that I have which gives me insane numbers, but feels no faster than any of those older SSDs in my daily work flow which is all about watching movies, surfing the net, and maybe play a game every now and then.

 

[RaistlinZ]

Other than benchmarks and bragging rights, an SSD is an SSD.

I can't feel the difference between my first LiteOn 128GB SSD vs Samsung 840 PRO that I had before vs SanDisk Extreme PRO 960GB vs the current Intel 750 PCIe SSD 1.2 TB that I have which gives me insane numbers, but feels no faster than any of those older SSDs in my daily work flow which is all about watching movies, surfing the net, and maybe play a game every now and then.

Truth. Unless you're doing heavy writes or intense I/O work you won't notice much difference between any modern SSD, quite honestly.

 

[Phynaz]

Looks like you have Samsung Magicians disk cache running. That will be affecting your results.

 

[Coup27]

Looks like you have Samsung Magicians disk cache running. That will be affecting your results.

RAPID is not running or the sequential read figures would be into the thousands.

OP, can you crop in paint next time before saving

 

[bononos]

Other than benchmarks and bragging rights, an SSD is an SSD.

I can't feel the difference between my first LiteOn 128GB SSD vs Samsung 840 PRO that I had before vs SanDisk Extreme PRO 960GB vs the current Intel 750 PCIe SSD 1.2 TB that I have which gives me insane numbers, but feels no faster than any of those older SSDs in my daily work flow which is all about watching movies, surfing the net, and maybe play a game every now and then.

If your typical use is so modest, then your overclocked 6 core i7 setup in your sig is way overkill.

 

[AlienTech]

After a point, other things are what would be slowing you down. So my desktop comes up and when I click on the computer icon, it is waiting for network discovery to finish before showing me the drives.. With the hard drive those few extra seconds would mean the network discovery would be finished already.. So there are many instances of places where something stops the system from continuing. IF you ever get everything working just right then you would notice the latency issues.. I installed the cruicial cache program and it is fast for large file reads and writes but that wait by the cache is noticeable enough so I disabled it. With a hard drive the drive cache would never show up as a bottle neck for small or large data access. Maybe in Win10 they would make everything asynchronous so we have no waits when something else is blocking the operating system. I am surprised they have not fixed this when 2 decade old systems had them in the early 90's using far slower components. EG a cd access never slowed down the other parts of the system like if you are browsing or playing games. It is not like before where the system just dies, but it does makes you scratch the desk.

 

[shady28]

RAPID is not running or the sequential read figures would be into the thousands.

OP, can you crop in paint next time before saving

RAPID shows up in magician as not recognizing the OS. I recently upgraded to Win 10, so that's probably it.

In any case, my main reason for upgrading was not performance. It was a combination of capacity, the age of the old P128 (I don't want to wait for it to die, which it will eventually), and partly a need for an SSD on a old Atom D510 based SQL Server ITX box I have for dev work (where the P128 is going to).

I definitely notice the difference, but overall it isn't significant. As someone already posted, there are other behaviors of the OS' interaction with other hardware that cause delay more than the old SSD vs new SSD.

Chrome is faster though, as it and its cache is on the SSD. I definitely noticed that.

 

[Phynaz]

RAPID is not running or the sequential read figures would be into the thousands.

OP, can you crop in paint next time before saving

Wow, then I'm really surprised to see 123MB/sec 4k writes. I guess I'm behind the curve.

 

[fuzzymath10]

The 2009 figures would probably have looked better with the Intel SSDs available at the time too. The gap between any of these SSDs and a spinner is where the real benefit is because in many typical use cases, all SSDs can react about as fast as the user, while the spinner will fall behind.

Most common scenario is when you click an icon and with a spinner you can never be sure if the program is starting (click again, and compound the issue). Snaps open with the SSD.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Interestingly enough, not all operations on a PC are IOPS-limited. Windows Update apparently, is not, or at least, it is more CPU-dependent than IOPS-dependent.

How do I know this? Within a short span of time, I installed Win7 SP1 64-bit to two machines, one, a Sempron 3850 1.3Ghz quad-core, with a 120GB Apotop SSD, and one, an AM3 X4 630 or 640 quad-core, near 3.0Ghz, with a 500GB Seagate 7200 RPM HDD (a few years old).

Doing Windows Updates, after they had all downloaded, the AM3 rig with a HDD, finished way before the AM1 rig with the SSD. Granted, one is a 1.3Ghz quad-core, versus a 3.0Ghz quad-core. The faster CPU wasn't noticably held back by the HDD.

Certainly, I would have expected a 3.0Ghz AM3 quad-core WITH an SSD to finish even faster, but those are interesting data points.

 

[fuzzymath10]

Interestingly enough, not all operations on a PC are IOPS-limited. Windows Update apparently, is not, or at least, it is more CPU-dependent than IOPS-dependent.

I don't know what makes the updates so cpu dependent. I've seen the same thing and other than the initial period when it downloads updates and extracts them which is noticeably faster with an SSD (and less intrusive to other tasks if you're not already CPU bound), the update process pegs one core at 100%, especially the .net updates.

The malicious software remover is hard on both io and cpu.

So, on older Core 2 machines, a flurry of updates could take 30-60 minutes to install regardless of how fast your storage is. It's not as bad when you have fast cores (i.e. a new i3 or better).

 

[corkyg]

Generally speaking, are not 2015 SSDs and their controllers more reliable than 2009 ones?

 

[Sabrewings]

Truth. Unless you're doing heavy writes or intense I/O work you won't notice much difference between any modern SSD, quite honestly.

True for SATA SSDs, I agree. However, going to a PCIe SSD with 1400MB/s sequential reads blew my pants off. It's like going from HDD to SSD all over again.

 

[Phynaz]

Generally speaking, are not 2015 SSDs and their controllers more reliable than 2009 ones?

I don't think so. i.e. Samsung Evo.

 

[shady28]

Generally speaking, are not 2015 SSDs and their controllers more reliable than 2009 ones?

I think that is true of older consumer grade SSDs. I had a couple of older ones die on me a few years ago (A Force F90 and a Nova series 60gb) and early on there were tons of reports of sudden SSD death.

New ones seem far, far more reliable.

These guys intentionally killed 6 SSDs in an endurance test. Looks like it took about 18 months.

http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead/4

 

[StrangerGuy]

Other than benchmarks and bragging rights, an SSD is an SSD.

I can't feel the difference between my first LiteOn 128GB SSD vs Samsung 840 PRO that I had before vs SanDisk Extreme PRO 960GB vs the current Intel 750 PCIe SSD 1.2 TB that I have which gives me insane numbers, but feels no faster than any of those older SSDs in my daily work flow which is all about watching movies, surfing the net, and maybe play a game every now and then.

I will even argue a consumer grade SSD on SATA2 port feels the same as on a SATA3 port. Other than the Internet connection and the GPU there is really no real bottleneck left to solve for a normal consumer PC.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I think that is true of older consumer grade SSDs. I had a couple of older ones die on me a few years ago (A Force F90 and a Nova series 60gb) and early on there were tons of reports of sudden SSD death.

New ones seem far, far more reliable.

I've had two SSDs outright die on me, that I can recall.

1) Mushkin Chronos Deluxe 240GB. Died within a month, doing laptop duty. SandForce bugs.

2) An OCZ Agility 30GB. Killed by a cheap PSU that also seemingly damaged the mobo.

I've also had a 240GB OCZ Barefoot (2?) controller SSD semi-die on me. Growing numbers of bad sectors, due to a high-temp environment. Had to be secure-erased at least twice.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I will even argue a consumer grade SSD on SATA2 port feels the same as on a SATA3 port.

In many cases, this is true, especially with the smaller SSDs (120GB and below) due to slower write speeds.

And most budget drives don't exceed 280MB/sec in 4K random reads either, anyways.

 

[Eug]

Interestingly enough, not all operations on a PC are IOPS-limited. Windows Update apparently, is not, or at least, it is more CPU-dependent than IOPS-dependent.

How do I know this? Within a short span of time, I installed Win7 SP1 64-bit to two machines, one, a Sempron 3850 1.3Ghz quad-core, with a 120GB Apotop SSD, and one, an AM3 X4 630 or 640 quad-core, near 3.0Ghz, with a 500GB Seagate 7200 RPM HDD (a few years old).

Doing Windows Updates, after they had all downloaded, the AM3 rig with a HDD, finished way before the AM1 rig with the SSD. Granted, one is a 1.3Ghz quad-core, versus a 3.0Ghz quad-core. The faster CPU wasn't noticably held back by the HDD.

Certainly, I would have expected a 3.0Ghz AM3 quad-core WITH an SSD to finish even faster, but those are interesting data points.

Windows install and Windows Update (Win 7 fresh install --> Win 7 SP1 --> Win 10 --> Latest Win 10 updates) took forever on my dual-core Atom. It was uber painful, even with SSD. SSD was Intel 330 120 GB.

Also, just deleting the OEM bloatware on that machine also took a very long time.