• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

confused re Samsung SSD

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
NDA. same reason ANAND can't show you his G3 ES samples (x18/x25).

benchmark queens - don't expect #'s like sandforce pushing all 00's - and duh - it's stupid to compare a unit with twice as many chips against another unit.


I never understood why you'd benchmark (34nm) 256 gb drives against 160 or 120 or 64 - laws of physics here you can only make those chips go so fast without overclocking them 😉
 
Last edited:
Emulex said:
NDA. same reason ANAND can't show you his G3 ES samples (x18/x25).

benchmark queens - don't expect #'s like sandforce pushing all 00's - and duh - it's stupid to compare a unit with twice as many chips against another unit.


I never understood why you'd benchmark (34nm) 256 gb drives against 160 or 120 or 64 - laws of physics here you can only make those chips go so fast without overclocking them 😉
Click to expand...

First off, I might suggest you check out the review of which we speak. There are no comparison tests using 0Fill and all comparison testing is with Vantage. Vantage is one of the only programs where you can reliably test a compressed against a non-compressed drive.

Next...with respect to sizes, you are speaking of die which would bring us right back to the single die chips Intel used that everybody loves for some reason. I never really figured that out because now, not only is Intel chasing every drive out there with their original release, but also, they have stated not to wait around because there is nothing they can do to surprise you with the next release.

That is unless you can find some magic way to break the SATA II barrier which is at 285MB/s roughly...

I can put a 40GB SF drive right beside the best in real life or vantage testing which makes your point just a bit moot. I do understand why you might question comparison of a 64Gb crucial with the better drives however and the simple answer is that the readers want to see it to understand the difference.

Where is Intel going to be in a few short months when most other manufacturers are at the 500/500 SATA 6GB/s level? They have already stated they are not doing that.
 
nothing reads at 285mb/s except benchmarks. you are benchmark queens if you think that's real. my pc boots up in 5 seconds !! w00t i rule!. i'm more interested in iops for multitasking and stability. stability trumps all of course. you can go 600mb/s but if you are crashing every other day randomly what good is that 😉

real life? Most users (casual users) couldn't tell the difference between an x25-v and a 256gb C300 because relatively they are the same speed at doing typical tasks.

of course it is cool that your pc can boot cold in 2 seconds but i do that hmm maybe once a week.
 
Emulex said:
nothing reads at 285mb/s except benchmarks. you are benchmark queens if you think that's real. my pc boots up in 5 seconds !! w00t i rule!. i'm more interested in iops for multitasking and stability. stability trumps all of course. you can go 600mb/s but if you are crashing every other day randomly what good is that 😉

real life? Most users (casual users) couldn't tell the difference between an x25-v and a 256gb C300 because relatively they are the same speed at doing typical tasks.

of course it is cool that your pc can boot cold in 2 seconds but i do that hmm maybe once a week.
Click to expand...

ONE TIME, I transferred 40GB from one SSD to another. I got 230MB/s. It was great. Never saw it again.
 
If we wrote to SSD at a rate that we would notice it often enough, you would hit the 10K write cycles in short time. now if you are defragging every day 😉 then yah you probably would feel the speed diffie all the time .

but with 10K write cycles you need to be well over 95% read to write ratio to make the drive go the distance.

I boot up about once a week so i can clear out the microsoft - and i think the sandforce is actually 1s slower than the intel but it might be .5s it seems to go through the bios faster so if you count that then the sandforce maybe .5s faster than the intel but i'm not sure if that is fair.

Even with my x25-v i use CS5 photoshop for image preview and its so damn fast it doesn't matter (x25-v reads just as fast as the 80gb X25-M in all synth benchmarks)
 
of course it is cool that your pc can boot cold in 2 seconds but i do that hmm maybe once a week
Click to expand...

I get the overall gist of what you are saying about all ssds being fast enough that slight differences do not matter so much, but boot time is a very important factor to some of us.
I for one do not leave my computer running at all times. To say boot speed is not relevant is just silly. All of us reboot, whether it be for updates, or software installs or whatever the case may be. If I'm going to drop the coin and go ssd it BETTER be booting up faster else what is the point.
 
Emulex said:
If we wrote to SSD at a rate that we would notice it often enough, you would hit the 10K write cycles in short time. now if you are defragging every day 😉 then yah you probably would feel the speed diffie all the time .
Click to expand...
Too bad that there are other things where sequential read/write does make a difference, for one Anand benched Photoshop some time ago, if you want to look that up.

Also 10k write cycles with a WA of around 1.1 you'd need several hundreds of TB to run out of cycles for a 160gb drive, pretty much uninteresting for anyone not running a write heavy db/server.

And while Vantage isn't perfect, it's still pretty real life oriented.. at least much more than other synthetic benchmarks who don't even strife for that goal.
 
but hybrid sleep and hibernate are solid options as well. thats how the magic macbook air is getting mad wake up times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top