Disappointing 80GB X25-M G2 performance

[jimhsu]

OP: Based on your experiences so far, I would say the boot time is most likely a BIOS/chipset/driver issue. POST definitely should NOT take 30 seconds (mine takes about 10+).

You look like your AHCI is enabled. That's fine. Your scores are also fine.

I suspect you might actually be CPU limited (I have basically the same CPU/memory capacity/2ndary hard drive as you). I say this from observing task manager and app use during bootup; having both cores pegged at 100% usage is quite a sure sign that there's a CPU limitation going on (esp since you work with 60+ tabs (most probably with some flash), 40 layers (which simply isn't affected by disk speed, but rather CPU/GPU/memory), etc). Too much "crap" at startup, as someone said, is often a cause of this (draining both storage and CPU power). How many processes does task manager show when you get to the desktop from a fresh boot? If this number is close to 100, you definitely have too much going on.

I've said this before and i'll say it again - the SSD is the first device that justifies investing in a quad core (simply because it can handle simultaneous random accesses so efficiently). That said, a SSD does not replace system maintenance - in fact I would say it even encourages it.

 

[CurseTheSky]

Definitely try running the Intel SSD Toolbox. I've had mixed results - the first time I ran it, my scores actually went down. Since then, things have improved. I have it scheduled to run on Fridays at 12 PM, but I ran it just now for the hell of it.

Several weeks ago, before running Intel SSD Toolbox

Several weeks ago, after running Intel SSD Toolbox

Today, before running Intel SSD Toolbox

Today, after running Intel SSD Toolbox

 

[Pollock]

I ran the Intel SSD optimizer yesterday, and here's a comparison:

Before/after

Significant boost - thank you for the tip. I will also try to clean some more files off it to see if that helps any further.

I know boot time isn't a big deal, but anything I can do to speed it up? I restart frequently enough that it's a bother. Any explanation as to what effects exactly AHCI has?

I realize that I would probably come to appreciate it if I were to go back to a spindle drive. I notice it on all the other computers I use, but they are also much slower and have low-end hard drives.

To its credit, I definitely noticed a decrease in the time needed for unzipping operations. But seriously, I don't feel like a few dozen tabs should be able to seriously slow my computer down or cause it to lag? Even if they are flash-intensive, is it really that bad on the CPU?

 

[CurseTheSky]

To me, it sounds like you have a software problem. Either a ton of startup programs / services, or a virus / spyware.

Try this:

- Start -> search for msconfig -> run the .exe
- Startup tab -> take inventory of how many items you have
- I have five items total, and only two are enabled (Avira and Creative X-Fi). I manually disabled two for Adobe Reader and one for Google Updater. When I help others speed up their boot time, I usually advise disabling anything related to RealPlayer, Quicktime, iTunes, AOL / Yahoo / Windows Live Instant Messenger, WeatherBug, and any similar "install this into your system tray!" programs. Some are essential (anti-virus, hardware related programs), but most are junk. Note that this will only improve the time it takes from the Windows login screen (where you type your password, if you have one) until your computer actually becomes usable
- Services tab -> check hide all Microsoft Services -> take inventory
- I had about ten items total, and I disabled a couple that I don't need (Nvidia Stereoscopic, one associated with CDBurnerXP, etc.)

Some BIOSes have a "quick boot" option, or an automatic memory test. Enabling quick boot and disabling any automatic memory tests may help a lot. Some ASUS motherboards (or laptops) come with ExpressGate, which may have a # of seconds delay waiting for user input (a specific key) before it boots the real OS. It might be worth looking into all of those.

 

[jimhsu]

Yes, flash kills performance like no other (especially that sites that use it these days have several instances running (ie ads). Take a look at task manager if you're not convinced.

 

[skid00skid00]

You don't have an SSD problem, you have a RAM problem.

 

[Makaveli]

I ran the Intel SSD optimizer yesterday, and here's a comparison:

Before/after

Significant boost - thank you for the tip. I will also try to clean some more files off it to see if that helps any further.

I know boot time isn't a big deal, but anything I can do to speed it up? I restart frequently enough that it's a bother. Any explanation as to what effects exactly AHCI has?

I realize that I would probably come to appreciate it if I were to go back to a spindle drive. I notice it on all the other computers I use, but they are also much slower and have low-end hard drives.

To its credit, I definitely noticed a decrease in the time needed for unzipping operations. But seriously, I don't feel like a few dozen tabs should be able to seriously slow my computer down or cause it to lag? Even if they are flash-intensive, is it really that bad on the CPU?

wow your numbers in this shot are very good for the 80GB drive almost the same score as a 160GB model.

One question I do have guys, is when you run the intel tool does it write a whole 80GB or 160GB to the drive?

 

[rcpratt]

wow your numbers in this shot are very good for the 80GB drive almost the same score as a 160GB model.

One question I do have guys, is when you run the intel tool does it write a whole 80GB or 160GB to the drive?

Of course not. That would just wear the drive down faster. Besides, the tool takes about 2 seconds to run, and writing 80GB to the drive would take several minutes.

 

[Pollock]

You don't have an SSD problem, you have a RAM problem.

How's that?

 

[IntelUser2000]

*snip*

I know boot time isn't a big deal, but anything I can do to speed it up? I restart frequently enough that it's a bother. Any explanation as to what effects exactly AHCI has?

I realized you have a WD HDD. Is that used as a "data" drive? I noticed if the secondary hard drive is TOO slow it slows my system down and it stutters. I tried plugging in a 4200RPM laptop drive in place of the 160GB Seagate 7200RPM and it was much slower.

Try unplugging your other drive and see if that affects it a bit.

Different hardware configs and installation could also have an impact on your boot time too. With a Core 2 Duo E6600 system and same drives it booted Win 7 32-bit pretty fast and a bit of delay on the desktop, but with the Core i5 661 setup with Win 7 64-bit it boots Windows a little slower but the desktop is available much faster.

Strangely my Core i5 661 setup has two bootup times:
-"Slow" boot up time where it boots to desktop 15-20 seconds after the Windows 7 logo animation finishes(usually happens after installing a new driver or a system setup change)
-"Fast" boot up where it boots to desktop as soon as Windows 7 logo animation finishes

 

[pcslookout]

The sequential writes are way too low for an X25-M too, aren't they? Should be at least 70 GB/s. Most X25-M's score in the 400 range on that bench. Not really sure what could be causing that, though.

Interesting how people are split on SSDs. I think the change was every bit as big as my first multi-core CPU. Guess it just depends how you use it.

At least I am not alone now with my viewpoint. Thought I was going crazy. Though like Zap said is so true! You only notice the difference when doing disk intensive stuff. I tried what everyone said here and went back to my Western Digital Raptor 10,000 rpm drive. It doesn't feel that much different except when loading a game or installing a program. That is it. Still I went back to my SSDs but I won't be buying any new ones anytime soon until the difference is huge.

I wonder if a 80GB to 160GB Ramdrive, if it ever became possible, would be worth it?