Having an itch...

[flexy]

SSDs have become WAY more interesting over the last months, and right now the OCZ Vertex, Patriot Torque and Supertalent ME (all the same hardware) are very interesting to me.

My W7 partition(s) is 54GB, so i could even put a 64GB drive in it for the system, it would be an ideal size.

However, my "fear" is that i get one of those drives and then in a month or two there's new ones out with better performance.

I also hear something like that the SSDs "wear out" in time and get slower..what does that mean?

I am still running two Hitachi SATA drives, but ATM the drives are actually the bottleneck of my whole system according to WEI.

 

[AshPhoenix]

However, my "fear" is that i get one of those drives and then in a month or two there's new ones out with better performance.

Newer and faster SSDs will always come out.

 

[DukeN]

Me too, totally got the itch but don't want to jump on anything due to finances. If a decent 64-80 gigger drops below $200 CAD taxes in I might just take the plunge. Problem is I want one for both desktops and wife's laptop as well.

Maybe something will come up on BF (or boxing day)

 

[Zensal]

Originally posted by: flexy

I also hear something like that the SSDs "wear out" in time and get slower..what does that mean?

OCZ Vertex has recently fixed this permanently. No software needed. I don't know if the firmware has made it into the drives at retailers yet, but you can download it and flash it on your own.

As far as new drives coming out, that always happens. Do your research, set a date and buy it. Nothing else you can do.

 

[TitusTroy]

Originally posted by: AshPhoenix
Newer and faster SSDs will always come out.

just like with video cards...something better is always around the corner

only problem with SSD's is I don't know about the resale value for used drives?...since SSD's have a limited life cycle would people be eager to buy a used SSD with who knows how much actual wear on it?...not the same as with older video cards and other components which maintain a decent resale value...which can be used towards the purchase of a newer/better component

 

[taltamir]

the limited life cycle is a total non issue with modern drives. it will last hundreds of years for an average person... much longer than any other component on your PC. everything you own, from a battery, to ram, to a CPU, to whatever, has a limited lifespan.

 

[Ualdayan]

Originally posted by: TitusTroy

Originally posted by: AshPhoenix
Newer and faster SSDs will always come out.

just like with video cards...something better is always around the corner

only problem with SSD's is I don't know about the resale value for used drives?...since SSD's have a limited life cycle would people be eager to buy a used SSD with who knows how much actual wear on it?...not the same as with older video cards and other components which maintain a decent resale value...which can be used towards the purchase of a newer/better component

From what I've heard SSD's actually last fairly long. I would almost be more worried about how somebody has treated their videocard than their SSD because I always have horrible luck with (usually nvidia) videocards. It just seems like there is a lot more that goes wrong with videocards than with SSDs.

 

[taltamir]

new or used video cards ualdayan?
But yea, video cards from both companies tend to FRY themselves due to obscene power and heat... they are just so competitive with each other that they are pushing massive dies with massive consumption at the edge of the speed it can do. There is no room to OC or even to have a hotter than usual room temperature.
plus they often have poorly applied TIM on the HSF.

 

[Ualdayan]

Originally posted by: taltamir
new or used video cards ualdayan?
But yea, video cards from both companies tend to FRY themselves due to obscene power and heat... they are just so competitive with each other that they are pushing massive dies with massive consumption at the edge of the speed it can do. There is no room to OC or even to have a hotter than usual room temperature.
plus they often have poorly applied TIM on the HSF.

New. I had a 7900GTX go bad (first week I had it), then it's replacement went bad. Then the 2nd replacement went bad. The fourth one works to this day.They didn't overheat, they just slowly started to artifact a little. Then a little more. Then eventually it couldn't even make it into windows without the screen going blank. Then in another computer I had a 7950GX go bad, and it's replacement also malfunctions now. I didn't overclock any of them, and I had plenty of cooling - the only thing I did that was out of the norm at the time was I had some programs that pretty much kept them at 100% use around the clock.

So I suppose you could say all my problems weren't just nvidia specifically, but rather the 7000 series in particular (I had numerous 6000 series and they all worked fine until I stopped using them). I have a 8800GTS that seems to work fine now, and the 7950GX works fine in XP with multiGPU mode off (with multiGPU mode on it'll cause random blocks of red/green noise in a checkerboard look)

You might ask why did I keep getting nvidia cards when it seemed like the 7900GTX screwed me so bad - well, I was a sucker who kept falling for nvidia's at the time 'cooler', 'lower power usage', 'faster cards'. With the computer being on all the time I really wanted something as quiet as possible too and at the time ATI cards were known for their high noise levels.

 

[taltamir]

My point was that they came with inadequate cooling and clocked too high from the factory.
The nvidia 8800GT and the AMD HD4850 had the same problem... and the 8800GTS and... well most cards made by AMD and nVidia are pushed to the max that way, too hot, too much voltage, too much clockspeed. They are NOT built to last.

 

[F1shF4t]

Originally posted by: Ualdayan
New. I had a 7900GTX go bad (first week I had it), then it's replacement went bad. Then the 2nd replacement went bad. The fourth one works to this day.They didn't overheat, they just slowly started to artifact a little. Then a little more. Then eventually it couldn't even make it into windows without the screen going blank. Then in another computer I had a 7950GX go bad, and it's replacement also malfunctions now. I didn't overclock any of them, and I had plenty of cooling - the only thing I did that was out of the norm at the time was I had some programs that pretty much kept them at 100% use around the clock.

So I suppose you could say all my problems weren't just nvidia specifically, but rather the 7000 series in particular (I had numerous 6000 series and they all worked fine until I stopped using them). I have a 8800GTS that seems to work fine now, and the 7950GX works fine in XP with multiGPU mode off (with multiGPU mode on it'll cause random blocks of red/green noise in a checkerboard look)

You might ask why did I keep getting nvidia cards when it seemed like the 7900GTX screwed me so bad - well, I was a sucker who kept falling for nvidia's at the time 'cooler', 'lower power usage', 'faster cards'. With the computer being on all the time I really wanted something as quiet as possible too and at the time ATI cards were known for their high noise levels.

I've had a completely opposite experiance with video cards, only one actually failed (FX5700). I even blew up something on my old 8800gtx (inductor maybe) when accidently shorted something with a screw driver. After removing the component I just bypased it with solder. The card still works well enough to easily run 24/7 gpu F@H for 2 weeks without any crashes. Even had a 6800 ultra which worked fine until I decided to send it back, I was told its bios was corrupt, yet I still was using it for over a year beforehand.

RAM on the other hand always gave me problems I had quite a lot of sticks just randomly go bad.

SSD drives better be reliable, I have 2 coming in on monday
(The itch turned into a rash and gave my wallet a heart attack )

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Zensal

Originally posted by: flexy

I also hear something like that the SSDs "wear out" in time and get slower..what does that mean?

OCZ Vertex has recently fixed this permanently. No software needed. I don't know if the firmware has made it into the drives at retailers yet, but you can download it and flash it on your own.

As far as new drives coming out, that always happens. Do your research, set a date and buy it. Nothing else you can do.

SSDs still wear out with time. If you're talking about performance degrading, then yes, the performance degrading is fixed with the vertex. The memory will still die if you use the drive long enough.

 

[Dorkenstein]

So if I was to buy a vertex from anywhere, it would have this fix incorporated? Or do I need to download and flash it first?

 

[flexy]

I read something about 20.000 "erase cycles" after that the SSD would have worn out....and other people recommend things like ramdisks to reduce frequency of writes?
Is there a FAQ or something...eg. if i plan to get one for my W7 system...how do you format them, how to set them up....what settings to use in Windows 7?
(As i understand superfetch and pagefile need to be turned off?)

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: flexy
I read something about 20.000 "erase cycles" after that the SSD would have worn out....and other people recommend things like ramdisks to reduce frequency of writes?
Is there a FAQ or something...eg. if i plan to get one for my W7 system...how do you format them, how to set them up....what settings to use in Windows 7?
(As i understand superfetch and pagefile need to be turned off?)

flexy I wholeheartedly recommend you read thru the first four or five pages of Anand's original Intel SSD review from almost a year ago.

Sure its getting a little dated in terms of publish date but the lifetime info is still relevant and is so much so that more recent reviews don't bother to delve into the details as much because its been hashed out so thoroughly in these "early day" reviews from 2008.

Check it out and put your mind to ease.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: flexy
I read something about 20.000 "erase cycles" after that the SSD would have worn out....and other people recommend things like ramdisks to reduce frequency of writes?
Is there a FAQ or something...eg. if i plan to get one for my W7 system...how do you format them, how to set them up....what settings to use in Windows 7?
(As i understand superfetch and pagefile need to be turned off?)

do you write terrabytes a day, every day? no? at 20GB a day EVERY DAY it will take me HUNDREDS of years to run out of writes. the lamp in my LCD, the cells in the LCD, the CPU, my GPU, my ram, my spindle drive's motor, and every other component in my PC is NOT going to last that long...

 

[flexy]

its not 20GB/day..its 20.000 "erase cycles"...and some people made calculations that in a typical windows system this would mean less than a year life-time or something.

 

[taltamir]

its not 20GB/day..its 20.000 "erase cycles"

I didn't say 20GB because of your 20,000 figure...
First, it is 10,000 erase cycles, not 20,000. And I am saying that IF you write 20GB a day it will last hundreds of years before the 10,000 cycles PER CELL are used up. I did the math myself.

the less than a year thing requires very high write amplification, very small drives, insane write speed, insane amount of data written...
It will never happen in a "typical windows environment", it will not even happen in a special environment design to destroy such drives. You just can't do it.

But if you have a REALLY old drive WITHOUT wear leveling you COULD destroy SPECIFIC cells at the BEGINING of the drive because they are constantly overwritten and are used up.

 

[taltamir]

ah hell. I will just do the math AGAIN for you...

10,000 lifetime writes x 80GB = 800000 lifetime GB writes
20GB/day written * 1.1 write aplification (real GB writes used / GB of data written) = 22GB/day real GB used.
800000GB / (22GB/day) = 36363.6 days. / 365 days / year = 99.6 years

If it was 20,000 writes as you suggested, than it would last twice as long, nearly 200 years. But you are wrong, it is 10,000 writes.
Also, you could assume higher write amplification, with double the write amplification resulting in half the lifespan...

You can divide 800,000 / 20GB to get 40,000 days, or 109.6 days. then adjust it for whatever you beleive the real write amplification is... say it is 5x, that means you will only last 21.9 years. (a 5x write amplification means that for every 1GB of data you write, the drive actually ends up writing 5GB of data to the drive due to waste an inefficiency.)

 

[taltamir]

you know what, lets worse case it here... 32GB drive x 10000 lifetime writes = 320000 lifetime GB writes... 20GB a day means 16000 days 43.8 years... now add write amplification of 5x, 8.76 years...
Now that is assuming you write 20GB a day, every day, for the entire 8 years to that 32GB drive... and that your write amplification is THAT bad... (intel controller is supposed to be 1.1x, aka 10% waste, we are assuming 400% waste in this example)

I just don't see how a "normal windows environment" will use it up in a YEAR

 

[jimhsu]

Hm question. What are the actual realized write amplification values for consumer SSDs out there?

I happen to think that Intel's 1.1x is a bit too optimistic, while 5x is by every definition "incredibly bad". Wonder what actual values are - 1.5-2x?

 

[taltamir]

very few people have the tools and know how to actually measure such a thing.
Although, maybe you could run a program that writes a specific amount of data for a certain amount of time, then test the condition of the chips, and use that to calculate the wear level relative to expected level. it would be a lot easier to do if there is a smart value for this... is there one?

 

[Denithor]

Kind of a moot point, don't you think?

If the worst case is 5x and the 32GB drive will still last 8 years that's pretty awesome. Because larger drives will last proportionately longer (double capacity = double lifespan due to wear leveling) so you could reasonably expect 16 years out of a 64GB drive under "worst case conditions."

And 16 years, or even 8 years, is longer than most of today's rotational hard drives are going to last before failure (especially if you subject them to anywhere near "worst case" conditions).