just installed my Intel SSD

[i3arracuda]

Originally posted by: cambit69
Since we're talking about oranges, whether or not you've seen any apples perform better than 14MB/s for 4k random reads is irrelevant. Your little screenshot only supports the fact that oranges suck. As for an example, I base my benchmarks on the banana. So to sum everything up, oranges suck monkey balls. And Chewbacca is a Wookiee.

+1 for cambit69...

-1 for logic.

 

[Toadster]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Toadster
Random Write 4KB : 30.286 MB/s

That's actually pretty good for 4k random writes. What SATA controller you got it connected to? ICH9?

yup DX48BT2 mobo

 

[RU482]

is this the 80GB version?

How much did you pay?

 

[coolVariable]

Originally posted by: redly1
is this the 80GB version?

How much did you pay?

I thought the Samsung SLC are faster with Random Writes?

 

[Toadster]

Originally posted by: coolVariable

Originally posted by: redly1
is this the 80GB version?

How much did you pay?

I thought the Samsung SLC are faster with Random Writes?

the Intel SLC is faster as well, this is the consumer MLC 80GB part - the SLC is 32GB (I think)...

lots of places selling online, but it's pricey right now... expect over $500 easily. Waiting for them to come down in price a bit as I'd LOVE to set these up in a RAID stripe

 

[capeconsultant]

I can see paying maybe twice as much for an Intel. After all, it is a better product. But 3 or 4 times as much? Gee, thanks Intel, for NOTHING!

I would like to see the current price cut in half for my holiday pleasure

Dave

 

[faxon]

i think the best part is that the review compares some older generation flash SSDs which WERE rather horrible in their performance. the drives he is comparing the intel SSD to were in fact only about as fast as a 5400RPM 2.5" platter drive, they didnt have a DRAM data cache like the current intel drive does, and they suffered from the same controller issues as every MLC drive on the market right now besides intel's drive. ooh and did i mention the fact that the I-RAM can only utilize up to 4GB of storage space? thats not even enough to hold the Vista OS, making the drive basically useless for anything other than a scratch disk that works while the system is powered on. even once the DDR2 version launches, 16GB of space will still be only just enough space for the OS and drivers, but vista will still refuse to install unless you have 20-40? GB of free space on your drive, so again its a moot point for anything other than a scratch disk. it would be cheaper and faster to just use an exsisting system which supports DDR2, or DDR3 when Nehalem launches, and put in 8-24GB of ram, buy RAMDisk 9 Plus, and turn most of your ram into a ramdisk that way. sure, its volatile storage, but its so damn fast compared to even the fastest SAS device, and it has a direct link to the CPU to boot! you want faster random read/write performance? build yourself a system with this DDR2: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820145217, or this DDR3 for nehalem: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820231200. i wanna see the benchmarks on that disk's IO performance






ed: no really i do, im considering a configuration like that one at some point anyway so its not like im asking for something im never going to do lol