• 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.

Might be getting an SSD, $200-250 range, is this the best?

M

Maverick2002

Diamond Member
I may be able to get an SSD in the near future. Definitely looking forward to the monster upgrade to my system. Budget is $200-250 range. I'm running Win7 64 Ultimate. Currently thinking this is my best bet:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820167016

I have a relatively light install. I'm currently only using 32GB for Win7 and all my programs. I don't play any games at this point, but I will be adding SC2 and D3 upon release for sure. So, with 20GB of space for games (modest), this should still leave plenty of room, even for some temporary data storage that I may access on a regular basis.

I'm assuming Intel X25MG2 is still the best there is? 80GB is sufficient for me, native TRIM is a must.

TIA!
 
It seems to be one of the best general SSD out there, especially considering the price is now reasonable. Although I think the new Sandforce 1500/1200 based drives offer better performance.
 
Can you elaborate? Not familiar with it. Are those still the Intel drives?

Also, I'm comparing the "fastest" MLC SSD according to AT Bench (Crucial RealSSD) to the 80GB X25MG2 (my target) : http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/137?vs=125

For the most part they seem on par, but Crucial wins by a lot in the sequential write, though Intel wins by a lot in the random 4K write, which I thought was the biggest benefit of SSDs? I also won't be doing any large sequential writes onto this drive since it's mainly for apps, so from a usage standpoint isn't the Intel drive faster?

And do these new drives that are popping up have native TRIM?
 
Last edited:
I've been looking at these too but when I look at the 4K Random Writes (Aligned) the C300 wins be a large margin. Doesn't Windows 7 Align SSD's automatically or does this have to be done manually?

I'm leaning towards the Intel for stability and reliability but can't seem to ignore the C300's performance numbers.
 
Don't get one - or read this forum before posting YET ANOTHER THREAD asking which SSD you should get.
I count 10 others asking the same question!!!!
 
Real world useage you won't notice a difference between any of them. So go for the combo of price + proven reliability.
 
Last I remember Intel was the best choice for several reasons (speed, reliability, TRIM). Is this still the case? That's my original question.
 
Zillatech said:
I've been looking at these too but when I look at the 4K Random Writes (Aligned) the C300 wins be a large margin. Doesn't Windows 7 Align SSD's automatically or does this have to be done manually?
Click to expand...
I think all you need to do is have the Windows 7 installer partition/format the drive and you'll get the automatic alignment. If you use an imaging program to restore your previously-installed OS (even if it's Windows 7) you won't get automatic-alignment.
 
Logical block addressing (LBA) assigns a unique (within drive) number for each 512 byte "sector". However, most filesystems do access disk one 4kiB block at a time, ie 8 consecutive sectors at time.

Now, some new HDD (WD EARS) and SSD do not physically access 512 bytes at a time, but do read/write blocks of 4 kiB as well. However, you can tell the filesystem to start from any LBA "sector".

In aligned system each logical 4 kiB block of filesystem matches one physical 4 kiB block.


However ... lets assume that LBA 0--7 is the first physical block, and 8--15 is the second. And lets partition disk so that first partition starts from LBA 7. First logical block will be on LBA 7--14. That is not aligned.

Now you write a tiny file. One byte long. In this simplified example it is placed into the first logical block. That block has to be written. But the drive has to:
1. Read LBA 0--7, and replace the last 512 bytes with new content.
2. Write LBA 0--7.
3. Read LBA 8--15, and replace all but last 512 bytes with new content. (And file being so small, the "new content" is nothing.)
4. Write LBA 8--15.

So practically ever write (and read) will touch two physical blocks. That is (a) slow, and (b) wearing out the media. On aligned system the same write does touch only one physical block.

Actually, the SSD do have an "erase block size", which is significantly larger than 4 kiB. So starting at multiple of 4 kiB is not sufficient; one is better to start partitions from multiple of the erase block size.

The partitioning tool of Win7 does automatically create partitions that are aligned. But it won't fix old partitions from inherited disks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top