New to SSDs? Read this first before asking questions! (UPDATED 07/17/2011)

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ZipSpeed

Golden Member
Aug 13, 2007
1,302
169
106
I just picked up a Vertex 2 for my laptop and it's my first foray into SSDs. I have an Intel chipset so will installing any Intel storage drivers overwrite the MS AHCI driver thus disabling TRIM? Or should I avoid installing any Intel chipset or storage drivers period?
 

flamenko

Senior member
Apr 25, 2010
349
0
0
www.thessdreview.com
Hey Calgary...

The latest Intel release 9.6 support TRIM as does the original MSAHCI driver. If you are looking for a performance difference, you may not find any between the two respective drivers.

Enjoy!
 

jimhsu

Senior member
Mar 22, 2009
705
0
76
Based on the latest review, the "performance" market seems to be divided into two categories:

Next-gen controllers:
Sandforce
C300

Previous gen controllers:
Indilinx
Intel G2
Intel G1

I wonder how to express this in terms of recommendations?
 

ZipSpeed

Golden Member
Aug 13, 2007
1,302
169
106
Hey Calgary...

The latest Intel release 9.6 support TRIM as does the original MSAHCI driver. If you are looking for a performance difference, you may not find any between the two respective drivers.

Enjoy!

Excellent. Thanks!
 

flamenko

Senior member
Apr 25, 2010
349
0
0
www.thessdreview.com
Based on the latest review, the "performance" market seems to be divided into two categories:

Next-gen controllers:
Sandforce
C300

Previous gen controllers:
Indilinx
Intel G2
Intel G1

I wonder how to express this in terms of recommendations?

I would go one further and separate the Intels from the Indi because of the difference in compression methods.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
Next Gen Controllers (due Q4 this year):
Intel G3
Indilinx 2

current gen controllers:
C300
Sandforce

Last Gen controllers:
Indilinx
Intel G2

-2 Gens old controllers:
Intel G1
 

Zap

Elite Member
Oct 13, 1999
22,377
7
81
Based on the latest review, the "performance" market seems to be divided into two categories:

Next-gen controllers:
Sandforce
C300

Previous gen controllers:
Indilinx
Intel G2
Intel G1

I wonder how to express this in terms of recommendations?

Consider this. Going from a hard drive to a "previous gen" SSD nets you 2-3 times the transfer rate (for the higher capacity drives) and access times that are SO much faster... 10x? 50x? 100x?

What does going from a "previous gen" SSD to a "next gen" SSD get you? Maybe .2-.6 times faster transfer rates and... the same access times?

Seriously though. If you had a computer with a HDD, and swapped it out for any of the "previous gen" SSDs, you'll probably notice a nice performance gain. Swap out that SSD for a "next gen" SSD and... will anyone notice?

Give me a "next gen" SSD that can sustain 300Mb/s for random reads/writes and sustain double that for sequential reads, and then we can discuss this again. Do that for a competitive price at large capacities and I will be suitably impressed.

I would buy based on price and how solid of a product. For instance the early Crucial firmware and the Sandforce being sold with RC firmware is somewhat disturbing. My data isn't worth very much (not even to me, LOL) but I believe that your drives should be trusted.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
Consider this. Going from a hard drive to a "previous gen" SSD nets you 2-3 times the transfer rate (for the higher capacity drives) and access times that are SO much faster... 10x? 50x? 100x?

What does going from a "previous gen" SSD to a "next gen" SSD get you? Maybe .2-.6 times faster transfer rates and... the same access times?

Seriously though. If you had a computer with a HDD, and swapped it out for any of the "previous gen" SSDs, you'll probably notice a nice performance gain. Swap out that SSD for a "next gen" SSD and... will anyone notice?

A very important observation.

I would buy based on price and how solid of a product. For instance the early Crucial firmware and the Sandforce being sold with RC firmware is somewhat disturbing. My data isn't worth very much (not even to me, LOL) but I believe that your drives should be trusted.
And AFAIK every single SSD ever sold to date had some firmware bugs initially, that were eventually fixed... So, I am expecting similar issues to crop up with those.
however, if you have backups and they honor their warranty...
 
Last edited:

wpcoe

Senior member
Nov 13, 2007
586
2
81
I live in Thailand and the other day I wandered through the local tech mall and one of the larger DIY shops had some SSDs listed on their signboard:

ssd.gif


And the bug bit.

I’m aware of the left-brain arguments to wait until the larger/cheaper Intel (G3?) drives are released this fall so an 80GB drive would sell for the current 40GB drive price, etc. This is my right-brain we’re dealing with.

My mature Win7 C: partition (data is on another partition) is currently 37GB. If I delete old System Restore points, it drops to 29GB. Explorer shows a 4.5GB hibernation file and a 1GB page file. So, my partition size could drop to around 24GB. (My idea of a computer game is Solitaire. I use mainly word processing, e-mail and Photoshop.)

Questions:

(1) Is it current “wisdom” to turn off System Restore for SSDs?

(2) Is the Intel drive actually a 48GB drive with 8GB set aside for “maintenance” or is the raw size actually 40GB from which un-formatted space must be subtracted to get usable size? If the latter, what is a practical amount of usable, formatted space to expect?

I found that answer here on anandtech.com:

[imglink]http://www.wpcoe.com/images/intel_x25v.gif[/imglink]

(2a) Would the Intel be big enough for my C: partition? I know Zap recommended a 50+GB drive in post #45 above, but if I turn off hibernation and System Restore and have a <30GB partition, would the Intel 40GB be enough?.

(3) I understand that the Kingston drive’s raw size is 64GB, meaning usable size would be smaller. Is the OCZ drive actually a 64GB drive with 4GB already partitioned off?

(4) Isn’t the SNV125 a first generation Kingston drive, whereas the SNV425 is the newest generation, e.g. with Trim? I’m puzzled why the 425 would be cheaper.

(5) For consumer (i.e. non-enterprise, non-power user) systems, many reviews say the Intel drives are the way to go. However, the Kingston drives seem to do fairly well, when not persistently pushed to their limits. Should I be swayed toward either the Kingston or Intel drives for any particular reason (other than size)?

If the Intel is not big enough, or is only borderline big enough, then the Kingston definitely gets my money.

However, if the Intel *is* big enough, then what I want to know is the Intel significantly better overall feature/performance-wise than the Kingston? If feature/performance-wise they were on a par, then the larger Kingston would be my choice, given the small difference in price.

(Cutting-edge technology takes a while to reach Thailand, and ordering from places like amazon.com, New Egg, fry’s, etc, while theoretically possible, isn’t practical: e.g. if Thai Customs intercepts the shipment they can extort a “handling fee” in addition to duties. That’s if you can even get an overseas retailer to ship to Thailand. Warranties are problematic, as well.)
 
Last edited:

wpcoe

Senior member
Nov 13, 2007
586
2
81
When manufacturers advertise drive size in "GB," does

1 GB = 1,000,000,000 (one billion) bytes, or
1 GB = 1,073,741,824 (1024^3) bytes?
 
Last edited:

Zap

Elite Member
Oct 13, 1999
22,377
7
81
Questions:

Answers (from a non-expert):

(1) Yes. No. Maybe. Anecdotal evidence of System Restore hurting performance, and of course it definitely eats up disk space. If you were getting the really small drives (like 32GB or 40GB) then yes, disable it. I've personally had it both enabled and disabled on my 128GB SSD boot drive, and I couldn't tell a "seat-of-pants" difference in performance.

(2a) Yes, 40GB is enough if you know to not fill it up beyond around 30-35GB or so. I don't think the spare area set aside from the factory is enough to keep performance at peak.

(3) IDK.

(4) Not sure on which one is newer, but since cost goes down over time, I would expect newer drives to be cheaper to make. If you read the Anandtech article on the new Kingston drives (don't remember which model) Anand takes the drive cover off, and the actual PCB with chips inside it was miniscule. It was seriously like a CompactFlash card with a SATA interface!

(5) I don't think you need to specifically avoid any of the latest generation drives. There have been a couple reports from people buying the recent Kingston drives, and seems as if most have been pleased.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
When manufacturers advertise drive size in "GB," does

1 GB = 1,000,000,000 (one billion) bytes, or
1 GB = 1,073,741,824 (1024^3) bytes?

they advertise it so that 1 GB = 1,000,000,000 (one billion) bytes
so a 500 GB drive is actually 500,000,000,000 bytes
This is why, once formatted, the drive appears smaller. because windows will give you the size in GB where 1 GB = 1,073,741,824 (1024^3) bytes
 

wpcoe

Senior member
Nov 13, 2007
586
2
81
@Zap, thanks for the question-by-question feedback. I feel more comfortable now that I can make a decision between the Intel and Kingston drives. I'm leaning toward the Kingston for the larger capacity. Only had someone said "Avoid the Kingston drive at all cost, and long live the Intel SSDs," would I felt driven toward the Intel.

@taltamir, thanks for clearing that up for me, as well!

Now, another question:

If using an SSD for the system ( C: ) drive with Vista/Win7, does that render using a USB thumbdrive for ReadyBoost obsolete, as well?
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
the kingston drives ARE intel drives, only they take a sticker that says kingston and put it on it... the problem is that intel is not providing them with firmware updates, so you, the customer, get screwed if you buy one.
 

Zap

Elite Member
Oct 13, 1999
22,377
7
81
If using an SSD for the system ( C: ) drive with Vista/Win7, does that render using a USB thumbdrive for ReadyBoost obsolete, as well?

I would think so, because the fastest that a USB drive can go is a fraction of what an SSD on a SATA controller can do.

the kingston drives ARE intel drives

Not anymore. Only certain Kingston models were made by Intel (40/80GB, for instance). The 64GB Kingston is NOT a rebranded Intel drive.
 

wpcoe

Senior member
Nov 13, 2007
586
2
81
The 64GB Kingston SNV425 that I bought showed 59.62GB unallocated in gparted (total sectors 125033896), and 59.6GB by Win7 install before partitioning/installation.

Immediately after installing Win7, right-clicking on C: showed:

used space: 18,867,871,744 = 17.5GB
free: 45,048,074,240 = 41.9GB
capacity: 63,915,945,984 = 59.56GB

That's in addition to the 100MB NTFS partition created during Win7 install with boot/recovery stuff.

So, everything points to 60GB of usable space. Using the "1 GB = 1,000,000,000 (one billion) bytes" definition, it actually has 64GB of usable space.

Isn't there supposed to be some offset, unpartitioned space for the drive to use for maintenance? If so, is there some utility to measure the actual entire capacity of the NAND?
 
Last edited:

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
Isn't there supposed to be some offset, unpartitioned space for the drive to use for maintenance? If so, is there some utility to measure the actual entire capacity of the NAND?

That space is not LISTED... they aren't going to go THAT far to mislead customers.
Your 64GB drive is actually 64,000,000,000 byte drove. it has EXTRA bytes which it does not show the OS, used as spare space.
 

corkyg

Elite Member | Peripherals
Super Moderator
Mar 4, 2000
27,370
240
106
Zap: When you have time, how about guidelines for using CHKDSK on SSDs?
 

wpcoe

Senior member
Nov 13, 2007
586
2
81
Your 64GB drive is actually 64,000,000,000 byte drove. it has EXTRA bytes which it does not show the OS, used as spare space.
Yes, but I'm curious. :)

Seriously, what I'm curious about, is how much reserved spare space the drive has.

If space is left unformatted on the usable 64GB part, would the drive be able to use that for its own purposes, as well as the reserved spare space?
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
Yes, but I'm curious. :)

Seriously, what I'm curious about, is how much reserved spare space the drive has.

If space is left unformatted on the usable 64GB part, would the drive be able to use that for its own purposes, as well as the reserved spare space?

if the space has never been assigned (aka, you did not include it in any partitions since you last secure erased the drive), then it should, in theory.
that being said... TRIM is better... with TRIM all free space is used as extra space... so if you have a 64GB drive with 8GB of extra space (aka, 72GB total) and only 20GB is in use and you have trim, then 52GB is being used as spare space.
 

razel

Platinum Member
May 14, 2002
2,337
93
101
IANAE, but was there any special methods? :hmm:

Nothing special to the average user, but for those running the command line, I agree with the recommendation to not use the /R or /B (for NTFS) parameters. Both will try to locate bad sectors and mark them bad in the file system. It doesn't damage the SSD to run it, IDK when a bad sector on an SSD (or even and modern HDD) will occur. But I'm pretty sure current HDDs and SSDs can handle this on firmware end, outside of the file system's scope.
 

Zap

Elite Member
Oct 13, 1999
22,377
7
81
I just bought an SSD and found these tips:
http://thessdreview.blogspot.com/p/windows-7-ssd-performance-optimization.html

For lots of these, should it be followed? Alot of it makes sense - Disabling disk defrag, drive indexing, but the OP doesn't mention any of it.. are there any things that are "must" or highly recommended dos?

From the page you linked:
READER ALERT!!! There is no need to Optimize Win7 or your SSD whatsoever for it to function correctly.

That sounds like it answers your question right there!