Old Generation SSD vs New Gen?

[ncage]

I have a 2nd gen intel SSD. I just upgrade to an ivy bridge system. Am i going to see that much performance on going from my 2nd gen intel ssd to something like a crucial m4?

thanks...

 

[Smoblikat]

I have a 2nd gen intel SSD. I just upgrade to an ivy bridge system. Am i going to see that much performance on going from my 2nd gen intel ssd to something like a crucial m4?

thanks...

I know neweg SSD's have smalled NAND which makes them degrade faster, but it will have better performance for a while. This is the reason I will never get an SSD (with current tech)

 

[ShintaiDK]

I have a 2nd gen intel SSD. I just upgrade to an ivy bridge system. Am i going to see that much performance on going from my 2nd gen intel ssd to something like a crucial m4?

thanks...

Not at all. Besides benchmarking I doubt you could tell the difference.

What makes SSDs fast is essentially the 65-85us seektime vs a HD with 12000-15000us.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I know neweg SSD's have smalled NAND which makes them degrade faster, but it will have better performance for a while. This is the reason I will never get an SSD (with current tech)

And 80GB SSD with 34nm NAND will last shorter than a 160GB SSD with 25nm NAND. Assuming you write the same amount.

 

[Coup27]

There will be a performance increase which IMO would be noticeable outside of benchmarks, however the difference will be nowhere near as cosmic as when you went from HDD to an SSD.

 

[Burner27]

I know neweg SSD's have smalled NAND which makes them degrade faster, but it will have better performance for a while. This is the reason I will never get an SSD (with current tech)

I understand your concerns but i would take an SSD over a HDD (for an OS drive) simply because there are no moving parts to wear out. If you get REALLY lucky you may have a HDD stay alive longer than 5 years but I would put my money on an SSD for longevity.

 

[thetuna]

I just went from an 80GB Intel G2 to a 256GB Samsung 830.
In daily use, I would not be able to tell the difference.
The new drive is just as fast as I remember the Intel being when I first got it.

The biggest difference is the space.
It's great not having to worry about what I put on the drive.

There is also a difference in load times of games with big maps, probably about 20% faster, but that is still pretty trivial.

If you're not completely sure, wait until black friday and there will probably be a deal you can't refuse.

 

[greenhawk]

generally no real change in how the OS feels when using it. Some increase in read speed but mostly only noticable in bentch marks (180 to 400MB/s sort of thing / doubling).

Most difference I found (80GB G2 to 256GB Performance Pro) was increased write speed (handy for some tasks) and the extra space. Otherwise not worth the change.

Side note, once my new Ivy computer is working and setup how I like it, I am going to convert the intel G2 to a cache drive for my games (600GB V'Raptor). Overkill I know, but I picked up a third drive, a 512GB M4, from a sale a few weeks back, so having 800GB or so of SSD in my current system, I can spare the 80GB.

 

[Burner27]

If you're not completely sure, wait until black friday and there will probably be a deal you can't refuse.

No need to wait for Black Friday, Newegg has 'shell shocker deals' almost everyday and you can catch some really goods deals on SSDs.

 

[ncage]

Thanks guys for the feedback. I seen newegg was having a special on the m4. I was actually going to get the same size (120GB) that i have now. It looks like it might be a waist of money though by the sound of it. My intel has been damn reliable.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yep, plain silly to "upgrade" if it aint for size.

 

[Coup27]

It will be a waste of money. You may notice a small difference but its certainly not worth changing for. Most people have upgraded mainly for size reasons. A few years ago the 128GB and aboves were so expensive.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I just upgraded my Vertex 2 128gb to a Vertex 3 128gb on a Sata 2 port and noticed the difference. And both are a huge difference from my old 64GB Samsung.

 

[Seven]

Have not noticed the difference jumping from the G2 to Intel 520.

 

[RU482]

if you have money burning a hole in your pocket, or need a larger drive, go for it.

Otherwise, get more miles out of that trusty old G2

 

[Termie]

I just did this upgrade. Went from x25-m 80GB on SATA2, to Samsung 830 on SATA2, to Samsung 830 on SATA3.

On the older platform, the Samsung benched about 75% higher than the G2. On the new platform, it benches 150% higher.

X25m 80GB:

Samsung 830 on Sata2:

Samsung 830 on Sata3:

The question you're asking is, can you feel it? I would say you absolutely can. There's a significant improvement in responsiveness, and I highly doubt that's the processor (went from i7-860 to i7-3770k). Also, loading programs is significantly faster. I did NOT notice this just moving to the Samsung on the SATA2 system, though - it took SATA3 to unleash it.

My guess is that it was my 4k reads that was holding me back, and I'm not sure why it was bottlenecked on my old system. I've seen other benches showing higher 4k reads, so perhaps it was an isolated case, but I can say it's worked for me.

 

[Pariah]

The drive interface doesn't effect system responsiveness nor does raw throughput. If you felt an increase in snapiness moving from SATA2 to SATA3, all you're feeling is a placebo effect.

 

[Termie]

The drive interface doesn't effect system responsiveness nor does raw throughput. If you felt an increase in snapiness moving from SATA2 to SATA3, all you're feeling is a placebo effect.

It's faster, period.

If a drive performing at a minimum of 50% faster wouldn't affect responsiveness, I'm not sure what would.

Read any professional review comparing SSDs on SATA2 to SATA3, and you'll see that you're wrong:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...sair-performance-pro-256gb-ssd-review-12.html

Is a program launching 40% faster on SATA3 not more responsive? I'd say it is. That translates to everything you do on the computer.

 

[Pariah]

If a drive performing at a minimum of 50% faster wouldn't affect responsiveness, I'm not sure what would.

A drive with the same access time and twice the throughput is NOT 50% faster. With a 0% decrease in access time, there is a corresponding 0% increase in responsiveness.

Will it benchmark faster? Yes. Will it load large amounts of data faster? Yes. Reducing the copying time of a 1GB file by 50% is not how most people measure system responsiveness. Will the same SSD doubling its throughput from 250MB/s to 500MB/s be any snappier in "regular" everyday computing? No. It's all in your head.

 

[jiffylube1024]

I benchmarked an Intel 320 series vs a crucial m4 on both SATA 2 and SATA 3. I did a clean windows 7 install on all 3 setups, then downloaded all updates and installed a few programs.

While the m4 smoked the Intel in benchmarks, the boot-up times were exactly the same +/- 1second in either direction, and app load times were very similar.

The read speeds of small files isn't so much faster that it tangibly affects performance.

The only drive that was tangibly slower in boot time (by a few seconds) was an ocz Vertex 1, which had tangible slower 4k performance in benchmarks (like 3-5 times slower).

I agree that most "felt" performance difference is probably placebo, and if you did a fresh windows install on the new ssd its not even a valid comparison (not saying you did but many people do and notice a slight improvement).

 

[Termie]

A drive with the same access time and twice the throughput is NOT 50% faster. With a 0% decrease in access time, there is a corresponding 0% increase in responsiveness.

Will it benchmark faster? Yes. Will it load large amounts of data faster? Yes. Reducing the copying time of a 1GB file by 50% is not how most people measure system responsiveness. Will the same SSD doubling its throughput from 250MB/s to 500MB/s be any snappier in "regular" everyday computing? No. It's all in your head.

I open programs, they open faster, hence computer is faster. If you don't like the word "responsiveness", then fine. I don't really want to argue semantics of access times and how they're not affected by the SATA interface.

I happened to have some benchmarks and some firsthand observations that I thought would be helpful to the OP. I stand by them.

 

[Smartazz]

I've used my friend's i7 950 with a Vertex 2 and it's much more responsive than my current system.

 

[jiffylube1024]

I open programs, they open faster, hence computer is faster. If you don't like the word "responsiveness", then fine. I don't really want to argue semantics of access times and how they're not affected by the SATA interface.

I happened to have some benchmarks and some firsthand observations that I thought would be helpful to the OP. I stand by them.

Your new system probably is a bit faster, but there's a lot of factors at play. You're comparing an older platform to a new one. How much free space was on your old ssd? The write speed was curiously low - i got 80+ mb/s on my old intel 80gb g2 ssd.

Not to pick nits, but did you time it with a stopwatch? The tangible difference you feel could be a placebo.

That doesn't mean that it wasn't a worthwhile upgrade. The Intel was small and those drives are getting long in the tooth. I bet if you wiped the intel clean (thus getting a full TRIM pass) and reinstalled or imaged it back, and there was an adequate amount of free space on it (10gb+), it would feel exactly the same as the samsung in a blind test. When you "know" a faster drive is in the machine it feels faster... Especially for things like app launches that are very read/response time dependent.


Some differences are more obvious. I upgraded my external usb 3.0 drive from a vertex 2 50gb to an agility 3 120gb. Copying video files, etc to the ssd from a new barracuda 3tb to the external drive jumped from about 60mb/s to about 100+mb/s avg. The vertex 2 had putrid uncompressible write speed.

 

[jiffylube1024]

I've used my friend's i7 950 with a Vertex 2 and it's much more responsive than my current system.

Indilinx (the controller in your performance 64) was good for its day but even the first gen sandforce drives (vertex 2 series) blow it away in terms of responsiveness in my experience.

The tangibility factor i find is greatly diminshed going from vertex 2/intel g2 series to modern drives - as a boot drive at least. If you write a lot of data to them (especially large files) then theres more of a difference between them and newer sata 3 drives.

 

[Smartazz]

Indilinx (the controller in your performance 64) was good for its day but even the first gen sandforce drives (vertex 2 series) blow it away in terms of responsiveness in my experience.

The tangibility factor i find is greatly diminshed going from vertex 2/intel g2 series to modern drives - as a boot drive at least. If you write a lot of data to them (especially large files) then theres more of a difference between them and newer sata 3 drives.

So upgrading to a Samsung 830 would be a big upgrade for me?