Opinion on "upgrading" old SSD to new SSD?

[wpcoe]

I have a Kingston 64GB SSD that’s been serving faithfully for 1.5 years, but it was old(er) technology even when I bought it. There’s a consensus that everybody would notice upgrading from a spindle HDD to an SSD, but that most people would NOT notice upgrading from one SSD to another SSD.

With that performance from the Kingston, would there be noticeable, improved speed/responsiveness from a current generation SSD?

I’m in Thailand, and whittled my choices down to (prices converted to US$):

My C: drive uses 32GB, and primary data storage partition (on a HDD) uses 39GB. My idea was to use a new 60GB SSD for C: and use the Kingston as a data drive. I have other partitions for VMs, media downloads, disk images/backups, etc that would remain on HDDs.

 

[razel]

The Intel 320s are 80GB and 160GB. You'll appreciate that extra 20GB over those others in the your 60GB chart at that price. So I wouldn't bother upgrading unless you need the space. SSD prices will always go down and I find it best to wait for a sale.

Speed wise, the faster your system the more may notice a very subtle difference, but it DEFINATELY will not be worth the money spent. It's really all about whether you need the extra space.

 

[wpcoe]

Oops. I just edited my original post when I realized the Intels were 40GB/80GB and to remove them from my charts, but you beat me to the punch!

(I had originally included Intel 320's at $113/$229 for 40/80GB, and realized they weren't worth it at that size.)

So, all those flashy numbers for, e.g. the Intel 520, wouldn't really be noticeable in real world over my elderly Kingston? Those numbers look SO much higher. Hey, advertising WORKS!

(edited to add: You thought they were the LARGER Intel 320s, when in fact, they were the SMALLER Intels...)

 

[groberts101]

A Sandforce drive will "feel" more responsive compared to that drive.

A Sandforce drive will "be" faster when used in a heavier multitasking environment compared to that drive.

Is it worth it?.. that's completely subjective and no one here should be telling you one way or the other what's best for you and your usage model(especially since that's the most important metric to use and you never mentioned anything about it).

After all is said and done?.. only you/your particular usage level will decide whether it was worth the extra money. Generally the one's who don't notice any differences between one SSD controller to another.. are the ones who don't task the SSD hard enough to make use of the faster speeds anyways.

 

[wpcoe]

I would consider it "worth it," if I could actually see a difference. I didn't know if a SF2000-era drive would be noticeably faster in actual use.

I was even thinking of RAID-0 for two 60GB Agility 3's, since it would be about the same price as the 120GB drives. If I go with 120GB (thinking about growth into the future) I might then allocate my Kingston to VM images? That's probably more fantasy than anything, but it did cross my mind, and I bet RAID-0 *would* be faster!

Thanks to both of you for your feedback!

 

[superccs]

Yeah you should be good with whatever SSD you have if you got one that has enough space... I was pondering upgrading my OCZ Agility 60Gb because I kept going to Slickdeals, but I have no reason to upgrade since the drive is working just fine.

Until drives are faster than "Ludicrous speed" then there is no real reason for upgrading if you have already gone plaid.

 

[alexruiz]

I had also a previous generation Kingston (ssdnow snv425 64GB, which I am assuming is what you have based on your benchmarks) The drive was considered bottom of the SSD food chain even then.

I replaced it with a Kingston Hyper-X 120GB, rated by many sites as the best of the SF-2281 drives. As you can see, I am going from one of the slowest previous generation drives to probably the fastest of the current generation.

What do I notice different between them? Other than the additional space, I have a hard time justifying the purchase. System responsiveness is not different, and other than the rare multiGB file I copy into or from the SSD (an ISO for example) where the new drive beats the old one by 3-4 secs, I don't see the speed. Yeah, the new one gives me 7.9 WEI as the old one only gave me 6.9, and the new drives benches much much faster, but all that multiIOP advantage barely translates to daily usage.

Grab the cheapest, consider the upgrade the way I did: More space


Alex

 

[Zorander]

I upgraded from a 1st-gen Kingston 128GB SSD (can't recall the model no but it gave a lowly WEI of 5.9) to a Crucial M4 of the same size. I notice significantly faster boot-up time (practically boots in seconds now). Responsiveness is probably far better too though it's not easily measurable (and the old SSD was pretty good already). The Crucial also supported TRIM and more complete SMART reporting.

Those are worth the $200+ I paid for the drive. And I still have use for the old SSD in my Netbook.

 

[DirkGently1]

Upgrade for capacity and reliability. Forget speed. large sequential write figures are meaningless unless you plan to be moving large files between drives often.

 

[wpcoe]

Thanks, everybody, for your thoughts. I can see it's a toss up whether an upgrade will be noticeable. I was hoping to justify spending a hundred dollars or so to spiff up my system. Wish I could "try before you buy" a Vertex 3 or Intel 520...

 

[groberts101]

I've purchased and tested all the SSD controllers mentioned in this thread so far and I'll throw this back out there one last time in hopes that you may absorb it a bit better this time.

Generally the one's who don't notice any differences between one SSD controller to another.. are the ones who don't task the SSD hard enough to make use of the faster speeds anyways.

Just need to figure out if that quote applies to your usage model or not.

And don't get too caught up on sequentials as they have little relevance to an OS volumes typical requirement. Especially considering most never have storage speeds capable of even taking advantage of them anyways. A "faster SSD" will usually be the one with the lowest latency and highest small file/random performance. This is part of the reason why a larger SSD will "feel/seem" faster than one that's 1/4 the size as it's not just sequential performance that increases with capacity.

And why can't you "try before you buy"? No Best Buy.. Microcenter.. Comp USA or any other PC hardware retailer close by to leverage their liberal return policies? I wouldn't know half of what I know without taking advantage of that option. Input from others will only get you so far and seeing really is believing.

 

[razel]

And why can't you "try before you buy"? No Best Buy.. Microcenter.. Comp USA or any other PC hardware retailer close by to leverage their liberal return policies?

OP's in Thailand. Just change 'liberal return policies' to 'liberal pricing'. But I've never been to Thailand... been to Japan, Vietnam and Philippines. Last two are close enough. Local computer stores in Viet and Phil tend to look like 2nd hand or QA questionable leftovers from China. Some things like no-name laptops are crazy expensive while others, like labor (splitting a LAN cable for $1.50 or replacing a broken LED light on your laptop $5) are crazy cheap especially if your local relative is the one bartering. I can't even find anyone to do that here without an up front diagnosis fee of $60. Even though all I need them to do is just desolder the old one and solder a new one on.... I really need to learn how to solder smaller stuff. But anyhow....

Japan on the other hand... they don't seem to care about upgrading like we do. At least in Tokyo and Kyoto. We are SOOOOOO lucky to get cheap quality computer parts. I hear China is cheap, but there is no QA there. I'm pretty sure the ultra cheap computer and electronic accessories you see on ebay coming from HK and China are QA rejects. Nothing wrong with that. If I can wait the 2 to 3 weeks for it to get here, I buy.

 

[wpcoe]

A "faster SSD" will usually be the one with the lowest latency and highest small file/random performance.

Well, that's where I started from, thinking a comparison of benchmark tests of 4K figures would give an idea. Just now I couldn't find any online CrystalDiskMark figures from any known site for a 60GB Vertex 3, but here's a comparison using numbers from http://www.tech-forums.net/review_img/Vertex3/ocz-vertex3-crystal.jpg for a 120GB Vertex 3 and my Kingston 64GB:

Ignoring the sequential and 512k transfers, I thought the increases from 4x to 21x would be noticeable, but apparently not. I suspect my elderly Kingston has a similar deficiency in latency. This has been very educational, and probably economical (if I end up not upgrading) discussion!

Yes, I am in Thailand. No bargain prices like you folks in America get from NewEgg, Frys, Amazon, Microcenter, etc.

There are reputable retailers here, but they will not take back an item unless it's defective, and then only to replace it with one that is not defective. No way to "buy before you try." When I read here about folks buying a mobo, SSD, or other hardware, installing and using it, and then returning it without consequence I just want to cry. (Not really, but I am envious.)

Just to give you a taste of how the pricing can work over here: The cheapest Crucial M4 here is a128GB model for the equivalent of US$266. Just now looking online: NewEgg $169 and Amazon $170. Oh, what's a little 50% markup between friends. <sigh> That's an extreme example, but not uncommon. A more typical markup is "only" 25%. A surprising exception are the Intel 520s which are only about 6-7% higher over here. Go figure.

 

[groberts101]

If you were my next door neighbor?.. I would guarantee/bet you that the 64GB Intel 520 would feel and actually be faster overall than your existing drive(even in lighter usage models).. or I would buy it from you right there on the spot at full cost.

Of course, that's not possible and it's easy to talk big about a hardware preference on a forum.. but gives you an idea how confident I am that the SF-2281 controller would smack around that older JMicron based model you currently run. No benchmarks(or even sata3 interface) would be required to see and feel it, either.

Another one that may be worth a look is the new Everest controlled Octane from OCZ. The drives are excellent(well beyond what the benchmarks would indicate) with the main exception being that you can only go as low as 128GB capacity and the writes are "only 200MB/s". But of course, many don't even have raided storage that will ever be able to read data that quickly to take advantage of those sequential write speeds anyways.

Anywho.. good luck with the upgrade decision.. and later on you'll probably realize that hindsight is always 20/20. lol

 

[PhoenixEnigma]

I went from one of the older Kingston SSDs (64GB SSD Now, don't remember the exact model number, but some crappy J-Micron controller) to a 80GB Intel 320, because the Kingston one was dying on me. Is it a little faster? Well, maybe. I notice the extra space more than I notice the speed, for sure, even in fairly I/O intensive things.

If I were to buy new, I'd go for the Intel in a heartbeat now, but as an upgrade, I personally wouldn't consider it worth the cost. Having the old SSD around as an extra fast drive might sweeten the deal enough, though - having more things on SSDs tend to be more beneficial (to me, at least) than having things on faster SSDs.

/$0.02

 

[wpcoe]

Goodness, I had mistakenly placed you (groberts101) in the "nay" column for upgrading! LOL

A mix of opinions above, but prior to that last post, I felt the prevailing opinion was that an upgrade would not be noticeable. In your last post, you tipped the scales. No disrespect is intended to those who may feel that it's not worth it, but I think I can go shopping with aplomb now.

I included an Octane drive in the opening post, but I think for $3 less, I'd get a Vertex 3. I feel that with ANY of today's generation of SSDs, there really wouldn't be much to differentiate them in actual use.

I am considering a striped array of two 60GB drives, probably the Agility 3 or Vertex 3, since it would be much faster than even the Intel 520 120GB, at a lower cost. Just not sure I need 120GB. Of course, I could buy one now, and later go for another to make the array. Lots of decisions I need to make.

 

[groberts101]

I would avoid any asynchronous nand equipped models such as the Agy 3 would have onboard.

Toggle nand equipped versions will have the most low end grunt followed by synchronous nand. Worth the extra money in the long run for all but the absolute lightest usage models(mainly read only and very little multitasking).

And 2 of those drives in raid would only seem "much faster" than a 120GB 520 when attached to a sata2 board due to the 280MB/s bottleneck of each port and additional ram caching benefits. Even then though.. the real speed will come from the excellent latency in raids with those controllers and the low end grunt of 2 devices tied together in raid. Even sata2 will not bottleneck a sata3 device very much at all(if any.. on some boards).

On a sata3 board?.. sure you can get the max sata3 sequential speeds of both devices tied together. But many are surprised to find that having an OS drive that's capable of higher sequential data speeds(even double that of sata2) doesn't really do all that much to save any additional time(which is actually the truest measurement of performance) when used for an OS volume. UNLESS of course you have storage speed that's matched up to the OS to take advantage of it. Most don't and it's generally all about the placebo effect and e-peen numbers. Especially considering that the random data speeds/latency are nearly identical between sata2 and sata3 anyways. That's the speed you see and feel most often for an OS volume.

Personally?.. I would always advise to get at least a 120GB drive as it will have much greater flexibilty(forward thinking), better small file performance, and longer usable service life down the road. These hot selling smaller drives will only be good for scratch drives and glorified USB sticks as the capacities keep climbing and the prices of SSD keep falling in the next couple of years. I'll eventually have a small crate full of these things when I get rid of all my smaller "poor-mans raid drives" to make way for larger/faster ones(most of which I'll still tie together in raid again anyways, lol).

With SSD.. bigger is usually always better up to about 256GB capacity due to the internal config limitations of the current hardware. Good luck on the hunt

 

[beginner99]

My Parents PC with a 64 Gb m4 is really noticeably faster at boot and application load times and a little bit more responsive than mine with a g2 80 GB. So you can sure feel a differences between SSDs.

However certain unknown is how much Windows influences this. Mine is of course an older install (about a year older than the one on the m4) and more heavily used. Performance was also noticeably better on the clean install.

And know after writing this i forgot I have the intel mSata ssd in my x220 which is a fresh install, yes freshyl done by me not lenovo factory install. Anyway it is noticeably slower than both of the above mentioned drives. I mean it is not slow (i tried the factory install on the 7200 rpm hdd of the x220, that was slow...).

Anyway, I'm gonna say you can certainly feel the difference also between SSDs. (Makes sense since an m4 has about sequential double read speed than a g2...)

 

[wpcoe]

The striped array is looking less attractive. I have an unreliable power supply where I live. Unless I go for a rather expensive UPS which has Windows-shutdown capability, I add a layer of complexity & risk with a non redundant array when the power goes out with the computer unattended. Although long-term blackouts aren't as common, I've had to reset the clocks at least five times this week. (Granted those were power "snaps" where a basic UPS would have protected an array.)

I've never ordered electronics shipped from USA, but a Kingston HyperX 120GB for $194 (including shipping) is tempting. However, extortion by Thai Customs is a possibility. There can be a "warehousing" charge of over $150 even when no customs duty is collected. It happened to me with a 20kg box of used personal effects via FedEx several years ago. Supposedly things shipped USPS (not FedEx) will fly under the Customs radar. no longer available

The active (local) candidates are:

Vertex 3 60GB -- $128
Intel 520 60GB -- $160
Vertex 3 120GB -- $216
Octane 128GB -- $219
Intel 520 120GB -- $245

Still debating 60GB vs 120GB. I will have the old Kingston 64GB to use as a data drive, so a new 60GB would be adequate for OS drive. I'm trying to justify the extra cost for a 120/128GB drive's better performance. I have HDDs for media files, program installation files, archives, etc.

Thanks again to everybody for your input. Even if it seems I'm not following your advice, be assured it was a considered factor in my decision process.