SSD performance

Started Mar 29, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP Tareq Abdulla Regular Member • Posts: 259
Re: Your expectations too high, pics and vid comparison.

Richard wrote:

Tareq Abdulla wrote:

Richard wrote:

Tareq Abdulla wrote:


I just bought[online] another SSD but this time for my PC laptop, and i have something weird, which is the following: i just replaced that drive again yesterday with the new SSD i bought and did a clean fresh install of Windows 7, but when i boot and shutdown i see that there is no improvement of that SSD over that Seagate hybrid one, maybe 1-2 seconds only nothing much, also the boot time is not super fast,

Your expectations are too high. First, the computer bios goes through a bus check which takes time. Put a bootable usb drive in the computer and boot, it will usually take longer. This time may vary from computer to computer and will have no effect on the SSD vs spindle disk speed in your computer, it will take the same amount of time every time. On my desktop, it has to go through figuring out the raid, it looks at a sata 6gb controller then another sata 2 controller, it takes a long time..

When comparing old spindle drives to new one there is a noticeable speed difference in boot because it took forever for those old systems to boot. As tech advances you see big increases. Then there was a huge jump from spindle to SSD. When waiting a minute on your years old computer and now only have to wait 30 second or 15 seconds for some computers that is a huge difference but now we start to reach the point of diminishing returns on drive speed and now we wait on slow bios and usb bus device detection

My Monumentus XP 750gb hybrid drive is slower than an SSD by any review but is still quite fast.  My Mushkin MSata MSSD is Sata3 (6gb) and has up to 530MB read speed which is almost double the speed of my hybrid drive. What they don't tell you is that when you compare 4k reads, these drives are closer in speed even though large file transfer is much faster. When windows 7 is loading it is loading smaller files, dlls and such so the speed is not going to be double.

As you can see, this is the Mushkin Msata SSD 240gb rated at sata 6gb

You can look up the model number ST750LX003

So while transfer speed of large files is useful. IOPS or In/Out operations per second is more important and just because one drive may have superior file moving power, the IOPS may be more similar especially in the transfer of small files.

Here is a video of my laptop. I dual boot between the Hybrid and the MSata SSD. The time difference is not as large as you might think.

So in closing. I think your expectations may be out of whack. If you really want to run fast then get an SSD that has the highest IOPs, but you will find they are also expensive so you start to see a point of diminishing returns (I do large file transfers and so I will even raid0 SSDs together to speed up transfer time)

That is why I think most people will benefit the most from a hybrid drive in a laptop, unless they are doing large file transfers. I think that photographers with lots of images will also benefit from and SSD in stead of hybrid because they will not use up the cache like they will on a hybrid drive when reading and they will see and increase in writing because the hybrid drive does not cache writing.

Another thing to note is I use my Msata SSD 240gb and take 20gb of it and accelerate my 1tg spindle drive for both reading and writing. Which gives me another fast drive with and even bigger cache than the Monumentus hybrid drive (which I think is only 8gb of SSD cache)

I put hybrid drives in the laptops I bought for family members because to them they see the computer being really fast compared to what they are use to, they are doing mostly browsing. I put an SSD in my sisters system because he does photography. My systems are geek systems because I like to try out all the latest technology just to see how it works and how fast it is.

Ok, and which SSD you recommend me to get?

Your video is fine, but my computer is booting same as or a bit faster by 1 second than yours.

If you did a clean install, I would expect your computer to boot faster than mine. Mine has all the HP bloatare and update tools that not only load at boot time but also run in the background plus if you seen all the Icons on my desktop a lot of them are programs and many have services that get loaded at boot time.

In the other post where I posted the samsung7 boot (and I mistakenly posted your link instead of the correct one I did correct that by the way, take a look at that response) I mention that ripping out all the functionality would decrease boot time. It is my intention to try to do this to see if I can get my system to boot as fast as your Samsung link. I will have to backup my system first and try it.

But what I am also saying is if the hard drive led on your system is not solid and is flashing dark then it is not loading info off the hard drive, the computer is doing something at that time so the SSD no matter what speed will not make the computer faster. Let me do my test and I will get back with you.

Ok. do your test and let me know.

By the way, i did a clean install of Win7 and upgraded the drivers and bios and diactivated many services or startup apps and i didn't install much applications yet, and yet it doesn't boot fast as that Samsung video link, and i see that Samsung loading applications fine, so maybe he didn't disabled many thinga, maybe he overclocked his laptop.

I feel that the chipset in my laptop isn't compatible with Intel Rapid system, and maybe my processor is first or 2nd gen of i7 and not modified for faster response, i can wait and see what you will find with your laptop.

 Tareq Abdulla's gear list:Tareq Abdulla's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark II N Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Canon EOS 5D +18 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow