Should I buy an SSD now or hold out for 6GPS

[dhanson865]

According to an article at Anandtech, the AMD southbridges offer inferior SATA performance when compared with Intel's.
This wasn't much of an issue with hard-disks, but with SSDs it's obvious. Link:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sh ... i=3755&p=5

It's really not that significant for a number of reasons.

First current SSDs that are less than $400 don't even push the chipset anywhere near this bottleneck. Since there are dozens of models of SSDs that don't make it measurable AT ALL it's overreaching to say it without further qualification.

Second even when it is measurable it's not noticeable in real world usage. It's barely a blip on the radar with insanely expensive SSDs. In 2012 or 2013 there might be cheap SSDs that push this issue. Anand's take on the issue was:

As a mainstream chipset, the SATA issues don’t really matter.

Either way (old chipset with 3GB SATA or new chipset with 6GB SATA) you can drop in a PCIe card down the road to get better SATA speeds.

It would have been more helpful if he would have tested the same basic setup with one more variable. Just add in a $30 card such as http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6813995004 and see if it performs better than the AMD and Intel chipsets.

I'm sure there will be better options for add in 6GB SATA controllers by the time faster SSDs really push this issue a few years down the road.

Since that (and likely any other comparable solution) is an x4 card it will only be useful to those who have a dual x16/x8 slots with only 1 discrete video card, the rare MB with 3 x16/x8 slots with 2 or less discrete video cards, or those who plan to run on the integrated graphics and don't mind using the x16 slot for a faster SATA controller. But seriously if you are running integrated graphics you shouldn't be kvetching about an unnoticeable difference in performance.

If anybody wants to sell me a perfectly functioning AMD chipset based system for half cost or less just because of this SATA "issue" I'll happily buy it. It could save me the trouble of deciding between buying a 785G or 770 board in the near future.

I've been kind of eying http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6813128419 as a possible board knowing that its a shot in the dark as to the true performance of the Marvel 6GB SATA controller on board and I might want a faster SATA controller some time down the road.

Honestly if I can buy a sub $200 SSD that can saturate my SATA controller all by itself I'd be very very happy. I wouldn't be complaining because somewhere else on the planet there was a newer controller that could make my existing SSD work a couple of percent faster.

[ednigma]

1. Nothing wrong with vigorous debate. It is a good way to learn things.

2. What motherboard do you have?

3. Seems likely that the H55 doesn't have AHCI but that somre or maybe almost all, board manufacturers have just made sure to add that back in. Would that be consistent with what you are saying?

4. I just bought an H55 Asus board. I just assumed that it didn't have AHCI, but I don't in fact know whether or not it does or doesn't. I did avoid the INTEL SSD because the INTEL website warns to use it only with AHCI.

2 - I had a Gigabyte H55M-UD2H, but exchanged it for a H55M-USB3 since it was only a few dollars more to get USB3.0 and a couple more SATA ports, but the second PCIe is only X1 vs X4. Both are based on the H55 and I have no problem with AHCI on SATA HDs (except for having to use a trick to install XP Pro SP3 on AHCI).

3. According to the Intel product brief, the H55 has AHCI, but I suppose some MB BIOSes might not expose this function or the BIOS has a bug.

4. Check the BIOS pages for an option to select between IDE and AHCI, note that if you change this to AHCI and you are using XP, it won't boot since XP doesn't have the SATA/AHCI driver installed. You have to use a special procedure to install the SATA/AHCI driver. Not sure about Win7.

[ednigma]

The H55/H57 differentiation is analogous to the previous Intel Southbridges ICHx/ICHxR where both had AHCI but the ICHxR additionally supported Intel Matrix RAID.

No, before the ICH10 the non-R ICHs didn't have official Intel AHCI support. A few motherboards had unofficial AHCI mode for ICH9. It was the same silicon as the ICH9R after all. H55 and H57 appear to be the same silicon as the $5 ICH10. Last I knew single user performance was slightly better in IDE mode than AHCI mode anyway, but maybe Windows 7 multi-threaded writes has changed that.

Yeah, I plead guilty to making that statement based on info from a website without fact checking -- my nephew had an old home built system with an ICH9 that I installed an SATA HD and I remember turning on AHCI and reinstalling XP and all his apps.


Somewhat back on topic, as I've said before I'm kind of looking to get an SSD, but have heard that one should only have the OS and apps on it, move the pagefile to another drive, etc since SSDs have a limited number of write cycles. This was back when they first came out. Is this still a "problem"? or has newer SSDs made this less of a problem?

Thanks

[corrion]

This problem exists in all NAND-based drives, so this problem cannot be fixed unless manufacturers find ways to reduce the number of writes on the drive (something like what the Sandforce controllers do).

The real problem was that random writes was slowing down / completely freezing the hard drive, thus making the SSD experience miserable. All Indilinx drives fixed this problem (e.g. OCZ Vertex), but its random write speed is still subpar compared to Intel's X-25M. Running the tweaks is still recommended to improve the lifespan of the drive, though no one knows for sure just how long a SSD lasts.

If you want an easy way to tweak the computer for SSDs, just make sure you're running a clean install of Windows 7, and make sure you run this: http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum ... ak-Utility

[b3nbranch]

Just one data point -- a couple of weeks ago I built a new miniITX system using the Zotac GF9300-I-E motherboard, using an Intel X25-V (40GB "value" SSD) for the OS/applications, running 64-bit Ubuntu 9.10. If I select "ACHI" or "Linux AHCI" for SATA mode in the BIOS, not only does the mobo fail to see the SSD at all, but it won't respond to the DEL key to go into BIOS, forcing me to use the CMOS jumper to reset to defaults. With SATA in IDE mode, all is well.

[Blue]

Somewhat back on topic, as I've said before I'm kind of looking to get an SSD, but have heard that one should only have the OS and apps on it, move the pagefile to another drive, etc since SSDs have a limited number of write cycles. This was back when they first came out. Is this still a "problem"? or has newer SSDs made this less of a problem?

Thanks

Correct - only use the SSD for the OS (preferably W7 as compared to Vista or XP), and applications. Keep your pagefile on the SSD.

It is also best to install W7 from scratch (as compared to using an image from a HDD), as W7 will make all the necessary optimizations for a SSD during the install. And, the W7 installation on a SSD is very, very fast.

MSDN: Support and Q&A for Solid-State Drives

[Eunos]

I have seen no evidence that write cycles are an issue for desktop/laptop machines running a modern SSD. My argument is that hard drives in general are not perfectly reliable, so a backup strategy is very important.

Flash drives are supposed to only last for 10 years, which is a bigger 'problem' than the number of write cycles combined with wear levelling. An even bigger 'problem' is that we'll all probably end up upgrading our SSDs within a few years anyway, in search of bigger/faster things.

That said, I've disabled my page file and will continue to do so until the system actually crashes, demonstrating that I need one. I also made a point of buying the SSD with several times more capacity than what I actually use. Define paranoid.

[sxr71]

I have seen no evidence that write cycles are an issue for desktop/laptop machines running a modern SSD. My argument is that hard drives in general are not perfectly reliable, so a backup strategy is very important.

Flash drives are supposed to only last for 10 years, which is a bigger 'problem' than the number of write cycles combined with wear levelling. An even bigger 'problem' is that we'll all probably end up upgrading our SSDs within a few years anyway, in search of bigger/faster things.

That said, I've disabled my page file and will continue to do so until the system actually crashes, demonstrating that I need one. I also made a point of buying the SSD with several times more capacity than what I actually use. Define paranoid.

I agree except I would replace "very important" with "essential"

Also I keep a small 256MB page file just in case since some programs apparently need it and and I think system dumps need it. They say 400MB is actually needed but I'm doing 256MB.

[gcwebbyuk]

OK so I am sold on the SSD idea - and will get a SATA-II style rather than the newer SATA3 - but which one to get?

I will need a 64GB model.

Will keep my mechanical drives in Scythe QuietDrives for data storage.

[Eunos]

For some reason I found the Indilinx 64GB were priced somewhat similar to the 80GB G2 Intel, so I opted for the latter. I bought mine off Ebay from the seller 'etronic8.' But there's plenty of choice.

[QuietOC]

For some reason I found the Indilinx 64GB were priced somewhat similar to the 80GB G2 Intel, so I opted for the latter.

I paid $130 for a retail 60GB Agility. The cheapest I've seen OEM 80GB G2s is $225.

[dhanson865]

OK so I am sold on the SSD idea - and will get a SATA-II style rather than the newer SATA3 - but which one to get?

I will need a 64GB model.

http://silentpcreview.pricegrabber.com/ ... &viewmod=2

I'll continue to update the list as I see drives worthy of tracking but for now your easy choices are:

Intel X25-V 40GB ~$120
Corsair Nova 64GB ~$180
Crucial M225 64GB ~$180
Intel X25-M Gen2 80GB ~$230

There are other 64GB indilinx drives out there but many of them have 32mb cache. The ones on my list have 64mb cache. You want the extra cache to help offset the controller as indilinx barefoot controllers aren't as fast as Intel.

Then again if you like filling out rebate forms are sure the SSD has an indilinx controller you could look at other brands and save a few bucks.

[ces]

Just one data point -- a couple of weeks ago I built a new miniITX system using the Zotac GF9300-I-E motherboard, using an Intel X25-V (40GB "value" SSD) for the OS/applications, running 64-bit Ubuntu 9.10. If I select "ACHI" or "Linux AHCI" for SATA mode in the BIOS, not only does the mobo fail to see the SSD at all, but it won't respond to the DEL key to go into BIOS, forcing me to use the CMOS jumper to reset to defaults. With SATA in IDE mode, all is well.

Why do you think that was?

I thought Intel specifically needs ACHI and says that it should not be run on IDE?

[ces]

I'll continue to update the list as I see drives worthy of tracking but for now your easy choices are:

Intel X25-V 40GB ~$120
Corsair Nova 64GB ~$180
Crucial M225 64GB ~$180
Intel X25-M Gen2 80GB ~$230

There are other 64GB indilinx drives out there but many of them have 32mb cache. The ones on my list have 64mb cache. You want the extra cache to help offset the controller as indilinx barefoot controllers aren't as fast as Intel.

1. What about OCZ?

2. I have seen conflicting statements about whether all the OCZ Indilix SSDs have 64mb or not. What is the best way to confirm what exactly the truth is?

3. What about the Crucial 300M. It seems to perform so much better than the Intel.

4. The same for the Vertex Limited Edition.

[Metaluna]

Regarding SSD lifespan: Intel keeps track of this in their SMART data. My year-old 80GB Gen1 X25-M is showing the "wearout indicator" at 94% (where 100% is a brand new drive), with 2.79TB total host writes.

So theoretically at my current rate of usage I should get something close to 20 years out of the drive. This drive is in my work laptop, so I have no choice but to use it for everything including swap, browser cache, etc. On the other hand I'm not hammering it with torrents or large compiles or anything like that. Mostly normal office/productivity tasks.

[dhanson865]

Just one data point -- a couple of weeks ago I built a new miniITX system using the Zotac GF9300-I-E motherboard, using an Intel X25-V (40GB "value" SSD) for the OS/applications, running 64-bit Ubuntu 9.10. If I select "ACHI" or "Linux AHCI" for SATA mode in the BIOS, not only does the mobo fail to see the SSD at all, but it won't respond to the DEL key to go into BIOS, forcing me to use the CMOS jumper to reset to defaults. With SATA in IDE mode, all is well.

Why do you think that was?

I thought Intel specifically needs ACHI and says that it should not be run on IDE?

Every motherboard, chipset, drive controller, bios, ssd controller, ssd firmware combo will work slightly differently. Until you plug it up and try it you won't know what will work.

I can tell you this I've plugged in Intel SSDs to systems that are several years old and they worked as is with no settings changes.

I'm assuming you are confused because of this statement on the Intel website:

Is the Intel SSD a drop-in replacement for SATA Hard Disk drives?
Yes. The Intel SSD a drop-in replacement provides rugged, reliable performance at lower power. Intel SSDs support the ATA-7 command sets and the SATA II command extensions. AHCI must be supported and enabled by both the system BIOS and OS (May require F6 installation of compatible windows storage driver like IMSM. Note: Vista AHCI support is native)

I think this is just a case of ambiguous English phrasing. I think what they mean is:

Intel SSDs support the ATA-7 command sets and the SATA II command extensions. For AHCI to work it must be supported and enabled by both the system BIOS and OS

or maybe

Intel SSDs support the ATA-7 command sets and the SATA II command extensions. AHCI must be supported and enabled by both the system BIOS and OS for all command extensions to be enabled

I don't think they ever meant in any way that you have to have AHCI to use one of their SSDs.

[Metaluna]

Just one data point -- a couple of weeks ago I built a new miniITX system using the Zotac GF9300-I-E motherboard, using an Intel X25-V (40GB "value" SSD) for the OS/applications, running 64-bit Ubuntu 9.10. If I select "ACHI" or "Linux AHCI" for SATA mode in the BIOS, not only does the mobo fail to see the SSD at all, but it won't respond to the DEL key to go into BIOS, forcing me to use the CMOS jumper to reset to defaults. With SATA in IDE mode, all is well.

There seems to be a very intermittent bug with Intel drives (or chipsets, or something) where the SSD will disappear or hang the BIOS during AHCI autodetection. I have experienced this myself. The problem goes away if you switch to IDE mode, and sometimes the type of OS installed on the drive can affect the behavior (which is really wierd since the hang happens long before the OS is even loaded). I wasn't aware that it was happening on non-Intel motherboard chipsets though, so you might not be seeing the same issue.

You can read about it in this thread on the Intel support forum (including my post describing my own experiences).

http://communities.intel.com/message/73789#73789

Anyway, getting back to the original point, these drives do work just fine in IDE mode, and I believe they even support TRIM in that mode. I think the drives are supposed to be optimized for best performance in AHCI though, which is probably why Intel recommends (but doesn't require) it.

[dhanson865]

@CES who asks

1. What about OCZ?

OCZ used 64MB cache on the 128GB drives but 32MB cache on the 64GB drives.

2. I have seen conflicting statements about whether all the OCZ Indilix SSDs have 64mb or not. What is the best way to confirm what exactly the truth is?

I'm generally happy with looking at the specs for a drive on the OCZ website but such things change. It may be that their newest revision of the 64GB drives have 64MB cache but just a few weeks ago they still said 32MB on them. The cache can be changed easily without redesigning the SSD as a whole. The question is what will you get if you buy from a retailer not what did the factory send out this week. If you are buying on price you may not get the latest revision of a product.

3. What about the Crucial 300M. It seems to perform so much better than the Intel.

You might want to take a look at the price list I posted earlier. the C300 is on the list. I didn't specifically mention it in that post because of the price since the person I responded to said he needed a 64GB SSD I was focusing on the cheaper SSDs.

Personally I won't pay the ~$500 it takes to buy a C300 right now. If you have that kind of money to spare then it is a nice drive. If you want to send me one or more I'll happily use any C300 you send me.

4. The same for the Vertex Limited Edition.

The Vertex LE isn't on the SPCR price grabber neither is its sibling the OWC extreme. Personally they are both out of my price range. And I see no reason to recommend anyone else consider such limited edition products.

Vertex LE is ~$475 shipped to me right now

OWC 50GB is ~$250 shipped
OWC 100GB is ~410 shipped

I'd buy one of the OWC drives based on cost since it's the exact same controller and firmware If I were in the mood to be an early adopter on the sandforce bandwagon but I'm not that much of an early adopter.

The Crucial/Marvell is almost as risky but would be my path if I were wanting to buy a bleeding edge drive.

[gcwebbyuk]

Thanks for the feedback.

I am a bit of a brand fan - I use Scythe for my fans, Zalman for coolers etc, and I am currently running Corsair for my PSU and RAM, so I may stick to Corsair for the SSD - unless thats a bad choice?

If I go Corsair, there are even more choices - (prices based on scan.co.uk)

Performance 64GB: 220MB/s read - 120MB/s write - 128MB cache - £148.63
Reactor 60GB: 250MB/s read - 110MB/s write - 128MB cache - £140.98
Nova 64GB: 270MB/s read - 130MB/s write - 64MB cache - £153.90
Extreme 64GB: 220MB/s read - 135MB/s write - 64MB cache - £181.64

So which do I choose - is a larger cache - 128MB over 64MB more of a benefit to a faster read/write speed? Am guessing from the stats and dhanson865's suggestion that the Nova is the best to go for, but am wondering wether an extra 64MB cache is a bonus?

[dhanson865]

Corsair SSDs

Performance 64GB: 128MB cache Samsung controller
Reactor 60GB: 128MB cache JMicron JMF612 controller
Nova 64GB: 64MB cache Indilinx barefoot controller
Extreme 64GB: 64MB cache Indilinx barefoot controller

You absolutely DON'T want the Jmicron or Samsung controller unless the price of the SSD is half the price of the Indilinx based drives and you are extremely short on funds.

See http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdo ... i=3773&p=6 and pay close attention to the random write speed chart at the top of the page.

Oh, and I don't trust those MB/s numbers as they are often quoted for the 128GB drives which are faster at sequential R/Ws than the 64GB drive will be.

[b3nbranch]

Just one data point -- a couple of weeks ago I built a new miniITX system using the Zotac GF9300-I-E motherboard, using an Intel X25-V (40GB "value" SSD) for the OS/applications, running 64-bit Ubuntu 9.10. If I select "ACHI" or "Linux AHCI" for SATA mode in the BIOS, not only does the mobo fail to see the SSD at all, but it won't respond to the DEL key to go into BIOS, forcing me to use the CMOS jumper to reset to defaults. With SATA in IDE mode, all is well.

There seems to be a very intermittent bug with Intel drives (or chipsets, or something) where the SSD will disappear or hang the BIOS during AHCI autodetection. I have experienced this myself. The problem goes away if you switch to IDE mode, and sometimes the type of OS installed on the drive can affect the behavior (which is really wierd since the hang happens long before the OS is even loaded). I wasn't aware that it was happening on non-Intel motherboard chipsets though, so you might not be seeing the same issue.

You can read about it in this thread on the Intel support forum (including my post describing my own experiences).

http://communities.intel.com/message/73789#73789

Anyway, getting back to the original point, these drives do work just fine in IDE mode, and I believe they even support TRIM in that mode. I think the drives are supposed to be optimized for best performance in AHCI though, which is probably why Intel recommends (but doesn't require) it.

It was quite a shock when I first tripped over this problem, but actually, I'm pretty happy even in IDE mode. It's my first SSD, after all, and it's still pretty fabulous what it does for boot times and application launch times, particularly apps that load a lot of plug-ins at boot. The X25-V took the firmware upgrade recommended by Intel without a hiccup, BTW.

[gcwebbyuk]

Corsair SSDs

Performance 64GB: 128MB cache Samsung controller
Reactor 60GB: 128MB cache JMicron JMF612 controller
Nova 64GB: 64MB cache Indilinx barefoot controller
Extreme 64GB: 64MB cache Indilinx barefoot controller

You absolutely DON'T want the Jmicron or Samsung controller unless the price of the SSD is half the price of the Indilinx based drives and you are extremely short on funds.

See http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdo ... i=3773&p=6 and pay close attention to the random write speed chart at the top of the page.

Oh, and I don't trust those MB/s numbers as they are often quoted for the 128GB drives which are faster at sequential R/Ws than the 64GB drive will be.

Confused by the chart as the Corsair drives are not listed - neither does it mark out which drive has which controller - but I will take your word for it

Why is the Extreme more expensive than the Nova then if it has the same size cache - and aparently slower speeds?

[dhanson865]

Confused by the chart as the Corsair drives are not listed - neither does it mark out which drive has which controller - but I will take your word for it

Why is the Extreme more expensive than the Nova then if it has the same size cache - and apparently slower speeds?

Take another look at the chart. Each line has a host of info. I'll take a couple of lines and translate somewhat:

OCZ Vertex LE 100GB (Sandforce-1500 MLC) 51.2

OCZ makes the drive. The SSD is called a Vertex LE. The advertised capacity IS 100GB. The controller is made by Sandforce and the model number of that controller is 1500. The flash chips used for storage in the SSD are MLC (the two possible types being MLC or SLC). The speed was 51.2 MB/s

Uggh, yeah there is a lot of information in one bar on that graph. If it doesn't make sense from the paragraph above then you have a lot of reading ahead of you to understand who makes what and why.

Any drive that says (Indilinx MLC) is going to be almost exactly the same performance as any other drive that says Indilinx on it and is reasonably priced. Doesn't matter if it says Corsair, or Bob's SSD special because Corsair doesn't make the inside parts of the SSD. They just slap a label on it and box it up and ship it out. Corsair is a fine company but they just aren't that different from anybody else when it comes to making SSDs.

Extreme vs Nova? I dunno. The marketing speak might give you a clue but I don't have time to dig any further tonight.

[edan]

You absolutely DON'T want the Jmicron or Samsung controller unless the price of the SSD is half the price of the Indilinx based drives and you are extremely short on funds.

See http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdo ... i=3773&p=6 and pay close attention to the random write speed chart at the top of the page.

Oh, and I don't trust those MB/s numbers as they are often quoted for the 128GB drives which are faster at sequential R/Ws than the 64GB drive will be.

Confused by the chart as the Corsair drives are not listed - neither does it mark out which drive has which controller - but I will take your word for it

The Corsair P128 is the same as the OCZ Summit (Samsung MLCon the chart. I have a friend who bought one and loves it, and he claims he gets the 200MB/sec for seq read and write... But he didn't tell me what he got for random read/write and I didn't want to be a jerk and ask

In Feb, Anand said he would take the Samsung based SSD's off his "do not buy list" http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdo ... i=3747&p=5 ... But the crappy random performance totally turns me off. How often do I need to write sequentially at 200MB/sec? Well, I just don't do anything besides backups that requires that. How often is my drive doing more than one thing and slowing me down... Hmm, much more often

I just bought two Intel x-25m 80GB G2's (yay tax refund) because they are the cheapest / GB for the Intel's and they are the highest performing for the price. Only the SF-1500 based drives are really overall more powerful, and they are MUCH more expensive per GB.

[Tzupy]

The new article at Anandtech shows very interesting results with the 256GB Crucial C300 on various platforms, link:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3778

[gcwebbyuk]

Argh I am now considering the Intel X25-m 80GB as I can get one for a similar price to the Corsair 64GB Extreme...

This SSD buying really is a minefield!

Is the Intel a best buy?

[gcwebbyuk]

Bit the bullet and ordered the intel - please don't tell me I made a bad decision!

[frenchie]

You didn't.
(feel better ?)

[dhanson865]

Bit the bullet and ordered the intel - please don't tell me I made a bad decision!

There is no technical reason to avoid that drive. You won't regret buying it on any reason other than price (which is a possible cause of buyers remorse on any tech product).

Oh and if you decide you don't like it you can always donate it to me

[Tzupy]

But there are reasons to avoid (for now) the superbly performing C300, unfortunately Anandtech found this out, link:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3779
Exactly what I was afraid of, buggy early firmware. Probably the safest bet is Intel...