Need information to pick up the right SSD

[ilysaml]

Hello, I don't know too much about Storage but i'm thinking to upgrade to an SSD i'm sick of waiting minutes for the Windows to startup and the programs to launch, i read about SSDs in the theSSDreview.com but i still have questions to be explained;
What's random R/W and Sequential R/D? What's the difference? What does 4,8,16 KB refer to?
I'm always transferring large ISO files, HD 1080P movies & backup files between internal drives so what will be the best to look at? I mean the fastest and reliable SSD for transferring large files, also I'm considering a 120 GB one, I'm a gamer from the first degree. I have the 890FX chipset and the rest of my rig are in the description below.

Thanks in advance

 

[JackNaylorPE]

-The fastest 120 GB SSD's average about 16 seconds boot to windows. See Tier 3 ones here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-review-benchmark,3115-6.html

-Hybrid Hard Drives average about 17 seconds booting to windows (i.e Seagate Moments 750 GB)

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=806&Itemid=60&limit=1&limitstart=7

-The better "non green" 7200 rpm Hard Drives average about 21 seconds booting to windows.

So you are talking about a savings of 5 seconds with a SSD over a HD and 1 second over a hybrid.


Your problem more likely results from tons of stuff loading at startup .... lots of programs preload parts of themselves to make you think they load quickly when you get around you get a round to starting them. If ya not comfy w/ msconfig, I have always liked Mike Lin;s start up control panel for turning these things off.

http://mlin.net/StartupCPL.shtml

All those numbers refer to the size of the files being transferred in the test, you should be most concerned with sequential read / write tests.

 

[RetiredChief]

For an OS + programs SSD:
.. Most important - 4k random read/writes.
.. Least Important - Sequencial read writes. Pessonally I don't even look at.

Sequencial read/writes are very important when working with large Data structures such as Video files, Large spreadsheets, lare cad/cam drawings, and when working a lot with large jpeg photos.

Video files can be quite large as typical DVD movie is 4 x 1 Gig dor VOBs, Blue ray typically is from 13 -> 40 gigs for a single file. Unless you have a lot of money to invest in a large SSD it is not very pracitical to place them on an SSD.

I have 4 systems, all with SSDs for a OS + Program drive (not a gamer). and would NOT go back to a mechanical HDD for OS + Programs.

@ Jack - Quote: All those numbers refer to the size of the files being transferred in the test, you should be most concerned with sequential read / write tests End Quote.
Yes For the Video work, the Sequencial's are most important - BUT ONLY if the files are on the SSD. As I stated DVD/Blu-ray fi8les are Very Large and not normally placed on the SSD. If this is the primary work then I would place these files on a Raid0 HDDs and Use the 128 Gig SSD for OS + Program.
As I stated Sequencial performance is a very poor matrix for OS + Program only SSD.
NOTE: Most sequencial bench marks use data that is highly compressable. If the Files are not readily compressable then Seq's can be very misleading - Not sure How compressable a Blu-ray/DVD video file is. I do Know they can be shrunk considerably IE convert a Blu-ray 30 gig file down to 2.3 gigs for Playback on ipad - But this also changes the resolution, so not the same as compression.

Personally what I've done is use a 128 Gig SSD for OS + Programs and then a 2nd SSD for most often used files (as a Scratch disk).

 

[game junky]

I have swapped my OS disk from a 1.5 TB 7200 rpm drive to a 120GB Intel SATA3 SSD and the difference is night and day when it comes to real world performance. I formatted the HDD and have used it for my media files only and even transferring files from drive to drive is incredibly fast.

I agree with Jack - it would be good to run msconfig and see what unnessary programs you have in your startup list. If you do go the SSD route, I would recommend taking the time to tweak the numerous settings to get the most out of your drive (remove defrag schedule, disable hibernate/sleep mode, adjust power settings so that drive never powers down, use SATA3 ports on your mobo, etc.). I know the price/gb is still a little high, but the performance gains are awesome. Best money I ever spent

 

[ilysaml]

Your problem more likely results from tons of stuff loading at startup .... lots of programs preload parts of themselves to make you think they load quickly when you get around you get a round to starting them. If ya not comfy w/ msconfig, I have always liked Mike Lin;s start up control panel for turning these things off.

MSN,Skype, IDM, CCC, D.Tools, Eset, UTorrent, Fraps....that's all no heavy applications on the sartup and i already configured the ms.config for the proper boot up i disabled all the heavy services and applications...the problem is even if i disable all of that i still have to wait about 2-3 mins until i'm able to double click the Chrome logo and log on Facebook.
The access time of my HDD is 18 MS that's how i think that the HDD is the problem.

All those numbers refer to the size of the files being transferred in the test, you should be most concerned with sequential read / write tests.

I'll look into this.

The fastest 120 GB SSD's average about 16 seconds boot to windows. See Tier 3 ones here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 115-6.html

I was looking into the specs of the Force GT 120 GB it has a sequential R/W of 500 so how the Samsung 830 beats it? Is it just a theoretical speed?

 

[ilysaml]

@Retired Chief
The files doesn't exceed 11 GB, i always download on the C and remove to the internal drives. And you're right i will raid 0 the WD 500 Disks. So all i'm seeking is the fastest transfer rate between the drives on transferring those large files.

So should i seek the highest in Sequential R/W? I was thinking of the Force GT should i go for it? Or take Jack's advice and pick up the Wildfire or the 830?
Also i'm running on the AMD chipset, will be there any bottlenecks?

 

[ilysaml]

@Gamejunky
Thx for the info, could you indicate the transfer rate from SSD to the HDD using large files?
Also I've read that tweaks on the site i'll do it for sure.

 

[RetiredChief]

Not sure if this helps:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/ssd-charts-2011/AS-SSD-ISO-Copy-Benchmark,2793.html

 

[rshillshooter81]

reviews are awesome and all but you give no detail on what system you currently run. What speed/version of SATA does it support ect?

If you have a free pcie you could always go with a Revo3 and skip the SATA/SSD question...

 

[RetiredChief]

^ My crystal ball says he has:
Phenom II x6 1055T @ 4.0 GHz
Cooler Master Hyper 212+
Gigabyte 890FXA-UD5
4 GB G.Skill 1600 CL7 @ 1333 CL 6
Radeon HD 6950 2GB
Antec TPQ-850 W
WD Caviar Blue 2 x 500 GB
CM HAF 912 Advanced


Anb My system is
I5-2500 @ 4.2, 16 Gigs of Ram, Samsung 830 128 gig SSD, 120 gig Agility III, 1 TB Samsung F3, 6870 GOU, Blu-ray writer. 27 " Samsung 2770 HD w/tuner.
Laptop is Samsung RF711-01, 8 Gigs of Ram, 2 x 128 gig Curcial M4s and a blu-ray rom/dvdrw drive.
Old system still in members config.

 

[ilysaml]

Not sure if this helps:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/ssd-charts-2011/AS-SSD-ISO-Copy-Benchmark,2793.html

I've seen the benchmarks many times, i guess i will choose between the wildfire and the 830 both are more expensive than the force gt but i'm leaning towards the samsung what do you think?

 

[dish_moose]

I think it's a good choice. That's what I would go for - speed & reliability.
-Bruce

 

[RetiredChief]

Bought the Samsung 830 to replace the Agility III in my I5-2500k. Seems great, as to performance do not see a big diff between it and my Curcial M4.
I've had the pair of Curcial's in my laptop for over 6 Months (not a long time), so to me it's a coin flip between 830 and M4, although indications are that the 830 should be more reliable.

Quess I'm lucky (knock on wood), Have 10 SSDs dating back to Intel's G1 and G2 - all working.

 

[ilysaml]

Good to know. One last Question will i see a bottleneck using my onboard controller?
And if i go for 2 x Kingston 200V 64 GB in Raid0 setup what's the advantages and disadvantages of doing so? i will be backing up regularly to an external HDD.

 

[RetiredChief]

SSD performance, from best to lowest.
.. Intel using Latest Intel RST driver (iaSTor slightly better than using msAhci for driver)
.. AMD chipset using msahci driver (not sure amd probably fixed their driver
.. MB Marvel based SATA III controller = Lowest. In fact many have used Intel Sata II ports over the marvel based Sata III ports.
*** How noticeable in real Life (outside Bench marks), I'm not sure. all of my builds for the past several years have been Intel based MB.

On Raid0, some recommend it, more do not, I do not recommend it.
.. Raid0 provides a big boost to sequencial read writes. This is the LEAST important Matrix for a OS + Program drive.
.. Does NOT improve access time, and only marginally improves random 4 K read/writes - Most import.
.. Windows 7 Trim command is NOT passed and SSD must rely on internal Garbage Collection (CG). Reseting the SSD to factory specs is Best when both Trim and internal CG is utilized.

Myself, what I do is use one SSD for the OS/Programs and the 2nd as an "overflow" and scratch disk (I load most often used data to 2nd SSD). Have three systems setup this way with daul SSDs. NOTE: I was a big advacate of Raid0 back before SSDs and with the slower HDDs. I still have no problem with Raid0 with 2 HDDs as for a data drive Sequencial performance becomes more important - All depends on amount of time spent working with LARGE file/data structures.

 

[ilysaml]

Thx for the info i'll go for the Samsung 830 and Raid 0 my current WD disks.

 

[ilysaml]

Best answer selected by ilysaml.

 

[game junky]

@Gamejunky
Thx for the info, could you indicate the transfer rate from SSD to the HDD using large files?
Also I've read that tweaks on the site i'll do it for sure.

I'll see if I can get specs tonight - I usually just move encoded videos from drive to drive and it's literally copy, paste, done. From going from the HDD being my OS disk and waiting for it to copy for minutes, that felt like opening a game console for christmas. No matter your choice, SSD is where it's at - I don't think I'll ever install an OS on a HDD ever again.