Random Read Performance (background info)
Examples include antivirus scans and typing in Word

From what we've seen in testing, it can be more difficult to generate consistent data using SandForce-based SSDs than many competing drives. In some benchmarks, we note up to 50 MB/s swings at low queue depths during successive runs. Yet, if we take the median results, all of the 60 GB models collected for this story perform fairly similarly, regardless of their NAND interface. The only exception is Intel’s SSD 520, which achieves a 50 MB/s lead over the competition at queue depths between two and four.
Meanwhile, the 64 GB Samsung 830 falls behind the SandForce-based pack. Crucial's m4 performs respectably, nearly matching the SSDs being rounded-up today. We see one anomaly at a queue depth of four, where the 64 GB m4 falls behind by roughly 90 MB/s.
Random Write Performance, Compressible
Examples include email, file compression, and Web browsing

In general, all 60 GB SandForce-based SSDs perform within a fairly tight range when we measure performance using compressible random writes. The only clear leaders are the Vertex 3 and SSD 520, but they only differentiate themselves at queue depths between four and eight.
The 64 GB Crucial m4 and Samsung 830 fall further behind in this test. We'd expect that, though, considering neither controller benefits from compression in the same way as SandForce's.
- The Great 60 GB SandForce SSD Round-Up
- Test Setup And Firmware Notes
- 4 KB Random Performance
- 128 KB Sequential Performance
- Incompressible Sequential Write Performance: SandForce's Weakness
- PCMark 7 And Power Consumption
- Endurance Testing
- Exploring The Performance Of A Full SandForce-Based SSD
- Performance Is Defined By Flash
Ms-Office
Adobe pdf reader
a web browser, a photo manipulating program
a music/video player.
Install a game from a ISO.
An antivirus
And all these apps should be installed from the SSD itself (meaning their setups should be on the SSD).
Then you should test the startup and shutdown times.
All these synthetic benchies dont make much sense, IMHO.
Ms-Office
Adobe pdf reader
a web browser, a photo manipulating program
a music/video player.
Install a game from a ISO.
An antivirus
And all these apps should be installed from the SSD itself (meaning their setups should be on the SSD).
Then you should test the startup and shutdown times.
All these synthetic benchies dont make much sense, IMHO.
A lot of operations use only a single core and the SSD cant use its true potential. That is, the CPU cant process data as fast as the SSD can provide.
This is just reverse of what happens in case of mechanical HDD's.
You're not going to see a major difference.
Well, it is pointless though since everything you are doing is so fast that it doesn't matter anymore. I however see your point since I can be loading a program and my SSD is not even at max speed my CPU frequency is maxed out. The only way to get more speed is to just overclock as much as you can.
that is the point of buying a cheaper SSD based on a chepaer NAND.
I'd also like to see small drives benchmarked as swap drives in video editing machines. Currently I'm using a raid 0 array of 1tb samsung drives that keeps up well enough, but I'd be interested to see if there are tangible productivity differences.
For a future SSD review/roundup could you take, for example, 10 real-life traces from 10 different editor's machines (the more variation in workload, the better), and then compare the %change in execution time vs. a reference drive?
Great article.
Can we get a "Best motherboards for the money" type?
Thanks.
You can comment on, wish for, or suggest a product be tested without implying there's some kind of intentional skewing or fault in the data collected.
I recommend upping your budget to a larger drive. Otherwise m4.
I already do that, just pick up a cheap 30-64GB SSD and move the virtually memory over to it. As for killing the page file well good luck as that doesn't work. If it did there would be 36gb worth of more free space. As for using a ssd for only page file well it really does work and it doesn't degrade as quickly as you might think. When there is no static data for the controller to deal with while there is high read/write the drive tends to not have the same issues as most get. Just under 6,000 hours of heavy use and my 30gb kingston ssd is holding up.
It's a bloody long test that I've decided to reserve for comparing between different SSDs employing different controllers. It would have probably taken a full week to test all the SSDs and that only would happen if we were test 24x7 and perfectly timed the drive swaps ;p
We sent an invitation to Mushkin. They did not respond in proper time for this roundup. In any event, Toggle at 60 GB is quite rare. Though, I agree, it would have been an interesting contender. Unfortunately, we didn't want to put the roundup on the back burner any longer, because we've made multiple postponements to accommodate this that and the other.
Cheers,
Andrew Ku
TomsHardware.com
I believe you're referring to our Best SSDs column? If you want something different, feel free to suggest it.
Sure! Read our controller agnostic 60 GB roundup.
Cheers,
Andrew Ku
TomsHardware.com