Best offers
|
My Passport Essential 500GB Portable... | $129.99 STAPLES More info |
|
Caviar Black 1TB Hard Drive (Serial... | $99.99 Dell Small Business More info |
|
My Book Essential Edition External... | $148.00 ServerSupply.com More info |
|
X25-M Gen2 160GB 2.5" Solid State... | $509.95 PC Connection More info |
|
My Passport Essential Portable 320GB... | $134.00 ServerSupply.com More info |
- super talent ssd
- ssd hard disk
- no power going to hard drive
- what is an idle hard drive
- notebook ssd hard drive
- ssd energy savings
- hard drive idle power
- hard drive power requirement
- lowest idle power
- ssd hard drive power battery
- what is the lowest power hard drive
- ssd hard drive notebooks
- ssd drive power requirement
- power savings ssd hdd
- ssd hard disk test
Partners
The Games selection
adventure :
Ray
Adventure game, South Park style. Pick the way the story goes by picking an answer among those offered.
|
crazy :
Interactive Boogy
Pick one of the 3 songs, hit on the correct keys matching this boy's dance moves.
|
Sponsored links
- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (42) |
- Share
Last but not least, we wanted to find out the lowest idle power of all of the drives. While we learned that hard drives sometimes have complex power saving mechanisms, Flash SSDs typically don’t. Let’s look at the drive idle power after 10 minutes of Windows Vista inactivity.
We disabled the drive power management options in Windows Vista to be sure that the idle power requirement actually reflects each drive’s characteristics and not Windows’ energy saving features.

If your notebook isn’t often taxed, then a mechanical hard drive isn’t that bad at idle. We measured between 0.7 W and 1.0 W depending on the drive, and this is typically less than with three of the five Flash SSDs. We didn’t expect the Mtron drive to be efficient in idle, and we did expect the San Disk SSD to be very efficient, as this is a characteristic of this low-performance Flash SSD product. However, the Super Talent MasterDrive MX cannot really beat the idle power of the hard drives by much, reaching exactly the same power requirement as the most energy-hungry hard drive in idle.
Again, the new OCZ drive sets new records with requiring only 0.2 W when it’s idle.

- Can I have SSD and hard drive in a laptop [Laptops & Notebooks]
- How do I compare SSD hard drives to traditional magnetic 2.5" hard drives [Laptops & Notebooks]
- Query :: Replace MHT2080AT IDE hard drive with SSD [Laptops & Notebooks]
- SSD vs SAS Beating A Dead horse... [Storage]
- Ideas on SSD install/Upgrade w Hp Pavilion Laptop [Storage]
Questions? Ask Tom's community!
- 1 / 3
- Next
-
Sponsored links
Related forums topics
- Is My i7 920 System Being Bottlenecked By HDD
- Evaluate my extreme performance build for doing Work!
- I920 or 4870 ati encoder for video encoding
- When is 4mb L2 necessary over 2mb of L2 cache?
- I7 and X58 on newegg.co Just got mine!!!
- Motherboard or CPU?
- What is Bottleneck?
- WD RAPTOR 150GB (NOT A GOOD VALUE)
- Poor SSD performance with AHCI, and a note on the 80 MBps ICH9 limit
- Interesting way to cheat at 4GB RAM barrier...
- Building a Photoshop Computer: Need Guidance
- any way to make a ramdisk?
- Help a girl out.....New build 1800.00 to blow!
- What Is The Absolute Fastest System One Can Build Today?No Price Limit







LOL
Flash SSDs do not inherently contribute to increasing battery life and better efficiency comes with the appropriate Flash SSD used for a specific application. "Flash SSD" is not a qualifier for efficiency or performance.
This is much better than the first article now. Specially the DVD playback is interesting.
The 64GB OCZ seems to be an amazingly exceptional drive.
Hahaha. Once again contradicting yourself as Xeus pointed out.
Kudos to Tom's for having the decency to admit their mistakes and revise the article. The results, while not extraordinarily different than the previous article (discounting newcomers) provided a much more complete picture of the advantages and disadvantages of SSDs.
Articles like this one are a necessary step to regaining some of the lost credibility from previous articles like in this scenario. (Though it would be better if the articles didn't need revision) In short, it is encouraging to see that Tom's is listening to the readers. IMHO the real enthusiasts are more concerned with well thought out procedures, and accuracy/completeness/comprehensiveness of results than reading the "We posted first" articles that are all to easy to find on the internet.
iLOL
I like when people talk about the power inefficiency of hard-drives,yet don't blame things like CPU's,or discrete GPU's in their laptops.
However,I would like to see this as a high power part in desktops sooner or later,but with of course more power and(hopefully) stellar reliability.
And I mean for under 300 dollars.
iLOL
I like when people talk about the power inefficiency of hard-drives,yet don't blame things like CPU's,or discrete GPU's in their laptops.
However,I would like to see this as a high power part in desktops sooner or later,but with of course more power and(hopefully) stellar reliability.
And I mean for under 300 dollars.
Is measuring only wattage correct? What about the amps? I'm no electrical/mechanical engineer but I have always thought you need to measure both wattage and amperage to get the actual power consumption?
Dragunover - no one is refuting the fact that the CPU/GPU will be power hungry... that's not what is under discussion here. i'm interested by the fact you seem to be asking for SSDs that consume more power...?
Ziria, Wattage (P) is calculated by multiplying Voltage (V) by Amps (A).
Hence, the only important number is Wattage.
This article demonstrates that too often people generalize from specific test data.
Whether SDD or HDD, how you use your electronics device will influence how it much power it consumes. To conclude that one drive uses less power because a specific test does is an inaccurate conclusion - the testor can only state that it uses less power under those given circumstances and that is most likely will hold true under similar circumstances. (For example: this test is for random read/write operations, so the results most likely will be true for most applications that follow that pattern of disk usage.)
My point? Many times reviewers do not have the time to evaluate a product in depth, and thus they should not make broad generalizations or exaggerated claims.
Hopefully Tom's will keep up with in-depth reviews for a variety of users - road warriors (office apps/web/email), multimedia entertainment (DVD/video streaming apps/music playing), gamers, and "typical home users" - and creating good summary tables of their findings.
Myself, I find the IOs/Watt information especially valuable. I'll use that to find the IOs/Watt/$ when evaluating my future purchases. I'm kinda curious how the SSDs stack up against each other in that category (and I'm sure the HDDs are still waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy ahead of the SSDs right now).
to me teh argument isnt so much a "efficency" issue , to mee flash SSd's represent a future in computing where we don't have to replace , storage devices every 5-6 years (this is assuming you are getting agood high quality hard drive ) old mechanical hard drives (the current standard) fail after about 5-6 years to date the longest livinf hard drive i have is at 6 and i'll be amazed it it last half another year./ Also note you can cut this hard drive life expectancy in half if you smoke around your computer or you ahve a dusty home like many peopel in more rural areas. This hard drive death is soemthign that can't be stoped as the metal paltes require mechanical parts to spin them , and like any motor the parts will wear outa nd eventually stop working all together. Now fast forward to when they have SDD's that range in a better size (like at elast 250 gb) i can see these drive replacing even desk top hard drives , simpply for teh reason ... They HAVE NO MECHANICAL PARTS THAT WEAR OUT ! what this means is essientially many of use computer geeks taht are hard put to lose a comp jsut because it is old , will not have to replace these parts , recently i gave my mom my old alienware (that is now 6 years old) and i know before the year is out i will be replacing her hard drive on it , but with an SSD's i wouldnt ahve to , the only issue with SSD's is their extremely High price for drives thet come remotely close to desk top hard drive sizes (last time i looked a good 128 gb one , goes for around 4,000-5,000 dollars) the alienware has a 200 gig , to just fill that capacity you are looking at any where from 8,000 to 10,000 dollars. yes i think these drives are the future of long term storage devices in ALL computers , but for the time that future is expensive at the moment. i say give it 10-15 years before you see SSD's at the same cost as old magnetic HD's
to me teh argument isnt so much a "efficency" issue , to mee flash SSd's represent a future in computing where we don't have to replace , storage devices every 5-6 years (this is assuming you are getting agood high quality hard drive ) old mechanical hard drives (the current standard) fail after about 5-6 years to date the longest livinf hard drive i have is at 6 and i'll be amazed it it last half another year./ Also note you can cut this hard drive life expectancy in half if you smoke around your computer or you ahve a dusty home like many peopel in more rural areas. This hard drive death is soemthign that can't be stoped as the metal paltes require mechanical parts to spin them , and like any motor the parts will wear outa nd eventually stop working all together. Now fast forward to when they have SDD's that range in a better size (like at elast 250 gb) i can see these drive replacing even desk top hard drives , simpply for teh reason ... They HAVE NO MECHANICAL PARTS THAT WEAR OUT !
Not true. Flash SSD's suffer the same flaw as your typical Flash "thumb drive"... The recording medium fails after X number of writes. They've added technology in the controllers to extend the drive's life by spreading the writes around the drive's landscape, but the drive WILL fail eventually... even if you treat it with kid gloves.
Wow. Pretty rare these days to see a big publication go out and admit a mistake and even make a big public apology. kudos to you guys.
hard disks have been here for ages.. give ssds some more time and only then we can actually evaluatethe differences..
Wow, I have to admit, I did not expect Tom's to admit their errors in the last article. I am glad they did though, and this one looks to be much more along the lines of what we would expect to see. Props for having the gut to admit your mistake Patrick and Aaron.
All that really matters to me in regards to these articles, is that i'm not going to notice any difference in battery life while using my lapop. I could however expect to enjoy the speed if i got a good SSD.
Nice job Tom's. I thoroughly enjoyed this article a lot more than the previous one. It seems like the last one way maybe rushed. Either way, thanks for keeping things legit and up to (at least my idea of) Tom's quality standards. Thanks again!
so where are the benchmarks for OCZ Core Raid-0?