Shop for All

Prestige Portable 500GB 2.5' Hard Drive Prestige Portable 500GB 2.5" Hard...

Compare the top 5 lowest prices by hovering your mouse over the product names on the left

$121.70
Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB Hard Drive Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB Hard Drive $139.99
My Passport Essential Black Portable 400GB Hard Drive My Passport Essential Black... $129.99
Elements External 1 TB Hard Drive Elements External 1 TB Hard Drive $109.00
My Passport Essential 500GB Portable Hard Drive - Black My Passport Essential 500GB... $149.99
See More Products...
All about Internal Storage
 Latest Internal Storage articles
All Internal Storage articles
 Internal Storage performance charts
All performance charts
 Latest Internal Storage news
All Internal Storage news

Newsletters


Need help ?
  • Ask your question about IT issues
  • Post

Partners

The Games selection

violent : Interactive Buddy Unwind on your interactive buddy: Do anything you want to him, it will earn you money, and you can buy other stuff to torture him with.
crazy : PC Breakdown What is worst than a Fatal Error occuring during a game you did not save? Unleash your rage at your PC in this game. Blow it to pieces, it feels so...
Ads

Sponsored links

New Test Procedure

Previous Next
1:40 AM - 07/14/2008 by Patrick Schmid and Achim Roos

Despite the flawed battery testing procedure of using a repeating workload instead of a defined one, our initial testing had another point: while the new products such as Super Talent’s MasterDrive MX, OCZ’s SATA II Flash SSD and the latest Samsung SSD (which we’ll receive soon as well) are based on native second-gen SATA interfaces, most of the first- and second-generation Flash SSDs rely on outdated SATA bridge chips, which consume more power than necessary. Paired with the power-saving features of modern hard drives, which aren’t available on Flash SSDs to our knowledge, the discrepancies discovered in our initial article can arise.

Since there are test results on the Internet proving that Flash SSDs can improve battery life (and we fully agree that power-optimized Flash SSD products are more efficient than mechanical hard drives), we digested all the feedback from our readers and got manufacturer input as well. We wanted to look at performance and power consumption using a benchmark lineup able to reflect real-world usage scenarios as closely as possible.

We wanted to include more results and more drives, but the time sensitivity of this update would prevent us from doing a more comprehensive analysis. However, as a side note, we are in the process of adjusting our storage testing procedure to include application-based efficiency analysis for all upcoming hard drive and solid state drive reviews. The tests used for this update might not represent the full composition of that suite, but they are still applicable measures of whether or not today’s SSDs can beat the efficiency of HDDs.

All of the following tests were executed by a batch script to make sure that the benchmark load is identical for each product. We tracked the power requirement using a multimeter with a USB interface and another computer and we related the performance to the average power requirement by dividing the score by the average power requirement in watts.

ssd hard drive The Voltcraft VC940 multimeter allows tracking results via USB on a host computer.

Talkback
Xeus32 07/14/2008 9:41 AM
Show
Xeus32 07/14/2008 9:43 AM
Hide
-1+

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.

swiftpulse 07/14/2008 12:02 PM
Hide
-1+

This is much better than the first article now. Specially the DVD playback is interesting.

swiftpulse 07/14/2008 12:06 PM
Hide
-0+

The 64GB OCZ seems to be an amazingly exceptional drive.

bloodymaze 07/14/2008 1:37 PM
Hide
--3+

Hahaha. Once again contradicting yourself as Xeus pointed out.

JPForums 07/14/2008 3:13 PM
Hide
-10+

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.

dragunover 07/14/2008 3:23 PM
Hide
--3+

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.

dragunover 07/14/2008 3:25 PM
Show
Anonymous 07/14/2008 4:34 PM
Show
Anonymous 07/14/2008 4:39 PM
Hide
--1+

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...?

Igot1forya 07/14/2008 4:51 PM
Hide
-7+

Ziria, Wattage (P) is calculated by multiplying Voltage (V) by Amps (A).

Hence, the only important number is Wattage.

MDillenbeck 07/14/2008 5:10 PM
Hide
-3+

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).

demonhorde665 07/14/2008 7:45 PM
Hide
--3+

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

Fadamor 07/14/2008 8:50 PM
Hide
-3+

demonhorde665 :
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.

gxsolace 07/14/2008 8:55 PM
Hide
-2+

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.

uday_ananth 07/14/2008 9:03 PM
Hide
-2+

hard disks have been here for ages.. give ssds some more time and only then we can actually evaluatethe differences..

hergieburbur 07/14/2008 9:29 PM
Hide
-3+

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.

Anonymous 07/14/2008 10:10 PM
Hide
-2+

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.

gwolfman 07/14/2008 11:06 PM
Hide
-1+

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!

shadowmaster625 07/14/2008 11:15 PM
Hide
-0+

so where are the benchmarks for OCZ Core Raid-0?


Comments are closed on this page.

Sponsored links