Can Bargain SSDs Give Windows A Quantum Performance Leap?
-
Page 1:Getting Older By The Minute
-
Page 2:Drives On The Block
-
Page 3:How We Tested
-
Page 4:Benchmark Results: CrystalDiskMark
-
Page 5:Benchmark Results: HD Tune
-
Page 6:Benchmark Results: PCMark Vantage
-
Page 7:Benchmark Results: PCMark Vantage, Continued
-
Page 8:Really Simple
-
Page 9:Really Loaded
-
Page 10:Conclusion
How We Tested
As you know, there are two kinds of benchmarks: synthetic and real-world. Synthetics seek to obtain absolute values. “All other things being equal or isolated, the product can do this.” A real-world benchmark usually involves taking some sort of stopwatch (mine is a cheap three-button unit from Sportline) and measuring the time it takes the system or application to perform a given task set. Real world benchmarks may isolate some variables, but a lot of the point is to emulate ordinary usage conditions. In our case here, this is particularly important. I expected there to be a difference between the conclusions drawn from synthetic and real world tests. The question was how much of a difference there would be.
Here is the test platform we used:
| System Hardware | |
|---|---|
| Processor | Intel Core i7-965 Extreme (45nm, 3.2 GHz, 8MB L3 Cache) |
| Motherboard | Intel DX58SO (Intel X58 Express/ICH10R), BIOS SOX5810J.86A |
| RAM | 3 x 2GB DDR3-1600 OCZ3P1600LV6GK |
| Hard Drive 1 | Kingston SSDNow V-Series, 64GB (SNV125-S2BN/64GB), SATA 3 Gb/s, 64KB In-controller cache |
| Hard Drive 2 | Transcend SSD25D, 60GB (TS60GSSD25D-M), SATA 3 Gb/s, 64MB cache |
| Hard Drive 3 | Intel X25-M G2, 160GB (SSDSA2M160G2GC), SATA 3 Gb/s, 32MB cache |
| Hard Drive 4 | Western Digital VelociRaptor, 300GB (WD3000HLFS), 10,000 RPM, SATA 3 Gb/s, 16MB cache |
| Graphics | EVGA GeForce GTX 280 (01G-P3-1280-AR) |
| Power Supply | PC Power and Cooling Turbo-Cool 860W |
| Benchmarks | |
|---|---|
| Performance Measurements | PCMark Vantage 1.0.2 |
| CrystalDiskMark 2.2 | |
| HD Tune Pro 3.5 | |
| System Software And Drivers | |
| Operating System | Windows 7 Ultimate Edition (fully updated with Windows Update on 12/29/2009) |
| Intel Chipset Drivers | Chipset Installation Utility 9.1.1.1019 |
| Nvidia Graphics Drivers | GeForce 195.62 |
I like CrystalDiskMark and HD Tune for their very quick assessments of raw performance. HD Tune in particular can reveal interesting drive attributes in its throughput graphs. Historically, we’ve leaned toward the Productivity tests within PCMark Vantage, and I actually ran that suite on these drives. However, I threw out the data in favor of the HDD Suite, which focuses more precisely on the type of common Windows tasks we want to highlight here.
For real world testing, I developed two scenarios. The first focused on a simple boot into Windows 7, just looking at going from a cold boot to the Windows desktop. The second took this first scenario and then piled a ton of apps and data on top of it. This is closer to being a true real world situation. After a system reset, I inevitably find myself gravitating back to having two or three spreadsheets, many browser windows, multiple .doc files, Outlook, and other apps open throughout the day. If I were smarter, I’d just have these constant companions pre-loaded from my Windows Startup folder. For this test, I assumed I was actually that smart.
Note that boot times were measured starting after the motherboard POST period. Specifically, the DX58SO will show a splash screen followed by a couple of alphanumeric codes in the bottom-right corner of the screen. The last of these is “94" and then the screen goes black. This is the point when I would start the timer.
Final note: I burned a lot of hours repeating tests because I didn’t have patches and drivers properly set. If you want top results from your SSD, flash your motherboard's BIOS first, then the SSD firmware, then install Windows, then get the most current storage drivers installed. In the case of my test setup, I kept getting inexplicable drop-offs in two specific PCMark Vantage tests that resulted from running Microsoft’s default storage driver rather than Intel’s Matrix Storage driver (version 8.9). I’d also missed how a motherboard update had reset my disk mode to legacy IDE rather than SATA AHCI. This resulted in semi-normal looking benchmark scores but bizarre hibernation resume times of up to five minutes.
Every article I read seems to compare a few SSD drives to a raptor, and for some reason, it's always a raptor used to represent the rotating media class.
The author seems to be making a case for SSD drives by talking about how poor the performance of his home HDD drive is, but then he completely failed to show the performance difference by not including a STANDARD hard drive in the tests. Why does every article do this?
Truth be told, most people will be upgrading from drives that are far worse than a velociraptor, so why not give people an actual baseline with what they're using now. Include a modern 1TB HDD, an older 320G last gen HDD and definitely include a 4200rpm notebook drive. Those are the kinds of drives that people will most likely be upgrading from, so show them something useful and tangible.
Also in general please stop making socket 1156 like it's the best thing in town because Intel has made it clear that it's a mainstream socket and they will not be getting more then four cores ever; I am only saying this since as an upgrader I hate to see other people presume socket 1156 has a good upgrade path which it doesn't unless Intel changes it's mind and the last time I checked the upgrader's best friend is AMD (good motherboards/chipsets for under $400, unlocked multipliers for under a grand, unlocked cores, etc).
I was really thinking for 3-4 months before jumping on SSD but glad I did. Just 13 min to fully install W7, 15-18 seconds to desktop, 5-8 seconds to shutdown (5 no app running, 8 with loads of them started) and apps starting 3-8 times faster then with regular hdd.
Same as author 1st time booting to OS on SSD almost fell of chair as I was expecting to be it faster but not that much (3.5min boot time before)
a nice 64GB SSD drive would be just fine for all my needs.
one remark, can you include fakeraid (mobo implemented raid) raid1 configuration tests ?
Its not that hard windows 7 64bit alone take like 15GB add hybernation file few apps and you are way over 40GB, some apps or games can have even more then 10GB (AoC have 30GB+).
On laptop you should even see more performance boost as 2.5" drives they use are usually considerably slower then on desktop. Also you would get rid of possibility damaging disk when dropping your notebook as SSDs have no moving parts.
I've seen PCs in school that had multiple versions of the Adobe suite and loads of other premium apps and didn't manage that. You should look into that! Maybe you have 10 years worth of savegames stored somewhere. I once wondered why my C: was getting so loaded and then found out that "The Witcher" had 8 gigs (!!!) of savegames.
~15GB for Win 7 install. 8GB swap, hibernate space, Office is several GB, hell my f'ing HP printer drivers installed nearly 1GB of crap... Then Windows is goiung to generate 10-20GB of fluff in localapps and otehr hidden folders, browser caches for multiple browsers, and more.
When i installed Vista I put it on a 32GB drive, thinking 3 times my XP volume was sufficient. i installed all apps to a SEPERATE D: and still, within 3 months I was getting low space warnings. I stretched it to 80GB (took some effort, but doing that in Vista now does not require other apps like Ghost or partition magic, finally). Still I bumped up against those limits eventually.
On upgrade to 7, I started from scratch with 200GB. Instead of a seperate apps install volume, I put everything but hard core games on C:. By the time I was done with the 25-30 common apps I use (between productivity, photo and video editing, browsers, plug-ins, multimedia, sharing apps, ripping apps, etc, and all the drivers and support apps for devices, my install was over 100GB. gotta leave 30% free to have an effective stable OS, so there's not much room for more. I have a 600GB Raid 5 for my app data and personal files, and music, plus game installs. I have a 1TB external for video and DVD-ISO/installer storage. I also have a 2TB NAS for backup and network sharing.
to note, I have no pirated anything on my PC... It's not like I downloaded hundreds of torrented videos, this is all personal video, ripped DVDs, and my collection of music. 200GB of app data is easy to get to today. even under XP i might have only put 10GB on C:, but D: with apps was easily 50GB, and XP only had a 2GB swap, hibernate, and I had snapshots turned off...
Kubuntu 9.1 is real snappy on a Kingston SSD Now V+ 64GB with a 8GB home partition and a 2GB swap.
He probably uses his laptop as an office PC, so he's probably got all the Office bloated software on there, plus he said he has Adobe Premier and that's not a small application.
The thing I am really wanting to do is get a 120-ishGB in my older Dell laptop and see if it helps with performance. I know it will never be a gaming graphics monster, but apps just seem under Windows Vista Home Premium to load like molasses.
Plus, the power thing. I wonder how much longer that 4-5 hour battery is gonna last without the hard drive being spun all the time. maybe 6-7? mmm...transatlantic flight music listening or movie watching
LOL. Nah, I bet he's just including all the apps (Office, Premier, etc) he uses for work, plus all the spreadsheets, powerpoint presentations, graphics libraries, etc., he uses for his work. Odds are his laptop is his office PC with that much data.
Me too. Great idea
Great article, William. Makes me wanna save up and get a 128GB SSD for my old Dell laptop and hopefully speed up the boot/startup time for it.
One question, tho:
New year...new budget? Think Tom's can throw you (or whomever would be assigned to do to) the cash to buy (or even get manufacturers/retailers to supply free) the 8-10 most prevalent 128GB SSD models for comparison?
I'd like to see a side-by-side of a bunch. The Transcend impressed me keeping up with the Intel, and I'd like to know if others (Corsair, Patriot, etc) can do as well. Also, the Kingston SSD Now V+ models are better performers than the standard V series.
Just a thought.
Every article I read seems to compare a few SSD drives to a raptor, and for some reason, it's always a raptor used to represent the rotating media class.
The author seems to be making a case for SSD drives by talking about how poor the performance of his home HDD drive is, but then he completely failed to show the performance difference by not including a STANDARD hard drive in the tests. Why does every article do this?
Truth be told, most people will be upgrading from drives that are far worse than a velociraptor, so why not give people an actual baseline with what they're using now. Include a modern 1TB HDD, an older 320G last gen HDD and definitely include a 4200rpm notebook drive. Those are the kinds of drives that people will most likely be upgrading from, so show them something useful and tangible.
Dang, and I thought I had a lot of disk space. lol
Otherwise. Great article! I've been wondering if budget drives were worth it as well and this went some ways to answer that... at least that the "improved" jmicron controller is still relative shite compared to better ones but at least it improves boot speed and app loading.