Hello all, i'm thinking of getting a 128 gb ssd for my pc to make it boot quicker, but there seems to be so many reveiws i'm lost! any suggestions? ty.
hello sir, I have an asus p6tse board, i was thinking £150 - 200, for the ssd, i have seen ones that plug into pci slots on the board, but i think i may have problems with that path as i'm running crossfire, and my case is quite small.
Right - assuming you're not looking at a SB upgrade any time soon, the obvious limitation of the X58 boards in general is the shonky Marvell 6Gb/s controller, but then your mobo doesn't appear to even have that based upon the specs on the Asus site. Now, staying within budget here, you've got a couple of choices here - (i) you go for a single 120/128GB 3Gb/s SSD - this 'should' have the price advantage & be slightly quicker than (ii) for low QD 4K r/ws. (ii) you go for a pair of 60/64GB 3Gb/s SSDs to run in Raid 0 - this will have the fastest sequential speeds of any of the options & is a very decent option - the best drives for this would be a pair of Corsair F60s. (iii) you buy an Asus U3S6 card (shonky Marvell controller) to use in the white pcie slot & a 120/128GB 6Gb/s SSD - this adds to the cost, however will give faster sequentials than (i) or (iv) but at the expense of smaller r/ws & the highest latency. it's also now believed to be the case that these cards (based upon the Highpoint equivalent not being able to) do not pass on trim commands so there would be an advantage to looking at a Sandforce SSD (the 6Gb/s ones being even more robust than the 3Gb/s ones). [NB it'd be pointless to use a 6Gb/s card in your 1x slots as they are only v1 pcie so do not have the necessary bandwidth.] (iv) you buy a 120/128GB 6Gb/s SSD & run it on the 3Gb/s intel controller - this will give slightly higher sequential read speeds & much higher writes than (i) &, depending on the model, have the fastest small r/ws out of all of the options. it also has trim which opens up the choice of SSD dramatically. So... ...well personally i think the most advantageous options are either (ii) or (iv)... ...the former wining out generally on your current setup (the higher sequentials will more than make up for the lower QD small r/ws)... ...whilst the latter (if you go for a decent 6Gb/s SSD) is more robust &, whilst not having the quickest sequentials, would give you advantages in terms of lower QD small r/ws, robustness &, if you do upgrade your machine to one with a proper 6Gb/s controller (or when there's a decent budget add-in card that actually can do something approaching real 6Gb/s, albeit that there would still be a slight latency disadvantage), would benefit into the future. Oh, & for the latter option, within budget then either the V3 or intel 510 or, if you want to get the best out there, the max iops V3 or the Patriot Wildfire (but that'd be going ~£35-45 over your max).
Crucial M4 128 GB ~190 (second best) Corsair Force GT ~220 (the best) Sweclockers.se just released theire hughe SSD bench for this summer with all the new SSD's and there you got 'em winners
Mmmmm... but if you look at it then it's randomly comparing 120/128GB drives with 240/256GB ones (without having all of the models for both), is missing the C300, A3, V3, Wildfire, etc, & is basing their results on a very limited benchmark range... You're also completely wrong as to the results as they're saying that the GT & the max iops V3 are the best - whilst the M4 has a "recommendation" based on price - not that it is in any way the 2nd (or rather 3rd or 4th or...) best performing drive... ...it's was shown elsewhere months ago that even the C300 has some real advantages over the M4. For a slightly more sensible & complete round up of the 120/128GBs then i posted the following in the early hours of the morning in another thread - "Whilst it doesn't include the 120GB max iops V3, the best articles to read imho are this which looks at the common 120/128GB choices & this which shows the advantages of the max iops/Wildfire." [NB i'd assume that the 120GB Corsair GT is going to be roughly as good as the 120GB max iops & wildfire drives - though OCZ tend to be better with f/w.] & also noted subsequently that - As an extra note, the reason why the max iops is scoring slightly lower than the Wildfire is down to the f/w... Atm they're trying to resolve the tiny %age of problems & a side effect has been to reduce the speeds slightly since much earlier f/ws - so both the max iops & the Wildfire should end up being even quicker.
Hi I'm glad this post popped up as I'm on the look out for a ssd as my velociraptor gets on my tits! It's so god damn noisey I'm looking at a SSS around 256gb Mark what would be your suggestions as the one to go for?
By far the fastest ones out there are the 240GB max iops V3/Wildfire/GT... ...arguably the only difference between the 3 is that OCZ are more up-to-date than (at least) Patriot in trying to sort out the tiny percentage of people who still have issues (orig f/w was less than 2/3rd of 1 percent, & this has reduced with subsequent f/w revisions)... ...however the difference between the normal V3 & the max iops V3 is less pronounced at this capacity than at the 120GB level so you 'could' choose to save some money there. That though is looking at either options (iii) or (iv) in my earlier list or, naturally, if you already have a decent 6Gb/s controller. For option (ii) you'd then be better off swapping the 2x F60s for 2x F120s as the 3Gb/s controllers become bandwidth ltd for sequential speeds at ~2.5 3Gb/s SSDs so you'd be better off upping the small r/ws than going for 4x F60s. Oh & if you happened to have a top-notch controller (well SB or... ...um there's a 6Gb/s AMD one that's good, or a decent raid card) you 'could' think about a pair of 120GB max iops/wildf... in R0.
I don't have an SSD yet in my computer. But the Intel Controller on X58 is garbage (I come from an nForce 4 32X SLI chpiset). Problems after problems is what I had with it. Such as: -> on absolute rare occasion Cut & Paste fails the paste part and you lose your original file. -> when the HDD is very busy (heavy defrag), my audio (dedicated sound card) skips. Using the Marvel controller, not only I noticed that Windows itself boot a few seconds faster, but all my problems are solved. I don't see anything "shonky" with Marvel. And with the complete failure of SB Intel SATA controller which required a recall, it shows how much Intel cares in testing their SATA controllers before release.
Okay, yes i fully appreciate that you (& one other person on here) have had issues with your intel ichr controllers, but that is hugely anomalous otherwise there'd be countless examples on the web; which there aren't. Now, i'm sorry that you've had the issues you've had, but they are in no way representative & i really don't think that it's a good idea to suggest to the OP that they *should* expect them on a X58 board... ...well, it's also 'slightly' nonsensical (whilst i do clearly see that you've got an axe to grind about this & are, quite naturally, cheesed off, i think you should probably have taken this up with the mobo manufacturer via a RMA having tried everything that you have rather than 'assume' that all intel controllers have the issue when there's no evidence for this) as the OP is obviously using their intel controller & has posted a question about which SSD to get - not that they're having a problem with their controller. As to the Marvell (9128) controller, based upon the V3 ATTO tests i've seen, you're looking at something which has an max read speed of ~400MB/s & a write of ~250MB/s vs intel's SB controller (or AMD's SB850 or a proper raid card or...) providing the full ~550-60MB reads (& i've forgotten the writes but they're not *that* low - well they have to be at least 500MB/s from the V3 specs) that's the r.l. limitation of 6Gb/s SATA. &, as said, since the OP doesn't have an on board Marvell controller, there is no trim using the Highpoint foolishness (&, it is believed, the Asus one), so it limits their SSD choice... Well, whilst my recommendations are predominantly for specific SF drives (though there is an intel in there), if the OP goes for a non-SF drive then, esp the Crucial ones, their GC isn't great so the performance will suffer unless they use it as a relatively static device. Now, for half of ever, Marvell have been promising a new controller - it's actually appeared on a couple of mobos fairly recently (& i think uses the same numbers in a different order just to confuse the issue - hence why i can't instantly find it) - & when that's out on budget cards then it should sort out the speed issues since 2 pcie lanes will be available for each port (though whether trim's sorted out...?) & at that point options really start opening up... ...ie i'm not saying that Marvell are shonky but that their currently available controller for upgrade cards & on almost every mobo that has a Marvell controller is shonky in comparison to the alternatives. [Edit] The 'new' controller is the "9182" & has appeared on a couple of pretty recent X58 Asus boards... ...but i don't think anywhere else. Well SB boards don't need it & the SB850 controller's within a hair's breath of the SB, so... ...oh, & it's apparently around 5% slower than the SB.
Ok, so you admit that the Marvel controller works well. It's not as fast as the Sandy Bridge one, but it works. Therefore you should simply say that the Marvel controller is not very fast, due to it's read/write limitation. In your case you are using "shonky", which means that the controller is essentially garbage where it's unreliable, which isn't the case. My motherboard doesn't need RMA. Because some drivers fixed problem and caused others (ie: can't sleep), or makes things worse. All I can assume is that it doesn't like Western Digital HDD's, or at least not the Caviar Black 1TB one. Maybe now, Intel X58 SATA controller drivers are better, but I don't feel like trying right now.
it was all meant to be within the context of the 6Gb/s SSDs that i was referring to as being the best within the £200 budget & the best overall - where they would all be heavily bandwidth limited by the currently available Marvell controller giving disappointing results... ...& because the add-in cards using it (it transpires from people asking Highpoint & Scan - although Asus haven't commented i don't think they are now making their (better) card d.t. its limitations), don't support trim. Okay, it's also a hang on from my repeatedly referring to the HP card as "the shonky Highpoint thing", so we'll agree that it's a difference in perceived word usage. ...which reminds me that we did have a spate of people on here who were getting worse than 3Gb/s speeds from the Highpoint 620 cards even when we went through the 'are you sure you're using 2.0 pcie slots' option. Oh, & otherwise, i have a sneaking suspicion that 'a' reason why the new Marvell 6Gb/s controller isn't widely available is because the majority of the SSDs that use their tech don't exceed the current one... ...well, originally there was supposed to be a budget version of the card from them towards the end of last year but... As to the RMA comment - since it is such an out of the ordinary issue that the two of you are having (well, all the intel ports i've owned going back to ide ones have just worked with any & all drivers i've installed), because in the past i know that a load of options were suggested & tried then... ...well it wasn't meant to be having a go at you in any way, as i can really understand that i'd be pissed if i tried a different controller & things went awry no matter what i tried (hence i kept my claws retracted when replying... well occasionally i can be a little venomous - just to slightly mix my metaphors) - alongside, of course, it being the one half sensible thing that i don't believe you've tried as a way to resolve the problem.
Ok so you are saying for those who has X58 board, and can't afford 400$ SATA III controllers. An SSD with about these speed is the best for your money: Read: ~260MB/sec Write: ~210MB/sec And the Intel controller will provide the best performance.
No that's not quite what i said/meant... (not least as the OP doesn't have an onboard Marvell controller on their board so their situation is very unusual) i'd suggested either - 2x 3Gb/s SSDs in R0 on the intel controller... or (& this is what the rest of the post is almost entirely about) ...because of (a) the lack of trim with the current budget choice (limiting SSD choice), (b) that there are latency disadvantages to pcie cards that lower small r/ws for most SSDs, (c) that the current budget options aren't up to (comparative) par & (as added subsequently) some people have found that they are worse than using a 3Gb/s controller, (d) that we don't know the OP's other upgrade plans (will they be moving to SB making a card redundant), (e) there's a ltd budget (better to buy a better SSD now & then think about a card later) & (f) the 9182 controller exists in real life (so should be out before too long on a budget card making today's one a waste of money)... ...that a better step for the minute imho is to run the best 6Gb/s SSD they can afford on the 3Gb/s intel controller pro tem. Now, whilst what i had chosen to do was to spend far more money on a 6Gb/s SAS controller (plus the fastpath key & battery) when, at the time, i only had my 2 V Turbos (so marginally better on the intel controller), this was because i had the cash at the time to do this &, as new SSDs were around the corner, there was no point in my instead buying more SSDs at that time... ...&, similarly, you chose a more expensive board than the OP did so got the (ltd) Marvell controller... ...so obviously we both made different choices which open up other potential options more readily in the here & now, but the OP's situation is different. Continuing to solely look at 6Gb/s SSDs, they then gave a very defined budget where adding ~£25 for a controller card would make up far too much of the difference between buying either an average SSD & a decent one (within budget) or a decent one & an excellent one (if they wanted to add some more money)... ...& whilst a controller card can be added later (when the better budget ones are out) or a new build could be gotten that eliminates the need for a budget card, you can't turn one SSD into another. Well i had very specifically stated that - "...if you go for a decent 6Gb/s SSD.... ...if you do upgrade your machine to one with a proper 6Gb/s controller (or when there's a decent budget add-in card that actually can do something approaching real 6Gb/s, albeit that there would still be a slight latency disadvantage), would benefit into the future." So there's 2 options which are within budget - the 1st's faster (on average) in the here & now, whilst the 2nd's the best use of the budget atm with the ability to make things even better into the future. Yeah, so hopefully you can see that there is method to my mild insanity rather than my randomly suggesting something odd.
ty for the replys, whats this controller? is it a separate part of an ssd? is there an ssd out that just plugs into a sata plug on my motherboard, i will not be useing raid or multiple ssd's, just my old hd for games, and the ssd for boot.
The best of the current budget options is the Asus U3S6 pcie card which will need to use the white pcie slot on your board (or a proper 16x slot)... ...though, as said, it does not support Trim (making the SandForces a much better bet), does not support full 6Gb/s speeds, adds an extra ~£25 to the cost, etc, etc... ...& there 'should' be faster budget options out before too long (as the controller chip is obviously in production since it's used on a couple of Asus mobos) making the card obselete & effectively worthless relatively quickly. Yeah, to get a card's that significantly better & you're talking about roughly doubling your total budget atm... ...& 'if' you could afford that you'd probably be better selling your current CPU/mobo/memory & putting the money into a SandyBridge build.
Controllers are mini-processors, if you will, that control and manages a certain type of device(s). About every plug behind your computer and inside has a controller... USB2.0, USB3.0, SATA (at the inside of your computer) and firewire. They are 2 typed of controllers. The first type that needs your CPU (example: USB1, 2, and 3) for assistance and monitoring when doing a task. Where the CPU continuously checks if a task is done, and ensure that the task is done right. That is why, for example on USB's, the CPU usage is increase when you do a file transfer from the computer to a USB device, or the contrary, or USB to USB device. The second type, is a controller that is completely independent (SATA/eSATA for example) from the CPU. Where it only interrupts the CPU when something is needed during a task. Such as an error occurred, or the task is done. The CPU doesn't need to manage or verify anything. This makes the CPU usage not affected when stuff happens when you are using these devices that uses these type of controllers (your internal SATA HDD, or external eSATA drive, for example). They are technical terms for each type, of course. Which for some odd reason it doesn't come to mind.... and now I am pissed because of that It was something pool, and something push... arrrggg I'll correct myself once I remember.. but for now, let's call it Type 1, and Type 2, as it actually doesn't mater. Type 1: Advantages: - Much less expensive to make - Simpler to implement in devices (so cheaper) Disadvantages: - Needs the CPU, so system performance can be affected while a task is performed - Transfer and communication speed of the interface it provides (example: USB), is affected by the CPU speed. That means in some cases when your laptop is on battery, for example, file transfer can be slower than when you are plugged in. Type 2: Advantages: - Specifically designed & optimized for the task to provide the best of performance of an interface. - Does not need the CPU to do it's work, providing more performance to the user. Disadvantages: - More expensive to implement - As it needs a more sophisticated controller, it costs more to make the controller. You can't find a SATA controller of "Type 1" as SATA is designed from the ground up for the "Type 2" controller mentioned above. Same for USB.
Thanks again for all the input, i think i'll wait a bit until the good ones are cheaper. I was thinking of getting a new pc after xmas, my pc is just used for gameing only, so my old noisy wd cav will do until then. Thanks again for the advice. P.S Can sandybridge run crossfire?
This is motherboard dependent and yes you can get a sandybridge build supporting crossfire! Also if you're coming from a mechanical drive and have never used an SSD the difference is night and day. I recently installed a Corsair F40 in a Dell D630 which only has a lowly SATA 1 connection and it feels as responsive as my 120GB Vertex 3, although the Dell is only a basic office type PC! So it's worth experimenting if you fancy a punt with the lower capacity SSD as a boot drive.
ty, i think anything would be faster than my WD hd,- i think i will grab a cheap one for now, and get a good one when i get a upgrade on my pc. cheers.
