Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Topic Closed RSS Feed
126 Pages « < 50 51 52 53 54 > » Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 The SSD Thread V2, Faster Better Greener Unbreakable!

views
     
owikh84
post May 9 2012, 04:07 PM

i7 Clan
Group Icon
Elite
8,711 posts

Joined: Nov 2007
From: Butterworth, PG / Machang, Kelantan



QUOTE(fixgd @ May 9 2012, 03:30 PM)
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «


any comment for my speed? is the speed indicates that mine is sata 2?
*

That should be SATA3 speed as SATA2 is 2XX max.

Your benchmark does not match specs coz it's bottlenecked by your laptop mobo chipset.
fixgd
post May 9 2012, 04:09 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,882 posts

Joined: Feb 2009
From: PJS 9, Bandar Sunway



QUOTE(owikh84 @ May 9 2012, 04:07 PM)
That should be SATA3 speed as SATA2 is 2XX max.

Your benchmark does not match specs coz it's bottlenecked by your laptop mobo chipset.
*
aahh what can i do ya? boot timer give me 40sec
Jehuty
post May 9 2012, 04:11 PM

look at what stars??
*******
Senior Member
2,321 posts

Joined: Jan 2003


anyone updated the latest Crucial m4 firmware? 000F is the latest .. stable?
SSJBen
post May 9 2012, 05:14 PM

Stars deez nuts.
*******
Senior Member
4,522 posts

Joined: Apr 2006


QUOTE(Jehuty @ May 9 2012, 04:11 PM)
anyone updated the latest Crucial m4 firmware? 000F is the latest .. stable?
*
As stable as 0309 (if not better), but slight loss of write speed.
Not that it matters really as the difference isn't noticeable.
Jehuty
post May 9 2012, 05:46 PM

look at what stars??
*******
Senior Member
2,321 posts

Joined: Jan 2003


QUOTE(SSJBen @ May 9 2012, 05:14 PM)
As stable as 0309 (if not better), but slight loss of write speed.
Not that it matters really as the difference isn't noticeable.
*
hmm alright, i'll just update it later. Thanks !
mikd9999
post May 9 2012, 06:04 PM

New Member
*
Junior Member
25 posts

Joined: Jan 2011


I look difference between Sata 2 and Sata 3 only at read speed? hmm.gif

I'm using Crucial m4 128gb for two weeks now, very satisfied even on Sata 2.
Windows experience index jump from 5.9 to 7.8. from lowest to my highest score biggrin.gif

user posted image
owikh84
post May 9 2012, 07:47 PM

i7 Clan
Group Icon
Elite
8,711 posts

Joined: Nov 2007
From: Butterworth, PG / Machang, Kelantan



QUOTE(mikd9999 @ May 9 2012, 06:04 PM)
I look difference between Sata 2 and Sata 3 only at read speed?  hmm.gif

I'm using Crucial m4 128gb for two weeks now, very satisfied even on Sata 2.
Windows experience index jump from 5.9 to 7.8. from lowest to my highest score  biggrin.gif

*

Not that accurate to say like that coz
M4 128GB write speed is rated at 200MBps only regardless of SATA3 or SATA2 port used.
But if you take other SATA3 SSD rated 300MBps above to compare, you will see the read & write are significantly different, in which SATA3 >> SATA2.
1024kbps
post May 9 2012, 11:14 PM

李素裳
*******
Senior Member
6,014 posts

Joined: Feb 2007



My new SSD seems having low write performance than my old SSD doh.gif
HyperX 5k 120GB, QD32 also sucked sweat.gif and the old drive have better write performance than this new SSD
user posted image

SSDNow V100+ 96GB, formatted once though, this drive is known for its low 4KQD32 write performance
user posted image

I wonder if changing the sata cable to "6Gbps" would improve abit, yet to try with new raid driver too... rclxub.gif
EDIT: i got it, get rid of crystalmark, only use ATTO sweat.gif

This post has been edited by 1024kbps: May 9 2012, 11:31 PM
ssaturn
post May 10 2012, 11:53 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
318 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Puchong



My Current Score

OCZ - Agility 3 120g x 2 Under Raid 0

Attached Image

This post has been edited by ssaturn: May 10 2012, 11:54 AM
fixgd
post May 10 2012, 12:31 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,882 posts

Joined: Feb 2009
From: PJS 9, Bandar Sunway



QUOTE(ssaturn @ May 10 2012, 11:53 AM)
My Current Score

OCZ - Agility 3 120g x 2 Under Raid 0

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

*
my 4k dam slow la.
9 and 14
then
112 and 90



how to improve aa?
diadokmai
post May 10 2012, 02:29 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
941 posts

Joined: Sep 2008



just bought INTEL 330S SSD...not yet benchmark..
but so far im speeding..HAHAHAHAHA
diadokmai
post May 10 2012, 02:50 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
941 posts

Joined: Sep 2008



just finish my Benchmark

My Current Score

Intel 330S 120GB

i create 2 partition C and D (someone said it does not affect the SSD performance)

Attached Image
cybersans
post May 10 2012, 04:53 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
319 posts

Joined: Jan 2008


sata 2 is 3Gb/s, theoritically around 384 MB/s.
please see the different between bit(b) and byte(B)

sata 3 is 6Gb/s, theoritically around 768MB/s
so if your SSD rated with read speed 512MB/s and write speed 480MB/s

you will get less than that if you are plugging your SSD at sata 2 port.
get it?
nick__123
post May 11 2012, 02:36 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
404 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Melaka


hi guys, im new here....
after searching thru the net, i found that the Vertex 3 is good and fast with my m14x...
http://forum.notebookreview.com/alienware-...discussion.html

but most users here recommend to go for Crucial M4.... but from the link below, the speed is slower... is it due to the firmware?
http://www.overclock.net/t/1209763/m14x-crucial-m4-speeds

i hope to get a 128GB SSD to optimize my m14x smile.gif
thx
SSJBen
post May 11 2012, 04:14 PM

Stars deez nuts.
*******
Senior Member
4,522 posts

Joined: Apr 2006


QUOTE(nick__123 @ May 11 2012, 02:36 PM)
hi guys, im new here....
after searching thru the net, i found that the Vertex 3 is good and fast with my m14x...
http://forum.notebookreview.com/alienware-...discussion.html

but most users here recommend to go for Crucial M4.... but from the link below, the speed is slower... is it due to the firmware?
http://www.overclock.net/t/1209763/m14x-crucial-m4-speeds

i hope to get a 128GB SSD to optimize my m14x smile.gif
thx
*
It's slower because it simply just is, initially the gap was even bigger.
But with the 0009 firmware, Crucial has brought the M4's performance pretty close to Sandforce based SSDs.

However, Sandforce based SSDs do have a detrimental impact on performance (again, I stress, only in benchmarks) over incompressible data.
The Crucial M4 works just at its rated speed regardless the type of data being processed.

Finally, although the latest firmwares for SF-2281 controllers has pretty much almost alienated the BSOD issues, there are still more users facing problems with SF-2281 based SSDs than there are on Marvell based SSDs.

If you need to know more, do some more research on Google.

As a final answer to your question, I still suggest getting the Crucial M4 despite being a little bit slower overall.
Qavs
post May 11 2012, 04:58 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
355 posts

Joined: Dec 2011



QUOTE(SSJBen @ May 11 2012, 04:14 PM)
It's slower because it simply just is, initially the gap was even bigger.
But with the 0009 firmware, Crucial has brought the M4's performance pretty close to Sandforce based SSDs.

However, Sandforce based SSDs do have a detrimental impact on performance (again, I stress, only in benchmarks) over incompressible data.
The Crucial M4 works just at its rated speed regardless the type of data being processed.

Finally, although the latest firmwares for SF-2281 controllers has pretty much almost alienated the BSOD issues, there are still more users facing problems with SF-2281 based SSDs than there are on Marvell based SSDs.

If you need to know more, do some more research on Google.

As a final answer to your question, I still suggest getting the Crucial M4 despite being a little bit slower overall.
*
thumbup.gif thumbup.gif thumbup.gif
nick__123
post May 11 2012, 07:15 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
404 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Melaka


QUOTE(SSJBen @ May 11 2012, 04:14 PM)
It's slower because it simply just is, initially the gap was even bigger.
But with the 0009 firmware, Crucial has brought the M4's performance pretty close to Sandforce based SSDs.

However, Sandforce based SSDs do have a detrimental impact on performance (again, I stress, only in benchmarks) over incompressible data.
The Crucial M4 works just at its rated speed regardless the type of data being processed.

Finally, although the latest firmwares for SF-2281 controllers has pretty much almost alienated the BSOD issues, there are still more users facing problems with SF-2281 based SSDs than there are on Marvell based SSDs.

If you need to know more, do some more research on Google.

As a final answer to your question, I still suggest getting the Crucial M4 despite being a little bit slower overall.
*
wow.... there are so much more i need to learn... thx bro notworthy.gif
kEazYc
post May 11 2012, 08:24 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,314 posts

Joined: Oct 2009
From: Cheras, KL


Just installed Intel 330 SSD 120GB into my desktop rclxm9.gif


Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
azizul1975
post May 11 2012, 08:36 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,081 posts

Joined: Nov 2005


QUOTE(kEazYc @ May 11 2012, 08:24 PM)
Just installed Intel 330 SSD 120GB into my desktop rclxm9.gif
*
uu nice one...

i use the 60GB version
owikh84
post May 11 2012, 09:08 PM

i7 Clan
Group Icon
Elite
8,711 posts

Joined: Nov 2007
From: Butterworth, PG / Machang, Kelantan



My very 1st purchase at amazon.com
50% cheaper than usual price thumbup.gif

user posted image

126 Pages « < 50 51 52 53 54 > » Top
Topic ClosedOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0296sec    0.60    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 6th December 2025 - 10:40 PM