It is about RM200~ on the retail market right now, so it is a little cheaper. But I do not know if the Intel 330 60GB is also out of stock like its larger 120GB or 180GB siblings on the retail market.

As for the 60GB capacity (55.87GiB capacity), it isn't much space for the OS, some programs and a few games. You might want to check how much SSD capacity you need, what should be on the SSD and what can stay on the HDD, before deciding if you can make it to work for you or if you would be more comfortable with a larger SSD.

You may also want to check if your CPU is the primary performance bottleneck of your system or not. If your CPU is a major bottleneck, the SSD might not improve things.

---

Added on January 2, 2013, 5:17 pmNot in my opinion, but like OC4/3 said, the 330 are out of stock. Your current options are to delay until it gets restocked, buy another equivalent SSD or buy the 520.

Generally, yes. But Intel uses a modified Sandforce firmware which appears to be quite problem free. Combined with Intel's low SSD prices and reputation, we normally would recommend Intel's SSDs.

This post has been edited by everling: Jan 2 2013, 05:17 PM

When sleeping, the SSD should not be in use at all, and so it should not lose any life.

When you tell the OS to sleep, the OS will pause all the applications and then go to sleep. Even games can get paused. You don't have to close all the software before sleeping or hibernating or shut down. The OS will handle it for you.

No.

If there are problems, you have every right to be very very very displeased with the manufacturer. At least after determining the fault does indeed belong to the SSD's manufacturer.

It is not impossible for an electrical surge, say after a lightning strike or a faulty PSU, to fry your SSD; in which case the blame does not reside at your SSD's manufacturer.

Mistaken post.

This post has been edited by everling: Feb 5 2013, 07:21 PM

Is it the 100MB System Reserved partition that Windows 7 creates? There is an easier way to deal with that without involving Windows XP, if you are comfortable with the cmd and diskpart. Just start the Windows 7 installation process, and before you select which partition to install to, press Shift+F10. This will open a command-line shell, where you can use diskpart to manually partition the drive to your liking. Once done, exit the cmd and continue as normal; you may need to hit the "Refresh" button to see your changes.

This post has been edited by everling: Feb 5 2013, 08:46 PM

Option 1 will work well enough. A 120GB will be able to hold several big games, most applications and Windows. You can estimate yourself by looking at the total size of your folders. As for performance, Windows 7 will do fine.

These are SSDs. He shouldn't need to replace them 1:1 to outperform that SAS array.

This post has been edited by everling: Mar 14 2013, 12:03 AM

If the game has already read all the data it needs from the HDD/SSD, no.

If the game dynamically loads data while you're playing, you may see less stutter when doing or encountering new things from a cold start. It has been a rather popular observation for some people who play Diablo 3 and upgraded to SSD. For example, smooth first-time casting of skills from a cold start.

On the other hand, some games may not benefit from SSDs. Internet flash games for example probably wouldn't be affected.

The read/write performance is good enough and hasn't seen significant improvement in a long while. The current focus in SSD improvement is in IOPS performance consistency.

The Intel SSD DC S3700 (200GB) Review
SanDisk Extreme II Review (480GB, 240GB, 120GB)



This post has been edited by everling: Jun 14 2013, 02:50 PM

It's not available with a couple of sites I've checked. Still, the Chronos uses SandForce technology, so you can use other SandForce SSDs as a rough estimate. Like Intel's 335.

It's fine, although pricey, for mSATA form factors. If you don't require mSATA, normal 2.5" SATA SSDs are much better options.

Probably the 4MB test data stayed in the HDD's 32/64MB cache, resulting in those crazy numbers. Try at your HDD's cache size, and a little smaller and a little larger.

Edit: Here's my Samsung F3 hitting its SATA 3.0Gbps speed limit with 4MB.



SATA will tend to perform better than mSATA because mSATA has less chips. There may be other variables influencing overall performance however.

mSATA is also not directly compatible with SATA, you will need an adaptor. If you have spare SATA ports, you should prefer to buy SATA. if your device has mSATA, then it becomes a possible alternative option.

This post has been edited by everling: Jun 25 2013, 08:31 PM