To remove the system reserved partition, you need to partition your SSD/HDD first, then install Windows on it. There are guides for it that you can google up.

My oldest SSD is currently 2 years old, and I am sure that there are other forumers with older SSDs.

---

Added on August 23, 2012, 6:20 pmI have no idea if that SSD is good or not.

This post has been edited by everling: Aug 23 2012, 06:20 PM

I wouldn't buy that SSD due to fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD).

And considering your rig, surely you can afford to pay the regular price for a reputable 256GB SSD with full warranty. The most expensive component in my rig is my SSD.

This post has been edited by everling: Aug 23 2012, 06:55 PM

Sorry to burst your bubble, but scoring high in benchmarks is not "worth it", unless that was your goal. The average user really can't use all that performance, for example, it won't help you watch videos faster.

If the only reason you want to buy a good SATA 6.0 Gb/s motherboard is to pair it with your SATA 6.0 GB/s SSD, then you probably should not do it. In fact, if you have a better use for your money, then you should not do it.

Not only is replacing the motherboard a lot of work, as you need to dismantle your rig to do it, the typical usage performance gain is rather little. If you have budget issues, it would be best to wait until you replace your CPU as well.

---

Added on August 31, 2012, 6:15 pmYour SSD won't die faster. I download my torrents to my SSD.

This post has been edited by everling: Aug 31 2012, 06:15 PM

In Viewnet's 2011 August price list, the Intel 510 250GB was priced at RM1839.
In Viewnet's 2012 August price list, the Intel 520 240GB is priced at RM829.

I wouldn't worry about it.

Do a benchmark with ATTO. It should be closer to the specs.

This post has been edited by everling: Sep 7 2012, 09:24 AM

Yes. The benchmark is showing 500 MB/s read/write as expected. The reason for the difference is in how the programs benchmark the SSD and how the SSD works.

CrystalDiskMark and AS-SSD uses random data when writing and reading and ATTO uses non-random data for the same tasks. SandForce-based SSDs, including Intel 330 and 520, uses data compression when reading and writing to the SSD. So SandForce-based SSDs perform poorly on incompressible random data but performs very well on compressible non-random data. This is the reason for the difference.

In short, if you want to test if your SSD is working correctly according to specifications, always use ATTO. Or some other benchmarking tool that can use compressible test data.

This post has been edited by everling: Sep 7 2012, 12:11 PM

Any SSD will do, preferably the highest capacity you can get for your budget. You are likely to be bottlenecked by your CPU during the transcoding, so perhaps even a good HDD will do if capacity is important enough. Then again, if your laptop has USB 3.0 or you can install a second HDD, then you can stick with an SSD in your laptop as your primary for your OS and applications.

The read performance is good, but the write performance doesn't look right.

Do you have the Intel toolkit installed? It should be able to help in diagnosing performance issues and how to solve it.

This post has been edited by everling: Sep 7 2012, 07:25 PM

Then I have no idea what might be the problem, sorry.

I'll also vote for the Intel 330.

As stated, current SSDs are still backwards compatible with very old SATA hardware. But you might not see much performance difference due to weak CPU performance.

That benchmark looks correct for your SSD bottlenecked by SATA 3.0 GB/s. All is fine.

Crucial's M4? Marvell controller.

Ignore AS for SSD performance validation. Only ATTO is acceptable because they use compressible data.

As for the lower write speed, that seems correct for 60GB SSDs.

Jayacom has it in their late August price list.

The five years warranty isn't a good deal.

Three years ago, in September 2009, the first-generation OCZ Vertex 120GB (Indilynx controller, before the SandForce controller) SATA 3.0 Gb/s cost RM 1,599. In 2010, the first-generation Intel SSD X25-M 160GB was going for RM 1,850. Today, an Intel 330 120GB (SandForce controller) SATA 6.0 Gb/s costs only RM 310. In two more years, I expect a 120GB SSD to go under RM 150, perhaps even under RM 100, if the capacity remains available in the market. Three years from now, you might go out and buy a 480GB SSD for maybe less than RM300. Five years from now? Who knows.

Or to look at it in another way, the first generation Intel SSD, the X25-M, also had a five year warranty and it was first released in around August 2008. Meaning that these SSDs would start to have their warranties expire next year. If Intel will still have replacement X25-Ms in stock and you own a hypothetical X25-M that fails next year, will you bother going through the RMA process or would you just go and buy a cheap, modern and high-performance SSD?

Then again, if you typically have rather old components in your computer, maybe it was a good deal for you.

Even in that case, the cheaper and shorter warranty item is still the better deal, because you get the option to replace ageing hardware sooner. With a five year warranty, you'll have to keep using it for two years longer in order to maximise your 'investment'. Whereas with a three year warranty, you can keep on using your SSD until it dies of old age or you can replace it with a newer model of your choice if you need more capacity or speed.

Yes, it will still deliver most of its performance. The primary advantage of SSDs is in its access time, and consequently the very high random read/write speeds, not the even higher sequential read/write speeds. SATA 3.0 Gb/s will not bottleneck this very high random read/write speeds as they are still less than 250 MB/s.

I would recommend the Intel 330 series for a good balance between cost, capacity, reliability, availability and ease of warranty. Since you are keeping your HDD in the ODD bay, a 60 GB SSD will be enough if your budget is very tight. Otherwise I would recommend either a 120 GB or 180 GB for more flexibility and much better bang for buck. The 120 GB has 100% more capacity but costs only ~54% more than the 60 GB.

If your SSD is a SATA 6.0 Gb/s SSD, it will bottleneck the sequential read/write. But not the random read/write, which is where the SSD's primary advantage is in.

I would strongly not recommend installing a fan directly on a HDD. The fan's vibrations might be harmful to the HDD.

It depends on how big your applications and games get. Laptop HDDs tend to be under-performers (because they need to reduce power consumption and heat generated) so I would prefer to store them on the SSD. The 120 GB would be a better buy for most people because of this and it does simplify things by quite a bit - you don't have to worry about the cramped storage space in a 60 GB SSD, unless all your applications, games and future usage will comfortably fit within 55 GiB.

I say 55 GiB because 60 GB = 60,000,000,000 bytes = 55.87 GiB. Windows internally uses GiB despite using the GB label. This is the reason your 500 GB HDD has only 465.66 GiB of actual capacity.

As for near future price drops, I don't know. I haven't kept up-to-date on the manufacturer road maps.

This post has been edited by everling: Sep 17 2012, 02:23 PM

No. Read operations are safe.

Please use ATTO to bench. It is linked in the first post.

Benchmark is fine. Your problem remains unknown.

In benchmarking, yes, but in practical usage, not really. SATA version is not a reason to not use SSDs.

I'd recommend the Intel 330 due to price.

I do not know. There are a lot of possible causes of failure between a power on to getting to your desktop. Your description of the problem was insufficient to diagnose the problem.

Did you try the SSD optimisation guide? Or perhaps try checking your cables?

I would recommend buying the Intel 330 180GB. It should cost less.

Probably not. HDDs may be slower and less responsive than SSDs, but decent programs should be able to cache the songs appropriately so that you won't feel or hear the delay. But if you are able to comfortably budget for a decent SSD, I would recommend it anyway for the overall improvement, particularly in rebooting your computer and starting up your programs. And perhaps your DJ program would also benefit in some way.

This is not intended to be a performance patch and is only intended if the end user experiences any of the four listed items. If you do not know what they are or you haven't noticed any problem, you probably do not need this update.

It depends on individual needs and whether it is going into a laptop or a desktop. For laptops, you definitely want larger capacity SSDs.