SSD Advice for Dell e6500 / e6410

J

Justintoxicated

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 10, 2002
Messages
14,519
I'm looking to get a bunch of SSD's for a number of laptops. They are e6500's and e6410's but I can't figure out if either of these machines support Sata 6. Dell lists them as high speed sata.... :rolleyes:


Trying to figure out which drive will be better:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148348&cm_re=C300-_-20-148-348-_-Product

or

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147063

and of course Samsung does not posts speed differences the same way as crucial which makes them hard to compare.

Need some help,
Thanks,
 
Ok I finally figured out that the laptops are both only 3GB/S

So which drive is better with this limitation? Would the Samsung drive be faster over all (read/write) since the C300 would be capped at 265MB/sec read anyways?
 
Crucial still has faster sequential reads, random reads, and random writes. Only thing that the Samsung bests the Crucial at is sequential writes.
 
the specs would be 255/140 for the C300, and 250/220 for the Samsung 470.

I can't find a good review comparing the two, but we are leaning towards Samsung because these will go into Sata 3 systems not Sata 6.

So are you saying that the C300 will still be a better drive, even in a SATA 3 system? I know real world and specs are often way off with SSD's but I have been hearing alot of GREAT things about the samsungs as well as the C300, just can't find a benchmark that compares what I need to see. The Samsung Drive actually costs more than the C300 too... Also can't find the spec of power usage for the Samsung since they will be in laptops.
 
Why would you go for the Samsung just because it's 3gbit SATA only? The specifications speak for themselves. Random IO is substantially faster on the Crucial.
 
Blue Fox said:
Why would you go for the Samsung just because it's 3gbit SATA only? The specifications speak for themselves. Random IO is substantially faster on the Crucial.
Click to expand...

Have any benchmarks for show this using a sata 3 system?

GreenGoose said:
I have an Intel X-25 in my E6410. I would go with Intel rock solid stability and reliability in business notebooks.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167032
Click to expand...

The Intel is too expensive. At $400 drives the difference in cost adds up quick when you eventually need like 12-20 drives. I run the X-25M at home (80GB) most everyone here thinks it is too small for their notebooks, so weather I agree or disagree doesn't matter. I don't think we will be getting anything at all if I try for the $400 drive though, but I will runt he option past the boss. I didn't think these were the drives to get anymore though.... For now I gotta keep it under $300 and 80GB just isn't enough space.

The Samsung is also supposed to be very solid and faster than the Intel, but I have no personal experience. I Not sure about the C300 for reliability? Still need to find if it is actually faster than the Samsung on a Sata 3 system, according to neweggs site, the Sata 3 interface cripples it quite a bit.
 
Why don't you look at the specs of the thing...it's listed right there on the newegg page.
 
The Samsung 470 gets one of the highest sequential writes I have seen on AS-SSD. But its single-threaded random 4KB reads are significantly slower than C300 or X25-M. The strangest thing about the S470 is the multi-threaded random 4KB writes. The throughput is actually lower than the single-threaded equivalent. Something weird in their controller implementation there.

I haven't seen a review that measured power consumption, but the Samsung SSDs have always been leaders in low power consumption in the past.

Samsung 470 AS-SSD benchmark:

asssdbenchsamsung470ser.png


Here is a 128GB C300 on a SATA 3 Gbps interface AS-SSD benchmark:

6ztvn4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Dont' get so hung up on the raw speed numbers that you lose sight of other things like quality and reliability, which is where Intel shines.

To be blunt, ANY SSD you put in there is going to be a night and day difference over a normal HD, and you are never going to be able to discern the difference in those speed differences in day to day use.

Picking a drive simply because 200 is bigger than 190 isn't the best way to shop all the time.
 
"Do these Dells support AHCI?" should be your first question.

If they do, then you will see a huge jump in performance if you install them under AHCI. If they don't you'll still see a comparatively massive jump in performance but all this fussing over the max performance of these drives will be for naught.

My own experience with a Dell Inspiron 6400 that does not support AHCI benchmarks pretty low but the performance to the user is still well worth it - practically like buying a laptop that is 2-3 years newer.
 
Yes, both of those Dells support AHCI. I have an X25-M in my E6500, and I just spent a lot of time playing with an E6410.

Look at the benchmarks john4200 posted. Unless you're constantly reading and writing huge files, the sequential numbers are going to have very little relevance to the real-world performance in your laptops. Check out the 4K scores where the C300 is like twice as fast on all but one test (where it's only 50% faster).
 
Thanks for the awesome benchmarks john! C300's it is! I agree the Intel X25M's would be the safe choice, it too bad they don't have a 128GB option, or a cheaper 160GB option.

Would the Samsung drive be better for photoshop work? We might be building another machine we want to optimize for this, but since it lags on 4k writes I'm not sure.
 
Justintoxicated said:
Would the Samsung drive be better for photoshop work? We might be building another machine we want to optimize for this, but since it lags on 4k writes I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

Photoshop may be one of the few applications where sequential write speed would be noticeable. Assuming you work with very large photos in memory, and then when done, wait while they write to disk.

But in that case, I'd probably go with a bigger SSD, say 256GB. And the 256GB C300 has sequential writes almost as fast as the S470 (around 200 MB/s), plus the C300 beats the S470 on random I/O speed.
 
Turns out that one of the PC's I help build on Dells site is the one that will be used for Photoshop. Dell is using Samsung SSD's (im assuming comparable to 470's based on their specs) so it is what it is I guess. Anyhow, it is likely that the people they are going to have not used SSD's before, so I'm sure they will be impressed anyways.

I'm always super picky about these things when building my own PC's for my intended uses, and I'm new to the Sys Admin Role, so just trying to do my best while I'm temporarily here while meeting our deadlines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top