- Apr 28, 2007
If mine is a 512MB cache drive I would dispute it for general use as well.A lot of people are reporting the drives are "30-50% slower" but I dispute this finding. The E12S has the same specs as the E12, the NAND is the same or superior (96L), but there is less DRAM (which would only impact heavy workloads/benchmarks). I suspect there might be a change in the SLC cache design that might result in poor sequential performance in benchmarks but I have no evidence/proof of this yet. As an example, compare the SN750 to the SX8200 Pro: the SN750's small, static SLC cache runs out rapidly and drops to 1500 MB/s almost immediately while the SX8200 Pro's large, dynamic SLC cache remains twice as fast for quite a while. This does not mean the SN750 is inferior whatsoever, just a design decision, so my theory so far is that the new drives might forego SLC for some reason. Still investigating.
I also didnt notice a slowdown copying my games onto this drive, which I would have expected.
It is approximately twice as fast as my old 840 Pro for game load times, it surprised me.
Windows load time is around 33% faster, from when the OS load starts to when the desktop appears.
The 840 Pro had been defragged about a month earlier which made it a lot snappier, there was little wrong and it benchmarked well.
I have the CrystalDiskMark figures if you are interested.
My issue is what I would repurpose this drive as once I have finished with it.
Perhaps I should copy a large file say 50GB and let you know the time windows reports it has finished?
I realise Windows also caches the copy so there will be a small error but with such a large file it should only be a few % out.
(I am on Windows 7)
Let me know.
Although thinking about it, a smaller file size copy time will let us differentiate between the 512MB and 1GB SLC cache sizes better, barring the windows cache error.
Can you suggest a tool to do the copy that will show when the transfer rate drops?