• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

N00B Questions about SSD's

J

JYeager11

Gawd
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
563
Hi guys,

I own an Asus P6T (Socket 1366 LGA) - Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67 GHz.

It's been running off a WD Caviar for the past year that has shown signs of slow failure (can't run a disk check without finding/repairing a bunch of errors).

I figured this is as good a time as any to go SSD. However, unless I'm mistaken, this MB cannot do more than SATA 2 (someone please correct me on that if I err).

I found these two SATA 2 models at the nearest brick and mortar place : Intel 120GB SSD vs OCZ 120GB SSD.

Both are similarly priced. However, the OCZ boasts ridiculously higher write speeds and average seek time. So high, in fact, that I suspect a typo.

Could anyone confirm these figures for me, and recommend which to go with?

Since I do a lot of Sonar X1 (music) work, which is all about disk access, I figure SSD will help me greatly.
 
With a mere $15 price difference (not even factoring in shipping), I'd rather buy brick & mortar than online.

So in my situation, the OCZ is the way to go? No downsides to it? (versus the Intel model I posted)
 
Last edited:
When I compare the reviews between the Intel X25-M and the similarly-priced OCZ Agility 2 on Newegg's product pages, the Intel seems to generate more universal praise.

Intel X25-M (120GB)

Average Seek Time: 0.5 ms <-- !
Maximum Data Transfer Rate
Read: 250 MB/s
Write: 70 MB/s <-- !

OCZ Agility 2 (120GB)

Average Seek Time: 0.1 ms <-- !
Maximum Data Transfer Rate
Read: 285 MB/s
Write: 275 MB/s <-- !

Why is that, if those average seek time & write speed figures are accurate? They overwhelmingly favor the Agility 2.

What does the X25-M have that the Agility 2 doesn't that would earn it so much of the praise I've been Googling? I just don't get it. OCZ should be slaughtering Intel with these numbers, but they're not.
 
Just found the OCZ Vertex 2 at another store at a price very similar to Best Buy's MSRP for the Agility 2. I may very well plunge into the OCZ via the Vertex 2 at this point.
 
Whoa whoa, stop.

Don't get the current OCZ SSDs at all. OCZ's current SSDs have extremely inflated numbers. Hence the numbers you see for the Agility aren't indicative at all of real world performance. Not to mention that it's the random read/write speed that you want to be looking at when looking for a good indication of SSD performance. Intel's random/read write speeds far exceeds that of the OCZ Agility, Agility 2, Vertex, and Vertex 2 SSDs. And the real performance is equal, if not greater, than those Intel SSDs. Finally, there's the issue of potentially getting an even slower SSD with the Vertex 2 and Agility 2 lineup:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1586111

So go for Intel.
 
The thread is too long. What is the gist of it? From all the talk about "OCZ accepting exchanges of the slower revisions" I gather there are GOOD OCZ drives, and BAD ones. Right?

The OCZ I was about to get was the Vertex 2E. Is this the one to avoid?
 
Danny's telling you to avoid ALL OCZ SSDs that are currently available.
 
tiraides said:
Danny's telling you to avoid ALL OCZ SSDs that are currently available.
Click to expand...

This. To reiterate: AVOID ANY OCZ SSD OUT NOW!

Maybe OCZ's Vertex 3 SSD may be a marked improvement over their current SSD lineup. But till then, avoid any OCZ SSD or any Sandforce SF1200/SF1500 base SSD. Go for the Crucial C300 SSDs or Intel's SSDs.
 
So in a nutshell, the Intel X25-M is old (something like 2 years, which is an eternity in the tech universe, is it not?) but reliable... while the Vertex 2E (which is the 120GB model) is new, has frequent firmware updates, but is to be avoided at all costs because of the points raised in the quoted thread.

That about right?

This is annoying because I really wanted to buy from brick and mortar, and after making a bunch of calls, everyone is carrying the Vertex 2E but nobody is carrying the Intel. Special order only. Meaning gotta wait a few days for it. Très annoying.
 
Exactly.

Between anything OCZ and Intel, go with Intel. However, a better SSD exists: the Crucial C300.
 
It appears the C300 is a Sata 6 drive, is it not? My Asus P6T can only do Sata 2. Am I not paying for performance I cannot use, by investing in the C300?
 
No. SATA 3 drives are backwards compatible with SATA 2 ports, and recent reviews have shown that regardless the connection, the C300 is better.
 
What I meant was that a Sata 6 drive is going to cost more than a Sata 2 or 3 drive, and yet I'm never going to make use of the performance difference I'm paying for since I plan to stick with my current hardware for at least another 2 years.

Crucial C300 - $270 (Sata 6)
http://++++.com/products/?sku=51602

Intel X25-M - $232 (Sata 2)
http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product...ssdsa2mh120g2k5-ssdsa2mh120g2k5/10160770.aspx

Now if the argument is that I'm "future proof" for that extra $40, then it won't sway me, because 2 years from now I'm going to want to replace my drives too, along with everything else. I won't be carrying it over.

If, however, you tell me that PERFORMANCE wise, at equal Sata 2 connections, the C300 actually outperforms the X25-M, enough to make the $40 difference worth it... then we're talking.

Sata 6 is new and you're paying for that novelty. If you're paying for it, shouldn't you at least be able to benefit from it?
 
My point was about the drives' performance, but I can't persuade you into thinking that the Crucial C300 is worth $40 more than the Intel X25-M.

However, I can say, as an X25-M owner myself, that either one will provide a noticeable performance boost over a mechanical HDD.
 
JYeager said:
So in a nutshell, the Intel X25-M is old (something like 2 years, which is an eternity in the tech universe, is it not?) but reliable... while the Vertex 2E (which is the 120GB model) is new, has frequent firmware updates, but is to be avoided at all costs because of the points raised in the quoted thread.

That about right?
Click to expand...
Close but missing twos things that weren't fully covered in the above thread: In most real world situations, the Intel SSD is faster than most OCZ SSDs and generally more reliable than OCZ SSDs.
 
Danny Bui said:
Close but missing twos things that weren't fully covered in the above thread: In most real world situations, the Intel SSD is faster than most OCZ SSDs and generally more reliable than OCZ SSDs.
Click to expand...

Noted. What I can't understand though, is why there hasn't been a model revision of any kind on the Intel X25-M in two years. You'd think they'd have followed up with something, even if only with a minor upgrade, just to keep things fresh.

I suppose another way to look at it is that the X25-M was so good that it didn't NEED all the model revisions that OCZ keeps coming out with.

Seems to me that in the X25-M's lifespan, OCZ will have come out with the Agility, the Vertex, the Agility 2, the Vertex 2, and in a few days the Agility 3 and Vertex 3. Is OCZ ahead of the curve, or simply rushing their products out before they're ready, requiring many models just to keep up with what Intel did with a single one?
 
Actually, the X25-M SSDs that are currently available now are the second generation models. That "refresh" happened last year, and Intel is preparing a third generation "update" that will arrive within the next few months.
 
Is it safe to assume that all X25-M's currently on the market are G2's, then? Is there any way to check for this?
 
Does the Intel X25-M have a Sata 6 compatible version out there? I believe it's only Sata II, right?
 
JYeager11 said:
Does the Intel X25-M have a Sata 6 compatible version out there? I believe it's only Sata II, right?
Click to expand...

Only SATA II for now. Do note that SATA 3.0Gb/s will work with SATA 6.0Gb/s and vice versa.
 
I'm confused.

N.C.I.X. lists the Crucial C300 as "Crucial RealSSD C300 128GB 2.5IN Solid State Disk Flash Drive SATA3 6Gbps"

SATA3 6Gbps... is this what everyone refers to as SATA6, or is SATA6 something different altogether?

EDIT: Wow, why does Hardforums censor N.C.I.X. without the dots? I even had to go through +++++++ for the URL. The heck is going on?

EDIT: Holy crap, even the url shortening sites are censored. You guys REALLY don't like N.C.I.X. - I'd love to read up on why.
 
JYeager11 said:
I'm confused.

N.C.I.X. lists the Crucial C300 as "Crucial RealSSD C300 128GB 2.5IN Solid State Disk Flash Drive SATA3 6Gbps"

SATA3 6Gbps... is this what everyone refers to as SATA6, or is SATA6 something different altogether?
Click to expand...

Yeah I can see how it' can be confusing: The official nomenclature for the interface type for that Crucial SSD is SATA 6.0Gb/s. However some people/companies like to stick with the unofficial nomenclature of SATA III or SATA 3 to refer to SATA 6.0Gb/s drives. In the above case, it seems like they combine both nomenclatures together.

There's technically no such thing as SATA6. It's SATA 6.0Gb/s offcially or SATA 3 or SATA III unofficially.

EDIT: As for why N CI X is blocked, it's because they refuse to do any kind of talking or business with HardOCP. Why support a company that absolutely refuses to talk to you?
 
JYeager11 said:
http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=lGYmelQ8mJvPtYTv

As an owner of an Asus P6T currently looking for an SSD and separate portable drive -- which are currently available in USB2/USB3 SATA2/SATA3 variations -- I thought I might be the target demographic for this thing.

Or would I be better off sitting on USB2/SATA2 until my next major computer upgrade 2 years down the road?
Click to expand...

If you believe that our advice is bullshit, tell us why. Posting a separate thread that's relevant to this one tells me that you don't believe a word that Danny Bui and I have told you thus far.

That aside, answering your question, I believe that you would be better off waiting a while before you buy that add-on card. Buy the SSD, try it out first, and if it doesn't offers a noticeable performance boost over a traditional HDD, then buy the add-on card.
 
tiraides said:
If you believe that our advice is bullshit, tell us why. Posting a separate thread that's relevant to this one tells me that you don't believe a word that Danny Bui and I have told you thus far.
Click to expand...

Well, that sure was unnecessarily aggressive.

I would be very interested in knowing what one thing has to do with the other. This thread is about comparing 120GB SSD drives. What exactly does a separate thread specifically on the subject of the Asus U3S6 card have to do with Danny Bui, his advice, or any disrespect towards it? Unless you were referring to the thread about the portable drives. Those aren't SSD.

What exactly is your problem with me, dude? Please explain.

That aside, answering your question, I believe that you would be better off waiting a while before you buy that add-on card. Buy the SSD, try it out first, and if it doesn't offers a noticeable performance boost over a traditional HDD, then buy the add-on card.
Click to expand...

I'm coming in fresh from the IDE world. Of course I'm going to find SSD faster, regardless of whether I'm using SATA2 or SATA3. If I don't, there's something wrong with my set-up.

The question had more to do with whether the difference between SATA2 and SATA3, in the next 2 years, will be worth losing my PCIe slot -- not that I expect to be using it for anything else.
 
The timing of the add-on card thread irked me. But ultimately, I screwed up.

Danny and I explained that your performance wouldn't suffer by using a SATA 6Gb/s device on a SATA 3Gb/s, but in hindsight, we forgot to mention that the reason why would be due to fact that most of the SATA 6Gb/s drives (both HDD and SDD) available now don't fully saturate the SATA 3Gb/s bus. (RAID changes that equation for SSDs, but since the TRIM garbage-collecting feature is disabled under RAID, we usually don't recommend buying multiple SSDs.)

The newer SSDs (Intel's X25-M G3 and Crucial C400, among others) that are expected to arrive soon are reportedly much faster than what is currently out there, and would better justify the need for using SATA 6Gb/s ports. That said, it doesn't change the fact that you're looking for an SSD now, and I don't know when exactly those newer drives will arrive.
 
tiraides said:
Danny and I explained that your performance wouldn't suffer by using a SATA 6Gb/s device on a SATA 3Gb/s
Click to expand...
Danny cleared up that SATA 3 = SATA 6GB/s. But are you telling me that SATA 2 = SATA 3GB/s? How unnecessarily confusing on the industry's part. I just assumed that SATA 2 = 2GB/s all this time.

Everything else you wrote seems to point towards "Forget the add-on card, just use the Intel X25-M, and go SATA3 in a couple of years on your next major system upgrade."

Except for one thing : I'm also looking for a portable HD solution, and am currently leaning towards the Seagate GoFlex Ultra-Portable. This thing does USB 3.0. In fact, some reviews have said that it suffers in USB 2.0 conditions.

The Asus add-on card upgrades the USB from 2.0 to 3.0, but also the SATA from 2 to 3. It would essentially kill 2 birds with one stone, at a time when I happen to be looking for hardware that is both USB and SATA.

So my options are, in a nutshell :

  1. Intel X25-M SSD (SATA2)
    Try to find a clearanced USB 2.0 version of the Seagate GoFlex Ultra-Portable.
  2. Crucial C300 SSD (SATA3)
    Asus U3S6 add-on card
    Seagate GoFlex Ultra-Portable (USB 3.0)

I guess the moral of the story here is that I upgraded my computer a few months too soon. :(
 
THAT explains everything. In that case, go for the add-on card, as transferring any large (1GB or more) file is hell using USB 2.0.

And don't worry about your system; that Nehalem-based build will be capable of kicking ass for years to come.
 
Assuming I go ahead with the add-on card... would this influence the recommendation of SSD? The X25-M is SATA2, but I will have SATA3 capability.
 
JYeager11 said:
I guess the moral of the story here is that I upgraded my computer a few months too soon. :(
Click to expand...
Well you're still upgrading a few months too early IMO: Intel's G3 SSDs and Crucial's C400 SSDs are due in a month or two.
JYeager11 said:
Assuming I go ahead with the add-on card... would this influence the recommendation of SSD? The X25-M is SATA2, but I will have SATA3 capability.
Click to expand...

I'd recommend the Crucial C300 if you're willing to buy online.
 
I was going to upgrade to SSD when I bought the new machine a year ago, but they were too expensive. A year later, they've become affordable, but there's always a reason to wait for the next generation. I can wait a week, maybe two... but not months. There are things I need to do that I've been putting off for far too long that require a fresh OS re-install... so if I don't go SSD now, I won't for at least another year. And the music production I do between now and then will suffer performance wise.

At this point, I'm going to buy online. The whole point of buying from Best Buy was that I'd be able to re-install everything on it this weekend, but that's now impossible. So probably from Newegg.ca (Canada).

If I understand correctly, Crucial C300 if I'm buying the U3S6 add-on card... X25-M if I'm not. Right?

And Seagate GoFlex Ultra-Portable USB 3.0 whether I do or not -- even if there have been isolated reports of issues when using it on USB 2.0 connections?
 
SATA, SATA II and SATA III are just simply the family of SATA controllers and their speed. In that order. Their speeds are different.
 
If the Canadian Best Buy store are anything like their American counterparts, they may only have the 40GB X25-V and the 80GB X25-M SSDs available.

I can't confirm or deny the GoFlex issues as I've been using BYO enclosures for over the past year.
 
According to google BYO is the British Youth Orchestra. I imagine their enclosures are rather elevating.

BYO in the context of beer is usually Bring Your Own however in the context of "I've been using BYO enclosures for over the past year" it's probably Build Your Own, or DIY if you prefer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top