Need some SSD drive advice

N

no_control

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
1,429
2 questions

So I'm looking to upgrade this 64gb Core SSD drive to a vertex or falcon drive. I have a few questions regarding what specific combination to go with. Here are my options so far.

2x Vertex 60gb Raid 0 ~$380
1x Falcon 128gb ~$300

$300 is really about the limit of my budget for this so option 1 is really pushing it. I'm leaning heavily towards option 2 then sell off the old drive and get a 2nd one in a couple of months

Second Q - I also have a PERC5i that I can either use or sell off. My onboard is an ICH9R. I'm not sure how much of an increase I would get from the PERC (if any). Anyone?

This is primarily for my o/s and programs. Data is all stored on the server. I already have a 1 gb RAMdrive. I will be using either Win7 or Vista Ultimate 64 versions.
 
Well if you go with option 1 and want 120gb capacity you know you will need to run Raid0 right?
if you are not comfortable with that then you need to go with option 2.
 
No I'm totally comfortable with that I had 3 Core SSD in a RAID 0 but I'm in the process of selling them to upgrade a bit. I also just got the perc and I'm trying to decide if I want to keep it and use it or sell it to help finance a second big falcon drive. Machines back up to WHS box so no data loss issues there
 
Well, when I first got into SSDs a few months ago, I went with the Perc 5i because I am using Jmicron based SSDs and I wanted a caching controller to smooth over the write issues with those drives. (4 X 30 gig OCZ Solids.) It works really well BTW, but I hate the 20 second startup of the Perc.

The newer drives do not need the caching controller, and since the Perc 5i caps at about 400 MB/sec, can actually cost you some performance.

Don
 
2 vertex 60's is going to be about 2x as fast as the single 120 - no brainer IMO

BTW, I think Mwave has them on sale for 179
 
DonDon said:
The newer drives do not need the caching controller, and since the Perc 5i caps at about 400 MB/sec, can actually cost you some performance.
Don
Click to expand...

So your suggestion is to sell the perc and run 2 of these SSD's then? How much can I push these in ICH9R Raid 0 compared to the perc?

sgrinavi said:
2 vertex 60's is going to be about 2x as fast as the single 120 - no brainer IMO

BTW, I think Mwave has them on sale for 179
Click to expand...

its a no brainer? maybe but then I'm also dropping an additional $80 over the 128 for about the same capacity. If I sell the perc that can cover almost half the cost of an additional 128 about a month from now. That seems like a no brainer. agreed?

Looks like I'm selling this damn card I just bought then. Unless someone can give me a reason to keep it?
 
no_control said:
So your suggestion is to sell the perc and run 2 of these SSD's then? How much can I push these in ICH9R Raid 0 compared to the perc?



its a no brainer? maybe but then I'm also dropping an additional $80 over the 128 for about the same capacity. If I sell the perc that can cover almost half the cost of an additional 128 about a month from now. That seems like a no brainer. agreed?

Looks like I'm selling this damn card I just bought then. Unless someone can give me a reason to keep it?
Click to expand...

I also have a second array made up of 3X Patriot Warps going into a ICH10R. Those crappy drives average less than 200 MB/sec. But I have seen screen caps of people getting close to 600 MB/sec on Matrix controllers. Even at those relatively slow (for SSDs) speeds, my system is still very fast and no problems with stuttering. But I don't push it near as hard as my system with the Perc.

Unless you are planning on doing a RAID 5, then I see no reason to run the Perc 5i though.

Don
 
Last edited:
no_control said:
So your suggestion is to sell the perc and run 2 of these SSD's then? How much can I push these in ICH9R Raid 0 compared to the perc?



its a no brainer? maybe but then I'm also dropping an additional $80 over the 128 for about the same capacity. If I sell the perc that can cover almost half the cost of an additional 128 about a month from now. That seems like a no brainer. agreed?

Looks like I'm selling this damn card I just bought then. Unless someone can give me a reason to keep it?
Click to expand...


I did the same thing with a LSI RAID card....

If you need the space then go for it. I don't know if the Falcons truly are an equal replacement for the Vertex
 
if a raid 0 array is the only drives in your computer.. what is the point of 200+ MB/s if you cant use it.. you are not going to get those speeds if you are copying within the same drive.. why not separate the 2 60GBs and than if you have to do converting or something you go from 1 drive to another..!!!
 
sgrinavi said:
2 vertex 60's is going to be about 2x as fast as the single 120 - no brainer IMO

BTW, I think Mwave has them on sale for 179
Click to expand...

Actually, I think this is incorrect. OCZ SSD drives vary in speed depending on size. So one 60GB is not the same speed as the 120GB in the same line. So saying that two 60s is almost 2x as fast, I think is wrong.

IE:

120GB Vertex
# Sequential Access - Read: Up to 250 MB/s
# Sequential Access - Write: Up to 180MB/s Sustained Write: Up to 100MB/s

60GB Vertex
# Sequential Access - Read: Up to 230 MB/s
# Sequential Access - Write: Up to 135 MB/s Sustained Write: Up to 70MB/s

Unless you knew this already and you are still saying that it's nearly 2x as fast, then it's more of a matter of opinion and not fact. And in that case, nevermind. ;)
 
sgrinavi said:
I don't know if the Falcons truly are an equal replacement for the Vertex
Click to expand...

It's the exact same drive with a different sticker on it.

mjz_5 said:
if a raid 0 array is the only drives in your computer.. what is the point of 200+ MB/s if you cant use it.. you are not going to get those speeds if you are copying within the same drive.. why not separate the 2 60GBs and than if you have to do converting or something you go from 1 drive to another..!!!
Click to expand...

Sorry I don't quite follow what your suggesting? Can you clarify? Are you saying instead of RAIDing the drives together keep them as 2 seperate drives? ie a C: & D: not sure i understand the benefit of that.
 
Gutspiller said:
Actually, I think this is incorrect. OCZ SSD drives vary in speed depending on size. So one 60GB is not the same speed as the 120GB in the same line. So saying that two 60s is almost 2x as fast, I think is wrong.

IE:

120GB Vertex
# Sequential Access - Read: Up to 250 MB/s
# Sequential Access - Write: Up to 180MB/s Sustained Write: Up to 100MB/s

60GB Vertex
# Sequential Access - Read: Up to 230 MB/s
# Sequential Access - Write: Up to 135 MB/s Sustained Write: Up to 70MB/s

Unless you knew this already and you are still saying that it's nearly 2x as fast, then it's more of a matter of opinion and not fact. And in that case, nevermind. ;)
Click to expand...

2 of them scale damn near 100% in RAID0, so, ya, it's a fact that the (2) 60's will be nearly 2x as fast as a single 120.
 
Last edited:
no_control said:
It's the exact same drive with a different sticker on it.
Click to expand...

I don't know that I believe that either. Look at the specs of both drives.


OCZ Vertex
Sequential Access - Read Up to 250 MB/s
Sequential Access - Write Up to 180MB/s
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227395

G.SKILL FALCON
Sequential Access - Read 230MB/s(max)
Sequential Access - Write 190MB/s(max)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231256

If you have other proof, I'd love to see it, as I want to order a Vertex today, but if I can get something with the same performance, and is cheaper, I really would like to see it. :)

EDIT: Just found this thread here: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1034095692 May help with buying decisions. Personally, I'm leaning towards the vertex.
 
Last edited:
It's hard to say. OCZ may lock their flashing app, but I also remember this thread where the guy said it had the latest firmware already anyways:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1416964&highlight=falcon+firmware

Also, checking out G.Skill's forums, they say all their drives already have the latest firmware, as evidenced by the above thread. They also intend to have firmware updating instructions available in the future, which means they are likely to provide the new firmwares as Indilinx makes them.
http://www.gskill.us/forum/showthread.php?t=736

They also have the TRIM utility available:
http://www.gskill.us/forum/showthread.php?t=733

So, if you get a Falcon drive, keep an eye on their forums, they seem to have someone keeping on top of things:
http://www.gskill.us/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9
 
Gutspiller said:
I don't know that I believe that either. Look at the specs of both drives.

EDIT: Just found this thread here: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1034095692 May help with buying decisions. Personally, I'm leaning towards the vertex.
Click to expand...

I know I threadcrapped on your post :D all in good fun.

Physically the drives are the same I've fondled both. I have 2 friends with each and everyday performace is pretty close. They definately shit on my Core raid. hence the upgrade.

You'll also notice that the Falcon is 128gb vs the vertex is 120gb. I also have 3 64gb OCZ Core V1's 1 is 64gb the other 2 are 60gb :confused:

either way you'll be happy but it's pretty hard to beat $80 cheaper. IMHO

Good luck!
 
Last edited:
no_control said:
You'll also notice that the Falcon is 128gb vs the vertex is 120gb.
Click to expand...


Actually, I think that's just OCZ is reporting the usable space, and g.skill reporting the total bits space.

As you can see in this pic: http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/1182/vertexex.jpg mentioned here http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1034106741&postcount=11 under different context, the OCZ Vertex also reads as 128GB, but that won't all be usable once it's formatted.

If there was more Falcon details, I may have gone that route, I mean who doesn't like to save money. But since I couldn't be sure on it's performance, and I've read countless reviews on the Vertex line reporting it's great speed, I decided to go with the one that had tons of reviewers raving about it.

Maybe somebody from G.skill will read this and get on the ball and start sending out review units of their SSD.

Either way, at this point in time I'm glad I made the safer choice. I wasn't going to risk it.

Thanks for the info though. I will keep my eye on them and if reviews start to surface I will look at them and may upgrade to them in my next upgrade cycle.
 
I realize that but my point was, I think it was marketing.

Either way I doubt either of us will be disappointed.
 
no_control said:
It's the exact same drive with a different sticker on it.



Sorry I don't quite follow what your suggesting? Can you clarify? Are you saying instead of RAIDing the drives together keep them as 2 seperate drives? ie a C: & D: not sure i understand the benefit of that.
Click to expand...

yea.. keeping them separate.. converting, copying... is always faster going from drive 1 C: to drive 2 D: - instead of going from drive 1 c: to drive 1 c:
 
That's all well and good if you are moving files back and forth from drive to drive... but otherwise doesn't matter.
 
yea I don't use my system that way. Files are moved between a server and all of the other PC's. Moving files faster isn't what I'm after. I'm looking for faster app response and loading.
 
no_control said:
yea I don't use my system that way. Files are moved between a server and all of the other PC's. Moving files faster isn't what I'm after. I'm looking for faster app response and loading.
Click to expand...

raid 0 benefits are for faster sequential reads and writes.. your bottleneck is your gigabit lan, so using raid 0 is useless... raid 0 provides slower app response and loading than just having a single 128 vertex...
 
I wasn't aware of this can you expand on this or provide a link so I might edjamacate myself thx :)
 
mmmm...I don't buy it based off of that test.
First they're using HDD not SSD's. Which to me (my opinion) has no merit. I do not find the comparisons of VR's to SSD to fair or valid. They are too different fundamentally. Same goes for RAMdrives. I have one wouldn't compare it to a HDD or even an SSD.
Second I didn't notice if this test is done onboard or with a hardware controller. With the speed SSD's are obtaining, I can see an onboard being a choke point.
Third I can tell you for a fact. My single CORE SSD was not faster than my 3 drives in raid0 piped thru a perc5 for opening programs and games. Not looking just gaming performance here.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top