well the ironic thing is that I really did not do any tweaking to my system except running system mechanic to clean stuff up and having diskeeper 2010 running all the time in the background. I think it is just my hardware that is doing it. My stats: Intel Dual Core 2 Duo @3.16 GHz Nvidia Geforce 9800 GTX+ 512 MB 4 GB Ram 1 TB WDC SATA 2.0 HDD with a 32 MB Buffer Soundblaster Audigy 2 LS Windows 7 Pro x32/Windows XP Pro x32
MS made a limiter in the rating so with a HDD u can only score 5.9. In order to get more you must have an SSD.
No doubt they are faster (some more than others) but for storage space mechanicals still rule for price. A SSD would be great for OS and programs, I just don't get why everyone raves about the boot times. A half way decent setup with mechanicals boot fast (if ya don't have a dozen oddball apps loading at startup, LOL).
You're right about the value per GB. Mechanicals have it all over SSDs in this area. I know I paid a premium but I could afford it and $212 wasn't too bad. I've seen some versions of PCIe memory drives but they are way out of any body's price range - except maybe Bill Gates. It's not just boot times - it's how the OS behaves in general - programs snap open and respond more rapidly - AV scans take not time at all. you can turn off Windows Search and still have fast searches without the disk running all the time. When they get even better and the price comes down we'll all be saying how did we live without them ? - it's like comparing Windows 1 and the hardware available then to Windows 7 and modern hardware - I wouldn't go back.
Some initial benchmarks SSD Read Max 261 MB/sec Average 212.7 MB/sec Av Read Access <0.1 ms WD Velociraptor 10000 RPM Read Max 122.7 MB/sec Average 102.6 MB/sec Av Read Access 6.86 ms Seagete 1TB 32 MB Buffer Read Max 119.0 MB/sec Average97.6 MB/sec Av Read Access15.38ms So the SSD reads at least twice as fast as the Velociraptor but the biggest difference is in the access times which will laways result in a significant performance advantage even if disk speeds slow - which the manufacturers claimthey won't if the TRIM function is supported. In terms of access the SSD is ay least 60 times faster than the Velociraptor and approximately 154 times faster than the Seagate. This is simplistic but ti shows the promise of things to come when Solid State devices become more sophisticated with continued development. As Mr Jinje said it is the Sata interface which is proving to be a stumbling block in the development of these devices.
And what about the Intel X25-V Postville SSD 40GB (SSDSA2MP040G2R5) Seems reasonable priced (just below 100€ here) Form factor: 2.5 inch SATA drive Capacity: 40 GB Drive Type: 34nm MLC, 5 channel Read Speed: up to 170MB/s Write speed: up to 35MB/s (this is kinda slow, isn't it?) Read latency: 65 us Write latency: 110 us Power consumption: 0.15 W active, 0.075 W idle Reliability: 1.2M hours MTBF BTW, i move this post to hardware section, OK?
That sounds like the first honest company out there. 35MB was about what I was getting when I returned my OCX. The OCZ forums claimed it was due to MLC fragmentation and the controller having to write an entire 512KB chunk to make a 4KB data change. And that it only affects the drive after it has been fully written, or something to that effect, their solution was to spend $50 on Diskeeper for it's special SSD defrag mode, my solution was to buy 2 1TB drives for about the same price.