The SSD Relapse: Understanding and Choosing the Best SSD
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 30, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
Final Words
We’ve become complacent. In today’s world of netbooks and nettops where performance is cast aside, we’ve let far too much slide. The bar of acceptability is too low. A good SSD is the anti-netbook, it is the most believable proof that PCs aren’t fast enough today. We don’t need good enough, we need orders of magnitude of performance improvement. And that's exactly what a good SSD can deliver today.
The performance improvement isn't limited to high end machines. In fact, some of the most perceivable differences in performance are on lower end machines, netbooks and nettops. The combination of a slow CPU and a slow hard drive is horrendous; the SSD allows you to at least alleviate some of the bottleneck in these slower machines. And today we actually have affordable options that make sense to even put in a netbook.
A year ago the market was full of worthless SSDs being sold at a premium. Today, we have two real contenders for the throne: Intel and Indilinx. Let me start with Indilinx.
Indilinx is a company that no one knew a year ago, nor would anyone even begin to trust back then. I remember talking to OCZ about the problems with their JMicron drives and being told that their next-generation drive would have a controller by a new company. They told me the name and I was more than skeptical. JMicron couldn't do it, why would this strangely named new company be able to get it right? Even when I first tested an Indilinx drive I was hopeful but still cautious; it's something I used in my system for a short period, but nothing I would commit to. If you wanted an SSD, Intel was still the only way to go.
When I started writing this article I took a big step. I felt that Indilinx drives had reached the point that their performance was good enough to be considered an Intel alternative. I backed up my X25-M, pulled it out, and swapped in an OCZ Vertex drive - into my personal work system. I've been using it ever since and I must admit, I am happy. Indilinx has done it, these drives are fast, reliable (provided that you don't upgrade to the latest firmware without waiting a while) and are good enough. We'll see how the drive holds up over the coming months but I don't have any regrets at this point.
If you're trying to move to an SSD at the lowest possible cost, there's finally a real alternative to Intel. We also have Indilinx to thank for driving SSD prices as low as they have been. If these drives weren't actually competitive, Intel would have no real motivation to deliver a sub-$300 SSD so quickly.
All of this Indilinx praise brings us to the next heir to the throne: Intel. The X25-M G2 is an evolution of the SSD that started it all, we see some specific but significant performance gains and hints of Intel's strategy moving forward. The G2's real strength lies in the fact that it is the only Intel drive that will support TRIM later this year. While the G1, even in its used state, will outperform an Indilinx drive - the G2's TRIM support will ensure that it's even faster than the G1.
The only bad thing I have to say about the G2 is that it doesn't address Intel's only weakness: sequential write speed. While on average the G2 is a better performer than the Indilinx drives in real world use, there are distinct situations where it falls behind.
I should also take this time to chastise Intel for absolutely botching the launch of the drive. I'm not talking about the embarrassing stop-shipment caused by poor validation, I'm talking about the fact that X25-M G2s are still out of stock even as I publish this article. The SSD group at Intel clearly needs to take lessons from the CPU teams: you don't launch product without availability.
Many readers have been emailing me asking what SSD they should get for their new Windows 7 builds, honestly the decision mostly comes down to capacity. Look at this table of prices:
| Price | Cost per GB | |
| OCZ Vertex 64GB | $219.99 | $3.437 |
| Intel X25-M 80GB | $279.99 | $3.500 |
| OCZ Vertex 128GB | $369.00 | $2.883 |
| Intel X25-M 160GB | $499.99 | $3.125 |
| OCZ Vertex 256GB | $725.00 | $2.832 |
You should buy the largest drive you need/can afford. If you only have 30GB of data on your system, buy the 64GB Indilinx drive. If you have 50GB? Opt for the 80GB Intel drive. Indilinx and Intel seem to complement one another more than compete thanks to differing numbers of flash channels on their controllers resulting in different capacities.
Is Intel still my overall recommendation? Of course. The random write performance is simply too good to give up and it's only in very specific cases that the 80MB/s sequential write speed hurts you. Is Indilinx a close runner up? Absolutely. It's truly a lower cost alternative. Am I relieved to be done with this article? You betcha.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
295 Comments
View All Comments
mtoma - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Here is an issue I think deserves to be adressed: could an conventional HDD (with 2-3 or 4 platters) slow down the performance of a PC , even if that PC boots from an excellent SSD drive, like an Intel X-25M? Let's say that on the SSD lies only the operating system, and that onto the conventional HDD lies the movie and music archive. But both drives run at the same time, and it is a well known fact that the PC runs at the speed of the slowest component (in our case the conventional HDD).I did not found ANYWHERE in the Web a review, or even an opinion regarding this issue.
I would appreciate if I get a competent answer.
Thanks a lot!
gstrickler - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
That's a good question, and I too would like to see a report from someone who has done it.Some of your assertions/assumptions are not quite accurate. A PC doesn't "run at the speed of the slowest component", but rather it's performance is limited by the slowest component. Depending upon your usage patterns, a slow component may have very little effect on performance or it may make the machine nearly unusable. I think that's probably what you meant, I'm just clarifying it.
As for putting the OS on an SSD and user files on a HD, you would want to have not only the OS, but also your applications (at least your frequently used ones) installed on the SSD. Put user data (especially large files such as .jpg, music, video, etc.), and less frequently used applications and data on the HD. Typical user documents (.doc, .xls, .pdf) can be on either drive, but access might be better with them on the SSD so that you don't have to wait for the HD to spin-up. In that case, the HD might stay spun-down (low power idle) most of the time, which might improve battery life a bit.
Databases are a bit trickier. It depends upon how large the database is, how much space you have available on the SSD, how complex the data relations are, how complex the queries are, how important performance is, how much RAM is available, how well indexes are used, and how well the database program can take advantage of caching. Performance should be as good or better with the database on the SSD, but the difference may be so small that it's not noticeable, or it might be dramatically faster. That one is basically "try it and see".
Where to put the paging file/swap space? That's a tough one to answer. Putting it on the SSD might be slightly faster if your SSD has high write speeds, however,that will increase the amount of writing the the SSD and could potentially shorten it's usable life. It also seems like a waste to use expensive SSD storage for swap space. You should be able to minimize those by using a permanent swap space of the smallest practical size for your environment.
However, putting the swap space on a less costly HD means the HD will be spun-up (active idle) and/or active more often, possibly costing you some battery life. Also, while the HD may have very good streaming write speeds, it's streaming read speed and random access (read or write) speed will be slower than most SSDs, so you're likely to have slightly slower overall response and slightly shorter battery life than you will by putting the swap space on the SSD.
On a desktop machine with a very fast HD, it might make sense to put the paging file on the HD (or to put a small swap space on the SSD and some more on the HD), but on a machine where battery life is an important consideration, it might be better to have the swap space on the SSD, even though it's "expensive".
Pirks - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
just turn the page file off, and get yourself 4 or 8 gigs of RAMgstrickler - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Windows doesn't like to operate without a page file.smartins - Tuesday, September 1, 2009 - link
Actually, I've been running without a page file for a while and never had any problems. Windows feels much more responsive. You do have to have plenty or ram, I have 6GB on this machine.mtoma - Thursday, September 3, 2009 - link
In my case, it's not a problem of RAM (I have 12 GB RAM and a Core i7 920),it's a problem of throwing or not 300 dolars down the window (on a Intel SSD drive). Currently I have a 1.5 TB Seagate Barracuda 11th generation, on wich I store ONLY movies, music and photos. My primary drive (OS plus programms) is a 300 GB Velociraptor.Do you think diffrent types of Windows behave difrent if you remove the page file? It seems to me if I remove this page file, I walk onto a minefield, and I don't want to do that.
Besides that, my real problem is to use (when I purachase the Intel drive) the Seagate Barracuda in a external HDD enclosure OR internally, and thus, possibly slow down my PC.
SRSpod - Thursday, September 3, 2009 - link
Adding a slow hard drive to your system will not slow your system down (well, apart from a slight delay at POST when it detects the drive). The only difference in speed will be that when you access something on the HDD instead of the SSD, it will be slower than if you were accessing it on the SSD. You won't notice any difference until you access data from the HDD, and if it's only music, movies and photos, and you're not doing complex editing of those files, then a regular HDD will be fast enough to view and play those files without issues.If you don't plan to remove it from your system, then attach it internally. Introducing a USB connection between the HDD and your system will only slow things down compared to using SATA.
Removing the pagefile can cause problems in certain situations and with certain programs (Photoshop, for example). If you have enough RAM, then you shouldn't be hitting the pagefile much anyway, so where it's stored won't make so much of a difference. Personally, I'd put it on the SSD, so that when you do need it, it's fast.
samssf - Friday, September 18, 2009 - link
Won't Windows write to the page file regardless of how much RAM you have? I was under the impression Windows will swap out memory that it determines isn't being used / needed at the moment.If you absolutely need to have a page file, I would use available RAM to create a RAM disk, and place your page file on this virtual disk. That way you're setting aside RAM you know you don't need for the page file, since Windows will write to that file anyway.
If you can, just turn it off.
minime - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Would someone please have the courtesy to test those things in a business environment? I'm talking about servers. Database, webapplication, Java, etc. Reliability? Maybe even enrich the article with a PCI-E SSD (Fusion-IO)?ciukacz - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3532">http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3532