The SSD Relapse: Understanding and Choosing the Best SSD
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 30, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
Why You Absolutely Need an SSD
Compared to mechanical hard drives, SSDs continue to be a disruptive technology. These days it’s difficult to convince folks to spend more money, but I can’t stress the difference in user experience between a mechanical HDD and a good SSD. In every major article I’ve written about SSDs I’ve provided at least one benchmark that sums up exactly why you’d want an SSD over even a RAID array of HDDs. Today’s article is no different.
The Fresh Test, as I like to call it, involves booting up your PC and timing how long it takes to run a handful of applications. I always mix up the applications and this time I’m actually going with a lighter lineup: World of Warcraft, Adobe Photoshop CS4 and Firefox 3.5.1.
Other than those three applications, the system was a clean install - I didn’t even have any anti-virus running. This is easily the best case scenario for a hard drive and on the world’s fastest desktop hard drive, a Western Digital VelociRaptor, the whole process took 31 seconds.
And on Intel’s X25-M SSD? Just 6.6 seconds.
A difference of 24 seconds hardly seems like much, until you actually think about it in terms of PC response time. We expect our computers to react immediately to input; even waiting 6.6 seconds is an eternity. Waiting 31 seconds is agony in the PC world. Worst of all? This is on a Core i7 system. To have the world’s fastest CPU and to have to wait half a minute for a couple of apps to launch is just wrong.
A Personal Anecdote on SSDs
I’m writing this page of the article on the 15-inch MacBook Pro I reviewed a couple of months ago. I’ve kept the machine stock but I’ve used it quite a bit since that review thanks to its awesome battery life. Of course, by “stock” I mean that I have yet to install an SSD.
Using the notebook is honestly disappointing. I always think something is wrong with the machine when I go to fire up Adium, Safari, Mail and Pages all at the same time to get to work. The applications take what feels like an eternity to start. While they are all launching the individual apps are generally unresponsive, even if they’ve loaded completely and I’m waiting on others. It’s just an overall miserable experience by comparison.
It’s shocking to think that until last year, this is how all of my computer usage transpired. Everything took ages to launch and become useful, particularly the first time you boot up your PC. It was that more than anything else that drove me to put my PCs to sleep rather than shut them down. It was also the pain of starting applications from scratch and OS X’s ability to get in/out of sleep quickly that made me happier using OS X than XP and later Vista.
It’s particularly interesting when you think of the ramifications of this. It’s the poor random read/write performance of the hard disk that makes some aspects of PC usage so painful. It’s the multi-minute boot times that make users more frustrated with their PCs. While the hard disk helped the PC succeed, it’s the very device that’s killing the PC in today’s instant-on, consumer electronics driven world. I challenge OEMs to stop viewing SSDs as a luxury item and to bite the bullet. Absorb the cost, work with Intel and Indilinx vendors to lower prices, offer bundles, do whatever it takes but get these drives into your systems.
I don’t know how else to say this: it’s an order of magnitude faster than a hard drive. It’s the difference between a hang glider and the space shuttle; both will fly, it’s just that one takes you to space. And I don’t care that you can buy a super fast or high flying hang glider either.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
295 Comments
View All Comments
GourdFreeMan - Tuesday, September 1, 2009 - link
You would, in fact, be incorrect. I refer you to ANSI/IEEE Std 1084-1986, which defines kilo, mega, etc. as powers of two when used to refer to sizes of computer storage. It was common practice to use such definitons in Computer Science from the 1970s until standards were changed in 1991. As many people reading Anandtech received their formal education during this time period, it is understandable that the usage is still commonplace.Undersea - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Where was this article two weeks ago before I bought my OCZ summit? I hope this little article will jump start samsung.Thanks for all the hard work :)
FrancoisD - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Hi Anand,Great article, as always. I've been following your site since the beginning and it's still the best one out there today!
I mainly use Mac's these days and was wondering if you knew anything about Apple's plans for TRIM??
Thanks for all the fantastic work, very technical yet easy to understand.
François
Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Thanks for your support over the years :)No word on Apple's plans for TRIM yet, I am digging though...
Take care,
Anand
Dynotaku - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Amazing article as always, now I just need one that shows me how to install just Win 7 and my Steam folder to the SSD and move Program Files and "My Documents" or whatever it's called in Win7 to a mechanical disk.GullLars - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
A really great article with loads of data.I only have one complaint. The 4kb random read/write tests in IOmeter was done with QD=3, this simulates a really light workload, and does not allow the controllers to make use of the potential of all their flash channels. I've seen intels x25-M scale up to 130-140 MB/s of 4KB random read @ QD=64 (medium load) with AHCI activated. I have not yet tested my Vertex SSDs or Mtron Pro's, but i suspect they also scale well beyond QD=3.
It would also be usefull to compare the different tests in the HDDsuite in PCmark vantage instead of only the total score.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
The reason I chose a queue depth of 3 is because that's, on average, what I found when I tried heavily (but realistically) loading some Windows desktop machines. I rarely found a queue depth over 5. The super high QDs are great for enterprise workloads but I don't believe they do a good job at showcasing single user desktop/notebook performance.I agree about the individual HDD suite tests, I was just trying to cut down on the number of graphs everyone had to mow through :)
Take care,
Anand
heulenwolf - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Anand,I'd like to add my thanks to the many in the comments. Your articles really do stand out in their completeness and clarity. Well done.
I'm hoping you or someone else in the forums can shed some light on a problem I'm having. I got talked into getting a Dell "Ultraperformance" SSD for my new work system last year. Its a Samsung-branded SLC SSD 64 GB capacity. As your results predict, its really snappy when its first loaded and performance degrades after a few months with the drive ~3/4 full. One thing I haven't seen predicted, though, is that the drives have only lasted 6 months. The first system I received was so unstable without explanation that we convinced Dell to replace the entire machine. Since then, I'm now on my second SSD refurb replacement under warranty. In both SDD failures, the drive worked normally for ~6 months, then performance dropped to 5-10 MB/sec, Vista boot times went up to ~15 minutes, and I paid dearly in time for every single click and keypress. Once everything finally loaded, the system behaved almost normally. Dell's own diagnostics pointed to bad drives, yet, in each case, the bad SSD continued to work just at super slow speeds. I was careful to disable Vista's automatic defrag with every install.
My IT staff has blamestormed first Vista (we're still mostly an XP shop) and now SSDs in general as the culprit. They want me to turn in the SSD and replace it with a magnetic hard drive. So, my question is how to explain this:
A) Am I that 1 in a bazillion case of having gotten a bad system followed by a bad drive followed by another bad drive
B) Is there something about Vista - beyond auto defrag - that accelerates the wear and tear on these drives
C) Is there something about Samsung's early SSD controllers that drops them to a lower speed under certain conditions (e.g. poorly implemented SMART diagnostics)
D) Is my IT department right and all SSDs are evil ;)?
Ardax - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Well, first you could point them to this article to point out how bad the Samsung SSDs are. Replace it with an Intel or Indilinx-based drive and you should be fine. Anecdotes so far indicate that people have been beating on them for months.As far as configuring Vista for SSD usage, MS posted in the Engineering Windows 7 Blog about what they're doing for SSDs. [url=http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/05/05/suppor...">http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/0...nd-q-a-f...]Article Link[/url].
The short version of it is this: Disable Defrag, SuperFetch, ReadyBoost, and Application and Boot Prefetching. All these technologies were created to work around the low random read/write performance of traditional HDs and are unnecessary (or unhealthy, in the case of defrag) with SSDs.
heulenwolf - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Thanks for the reply, Ardax. Unfortunately, the choice of SSD brand was Dell's. As Anand points out, OEM sales is where Samsung's seems to have a corner on the market. The choices are: Samsung "Ultraperformance" SSD, Samsung not-so-ultraperformance SSD, Magnetic HDD, or void the warranty by getting installing a non-Dell part. I could ask that we buy a non-Dell SSD but since installing it would preclude further warranty support from Dell and all SSDs have become the scapegoat, I doubt my request would be accepted. Additionally, the article doesn't say much about drive reliability which is the fundamental problem in my case.I'll look into the linked recommendations on Win 7 and SSDs. I had already done some research on these features and found the general concensus to be that leaving any of them enabled (with the exception of defrag) should do no harm.