|
willie_dee posted:I got given a Samsung 840 120gig, is it going to be any good or is it a waste of time compared to the pro version? I'm upgrading from a regular hard drive. Any SSD is a massive upgrade from a hard disk. Most of the warnings against the 840 have to do with it using less durable memory than other brands, so it may not last as long. With the modern controllers, how long is usually still very long, and that particular model hasn't existed long enough for anyone to be exactly sure. The Pro version is shaping up to be a really fantastic SSD which is why it's recommended. As for the regular 840, despite not being as good, it's not an OCZ drive.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 16:01 |
|
|
Question. I have my Intel 520 up and working fine. Made some changes to my pagefile, got rid of hibernation. However I see many people recommending downloading "Intel Toolbox" with Intel drives. Should I bother? What exactly will I be missing. I also didn't install the intel "maintenance" software. I do not see what it could possibly do so long as I have TRIM enabled. Intel also says to run the optimizer once a day. What could it possibly be doing. Last but not least, what does installing Intel Rapid Storage technology give me when I am using a single SSD. Trax416 fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Jan 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
willie_dee posted:I got given a Samsung 840 120gig, is it going to be any good or is it a waste of time compared to the pro version? I'm upgrading from a regular hard drive. It's going to be a massive upgrade. As a gift, I think the only reason for you to return it is if you wanted a larger one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 05:28
|
|
|
willie_dee posted:I got given a Samsung 840 120gig, is it going to be any good or is it a waste of time compared to the pro version? I'm upgrading from a regular hard drive. It's incredibly fast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 06:13
|
|
|
Hm, started to get BSODs on login after using this Samsung 840 series 240 for about a week. It's a typically cryptic "Page_Fault_in_Nonpaged_Area" screen which leads me to suspect that RAM is the issue. I can still boot into safemode and chkdsk says there's no problems with the drive. edit: Looks like it's the SSD, boots into my old HDD just fine and windows memory test checks out. CAPS LOCK BROKEN fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Jan 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 07:47
|
|
|
How long did you have it before it bombed? I was reading through tons of articles about how Samsung's super duper controller chips would wring out an MLC level of operational life from RAM that was essentially the same quality as you'd get in a USB key. Edit: If a secure erase and reformat won't fix your problems, Samsung's pretty cool about issuing RMAs. My current 830 bought in Feb. of last year was replaced in May and it took only a few days for the replacement to arrive. Binary Badger fucked around with this message at 10:13 on Jan 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 09:51
|
|
|
Binary Badger posted:How long did you have it before it bombed? Uh, dude that is TLC NAND and Samsung is not known for pulling an OCZ.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
Binary Badger posted:How long did you have it before it bombed? Yeah the weird part is that the SSD itself is still good. I can still run steam and stuff off it and I just copied some folders out of it onto my HDD. I'm going to go with a reinstall of windows before I do anything drastic like a RMA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
Not sure if this is the right thread but I'm in the market for some new USB sticks. Right now I have a pair of 16G Sandisk Cruzers from 2008/2009 that are dreadfully slow. I've tried zeroing them and I've filled them to the brim and deleted as well with no speedup afterwards. Should I get a new USB stick with a sandforce/SSD controller? Will that help? Or will anything be better than what I have now. Recommendations? I'm looking at the 32-64G range.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Not sure if this is the right thread but I'm in the market for some new USB sticks. Right now I have a pair of 16G Sandisk Cruzers from 2008/2009 that are dreadfully slow. I've tried zeroing them and I've filled them to the brim and deleted as well with no speedup afterwards. Corsair Voyager GT sticks are not insanely priced and quite fast. The 64GB is the far better deal than the 32GB model, since the 32GB model reads faster but writes at only the same speed as a non-GT (i.e. non-SSD internals) drive of the same size. Any USB 3.0 memory stick will generally be much faster than older USB 2.0 drives, but the SSD-based ones double again that generally-double-to-triple speedup.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
^^^ There's only two USB 3.0 flash drives with SandForce controllers I can find, the Kingston Data Traveler Workspace (64GB for $150) and the Super Talent RC8 (50 GB for $230!) dunno if it's worth the premium..redeyes posted:Uh, dude that is TLC NAND and Samsung is not known for pulling an OCZ. Yeah well, the jury's still out on TLC, isn't it? But I agree, Samsung is definitely quality, but if I were to get another Samsung, it'd be the 840 Pro with MLC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
Maybe I'll stick with Sandisk and their retractable design. Their USB Extreme series seems to be pretty good at 200-read 180-write for sequential data for the 64G model. Not sure what the controller is but the 64G one can be had for $70. http://www.everythingusb.com/sandisk-extreme-usb-3.0-flash-drive-21622.html Shaocaholica fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jan 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
Well, I installed the Crucial 040H firmware on the M4 128GB in my Thinkpad and everything still seems to work properly. Looks they fixed the previous power-up issues. I did have to use a bootable flash drive to install the firmware though, apparently the Windows based installer doesn't play very well with Windows 8 or UEFI.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Maybe I'll stick with Sandisk and their retractable design. Their USB Extreme series seems to be pretty good at 200-read 180-write for sequential data for the 64G model. Not sure what the controller is but the 64G one can be had for $70. A lot also depends on what chipset is driving your USB ports as well; some chipsets don't support that special mode in Windows 8 (USB Attached SCSI Protocol or UASP) that increases the throughput to stupendous portions; if it does then. Most flash keys and enclosures use the cheaper Asmedia, Skymedi, or Genesys Logic controllers..
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
So I just recently bought an OCZ Vertex 4. Yeah, I didn't know that I should avoid OCZ until today really after reading this thread. But, it's in my machine and I really don't have many complaints. I have been doing some benchmarks, and I am getting the following results from CrystalDiskMark:  Any ideas on what could be causing this? I thought this drive was meant to be able to get up to 560mbps Seq read? I do have it plugged into the SataIII controller of a gigabyte FX790-UD5 - It's not the newest of motherboards but as far as I am aware it should work okay. Any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
TescoBag posted:Any ideas on what could be causing this? I thought this drive was meant to be able to get up to 560mbps Seq read? Assuming you have the partitions aligned, those numbers are probably because you have Marvell SATA ports. I'd just live with it, it's still going to be eons faster than a spinning platter HD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Assuming you have the partitions aligned, those numbers are probably because you have Marvell SATA ports. Yep, totally is a Marvell sata port! Yeah, totally happy with the performance right now, so it doesn't bother me that much. I am looking at doing a motherboard upgrade in the near future (My processor is a phenom II X4, would like a 2500k i5) Any recommendations?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
Check out the parts picking megathread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 05:07
|
|
|
Does newegg (or a 3rd party site) have a way to sort by $/GB ?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Does newegg (or a 3rd party site) have a way to sort by $/GB ? http://pcpartpicker.com/ will do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
Binary Badger posted:A lot also depends on what chipset is driving your USB ports as well; some chipsets don't support that special mode in Windows 8 (USB Attached SCSI Protocol or UASP) that increases the throughput to stupendous portions; if it does then. I don't really care about UASP. My ultrabook might have it but the whole point of a USB stick is to use with multiple devices and I know the rest of my USB2 devices won't. Plus the speed gain doesn't seem to be anything to write home about. I don't think I can complain about the Sandisk Extreme at ~$1/GB and ~200mb read/write over USB3 without UASP. I think the controller is the same sandisk controller in their iSSD line.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 07:02
|
|
|
My netbook's Intel 320 SSD decided it was 8MB in size last night, and the serial number became BAD_CTX. Secure erase with parted magic fixed it, but required a full reinstall. Good thing I keep daily backups on a NAS... It has the latest firmware according to Intel SSD Tools, is there anything I can do to prevent it happening again?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
Well, shoot. The latest firmware update was specifically to fix that bug. The bug is triggered by the drive losing power when it is not expecting it. Make sure the system doesn't lose battery power when it hasn't been hibernated or fully shut down?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:The bug is triggered by the drive losing power when it is not expecting it. Make sure the system doesn't lose battery power when it hasn't been hibernated or fully shut down? Ya, it's strange though - in the SSD tools, SMART data, it is showing the unsafe shutdown count at being RAW: 246 Has it really unsafely shut down 246 times, or does it start at 255 and count down or I don't know what the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
It does seem to count up from 0. A little Googling brings up this Intel community thread. Takeaway seems to be that this could be caused by a storage driver bug. Update to the latest Intel RST or whatever your storage drivers are? Or, alternatively, I would contact Intel's tech support and describe things to them. Worst case: you get a little runaround and nothing changes. Best case: they know exactly what's up and fix it or RMA the drive. E: For the record, unsafe shutdown counts in SMART aren't bad per se, but they're certainly unwelcome on a drive with an 8MB bug triggered by an unsafe shutdown. Factory Factory fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Jan 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
I'll contact Intel, thanks for the help.  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
How many people are holding out for SATA Express to be released? 16Gb/s seems pretty promising, it's just a matter of getting controllers that are capable of pushing those kinds of numbers. Current estimates point at it being available in 2014 to consumers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
whiskas posted:How many people are holding out for SATA Express to be released? 16Gb/s seems pretty promising, it's just a matter of getting controllers that are capable of pushing those kinds of numbers. Drives are plenty fast, now we need larger ones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Why would you sit on a spinny drive for another 2 years when you will not see any difference waiting for sata express.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
I'm really curious what kind of data you need access to in 1600mb chunks that you need in 1 second instead of 2.5 seconds. SATA 3 is stupid fast, and while I'm glad that for once that CPU and disk speeds are ahead of the technology to take advantage of them in the consumer space, the Intel 330 Series with 240GB ram at $169 is pretty competitive. Waiting 2 years for new technology isn't really a smart option; the big SSD price crash already happened and prices are only going to slowly slide downward from here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
whiskas posted:How many people are holding out for SATA Express to be released?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 12:55
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:I'm really curious what kind of data you need access to in 1600mb chunks that you need in 1 second instead of 2.5 seconds. And couldn't you do that now - with a PCIe drive or RAID of existing SSD's? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
SATA Express is an enterprise technology to let you use PCIe speeds in a 2.5" form factor. That's all. There will be consumer-level benefits eventually, but really it's not meant to serve consumers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
Isn't SATA-Express just running a PCI-E 3.0 x1 link over the SATA cable, optionally allowing you to combine two links for up to 2 Gigabytes per second (16 Gigabits per second)? I mean that's cool, but it's not really life changing over SATA600. Some musings about changing SSD recommendations and new NAND reliability: I'm thinking that I want to see the Samsung 840 Pro available on the market for at least 90 days without significant reports of issues before I stop recommending against it. Based on a release date of mid-October, that's a couple weeks from now. Please let me know if you see anything that may indicate a pattern of issues with Samsung 840 Pros. I'm very, very concerned about how long smaller low-endurance NAND drives will last in service. At 10GB/day a 120GB Samsung 840 will be dead in 3.5 years. I would be somewhat less concerned about a 120GB Intel SSD 335 because Sandforce lowers write amplification, but Intel went and did the sensible thing and started the line at 240GB. The obvious answer here is 480/500GB drives because just throwing NAND at the problem is a great solution. As I've mentioned before, a next-gen Sandforce controller and TLC NAND seem perfect to pair for 480/960GB drives. I don't know if evidence bore out my worries about reduced-endurance (3K) drives like the Kingston HyperX 3K and to a lesser extent Intel SSD 335, we probably won't know for months or even years. I'm even more concerned about this generation, since it looks like we can expect around 1.5K cycles. Intel's SSD 335 will probably do better, but what about a next-gen HyperX "3K"? (Intel is using the same cycle rating despite shrinking the cell size). One reason we may be seeing OCZ have a new focus on reliability is that they figured out that using bottom-tier NAND just didn't work at all at 20nm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Do controllers move data around to different blocks so that you don't write some 4GB file to a drive and those 4GB never get written to again, until you delete the file? I can see not writing to the same blocks when you repeatedly create and delete a file, but does a close to full drive mean you're limiting the area that you're 'recycling'?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Do controllers move data around to different blocks so that you don't write some 4GB file to a drive and those 4GB never get written to again, until you delete the file? I can see not writing to the same blocks when you repeatedly create and delete a file, but does a close to full drive mean you're limiting the area that you're 'recycling'? Unfortunately, NAND cells don't stay charged permanently. Part of the normal lifecycle of the drive includes re-writing cells all over the place. In the long term, that's part of what keeps write amplification high when you have static data on the disk. Most drives are "rated" to retain data for a year unpowered, but in practice few people who have experienced or simulated write exhaustion have seen that kind of endurance. So I'm sure the controllers don't wait too long before shuffling stuff around. When you don't have enough free space on the drive, the need to rewrite data leads to enormous write amplification - up to 3.5x even for 100% overprovisioning if the used space is 90% static data. First page of this article sums up the problem well Factory Factory fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Jan 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
You may also want to just read this whole thing to understand how SSDs work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
So I was gifted an SSD, so now I have a Samsung 840 Pro 128 gb : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147192, and a Crucial M4 256 gb : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148443. I think the Samsung is almost twice as fast but it's quite small for my main desktop PC. I was planning on placing one ssd in my macbook and one in my desktop. I don't need much space on my macbook but I also want my PC to be zippy because I just upgraded it. Which ssd should I keep for my desktop?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Just use the M4 in your desktop, I think you'd find 128GB too limiting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 16:01 |
|
|
Alereon posted:Just use the M4 in your desktop, I think you'd find 128GB too limiting. Yeah. I've had the Samsung in for about a month and I'm already having space issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 19:56
|
|