Hardware Secrets Forums


Go Back   Hardware Secrets Forums > Miscellaneous > Content Comments



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-04-2010, 01:07 PM   #1
Hardware Secrets Team
Administrator
 
Join Date Nov 2004
Posts: 5,591
Hardware Secrets Team is on a distinguished road

Default 64 GB Solid State Drive Round-Up

There has been a new article posted.

Title: 64 GB Solid State Drive Round-Up
URL: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/920

Here is a snippet:
"Solid state drives (SSDs) are now somewhat affordable for the user that wants to boost the performance of his or her computer. Today we are going to review the latest release from five different manuf..."

Comments on this article are welcome.

Best regards,
Hardware Secrets Team
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com
Hardware Secrets Team is offline   Reply With Quote
new Sponsored Links

Old 02-05-2010, 02:30 AM   #2
Ver Greeneyes
Junior Member
 
Join Date Feb 2010
Posts: 2
Ver Greeneyes is on a distinguished road

Default

I have a question about the terminology used in the article.

Throughout, you use the shorthand 'GB'; generally HDD makers use the SI definition of this term, meaning 1GB = 1000^3 Bytes - but most if not all operating systems use the informal standard of 1GB = 2^30 Bytes (or 1024^3 if you prefer).

This is technically wrong, as G is a metric prefix, not a binary one - the proper term is 'GibiByte' or GiB. (The full name sounds stupid, but what can you do?) For HDDs, I've been told it makes sense to use the metric term because platter sizes are measured in terms of area, a physical unit for which metric makes sense. Of course, it's also good for marketing - although most users won't understand why their OS shows less available space than what the manufacturer advertised (in fact, at least one HDD manufacturer was sued over this and - wrongly - lost).

For flash chips, however, it does make sense to use power-of-two chip sizes, as the amount of memory a memory controller can access is a power of two of its number of I/O pins. So when you say you're reviewing 64GB SSD units, are you actually reviewing 64GiB SSD units, or do they hold to the SI standard for prefixes?

Last edited by Ver Greeneyes; 02-05-2010 at 02:34 AM.
Ver Greeneyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 09:34 AM   #3
Gabriel Torres
Administrator
 
Gabriel Torres's Avatar
 
Join Date Oct 2004
USA
Posts: 4,430
Gabriel Torres is on a distinguished road

Default

Hello,

I found out that the results for this round-up posted yesterday were wrong; the drives achieved a far lower score than it should had. Therefore I took this review down until we have finished collecting new corrected data and updating the text and graphs.

Sorry about this mess.

BTW, the problem was that my assistant forgot to partition and format some of the drives, making them to achieve ultra-low scores on CrystalDiskMark.

Cheers,
Gabriel Torres
__________________
Editor-in-Chief
Hardware Secrets
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com
Gabriel Torres is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2010, 02:26 PM   #4
domingo13
Junior Member
 
Join Date Feb 2010
Posts: 1
domingo13 is on a distinguished road

Default

Thanks for the comparison tests. I have been considering using one of these for a Mac mini project I am working on and would like to know how these drives fare against traditional 2.5" hard drives. Any chance you can include some results from regular 2.5" drives at 5400 and 7200 RPM so we can see what sort of performance differences there are?
domingo13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2010, 06:21 AM   #5
Silver Bullet
Junior Member
 
Join Date Feb 2010
Posts: 1
Silver Bullet is on a distinguished road

Default

Gabriel Torres,

Seems your CrystalDiskMark scores are still quite a bit off. Here are my results from my Intel 80GB (G2 - TRIM Firmware) ...

Silver Bullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2010, 04:52 AM   #6
Kitarist
Junior Member
 
Join Date Feb 2010
Posts: 2
Kitarist is on a distinguished road

Default

i would like to ask some real world benchmarks (windows boot,windows install...)

I'm not sure what to go for now...

Intel or Kingston
Kitarist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2010, 02:00 PM   #7
Len
Junior Member
 
Join Date Feb 2010
Posts: 1
Len is on a distinguished road

Default Error in cache size in article

This article refers to the cache size of the Mushkin IO as 64mb when in fact it is 512mb, the max an indilinx controller was built to handle. Notice, the chip Hynix # they posted ends with an "A". the actual cache chip ends in an "R". Maybe I am wrong about the 64gb version, but the 128gb version and 256gb version both have the "R" 512mb cache chip which SMOKE the tests you did in your article.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi.../images/15.htm

Last edited by Len; 02-26-2010 at 02:04 PM. Reason: update
Len is offline   Reply With Quote
new Sponsored Links

Reply

Share This Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:00 PM.


vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. ()
2004-12, Hardware Secrets, LLC. All rights reserved.