Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Data Storage Hardware

Why Size Matters For Your SSD Purchase 175

Posted by kdawson
from the taking-out-the-trash dept.
Vigile writes "Performance analysis on solid state drives is still coming into clarity as more manufacturers enter the fold and more of the drives find their way into users' hands. While Intel's dominance in the SSD market was once undoubted, newer garbage collection methods from Indilinx and Samsung are now balancing performance across the the major players. What hasn't been discussed in great detail yet is the effect that drive capacity can have on overall performance. Some smaller drives (64GB versus 128GB) will actually use fewer data channels from the controller chip and thus will have lower transfer speeds. The article compares drives using controllers from Indilinx, Samsung and Intel." Note that PCPer greedily spans this review over 12 pages. Next time maybe they can keep it down to something more reasonable.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Size Matters For Your SSD Purchase

Comments Filter:
  • by PktLoss (647983) on Friday August 21, 2009 @12:19PM (#29147541) Homepage Journal

    The odds of me reading page 2 of any article not paginated sensibly (reading a single page should take several minutes) are probably around 10%. Page 5? never.

    I'll just be uninformed until information is published with a sensible pagination system. I'm okay with that.

  • take a stand (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 21, 2009 @12:20PM (#29147549)

    Note that PCPer greedily spans this review over 12 pages. Next time maybe they can keep it down to something more reasonable.

    They're not going to be more reasonable until we take a stand. Vote down the story, and make sure not to click the links.

  • Re:The short story (Score:3, Insightful)

    by maxume (22995) on Friday August 21, 2009 @12:22PM (#29147581)

    They all meet the definition of 'blisteringly fast' when compared to my current disk, but they also all meet the definition of 'cost more than I want to pay'.

    I guess it is still useful to figure out which one provides the best value.

  • Re:take a stand (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BronsCon (927697) <social@bronstrup.com> on Friday August 21, 2009 @12:22PM (#29147585) Journal

    I use adblock primarily for these sites.

    When I come across a site that doesn't do this bullshit, I make sure to allow their ads.

    Hell, Slashdot is giving me the option of disabling advertising just by clicking a checkbox; I'm not doing it.

  • Price (Score:5, Insightful)

    by symbolset (646467) on Friday August 21, 2009 @12:29PM (#29147681) Homepage Journal

    From the article:

    I was going to include a price comparison, but a few of the units tested (like the Corsair P64) don't seem to be carried anywhere as of yet. That said, prices generally do not sway far from the cost/GB of ~$2.75 set by Intel when they released their G2 drives at record low prices. The exception here is the SLC-based PhotoFast V4S, which will retail for a whopping $499 (that's $15/GB in case you ran out of fingers and toes).

  • I doubt it. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by aardvarkjoe (156801) on Friday August 21, 2009 @12:30PM (#29147693)

    Note that PCPer greedily spans this review over 12 pages. Next time maybe they can keep it down to something more reasonable.

    Um ... why would they do that if their 12-page version gets slashdotted anyway? The whole point of the splitting it up is to get page views.

  • by clyde_cadiddlehopper (1052112) on Friday August 21, 2009 @12:39PM (#29147825)
    >Note that PCPer greedily spans this review over 12 pages.

    Sad economic truth: Free articles aren't free. 12 pages = 12 advert refreshes.

  • Re:Size. (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 21, 2009 @12:46PM (#29147913)

    flaccid or erect?

  • Re:The short story (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spinkham (56603) on Friday August 21, 2009 @12:47PM (#29147943)

    I bought a 30 GB OCZ vertex for my boot/application drive, and use a few 1TB drives in RAID for bulk storage. Best of both worlds.
    Yes, the 30BG one isn't quite as fast as the 120GB one, but it's still 10x faster at loading apps and 3x faster at booting Ubuntu then my past HD.

  • by Kayden (1406747) on Friday August 21, 2009 @12:51PM (#29147991)
    OCZ also has forums dedicated to tweaking ram. There are thousands of forums on the internet dedicated to tweaking every part of a computer. Working "right" isn't "as fast as possible". Most components are configured to run less than optimum so they last longer. Granted, early SSD drives had issues with the abysmal cache causing stuttering, but really, that's just a design fault, not something endemic to the hardware line.
  • Re:take a stand (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jittles (1613415) on Friday August 21, 2009 @01:06PM (#29148147)
    Nope, that's not the case at all. I can turn adds off too and I don't even run adblock. If a site has too many ads for my taste, I just close it never to return again.
  • by damnbunni (1215350) on Friday August 21, 2009 @01:17PM (#29148289) Journal

    On the other hand, when I wanted to update my SCSI card 20 years ago there wasn't a firmware flasher - I had to buy a new chip, pull the old one off the card, and socket the new one in place. (The reason for the update? To add 'Seagate Mode' because Seagate drives didn't all spin up properly and without the new chip, the machine wouldn't boot off some Seagate drives.)

    While things should certainly work right in the first place, being able to update them via software is a godsend.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 21, 2009 @03:14PM (#29149797)

    As for those that block ads, etc. I realize WHY you do it but I would hope that once in a while you think of people that run these types of sites: we employee 8 people on pcper.com and we charge you NOTHING to read the content, etc. These 8 people depend on the ad revenue to live, function and continue writing.

    Stop using 3rd party hosts. Learn to respect my browser's "no animations" setting rather than circumventing it. Don't use tracking cookies or bugs. Stop speading malware. And if you are just an innocent victim of your industry cohorts pissing in the well, then build a new advertising model that doesn't rely on these same asshole companies. Oh, but you won't do it because it is easier to complain and feel entitled. Block my ass if you don't want me - your shit content can be found elsewhere or safely ignored.

    This is not a rant on your mild comment. Reality is that internet advertising is so thoroughly fucked up and tarnished that you ought to start over now and be ahead of the game. I recommend developing a parellel site with similar or identical content but using a non-3rd-party model.

  • by mcgrew (92797) * on Friday August 21, 2009 @04:10PM (#29150311) Homepage Journal

    I run the site and yes this article might have been condensed to 9-10 pages more reasonably

    That's still idiotic. I refuse to hit page 2 of ANY site that has a bunch of idiotically short pages, and what's more, I refuse to return when I see one. Better you should grow your readership; you're better off having ten people read a one page article than have one person read a ten page article, because nine of those ten people won't be back.

    Life's to short to put up with bullshit like that, sorry. Come back when you can at least make an attempt to not annoy me -- you're not Microsoft. You're one out of hundreds of far better laid out sites that will have the same info.

    Oh, and a thank you to kdawson for warning us.

  • by Vigile (99919) * on Friday August 21, 2009 @07:10PM (#29151935)

    This is obviously coming from the view of someone who doesn't create content for a living. "I pay for my bandwidth and choose what to download. That is the model of the internet." is the grossest slight on the words net neutrality I have seen in a long, long time. You pay for bandwidth, but you didn't pay me, right? By your thought process then you should only be getting content from your bw provider and no one else.

    Look, we provide our content to you, the reader, 100% free. Watching ads does not make it NOT free. If you want people to create good content, MOST OF THE TIME, they are going to want to get paid for it EVENTUALLY. For us, that is ads. The other option is subscription based. If you have a way better third option, you'll be a millionaire by the time you reply.

    The alternative is for us to BLOCK everyone that blocks our ads - a lot of sites are doing that now. We don't plan on doing it though. To me, its a simple thing to ask: we can continue to make high quality content if you allow us to use your eyes for a split second on that ad.

  • by GaryOlson (737642) <slashdotNO@SPAMgaryolson.org> on Friday August 21, 2009 @09:56PM (#29152921) Journal
    Oh, let me count the script domains NoScript is blocking:
    1)pricegrabber.com
    2)skimlinks.com
    3)googleadservices.com
    4)quantserv.com
    5)tribalfusion.com
    6)pcper.com

    You far exceeded my acceptable level of third party scripts by 400%. I don't care whether those scripts are advertisements or statistics or revenue generation or whatever. I do not consider your choices wise. I will block your advertisements until such time as you learn to understand your market.
  • by bytesex (112972) on Saturday August 22, 2009 @04:14AM (#29154229) Homepage

    No, your premise is wrong. It all starts with: you are under no obligation to put free content out there. Should you, in spite of this, choose to do so yet, you shouldn't be surprised if people leech it. If you disagree with this, then I'm sure (since you're posting on Slashdot), that you have the technological acumen to invent and implement and popularize a protocol that will provide content to people, all the while forcing them to see it as you want them to see it - including ads.

Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage. -- Lazarus Long

Working...