Reader's input requested on SSD reviews.

[piezo]

I do care to see performance comparisons of different size-drives of the same model (i.e. 128GB M4 vs 256GB M4); as it gives a greater perspecitive of the product line, and one is less swept away by the performance of the 256/512GB drives, leading to disappointment when they buy their smaller-sized brothers (64/128GB).

I would really like to see this. Sometimes you have to go many sites just to find that kind of information and sometimes you can't even find it so it would be nice to see it all on one review how the different sizes perform to each other. Then maybe in the conclusion have a little table similar to the graphics card reviews on this site about the average improvement for certain things... just an idea.

If you could do the comparison of size with the m4 that would be great!

 

[FlyingFish]

I'd also like to see comparisons with smaller vs larger SSDs from the same model.

That and more non-SF drives because it seems like for the most part they all perform the same.

 

[AkG]

indeed. offline pages could work. so you can store those and firefox for exemple on a cd, copy it to the drive in question and launch.
average out i guess from 3 tries?

i know my mechanical drive takes a dump when i open up the lot

as for other programs, we could put together a list of stuff.


edit : like some tests today are standard,like winrar and the like when reviewing a cpu,so it should be with drives.

i remember back in the day when i was pushing reviewers to use winrar in their articles about cpus..took a whole lot of bitching lol but look now.

I make no promises on firefox and offline pages, as on first blush small file/lg file performance and Adobe cover this off. BUT I will do some testing and see what pops up. :thumb:

Same goes for winrar as small (or large) large filer performance is small (or large) file performance. This one is less likely to be added for this reason. Sorry.

Is there any possible way to test the SSDs read and write durability? It would be nice to test the drive's durability in that matter but I think it is unlikely as the SSD might be dead by the end of that test. Or maybe a partial read and write durability test to see how much the NAND degrades after a certain amount of data is read and written.

Not easily, nor with any results that would matter. 25nm NAND from Micron is good for an AVERAGE of 3K writes. Intel's is 5K. 32nm DDR Toggle Mode NAND is good for 5K. BUT this will vary from drive to drive and not be reproducible. Sorry.

I would really like to see this. Sometimes you have to go many sites just to find that kind of information and sometimes you can't even find it so it would be nice to see it all on one review how the different sizes perform to each other. Then maybe in the conclusion have a little table similar to the graphics card reviews on this site about the average improvement for certain things... just an idea.

If you could do the comparison of size with the m4 that would be great!

I'd also like to see comparisons with smaller vs larger SSDs from the same model.

That and more non-SF drives because it seems like for the most part they all perform the same.

Ok guys I can see a trend developing. You want more nonSF drives - especially Intel branded ones- but more importantly you want to see more drives of different sizes BUT same model. I will see what I can do.

Thanks for the input so far guys! Please keep it up as it is giving me a much more clear idea on what you guys want....and what to push for. :thumb:

 

[_dangtx_]

at least give it a try on your best drive.


load up firefox with at least 50 offline windows. hell maybe 100 or 200?

write it on a dvd so nothing changes.

and go for it. see how quick or slow that is.

trick is to keep the rest of the system consistent,i.e. the same, but you are pretty good in that area already

 

[AkG]

Oh I plan to. No worries on that. I will see if I can get consistent results or if ram caching and the like play merry hob with it.

 

[lowfat]

I'd also like to see comparisons with smaller vs larger SSDs from the same model.

That and more non-SF drives because it seems like for the most part they all perform the same.

Smaller drives would be nice. There has only been one review of any drive under 120GB in the past ~ year.

 

[chrisk]

Smaller SSD drive size might be more important for folks now if Intel's Smart Response becomes popular.

 

[lowfat]

Smaller SSD drive size might be more important for folks now if Intel's Smart Response becomes popular.

Exactly. Eldonko says it only uses at max 64GB. But I can't find a single review of any drive that small.

 

[AkG]

Right now no one is sampling anything smaller than 120/128GB. IF anyone does, I will see if we can get one for review.

I am going to add a SATA 2 section in (probably Anvil results and say boot) to reviews as soon as I get a moment to REtest some drives.

I am looking into portable FF set to offline mode, with 50 tabs ("web page, complete" saved on the drive for each tab) set to reload upon startup of FF. Plan on setting it up and rar'ing the original so it can be reused over and over again. NO guarantees on this one as it may prove to be a non-starter and too variable BUT I am willing to give it a shot.

Thanks again guys.

 

[MpG]

Exactly. Eldonko says it only uses at max 64GB. But I can't find a single review of any drive that small.

Given how the smaller capacity SSD's tend to have slightly lower numbers, I expect companies don't want the lower numbers showing up beside their competitors "faster" higher capacity drives.