BF2S Forums SSD/HDD benchmark

Here's the link to the program for anyone who needs it.

Sup3r_Dr4gon wrote:

*  WD Velociraptor
    * Raid array: No
    * Capacity: 150GB
    * TRIM enabled: -
    * OS: Windows XP Home edition

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i235/ … 50vrcm.jpg

My question is, do the huge SSD numbers make any difference in real world apps? I'm tossing up between getting an 80GB Intel drive or another Vraptor for RAID0. Would the speed advantage of the SSD make it worth the huge price tag and small size, seeing as I could get another raptor for $AU200 (as opposed to the $AU500 for the Intel?).

Says the man using a Velociraptor?

With SSDs you get performance to match the price tag. If you ask me the Velociraptor drives are a monumental rip off. You don't have the extreme performance you get from an SSD and SSDs only cost about twice as much per GB as the Velociraptor. Whereas compared to other drives that perform very nearly as well as the Velociraptor, the price gap per GB is immense. My Samsung 1.5TB EcoDisk runs fairly close to Velociraptor speeds (can't be bothered to upload a benchmark pic, but it's faster than the Spinpoint F1 posted above (97/95, 46/68, 0.7/1.6)) and is 40 times cheaper per GB.

So there is a price differential of 20x for a modest performance increase or a price differential of 2x for an immense performance boost. SSDs win, no contest.

.Sup wrote:

http://server.mojcomp.net/test/disk/Cry … k_test.JPG

Where did you get those scores? The M225 benchmarks you posted there don't seem consistent with what I see from the ones I have....

chuyskywalker wrote:

Wow, that 4x Samsung F3 is fucking amazing. 4 TB of storage, 2x the speed of the SSD's, and cheaper by far (80$/drive).

That's rather impressive.

But slower where it counts....

I've got Samsung F3s, they're good, but not in the same league as SSDs.

It's the access times on the SSDs which are so great - just look at Panzers post. This makes systems feel so much more responsive it's unbelieveable.

Bertster7 wrote:

.Sup wrote:

http://server.mojcomp.net/test/disk/Cry … k_test.JPG

Where did you get those scores? The M225 benchmarks you posted there don't seem consistent with what I see from the ones I have....

A buddy has a hardware store and he benches every disk he gets.

Finray wrote:

chuyskywalker wrote:

Guess it all depends on what you're doing. For a system which needs to move files around, serve them, etc (video editing, loading items from disk to memory (games), file serving, etc) that's what you want.

For other purposes, SSD's certainly are better.

Nice to have the choice now though

I suppose in an ideal world, an 80GB SSD for OS and games, and 4xF3s for storage.

an SSD? More like 4 in raid

.Sup wrote:

Finray wrote:

chuyskywalker wrote:

Guess it all depends on what you're doing. For a system which needs to move files around, serve them, etc (video editing, loading items from disk to memory (games), file serving, etc) that's what you want.

For other purposes, SSD's certainly are better.

Nice to have the choice now though

I suppose in an ideal world, an 80GB SSD for OS and games, and 4xF3s for storage.

an SSD? More like 4 in raid

chuyskywalker wrote:

.Sup wrote:

an SSD? More like 4 in raid

Sure, except I enjoy living on more than Ramen 3 times a day.

I can cut food rations as long as I have good hardware. Done it before, could do it again heh

Laptop HDD, 160gb, 5400rpm

x2 80GB WDC in RAID 0

I actually get the speeds the benchmark said.. I'm really pleased with these drives.




(Yeah it's a bit off 120mB/s but it started at 112 and went down to that.. That seemed the stable speed).