hi do you think the new ssd will be faster? i mean the new generation some ssd have some utilities like performance optimation , did you try this feature? does it make the ssd faster? thanks
If you mean the new ones that will run on SATA Express, yes they will be faster for 2 reasons. First the bandwidth cap of SATA 3 wont be in the way and second the whole architecture will be designed to work well with SSDs. SATA 1,2 and even 3 were really optimized for HDDs. Yes it will BUT only if the drive is slowing down from running out of fresh unused space and a SSD can only be optimized up to its initial speed when it was new (unless new firmware makes the drive work a little faster).
I think it also depends on what you do on your computer. I recently read a test about fast SATA-3 SSD's that were set-up to connect via SATA-2, so they were capped to 300MB/s. Differences were of course notable with large file transfers, but during normal daily usage(booting, starting browser, surfing on the web etc.) the difference was barely noticable, and actual recorded booting time/program startup times etc weren't that much slower as well. Depending on your usage you can of course see big differences, but if you don't do resource intensive tasks you might not notice much at all.
That is changing the question though from "will they be faster?" to "will they feel faster?" and even then we wont know until they come out. If the new interface and new drives focus on speeding up small random reads/writes they will indeed feel faster even if the top end is not much faster. If you look at any current performance charts for any SSD there is a gaping hole at the low end. If they manage to address this we will see substantially faster boot ups as well as snappier overall performance.
but sata 6 are faster then sata3 arent' they?, so i wonder how faster could be the new ssd thanks BoerenkoolMetWorst
Good point. I'm not sure what you mean exaclty with sata 6 and sata3. There is SATA 3.0, also known as SATA 6Gbit/s or SATA 600, and has a maximal theoretical throughput of 600MB/s, and there is SATA 2.0, aka SATA 3Gbit/s or SATA 300 which has a maximal theoretical throughput of 300MB/s. The test I posted about used SATA 3.0 SSD's which are almost able to saturate the 600MB/s limit, and connected them through SATA 2.0, so they were limited to 300MB/s, almost half of what they are capable of. Because those high speeds are only reached with large files, you don't notice much of it during average usage. About the new generation: SATA 4.0 is not coming, but is being replaced with SATA Express, which uses PCI Express. Current PCI Express 3.0 has 1GB/s per lane, up to 16 lanes and SATA Express uses 2 lanes, so the new limit will be 2GB/s compared to 600MB/s from SATA 3.0. But more importantly, AHCI will be dumped for NVM Express, which can send WAY more commands at the same time to the SSD(I read that ACHI can do 32 commands at the same time and NVM Express 64.000 queues of each 64.000 commands) and it's optimized for 4k blocks.
When it comes to small files the best of the best SSDs cant even do half that speed though. On top of that there is data on the bus needed for the actual transfer itself that keeps file transfers even under the best circumstances to about 585mb/s. The is a screenshot of what is arguably the best SATA 3.0 SSD: LINK The top of the chart is where small files are moved around. As you can see we are miles away from the theoretical 600 mb/s cap and when the files get large (at the bottom of the chart) speed still never can quite reach the cap either.
Yes, but will you notice any performance difference? Maybe, maybe not - and I bet not unless (and again - maybe) you could do a true, blind, side by side comparison with otherwise identical computers performing "real-world" tasks and NOT "simulated" unrealistic benchmarking tests that are designed to illustrate such differences. Much depends on your computing habits AND how much RAM you have. If you have gobs of RAM (and everyone should), then most of the "noticeable" performance factors will occur in RAM. For example, with a traditional hard drive, it may take a few seconds for Word to load, but once loaded into RAM, the drive (whether HDD or SSD) steps out of the equation and Word will "perform" at full RAM/CPU speeds. If you have a small amount of RAM, your OS and CPU will be forced to bang on the page file much more often. Fortunately, SSDs are ideally suited for Page Files (see SSD FAQs, Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs?). And in that scenario, a new generation and faster SSD may yield some noticeable performance gains over an older generation SSD. I am just saying the performance (and the perception of performance) of any computer is dependent on much more than the mass storage device used. If I were running older generation SSDs, I would not upgrade to new SSDs. But if building myself a new computer (as I recently did for W8 ), I would certainly go with the latest generation SSDs (Samsung Pro 256Gb - in my case). While my boot times still amaze me - I only reboot my system when a Windows or other program update forces a reboot. As I sit here right this moment, with both my monitors full of open windows, Pandora streaming Lynyrd Skynyrd, and me entering text in this text box, the perceived performance of this system is based on my 16Gb of RAM and my i7 CPU - not my SSD - and clearly, the greatest bottleneck is the communications between my eyes, my brain and my typing fingers.
All benchmark tools for disk access give different results so this is hard to answer. Disk benchmarking is at best fair way to see the potential of a drive but you should look at several tests for each drive. Typically SSDs are faster at the ~256gb+ capacity range than they are at the ~128gb- capacity range when comparing drives of the identical architecture.
I don't really "trust" any benchmarking program because they all are "synthetic", contrived tests that rarely ever reflect "real-world" situations. Also, it is important to determine who is behind (funding) the tests and how do they obtain their test subjects or samples. Consumer Reports, for example, buy all their test samples right off the shelves of Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc. just as you or I (normal consumers) might. Many review sites and test organizations receive their samples directly from the makers - which presents the opportunity for the maker to submit a specially tuned, tested or even tweaked sample. Consumer Reports allows no advertising in their Reports or website. Other consumer review magazines and sites accept ad money from the makers of products under review. This leads to the possible "appearance" of impropriety. Some testing facilities are actually funded by one of the product makers under review - leading to the possible appearance the tests are skewed to help the maker's products shine over the others. So it is critical to ensure the testing facility or test product (benchmarking program in this case) is backed by a totally independent organization. Sadly, the backing is often very difficult, if not impossible to determine so as Bruce noted, it is imperative to look at many tests. Now I do "trust" most of these programs will do no harm to the product under test, or to your computer. I say "most" because some benchmarking programs are designed to push a product to its breaking point to see where that point is. That's fine in a lab. But that is not fine on my machine when it is my money and data that may go up in smoke with the broken product. Sadly, over the years I have seen more than one computer damaged (by excessive heat) when users run popular benchmarking programs to see how far they can push (overclock) their systems.
This is why I let them (the reviewers) do the dirty work. No way I am going to grind my the heck out my drives with multiple benchmarks with multiple tools, let them do it for you. That is indeed why I said: The real issue that with hardware try before you buy is a real PITA if not impossible. We really are stuck doing research and like it or not some of that will involve looking at reviews with synthetic performance charts. As long as you are using multiple sources with multiple benchmark tools you can get a rough idea about potential. BTW some benchmark tools mimic real world usage by replicating common tasks such as running an AV scan or copying files. Reputable testing for SSDs will also include performance degradation testing dealing with both nearly filled SSDs and SSDs that have no more "clean" blocks. Some SSDs bomb these tests badly even if their out of the box numbers are great. In the end though if you are moving from a HDD to any current gen SSD with solid consumer reviews you are going to be very happy with the performance.
I agree. But I will add this about customer reviews. Most happy customers don't write reviews - so results can be skewed. And many products get a bad review because the post office took too long to deliver, the product was poorly packed or damaged during shipping, or some other totally unrelated reason. Also, places like Tiger Direct, Amazon, Newegg solicit user reviews before the product is even shipped. In my mind, consumers should live with the product for a few weeks and then right the review. Another problems is most consumers don't know how to test a product. They don't have test equipment or the know how to properly test. And they don't have competing products to compare with. So I read user reviews but I don't put a lot of stock in them UNLESS there are several with the EXACT SAME complaint.
in many ways i agree with bill. yes they will be faster but will the rest of your system be able to show you its faster? will you do things to be able to see the slight increases in speed? heck even the ones out now are not that much faster in real world every day use then the ones from the last generation. on another note i have NEVER had newegg solicit a review from me in the entire 13 years of dealing with them and i order OFTEN from them. amazon may ask for a review but you can easily decline and add it later. i do not shop with tiger direct any longer after some issues so i can not currently speak for them. most of my products come from distributors directly but i do shop with newegg very often and i can not say one bad thing about them since the day they opened their doors. i do agree about testing products for at least a week or more before leaving a review. and i actually look for negative reviews mainly to read about possible issues i *might* encounter with a certain product. i do my own research going in to buy a product before reading any user reviews also. i do however disagree very much with the consumer reports. i had actually in the past bought a few things based on their testing and comments only to have those items be total flat out junk. and in a lot of cases when i do check their reviews i disagree with the findings or comments. so i hold very little water in their reviews. i still check them but mainly to see if i missed a possible product or brand of to consider buying. nothing more.
Not sure your point because if you note, I said above in my first post in this thread, As for Consumer Reports, I agree they have had some flops. But my point was their reviews are unbiased because, their "non-profit" organization accepts no advertising revenue from anyone. Their reviewers, and their testing protocols are NEVER EVER based on, funded by, or influenced by advertising money provided by the very companies whose products are under review. If you look at other review sites and review magazines, they receive (and depend on) ad money from those makers. In fact, you will often see an ad touting it's #1 review ranking in the same issue (if not same page) as the review! Does that mean the review was biased? No! But it could. As for your specific problems with Consumer Reports top rated products, all I can say is I've had good luck following their advice. But regardless the quality of the product, until Man can create perfection 100% of the time, there will always be samples that fail. Maybe you were just unlucky, I don't know. As for Newegg - don't know what to tell you there. I too buy all the time and maybe not for each product I buy, but I frequently get followup emails (typically within minutes after "the item has shipped" notice) asking for my review, or sometimes it asks for my vote for their "Customer Choice Award".
I have found that if you ignore the 1 star and 5 star reviews that consumer reviews in general are not all that bad. The 1 start reviews are usually from someone that had no idea what they were buying and couldn't get it to work as a result and the 5 star as Bill pointed out are often bogus.
may i ask you a question ? it's right that with times , the ssd become a bit slower and it's enough fast wipe with erase disk PartedMagic or Samsung Magician can invigorate a ssd? is it right? thanks
may i ask you a question Bill? do you think samsung 840 need to be optimazed by Samsung Magician occasionally ? the software has a performance optimization thanks
I ran it when I first installed my 840, but have not found it necessary to run it again - at least not for "optimization" on this W8 system. The program is nice however, to gather information on your SSD. It is also nice for upgrading the firmware on the SSD.
