Pros: Makes system almost instantly responsive, speeds up boot time and installations
Cons: Write speeds can be inconsistent and not as fast as advertised
I recently won a contest and got a slightly used 128GB Kingston SNV425-S2 SSD. This SSD uses a JMicron controller and Toshiba NAND and is rated by Kingston to have read speeds up to 200 MB/s and write speeds up to 160 MB/s. I put the SSD in my Asus EeePC netbook, replacing the existing 250GB 5400RPM Seagate hard drive. The difference is easily noticeable.
The time it takes to boot into Windows has been cut in half or more with the SSD and installing programs takes less time as well. Here are some benchmarks for comparing the Seagate hard drive to the Kingston SSD.
First, Crystal Disk Mark demonstrates the fastest performance in different scenarios. The SSD is obviously faster in sequential and 512k random performance, but more impressive is its 10x better 4k performance. Since this is the size of many common OS system reads and writes, you can imagine how much more responsive Windows feels with the SSD. Still, you will notice that the maximum write speed isn't close to the promised 160 MB/s.
The comparison holds in AS SSD, a benchmark that uses incompressible data to test read and write speeds. The SSD has significantly higher 4k speeds and significantly lower access times. Also, the maximum write speed here is higher, although still not at the 160 MB/s level claimed by Kingston.
ATTO is designed to measure maximum transfer speed, and here we see a weakness in the Kingston SSD: its write speeds appear to be inconsistent and variable, at times lower than those of the Seagate drive. Still, the read speeds stay in the stratosphere.
And finally, HD Tune compares average read speed across the drive and access speed for different file sizes. You will note that the Seagate has a wide variation between maximum read speed and minimum, while the Kingston stays much more consistent. And again, the difference in access time and IOPS (input-output operations per second) is clear between the hard drive and the SSD.
In conclusion, despite the Kingston SSD not being able to live up to its advertised write speeds, it is a very worthwhile upgrade over a standard notebook hard drive. Its superior read speeds, vastly superior 4k read/write speeds, and much faster access times make this value-oriented SSD a keeper.
The time it takes to boot into Windows has been cut in half or more with the SSD and installing programs takes less time as well. Here are some benchmarks for comparing the Seagate hard drive to the Kingston SSD.
First, Crystal Disk Mark demonstrates the fastest performance in different scenarios. The SSD is obviously faster in sequential and 512k random performance, but more impressive is its 10x better 4k performance. Since this is the size of many common OS system reads and writes, you can imagine how much more responsive Windows feels with the SSD. Still, you will notice that the maximum write speed isn't close to the promised 160 MB/s.
The comparison holds in AS SSD, a benchmark that uses incompressible data to test read and write speeds. The SSD has significantly higher 4k speeds and significantly lower access times. Also, the maximum write speed here is higher, although still not at the 160 MB/s level claimed by Kingston.
ATTO is designed to measure maximum transfer speed, and here we see a weakness in the Kingston SSD: its write speeds appear to be inconsistent and variable, at times lower than those of the Seagate drive. Still, the read speeds stay in the stratosphere.
And finally, HD Tune compares average read speed across the drive and access speed for different file sizes. You will note that the Seagate has a wide variation between maximum read speed and minimum, while the Kingston stays much more consistent. And again, the difference in access time and IOPS (input-output operations per second) is clear between the hard drive and the SSD.
In conclusion, despite the Kingston SSD not being able to live up to its advertised write speeds, it is a very worthwhile upgrade over a standard notebook hard drive. Its superior read speeds, vastly superior 4k read/write speeds, and much faster access times make this value-oriented SSD a keeper.
I would feel much safer knowing my data is on an SSD.
It's hard to complain though. 10 years ago we were complaining about the cost of 40GB hard drives for laptops. Remember that??
All that to say, I'm with you on SSDs. I only plan to buy hard drives in the future for backup if possible.
Minimum size I would get is 256GB now, and would prefer two 128GB SSD' s in RAID 0 due to the sluggish, bloated nature of windows 7 I/O, but the cost for either is still pretty hard to swallow
We need mass adoption to bring the prices down, unfortunately they're too expensive for mass adoption, joe 6 packs like lots of capacity to store all their stuff on more than ultimate speed.