Can Bargain SSDs Give Windows A Quantum Performance Leap?
Table of contents
- 1. Getting Older By The Minute
- 2. Drives On The Block
- 3. How We Tested
- 4. Benchmark Results: CrystalDiskMark
- 5. Benchmark Results: HD Tune
I tend not to get very excited about incremental upgrades. Sure, going from a hard drive with 100 MB/s sustained throughput to one with 110 MB/sec is gratifying, but I’m not going to put it on a T-shirt and tell all my Facebook friends that they absolutely have to upgrade because it’s the coolest thing ever. Small steps are good, but they don’t often change your life.
This is an article about something that will change your life. Here on Tom’s Hardware, we’ve covered solid state drives (SSDs) from a lot of different angles. You know they’re usually faster than hard drives, especially on read operations, and they consume a lot less power. A few weeks ago, our dynamic duo of Schmid and Roos released an article called Benchmark Results: Booting, Shutdown, Hibernation, Standby. This piece compared the performance of Windows 7 against Windows Vista, particularly on everyday Windows tasks, such as boot and shut down times.
“Hmm,” I mused. “We all know that SSDs can run circles around the performance of mechanical hard drives, and Windows 7 is better-optimized for SSDs than prior Windows versions. And you now hear a lot of buzz about the suitability of SSDs as Windows boot drives. But is there a significant difference between a $150 SSD and a $500 one when using the drive primarily as a boot volume under Windows 7? And how would these SSDs compare against a high-end hard drive in the same tasks?”
The system on which I do most of my work runs a 3.2 GHz AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition processor with 4GB of RAM and a 750GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 primary drive. Loading Outlook 2007 takes me 12 seconds. Loading Adobe Premiere Elements 7—just the app, not even any work files—takes 53 seconds. I abhor having to restart Windows because I can literally make lunch in the time it takes for all of my background apps to load from a cold boot. We’re all busy people, and losing these minutes adds up.
Time is money. What’s your time worth? If you could magically get back 10 minutes of your computing day, five days per week, that’s over 43 hours recaptured annually. Even if you earn minimum wage, just $7.25 per hour, a $300 SSD would pay for itself within the first year alone if it could save you those minutes.
Can SSDs do this? And more importantly, does it matter how much you spend on an SSD in the pursuit of saving these minutes? Place your bets and keep reading....
- windows ,
- ssd ,
- performance
Latest Internal Storage News
Latest Internal Storage reviews
- 16/05 – Intel SSD 330 Review: 60, 120, And 180 GB Models Benchmarked
- 11/05 – Do-It-Yourself: Upgrading Apple's 27" iMac With An SSD
- 01/05 – Marvell-Based SSDs From Corsair, Crucial, OCZ, And Plextor:...
- 26/04 – Best SSDs For The Money: April 2012
- 25/04 – Hitachi's 4 TB Hard Drives Take On The 3 TB Competition
The transcend doesn't actually look like a bad buy at all!
Just what i was thinking, would love to replace my windoze drive with one of these. Shame the kingston is just a SSD by name and not by performace. Does't apear that you can buy the Transcend for a decent price atm tho, only place listing it for £164.19 apears out of stock.
I was thinking about a new build with my os and some app on a ssd drive and all of my video on a WD VelociRaptor. Thanks to this terrific report I will just do that.
I was thinking about a new build with my os and some app on a ssd drive and all of my video on a WD VelociRaptor. Thanks to this terrific report I will just do that.
very surprised that OCZ werent compared (I guess they wouldnt provide a drive). I reckon they will be excellent value especially when they install the new sandforce controllers.
Also at the moment its more economical to get 2 x 120gb drives than 1x240gb drive. The real performance occurs when you RIAD stripe these drives. Then they really fly!!
In case I haven't misunderstood the concept, using RAID for performance would require RAID0, where 2x120 GB drives only would give 120 GB, as compared to the 240 GB of your suggested single drive.. No?
@Waxed, that would be for redundency not for speed (i.e. RAID 1). Striped drives (RAID 0) would give you a full 240GB but a single drive failure would screw your data.
Thanks for the article, after reading it I instantly shelled out for a Kingston Drive for my laptop (Dell D620). This currently has two hard drives in it. The standard one will be replaced by the SSD, the second hard drive is in a caddy which replaces the DVD. Currently I have a 250Gb ATA drive in this caddy. This arrangement works well for me as I never used CDs or DVDs - if I need them I encode them as video files and put them on the 250Gb drive. Hopefully the SSD will give me a much faster boot into Win7. I would not have thought of this arrangement if I had not read the article, so thanks again.
Many people might not realise is that a SSD as a boot drive is a tempting option for some laptops (many Dells and perhaps others) as well as for desktops.
I'm really starting to look forward to having an SSD as my boot drive.