Corsair Force Series 3 SSDs Hit 550r/520w MB/s

[JOSHSKORN]

Hurry up and release 1TB SSDs already.

 

[Guest]

I suspect you meant to write 85K IOPS. I don't think you could even test 85,000,000 IOPS reliably.

 

[nebun]

[citation][nom]buzznut[/nom]AFAIK, raided SSD's still cannot perform trim.[/citation]
who cares?...the controlers on the ssd themselves take care of the junk info

 

[TitusFFX]

ehh i'll just stick to normal hard drives ^.^ since a faster OS really isn't all that important to me as long as I can do what I want with it.

>.> larger space may be better but first look at what your going to use it for then ask yourself if you would actually benifit from using aggressive read and write rates over a standard sata II hard drive

 

[enforcer22]

[citation][nom]mayne92[/nom]...not to be negative but that is pure speculation.[/citation]

Its also for the most part true. The cost of the size you get almost guaranties it. But as the prices slide down and the sizes get larger at a better price point this will be less common. I couldn't even come close to fitting a fraction of my programs and games on the 128 gig ssd i have. So while it might be speculation as you put it the size is a huge limiting factor. That and the limited writes though likely wont inhibit many people a lot keep it in mind when installing some programs to it. I do try to load my most common used programs to my ssd but its almost full. You have to priorities when it comes to SSD unless you have deep wallets.

 

[gavjof]

[citation][nom]TitusFFX[/nom]ehh i'll just stick to normal hard drives ^.^ since a faster OS really isn't all that important to me as long as I can do what I want with it. >.> larger space may be better but first look at what your going to use it for then ask yourself if you would actually benifit from using aggressive read and write rates over a standard sata II hard drive[/citation]
Once you have had the pleasure of using a SSD for any length of time you will realise that having your OS drive super quick is something you cannot step back from. Even a modern HDD feels sluggish.

The best way I can describe upgrading from a HDD to a SSD is to say it is comparable to upgrading from an old core2duo to a modern Core i7.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

[citation][nom]TitusFFX[/nom]ehh i'll just stick to normal hard drives ^.^ since a faster OS really isn't all that important to me as long as I can do what I want with it.[/citation]

Frankly, I am not impressed with SSD's. Yeah, they certainly rock in benchmarks but I challenge anyone outside of the video editing, CAD, 3D Rendering, Photo Retouching an a few other "specialized" communities to make a business case for them.

Here's the results of my testing:

Seagate Barracuda XT (2TB) - 21.2 seconds to boot to desktop
OCZ Vertex 3 (120 GB) - 15.6 seconds to boot to desktop

Woot .... I saved 5.6 seconds ! Assuming that time wasn't eaten up by the human side of the equation, 5.6 seconds x 232 work days per year per year x $50 / hr staff costs x 3 years = $54.12 per year saved. Prices are gonna have to drop a lot for there to be any ROI (Return on Investment) there.

I can certainly understand wanting to squeeze all you can out of a system and understand that having one is "worth it" to most enthusiasts. However, if someone is going to claim a business case, it's got to save more money than it costs and the results just aren't there for 99% of business settings. And that doesn't even include the "human factor" that most PC's spend their time waiting for user input.

I arrive at the office to a pile of phone messages and / or flashing light on my phone. I plop down the lappie, hit the on button and then either:

1. Read my handwritten messages (typically post-its)
2. Listen to my phone messages
3. Push the "Large Cup" button on office coffee machine.

All of those take far longer than the difference in boot time between an SSD and HD. Your word processing, web surfing, spreadsheet experience just isn't going to change with an SSD. Business productivity simply is not going to change with an SSD unless of course you are in the 1% mentioned above. The PC simply spends more time waiting for user input than the other way around.

Even for gaming, my testing loading an MMO from the HD and from the SSD resulted in no change at all....in fact in 2/5 test runs that I did, the SSD came in slightly slower.

In short, yeah running those HD benchmarks certainly showed whopping differences between the Vertex 3 SSD (550ish)and Barracuda XT HD (145ish). But in actual usage, I really am not wowed by the relative performance between the two which may be in a great part due to the XT's rather large 64MB cache.

 

[fir_ser]

[citation][nom]NuclearShadow[/nom]Hmm two 120GB's for $438 or one 240GB for $499? Even if you try to justify that price due to it being a single drive with all that storage it doesn't make up the fact that superior performance can be had with RAID 0.Or if one prefers not putting all their eggs in one basket two drives are less likely to both fail compared to a one.[/citation]
Good point there.

 

[fir_ser]

These SSD are speedy, too bad my laptop doesn't support SATA 3.