OWC's $129.99 60GB SSD Does 556MB/s Reads

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
Why RAID 0 if you're already near interface saturation? OTOH, wow.
 

jacobdrj

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2005
1,475
0
19,310
5
[citation][nom]puzzledRAID[/nom]Why RAID 0 if you're already near interface saturation? OTOH, wow.[/citation]
In certain configurations, such as using a dedicated hardware server-grade RAID card, you may get more bandwidth than going over the included motherboard SATA III hardware...
Maybe...
 

mavroxur

Distinguished
Feb 8, 2009
1,490
0
19,460
58
[citation][nom]puzzledRAID[/nom]Why RAID 0 if you're already near interface saturation? OTOH, wow.[/citation]


Just because you reach per-port saturation, doesn't mean you reach controller saturation.
 

jcaulley_74

Distinguished
Jul 21, 2010
78
1
18,665
6
[citation][nom]puzzledRAID[/nom]Why RAID 0 if you're already near interface saturation? OTOH, wow.[/citation]
SATA ports do not share bandwidth with each other. Each port has the full badwidth available to it. So in theory, a 4 drive RAID 0 array on SATA 6Gb/s has 24Gb/s available to it. The controller will play a part in how well it manages this available bandwidth, and dedicated RAID cards will probably handle it better, but even motherboard integrated controllers should be able to utilize this bandwidth to achieve higher speeds than a single channel.
 

amlman

Distinguished
Oct 19, 2009
18
0
18,510
0
iwoott!
but it'll take months by the time they get over here (Israel), and they'll most likely cost double :(
 

JasonAkkerman

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2008
457
0
18,790
4
This is over $2 per GB. Yes it's a fast drive, but at those sizes you need at least two to support your OS and just a few apps/games (comfortably, as you don't want to reach capacity on an SSD). You have entered the land of diminishing returns.

You would be better off with two or three cheaper Intel, or OCZ drives in a RAID configuration.
 

festerovic

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2008
2,504
0
21,160
172
Plz correct me if I'm wrong - previous reviews on sandforce 2 controller SSDs mentioned that some of the features, such as garbage collection, may not work correctly when the drive is RAID'd on windows. Is this true of this particular drive also?
 

MagicPants

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2006
1,315
0
19,660
127
What I really want is a good cache drive. It should be 64gb, slc, and make good use of sata 3. I'd pay near $300 for that. With smart response it's got to be slc or you're going to see drives wearing out.
 

silky salamandr

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2009
277
0
18,810
9
People want the prices to go down but they dont want that. So they've done the other marketing ploy and making them faster like we need them faster becuase if your not transferring huge files the speed really is not returned in the real world.

I still have my rock solid intel 80g x25m that I refuse to "upgrade" until they get it together.
 

kyuuketsuki

Distinguished
May 17, 2011
264
2
18,785
0
I still have my rock solid intel 80g x25m that I refuse to "upgrade" until they get it together.
Same (well, mine's a Corsair Force 80g, but same idea). The real-world performance difference between these "high-performance" SSDs and previous SATA2 models is negligible for the majority of users. What the SSD markets needs is lower prices (and fewer glitches) to encourage adoption, not faster-and-faster drives that cost even more.
 

silky salamandr

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2009
277
0
18,810
9
[citation][nom]Kyuuketsuki[/nom]Same (well, mine's a Corsair Force 80g, but same idea). The real-world performance difference between these "high-performance" SSDs and previous SATA2 models is negligible for the majority of users. What the SSD markets needs is lower prices (and fewer glitches) to encourage adoption, not faster-and-faster drives that cost even more.[/citation]

Indeed!
 

silky salamandr

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2009
277
0
18,810
9
[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]Stop whining about high prices of these, you got to pay to play I say. Get another job if you cant swing it. Or hey Obama is in charge, it should be free then...[/citation]

Leave it to you and you only to say something stupid. Seems to be the trend from you these days. If you dont have nothing to add, then why waste your time and post. Step down from your box.
 

silver565

Distinguished
Dec 7, 2009
355
0
18,790
1
[citation][nom]amlman[/nom]iwoott!but it'll take months by the time they get over here (Israel), and they'll most likely cost double[/citation]

I'm in New Zealand.. we get it way worse...
 

Wish I Was Wealthy

Distinguished
Nov 23, 2008
937
0
18,990
3
Also these new stuff will always be higher in price than previous stuff,so we gotta expect it. These companies put a lot of money into these projects,so they have to seek some returns someway or another.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I'm willing to bet the real world performance is still, on average, in the 400s for reads, and 120-180 for the writes... Please allow some benchmarks to prove me wrong.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]Kyuuketsuki[/nom]Same (well, mine's a Corsair Force 80g, but same idea). The real-world performance difference between these "high-performance" SSDs and previous SATA2 models is negligible for the majority of users. What the SSD markets needs is lower prices (and fewer glitches) to encourage adoption, not faster-and-faster drives that cost even more.[/citation]

i have said it before, and i will say it again. these drives are fast enough, they need to stop focusing on speed and focus on price.

i would pay for an ssd, i would, but i need a 240gb drive minimum, and im not paying more than 50 cents a gb.
 

iam2thecrowe

Glorious
Moderator
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]i have said it before, and i will say it again. these drives are fast enough, they need to stop focusing on speed and focus on price. i would pay for an ssd, i would, but i need a 240gb drive minimum, and im not paying more than 50 cents a gb.[/citation]
i completely agree, i cant understand who is using only a 60gb drive as their main drive?? are you people nuts? even 128mb is too small. need at least 200gb minimum.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]iam2thecrowe[/nom]i completely agree, i cant understand who is using only a 60gb drive as their main drive?? are you people nuts? even 128mb is too small. need at least 200gb minimum.[/citation]

60gb main drive. i can think of a few uses.
main pc boot drive for someone who shuts down often
main pc boot drive for heavy on loading programs
laptop main drive, very useful here
laptop boot drive with a hdd for storage second

but i get what you mean, 60gb is nothing compared to todays games, oses, and programs.

most people want a ssd just for booting programs, which i admit, is fast. but i have a folder, that has 80gb of files, all rar and zip, that constantly takes minutes to load the folder, and as of yet, i have no real method to sort it.

what i want an ssd for isn't boot, but as a storage device with no seek time. i would take a 50mb read and write, just for that no seek time as it would make the drive seams almost godly in speed. granted that folder with the rar and zip needs a minimum of 1tb space, its the same for many of my files, the folders take a long time to load.
 

naidnerb

Distinguished
Jul 6, 2009
16
0
18,510
0
I am curious if import fees apply for EU member countries. I tried to buy an $500 3D TV from Amazon and have been asked for $200 more import tax.
They shouldn't charge extra for EU, this way we won't buy US made goods for now.
 

blackened144

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2006
1,051
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]iam2thecrowe[/nom]i completely agree, i cant understand who is using only a 60gb drive as their main drive?? are you people nuts? even 128mb is too small. need at least 200gb minimum.[/citation]
Windows 7, every program I need, and the game or 2 I play the most fits perfectly on a 64gb drive with about 20gb free.. Ive got plenty of storage for everything else in 2x750gb in raid0 and 2x2tb in raid0.. I cant understand someone who couldnt properly manage a 64/60gb drive..
 

nmodin

Distinguished
Jan 17, 2011
8
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]JasonAkkerman[/nom]This is over $2 per GB. Yes it's a fast drive, but at those sizes you need at least two to support your OS and just a few apps/games (comfortably, as you don't want to reach capacity on an SSD). You have entered the land of diminishing returns. You would be better off with two or three cheaper Intel, or OCZ drives in a RAID configuration.[/citation]

Well I use my laptop for development at work (as most codemonkeys here are) and a single 2.5" is what fits in my computer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY