128GB SSD Brand and Model

[PanEuropean]

---

seinberg wrote:
The two Samsung drives [are] rated at 220 MB/s.  The Corsair 128 GB that came with my laptop is rated at only 90 MB/s.

---

Guys, I don't want to disturb the pity party, but do you think that you would even benefit from the difference between the two?

I have a W500.  When I look at the system performance scores (the rating that the Windows OS provides), I see a primary hard drive rating of 6.9 (using Windows 7, which rates up to 8.0).  This indicates that my primary hard drive, which is a mechanical device, is fairly quick.  But the overall rating for the computer is bogged down by a lower score for the graphics processor and for gaming graphics.

In other words, as long as your hard disc is the fastest thing (the highest rated thing) on the laptop, I doubt if you are going to see much more of a performance improvement by putting an even faster hard disc in the machine.  That is kind of analogous to a teenager who puts a wing, a K&N cold air intake, and 18 inch tires on Mom's hand-me-down Honda Accord, forgetting that it only has a 2.5 liter engine in it. 

Michael

[Voodoo]

Point taken,

but what we are talking about is typically the slowest part of system, disk i/o.  I would say most people wait longer for their disk access than their cpu or graphics card.  Also keep in mind that the GPU is optimized towards a 2D workstation, not a 3D gaming system.  If my system boots twice as fast with SSD then its worth having.

For the other poster, my assumption is that the Samsung PB22-J is used, per a link found in the W700 description.

[seinberg]

Michael --

I don't even know where to start in replying to your dismaying lack of knowledge.  (Though I find it ironic that your tone was that of someone who speaks with some authority).  Yes, I do think that there is a performance difference between the two drives.  In fact, it's a very significant one.  One major advantage of the W500 (over the T61) is that it has true SATA II bus speeds, hence it can take advantage of the fastest SSD drives.  This means 90 MB/s is significantly slower than 220 MB/s. Your hard drive is even slower.  The Windows performance scores are very crude, very unreliable measures that take few scenarios into account.  It's comical that you'd put so much confidence in them, and interpret the hard drive and video scores as if they could be compared somehow.  Furthermore, as Voodoo said, the hard disk is the single largest bottle-neck in any system.  The vast majority of time in most computer use is spent waiting for disk I/O.

Perhaps a Lenovo rep can answer the question?

Moderator Note; inappropriate comment removed.

Message Edited by andyP on 06-23-2009 08:02 AM

[andyP Community SuperMod]

I have edited one post and removed another as they contained inappropriate comments.

In the forum rules it states;

"It is fair to state disagreement with facts or conclusions that another member has posted, but dissent must be expressed in an objective, and reasoned manner. Treat others with the respect you wish to receive. Remember that the community is here to share collective experiences and wisdom, with the goal of all members enjoying greater success with their Lenovo products. Consider whether your comments serve to advance the discussion in a positive direction."

Thankyou in advance.

[bmal]

Hi Guys,

I can confirm that having an SSD vs. a traditional HDD is a signifcant speed boost in the W500. As was said, disk I/O is the slowest part of the system, so I would go so far as to say that for most usage having a faster disk drive provides more of a performance boost than a faster CPU. The OS is loading much faster, as are all apps.

For those having trouble with the Samsung based SSDs (OCZ Summit, Samsung) give the Indilinx based SSDs (OCZ Vertex, Vertex EX, G.Skill Falcon FM) a try. It works in my W500, and it's fast.

[PanEuropean]

---

I can confirm that having an SSD vs. a traditional HDD is a significant speed boost in the W500.

---

I wonder if the performance gain is contextual.  In other words, sure, if someone is working with very large files - for example, huge Photoshop or CAD files - then I could easily see that increasing disk I/O speed would yield an immediate and noticeable return.

However, for the majority of work that folks do - communication, browsing, Office applications, etc. - I kind of suspect that the performance gain would not be significant.  I think that the Intel Turbo Memory chip (with the ReadyBoost function) was designed to address the question of getting much faster access to frequently used executable data (as opposed to files that the user modifies).

Michael

[seinberg]

Yes, of course, everything is contextual.  But anybody who opens and closes programs often is going to see a *noticeable* performance benefit by using SSD.  If you leave your browser open all day and don't use programs that swap information out of memory fairly often, the context is this: you don't need a fast computer at all.  You might as well have a Netbook in that case.  Every context in which you see the hard drive light blinking--that is, most of the time--SSD is going to speed things up.

[Voodoo]

You don't have to work with large files to benefit from SSD.  Opening just one file results in some number of seeks, each seek taking some amount of time.  For just one file these add up, not including time required to move the actual file.

This may be a bit simplistic but;

Let's say I gave you 100 bricks all at once.  Very quickly you would have them all.  But, I can't carry that much so I only give you 3-4 at a time.  This means I must turn around to grab more bricks while you wait for the next handful.  Eventually you'll have 100 but only after some waiting.  This is similar to a mechanical drive.

Now let's say I'm extremely athletic and have very large hands.  Not only can I lift 10 bricks at a time, I can pick up and hand them over much more quickly.  This is like an SSD.

Of course seek times aren't the only measurement affecting throughput, the rate at which you read data matters as well as other factors.  A number of operations are required to move one bit of data and different drives will have varying degrees of ability for each type of task.  In the end some may be better at moving large files while others may excel at moving smaller files.

A disk drive with a 9ms seek time won't be as fast as a flash drive with 1ms seek time.  A disk that reads file data at 75Mb/s will not be as fast as an SSD that can read it at 220Mb/s.  The conclusion is that a quality SSD will almost always be faster than a spinning disk.  People aren't paying big bucks for them just because they are 'cooler'.  They're paying for real performance and the hope it will keep up with their very speedy CPUs and GPUs.

Message Edited by Voodoo on 06-23-2009 03:17 PM

Message Edited by Voodoo on 06-23-2009 03:24 PM

Message Edited by Voodoo on 06-23-2009 03:26 PM

[antskip]

once the physical arrangements are right, ocz summit works just great with W500! an absolutley silent machine. amazing! just what i wanted. worth every penny.

Message Edited by antskip on 06-24-2009 12:22 AM