Did you do some benchmarks?

Processor L2 cache is used always and automatically, though it can be disabled in some bioses. "0" value in the SecondLevelDataCache tells programs and services to detect L2 size themselves from the HAL and default to 256KB if they fail.

Reference:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/183063

Courtesy of systema, here is benchmark on the Lenovo SSD option. The very fast small file random write is probably due to the write buffer in the controller. Otherwise about the same performance as a 5400rpm HS122JC HDD.



I am ready to add the Kingspec data if someone had ran a benchmark, no sellers please (i.e. meaningful posts other than Kingspec required).

I don't want to sound picky, but I can barely read the numbers in the table... Would be possible to make the screenshots bigger? I can imagine that with many new models to come the table will get wider and the fonts smaller.

OTOH, could you tell me the model number of the 80GB Toshiba drive in the table?

Thanks and cheers!

Yes, the table is getting too large for the pix posting limit. That Toshiba drive was MK8009GAH. I posted some comments on Aug, 8.

Thanks!

The table will get bigger. I've just ordered a Toshiba MK8025GAL from a Chinese Ebay seller. It should arrive around 3 weeks (will probably take longer due to X-mas). I'll send you the benchmark data when I get everything working...

This MK8025GAL and the MK6028GAL look to have micro ATA connectors, not ZIF. There are adapters to fit in 2.5 inch slots but will not fit in 1.8 inch slots without a lot of work.
http://sdd.toshiba.com/main.aspx?Path=S ... ifications

Toshiba has a single platter 160GB MK1634GAL that should be highest performance for the X4x series but pretty expensive at the moment.
http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2009_09/pr1001.htm

Meanwhile, the Samsung HS082HB and HS122JC remained the highest performance for the best value.

Oh oh... Not good...

According to the seller (I know to take their specs with a grain of salt) this adapter should be compatible: http://cgi.ebay.ch/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250468768288&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

My logic was that if the drive fits the adapter and the adapter fits the slot it should be fairly easy. Which kind of lot of work do you expect I will have?

I've seen the Toshiba 160GB but I also found it too expensive, the same for the HS122JC. For the latter I'm tracking the prices in Ebay and other sellers and hope that some day prices will go down a bit. As long as they don't go down from my self imposed limit of 100 USD I won't buy them...

Thanks for calling my attention on this!

Cheers...

I think you need one of these adapters:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 0422311834
Since the connector is on the short side of the HDD, it will stick out the front of a X41.

I think you are ok. The Toshiba website picture looked to be micro ATA but this ebay item below clearly indicates a ZIF connector.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 0291298282

Geeez... Don't scare me like this just before going to bed!!

I will sleep peacefully then...

Now I just have to be patient... the seller told me HK post is saturated with work...

Got my Toshiba MK8025GAL some days ago and it's already installed in my X40. Before I run the benchmark I have some issues I'd like to confirm:

- I've just installed Win7 but lots of drivers are still missing (audio, wireless, graphics, etc.). I expect this has no impact on Crystal Disk Mark's results, right?
- I have only 512MB and Win7 is a real slug. I expect this has no impact on Crystal Disk Mark's results as well, right?

Thanks in advance for the clarification!

512MB is huge for Crystaldiskmark. You may want to add the intel chipset driver, XP version.

After following the instructions of several threads here and other forums as well I'm still having lots of trouble trying to install the $@#£& drivers

Is this really necessary to reflect a representative Crystal Disk Mark? I just want to finish these benchmarks and then go back to Ubuntu as soon as possible.

So far I've run it three times:
... in safe mode
... with standard VESA drivers
... with (kind of) more&less working Intel drivers (they will reinstall after booting)

All of them bring different results. Which one it the one to be trusted more?

Cheers

How different are the results?

Hi sjthinkpader

I've put the results in my Non SSD thread here. Would you mind adding them to your table? PM me if you need the results in a more friendly way. I have a Open Office Spreadsheet somewhere here...

Cheers...

Tasurinchi tested a single platter Toshiba 4200rpm HDD, MK8025GAL. Result showed to be one of the fastest HDD available, especially for small file read and write.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=83139&start=30

About on par with the other 80GB single platter model from Samsung in overall performance.





There are now larger capacity single platter drives available. But they are expensive and many are based on 2K sector size instead of the normal 512byte sector size.

Thanks sjthinkpader!

The table is getting bigger, and I see you manage to increase the font size

cheers!

There were no changes in the CF, SD card results and were reported in earlier tables. They had been removed from this table.

I bought an 8GB Patriot 266x CF card. WinXP was loaded and Crystal DiskMark ran on it. While read speed was reasonably fast, write was slower than Sandisk Extreme2, RiDATA 233x and Centon 200x cards.

So I ended up buying the Transcend 400x 16GB card from Newegg. It arrived today and I started testing it on an X40 2372-W96, which has a Dothan 1.4GHz LV and 1.5GB RAM. Using an Addonics dual CF adapter, I did a clean install of Windows XP SP3 (not with recovery disks) using the X4 base. It took just over 30 minutes, which was not bad, but definitely quite a bit slower than say, doing the same on a T42 with a Samsung 160GB. After a few minor tweaks (disabling windows system restore, drive indexing and page file), I immediately installed CrystalDiskMark and did 3 runs. Here's the first one:



And the rest are here:

http://tinypic.com/a/1me85/2

While the numbers look pretty good, at least when compared to the CF cards sjthinkpader and others have tested, I have to say I am a bit disappointed. Comparing this to a Kingston Ultimate 266x 8GB card that I have on another X40 that I have been using for just over a year now, this Transcend card 'stutters' quite a lot more. I first thought maybe for some reason it was not running in UDMA-5, but that I checked and it was.

For comparison, here are the 3 runs from the Kingston Ultimate 266x 8GB:

http://tinypic.com/a/1me8j/2

The one thing I know is that this Transcend 400x card has MLC cells, as supposed to SLC in the 300x version. I have no idea what's in the Kingston Ultimate 266x since I can't seem to find this information on Kingston's website. I wouldn't be surprised though if the Kingston has SLC, simply from the higher write speeds when compared to the Transcend card. The other thing is, I don't have any drivers on this X40 right now (not even Intel Chipset), I will install everything later tonight or tomorrow and report back if there's any improvements.

Here is the revised table to include both Transcend 400x and Kingston 266x tested by georgelam:

It is clear that the Kingston 266x has the fastest write speed.

I want to thank virge for contributing the Samsung 32GB SSD data and ricerocket contributing the Kingspec 64GB SSD data. I added the fastest CFs and HDDs from other tables to make a list of fastest devices for the X40/X41/X41t 1.8 inch HDD slots.


The Kingspec is very fast for larger file sizes. The Sandisk SLC SSD remain the fastest for small file sizes.

I am about to become a new owner of an old x40, and certainly I am weighing my hard drive options.

Does anyone know the limitations of the Addonics (or a similar) dual adapter. I was thinking perhaps two fast (SLC, perhaps) 8gb CF cards could be combined in a dual adpater with a software raid 0. However, if the speed of the adapter is limited, this is just a silly idea. Well it is a silly idea, anyway.

Ultimately, I would really like to find a resonably fast (preferably without stutters) 16gb solution for around 100USD. Is the Kingspec (or similar) really that much more superior to the CF cards as a main drive. I realize nothing will be perfect.

For some reason I kind of like the idea of the CF cards, because

1) Potentially useful outside of my notebook
2) More of a DIY project
3) Raid CF cards just sounds really fun/goofy
4) Don't have to be ordered from Hong Kong off of eBay, thus having a "real" warranty

By the way, I am a linux user, if this will be of any help.

Thanks,
Ryan

I have a 2 slot CF adapter and haven't been able to boot from it. It does work with two cards and seen as two drives. Not quite sure if the Addonics design is same or not.

That Kingston 266x CF is very fast but not cheap. The RiDATA 233x is not fast but cheap.

Not quite sure if this guy's problem is due to the Kingspec.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=85586
You can PM him to see if he had identify root cause.

I have a Western Digital 250GB WD2500BEVE drive in use but never tested it for speed. It was taken out when upgraded to a 320GB WD3200BEVE and sat for a few month. It is over half full but defrag'ed before testing. As expected it was right between the 160GB and 320GB versions. The small file read is a tad slower than 160GB but I think this is because the drive being more than half full, so the head moved further and played a part in the benchmark results. The WD PATA drives are some of the fastest drives still available from store shelves.

Hello -- I recently acquired two Thinkpad X41 notebooks on ebay without the hard drives. I've been reading the forum threads here on the various CompactFlash SSD drives that folks use. I've also brought two different kinds of IDE to compact flash converters also on ebay, and both seem to work fine:

The CF-IDE44 .B1 adapter
http://www.r3cube.com/A-Ric/regan/cf-44-b1-2.JPG

and the PA-CF18H Rev A adapter
http://hosting.dinodirect.com/hosting/8 ... -ssd-3.jpg

I used two different 8GB Compact Flash modules:

1) The Transcend "Industrial" 45X version -- This module actually works well but it has slow writes but one I got Windows XP Pro installed it works great and very stable.

2) The Ridata 233X version which was recommend in this thread based on overall low costs but decent (not best) performance. This is the card that I am having issues. I have the same issue with both adapters, and on both X41 laptops. Basically what happens is that the HD activity light often stays ON as if there is continuous activity (read or write I cant tell) but there is no blinking in the light not even a slight blink indicting normal activity access. I can try to open up windows programs or control panel but often the program will just pause and hang there for a while before it resumes.

Does anyone else have this issue, do I have a bad card? the initial windows xp pro loadup works very well but then the solid HD light comes on soon after. I even disabled internet/wifi access to prevent Windows Update from occuring since this is a new install but same thing happens. It seems to hang with writes.

Thanks

Welcome to the forum.

Try turning off file indexing. Run the Eraser program according to my post in the SSD Sticky thread. I have quite a few of these RiDATA 233x 8GB and 32GB cards and so far they have not had a failure yet.

Thanks for the reply -- I do have windows file indexing disabled, I also have disk write-ahead caching disabled as well (someone else suggested turning that off for compact flash/SSD). I have also now tried disabling the virtual memory page file by having it set to zero. One thing to note is that on this X41 model 2878 with pentium 4 1.5ghz CPU, I only have 512MB of memory running Windows XP Pro SP2. I just ordered up a 1GB PC2-4200 SODIMM module to boost it to 1.5GB to see if that helps any. I'm currently only running 2-3 Internet Explorer 6 windows for basic web browsing and its sluggish. I have noticed that once I disabled the virtual memory page file, the "hanging" solid HD light seems to have gone away. Maybe it wasn't really solid/hanging but rather the virtual page file was being accessed and the read access is fast enough that the HD light doesnt actually "blink".

I'll continue to monitor the performance before and after adding more physical SODIMM memory...

The X41 has 512MB onboard, but does it support dual channel memory when you add another 512mb -- versus 1GB module which might not then support dual channel because of the mismatch?

Thanks

More RAM definitely will help. More RAM will be more beneficial than dual channel.

Here is various data on SATA HDDs and SSDs.
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=86750&p=591784#p591784