Thinkpads Forum

Was I right to put "Large Pics" in the title?

Anyway, just wanted to share my experience of upgrading my (mother's) T42 from the original 4200rpm HDD to a new SSD.



This is what the performance of the lovely new SSD looks like.




As you can see, quite an improvement from the old HDD!

Boot up times with the old drive in place were around 3 minutes and 40 seconds, but with the new SSD this improved to around 56 seconds!

The new SSD has been put in an Ultrabay caddy bought from ebay for £7.00, with the old HDD still in the original bay for storage.

The only issue I'm having now is that the lack of power from the processor is much more noticable!

Yes SSD are a wonderful thing, even in an older system. In a newer, SATA II or III system, it's hard to go back to a HDD for boot and programs.

Yeah, I've gone for one in my T61 as well and it's now faster than most of my friend's i5 machines! (for everyday stuff)

Cigarguy wrote:Yes SSD are a wonderful thing, even in an older system. In a newer, SATA II or III system, it's hard to go back to a HDD for boot and programs.

Very hard indeed. In my desktop, I have a Crucial M4 SSD which hits close to 500MB/s on read and about 190MB/s or so on write on my Intel Z68 SATA 6GB/s controller (it's an older drive, newer drivers are much faster at writing). I had to send it back to Crucial in mid December because it just died, so I was on a Segate Barracuda HDD for about a week and that Seagate was not a slow HDD at all (7200 RPM, 32MB cache) and yet it just felt so much slower than the SSD. Things like Outlook which loaded instantly on my SSD seemed to take an age to load on the HDD. It was a blessing when I received my replacement M4 from Crucial just before the New Year!

I first got the M4 in October 2011, but before then I had been using hard drives for my whole life. It's just so easy to get used to the speed boost and then when you have to go back to being on a HDD, BAM, suddenly everything seems so much slower.

My Crucial M4 is ~260MBps on write, but it's the 256GB one. And it's true, it's hard to go back to a HDD after using a SSD.

I just finished my SSD conversion as well. Ridiculously fast. I opted for a OCZ Vertex III 128GB simply because I had it laying around ever since my macbook died. (anyone know why it would write letters on touchpad input btw?)

Other specs: P-M 765 2.1Ghz, 2GB ram, FireGL T2 128mb and Windows 7 Home Premium.

Cold boot in under a minute.

Just upgraded this laptop to a T60 and this is what the benchmarks look like with the same SSD:

Nice! Assuming if that you have a modern SATA III SSD, if you put it into a SATA II capable machine you'll see speeds around 250ish MB/s and 500ish MB/s range on a SATA III machine. The 4 K benchmark is what interests me as majority of r/w is in that range.

Throughput benchmark speed from a 7200 SATA drive in Ultrabay on a T40 is similar to your OP. However the SSD is still way faster because the latency and seek time is way faster. Something that affects computing speed but doesn't show in a benchmark.

Thought you lot would be interested in some tests I have done with SSDs over the past 6 months or so. Yes, I'm a bit of an 'SSD boss' and I've used quite a few of them now.


Crystal Disk Benchmarks:

Firstly, WD Caviar Green 2TB vs OCZ Vertex 4 128GB (I use both of these drives in my main machine) - Windows 7 Professional SP1 x64 (latest firmware).



Big difference in speed!

Secondly, OCZ Vertex 4 128GB vs Crucial M4 128GB (Second Generation - Dec 2012) vs SanDisk Extreme 240GB - Windows 8 Enterprise x64 (latest firmware).



The SanDisk may have an advantage reading because it is a larger drive and was on an Intel Z77 SATA 6GB/s controller whereas the others were on an Intel Z68 SATA 6GB/s controller. I do also have a 120GB SanDisk Extreme, but it's currently being used in a SATA II netbook I believe. I was using it in my desktop from September to December last year and the speed was about the same of that of the M4.


AS SSD Benchmarks:

OCZ Vertex 4 128GB - Windows 8 Enterprise x64 (latest firmware, Intel Z68 SATA 6GB/s controller)



AS SSD reports that the Vertex 4 can read at just over at 500MB/s on SATA 6GB/s.

Here is what my first generation Crucial M4 128GB (Oct 2011) got with AS SSD on Z68 6Gb/s - Windows 7 Pro SP1 x64.



Using different SATA 6GB/s controllers can also have an effect on the speed of the SSD, as demonstrated here by my first generation Crucial M4 128GB, using the Intel Z68 6GB/s on my motherboard resulted in faster speeds than using the Marvell 6GB/s did (Windows 7 Pro SP1 x64).



With SATA 6GB/s (or 'SATA III') you can usually expect reads of about 400-500MB/s. With SATA 3GB/s (or 'SATA II') you can usually expect reads of about 200-300MB/s. If you bought a SATA 6GB/s SSD which is capable of hitting 500MB/s, it will be bottlenecked by the SATA 3GB/s controller. I didn't realise this when I first got my Crucial M4 128GB in October 2011 and installed it in my PC (which only had SATA 3GB/s ports back then), so I was a little disappointed to see these speeds:



^ Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 x64

Even on SATA 3GB/s, you will notice the difference between an SSD and a HDD, and it will be hard to go back to using hard drives!

I'm not sure what speeds would be like on SATA 1.5GB/s though because I've never tried it. I imagine you'd be able to get reads of about 150MB/s max - still faster than a 5900 RPM HDD!


Another benchmark I used was Atto benchmark with a SanDisk Extreme 120GB - Windows 7 Pro SP1 x64.

I tend not to use Atto (I prefer AS SSD and Crystal Disk), but it showed that the SanDisk could hit 500MB/s read and write in some scenarios!



Because I prefer to use AS SSD and Crystal Disk, I haven't run any of the other SSDs with Atto.


With a SATA 6GB/s SSD running on a SATA 6GB/s controller, your Windows 7 Experience Index will 9 times out of 10 be 7.9 for the HDD, which is the highest score you can get. On Windows 8, you usually score around 8.1 out of 9.9.

A SATA 6GB/s SSD running on a SATA 3GB/s controller will usually score around 7.3 or 7.4 in the Windows 7 Experience Index, and I'm not sure what score you'd get with Windows 8.

With that being said though, the Windows Experience Index isn't a terribly accurate benchmark anyway.


So hopefully that was an interesting read and gave you an idea about three of the best selling SSDs out there perform. I'd like the next SSD I try to be a Samsung 840 or an 840 Pro. If I can get my hands on one, I will post up the Crystal Disk scores!

The bottom line is: SSDs are faster than hard drives - and usually more reliable too. Though with that being said, my original first generation Crucial M4 128GB actually failed in December 2012, some 14 months after I had purchased it. Luckily, Crucial sent me a free replacement second generation M4 for free.

Just a note with SSDs: the way to get the best performance out of them is to reinstall Windows fresh when you want to move to an SSD (make sure you install Windows with no other hard drives connected to your PC) and make sure you change the SATA mode in the BIOS to AHCI if your board has that feature (most do, but I'm not sure if older ThinkPads will). Enabling AHCI in the BIOS enables TRIM on Windows 7 and 8 which keeps your SSD running as fast as possible.

Nice writeup A31,

I've always just gone for the cheapest SSD I can find in the capacity that I want instead of focusing on their speed, I figured which ever I choose it's going to be a heck of a lot faster than any 5400rpm drive it replaces.

Once you use exclusively SSDs mechanical drives seem so LOUD!

A31 wrote:make sure you change the SATA mode in the BIOS to AHCI if your board has that feature (most do, but I'm not sure if older ThinkPads will). Enabling AHCI in the BIOS enables TRIM on Windows 7 and 8 which keeps your SSD running as fast as possible.

Excellent write-up, but I have an objection on this. Using a Kingston HyperX on a T500 AHCI gave me BSODs, freezing laptop and generally didn't work at all. With compatibility mode, everything runs smoothly and TRIM is enabled.

ilakast wrote:
Excellent write-up, but I have an objection on this. Using a Kingston HyperX on a T500 AHCI gave me BSODs, freezing laptop and generally didn't work at all. With compatibility mode, everything runs smoothly and TRIM is enabled.

I had the same issues on the T60, will there be no trim at all if AHCI isn't enabled?

Thanks for the comments guys! To answer your questions:

fleming164 wrote:Nice writeup A31,

I've always just gone for the cheapest SSD I can find in the capacity that I want instead of focusing on their speed, I figured which ever I choose it's going to be a heck of a lot faster than any 5400rpm drive it replaces.

Once you use exclusively SSDs mechanical drives seem so LOUD!

The SSD I tend to recommend these days is the Vertex 4 from OCZ. I did like my M4 (using it in another build now) but I don't tend to recommend now, not because mine failed, but because they're getting a bit old and there is faster stuff out there. Not tried a Kingston or Samsung drive yet, but I'm sure I will be able to in the future (I do a lot of builds for people and when they want an SSD, I use a different SSD each time. ).

It's not the noise of HDDs that I notice (though I only tend to use SSDs in desktops, not being too much of a 'laptop kinda guy' myself), it's the speed of them. Going from an HDD to an SSD is what most people do and they notice the difference. Try going back to a HDD from an SSD - MASSIVE speed difference lol. The SSD is so much faster.

ilakast wrote:Excellent write-up, but I have an objection on this. Using a Kingston HyperX on a T500 AHCI gave me BSODs, freezing laptop and generally didn't work at all. With compatibility mode, everything runs smoothly and TRIM is enabled.

I am 99.9% certain that if AHCI is not enabled, you don't have TRIM enabled either. Only Windows 7 and 8 support TRIM too, Vista and XP do not.

It seems odd you had issues. I've used AHCI on a number of ASUS and Gigabyte boards now and I've not had a problem. I recommend you either update your SATA drivers or your BIOS (or both!) and see if that fixes the issue. Though bear in mind, once you set the SATA mode in the BIOS to AHCI, you will need to reinstall Windows, because Windows will no longer be able to boot.

fleming164 wrote:I had the same issues on the T60, will there be no trim at all if AHCI isn't enabled?

Sounds a problem with IBM/Lenovo BIOSes here. If AHCI is an issue, obviously don't enable it, but try doing what is suggested above.

And yeah, I'm pretty certain that if AHCI is not enabled, nor is TRIM.

A31 wrote:I'm not sure what speeds would be like on SATA 1.5GB/s though because I've never tried it. I imagine you'd be able to get reads of about 150MB/s max - still faster than a 5900 RPM HDD!

Since the actual interactive speed benefit of any SSD is mostly related to ridiculously minimized random access times and not really to any SATA link speed differences, as erroneously measured by people's benchmark fetish and as amply demonstrated here by all those silly screenshots, there is indeed an astonishing performance boost even on this very first basic SATA level. SATA levels do have some relevance for certain usage scenarios, but for the overall felt random access boost provided by an SSD they are the least important aspect.

I have recently equipped a SATA 1,5GB/s limited T60 featuring a T7200 CPU and 3GB of RAM with a 128GB Samsung PM810 (OEM version of the Samsung 470), and this has turned it into a completely new machine, with the former random access speed limitations feeling no different than on my SATA II enabled T61. In fact, an SSD finally enables the full dormant potential which was already there in even such an "old" machine, but without ever getting a chance to become alive. The T60 has become really alive this way, and if one's usage scenario is not relying on CPU speed, such an update indeed grants it a whole new lease of life.

I have learned my lesson and don't even bother about any SATA link speed regarding any SSD, but rather prefer looking into well known reliability and maximum read/write cycle capability of the built in cells of these drives, almost regardless of its age. I only look for known good specific SSD drives and try to avoid those which boost themselves with all those silly benchmark drunk wonder features. For me these specific drives are the Intel Postville G2, the Samsung 470 (aka 810), and the Samsung 830, which all still feature data cells with a high amount of specified write cycles. The Samsung 840 Pro (featuring MLC cells) might prove to be a good replacement for the Samsung 830 once some time has passed and users have accumulated enough experience with it, but the Samsung 840 (based on TLC) i will avoid like the plague due to the limited value of specified TLC write cycles.

My approach is not based on certain brands, but rather on specific well known good drives, which have survived the test of times. I couldn't care less about any SATA related considerations choosing a SSD for the survival of my much more important data. Nonetheless, a regular backup is always mandatory.