Thinkpads Forum

My current setup includes a ThinkPad T500 (2081) with a 500GB internal drive and a 500GB backup drive that I put (occasionally) into the ultrabay to backup my data files. I have 6GB Ram installed and am running Windows 7 Ultimate.

I often have six or more applications running simultaneously (Word, Excel, Outlook, ArcGis, PowerPoint, PaintShopPro, Firefox, Frontpage, etc). I am wondering whether upgrading to a SSD drive primarily for running my programs and current data files would provide me a significant performance boost? Is that the best way to increase performance with my current ThinkPad? Or, are there other upgrades/improvements that I should be considering?

The idea would be to replace the internal drive with a 1218 or 256GB SSD drive and then keep my 500GB hard drive more or less permanently in the ultrabay for accessing files when I need them. Has anyone else running that sort of setup, and, if so, how are your results?

What are the specifications of the SSD drive that I would need to purchase in order to be compatible with my laptop, i.e., with regards to size, type, brackets, etc?

Finally, what do you consider the best (value-wise) SSD drive that is currently available? What brands (if any) should I look for (or avoid)? And are there any great deals at the moment that you know of?

Thanks!

Of them, Firefox and PaintShopPro (and PowerPoint if you aren't using the 2010 version with GPU acceleration) would chew up CPU cycles like crazy. With 6GB, paging isn't a significant issue unless you're dealing with massive files across the board.

I'd recommend maxing out your CPU (I think it's the T9900?). My computer hovers around 40-50% CPU with a bunch of Firefox tabs open (about 40), downloading three files and listening to Winamp. When I kick a bunch of programs active, my CPU begins to max out fairly easily under multitasking.

Were you to put in an SSD, the loading of your programs would go by a lot quicker; seek time is more or less constant regardless of distance between files (that paradigm doesn't exist on an SSD). However, when it gets to the computationally expensive 'crunch-time' nothing will help your program out more than a fast processor.

baertracks wrote:What brands (if any) should I look for (or avoid)? And are there any great deals at the moment that you know of?

Just a few pointers on some of your options:

OCZ Agility/Vertex: Affordable, fairly well-tested (they've been out for a good while), but not as fast as Intel's drives

Intel X25-M (first generation): best choice if your OS doesn't support TRIM, affordable, very well-respected (reliability-wise), fast (but not the fastest)

Intel X25-M (second generation): faster than first-gen X25-M unless your OS doesn't support TRIM (in which case performance will degrade a bit more sharply), well-respected reliability-wise (although they haven't been out as long as the first-gen, obviously), slightly more expensive than first-gen

OCZ Agility 2/Vertex 2: fastest OCZ option, faster than X25-M, some reliability issues (lots of reports of spontaneous failure, myself included: I've had two such drives fail within months of purchase), affordable, uses a new controller by a company with no real consumer SSD history (SandForce)

Micron RealSSD C300: one of the fastest consumer SSDs available, uses a very new Marvell controller with not much of a track record, pricey

There are a bunch of other options, mostly from reseller who've re-labeled the above offerings, but nothing else is really worth considering IMHO (with the possible exception of the WD SiliconEdge).

Just a discliamer: I am biased. I caution folks against the SandForce controllers, but I think I have good reason to do so: I've had two SF-1200-based drives fail within months of purchase, and AnandTech was able to kill a couple SandForce-based drives within weeks (although admittedly they were review units.) Add that to SandForce's relative inexperience in the consumer SSD space (compared to Intel, who produced the first high-performance consumer-level SSD), and I have a tough time recommending them over the X25 series.

My recommendation: assuming cost is not a major factor, go with the X25-M if you're conservative or the RealSSD C300 if speed is everything and you're willing to try newer (potentially riskier) tech.

Just my $0.02.

As an addendum to the above: it also might be a good idea to check out some of AnandTech's articles on SSDs, such as this one (regarding the C300):

http://www.anandtech.com/print/3812

ThinkRob wrote:My recommendation: assuming cost is not a major factor, go with the X25-M if you're conservative or the RealSSD C300 if speed is everything and you're willing to try newer (potentially riskier) tech. Just my $0.02.

Thanks!
That is indeed very helpful and appreciated information.

Colonel O'Neill wrote:Of them, Firefox and PaintShopPro (and PowerPoint if you aren't using the 2010 version with GPU acceleration) would chew up CPU cycles like crazy.

Thanks! That's helpful and made me wonder about how many other things might be dragging down the performance of my laptop. So, I downloaded "PassMark Performance Test 7.0" ran all the tests and came up with a benchmark of 685! According to the website

the "PassMark rating" is a weighted average of all the other test results and gives a single overall indication of the computers performance. The bigger the number, the faster the computer. For example, a typical old Intel Pentium 4 3.20GHz, has a rating of about 700, while a Core2 Duo E8500 with 3GB of Memory may have a rating around 1250.

So, that would seem to indicate that my laptop has some serious performance issues. Perhaps it is "clogged" with programs running in the background? Anyway, it is something that I guess I should look into before investing in a faster CPU or SSD drive.

You've definitely got some issues there.

Run Lenovo System Update and CCleaner to wipe some useless stuff. Then download the trial for UltimateDefrag and defragment your drive.

Beyond that, use MSCONFIG to deselect unnecessary startup items and services.

Colonel O'Neill wrote:You've definitely got some issues there. Run Lenovo System Update and CCleaner to wipe some useless stuff. Then download the trial for UltimateDefrag and defragment your drive. Beyond that, use MSCONFIG to deselect unnecessary startup items and services.

Well, one problem is that I was running the PassMark Performance Test with programs open. I didn't read the instructions first. After closing all programs and running the test again the performance increased from 685 to 953.

I ran Lenovo updates yesterday as well as CCleaner. My laptop is defragged weekly using the Windows 7 defragger. I haven't change MSCONFIG settings for quite a while, so that may be where to look next.

I just ran PassMark 7 and got a total score of 731.6 running on integrated graphics (minus CD test).

Did you run yours on the integrated graphics card or dedicated graphics card?

I'm probably losing some points for being 32-bit (CPU test) and having a partition halfway into the middle of the drive (disk test).

Colonel O'Neill wrote:I just ran PassMark 7 and got a total score of 731.6 running on integrated graphics (minus CD test).

Did you run yours on the integrated graphics card or dedicated graphics card?

I'm probably losing some points for being 32-bit (CPU test) and having a partition halfway into the middle of the drive (disk test).

Integrated graphics card.

ThinkRob wrote: or the RealSSD C300 if speed is everything and you're willing to try newer (potentially riskier) tech.

I found an article describing the RealSSD c300 which says that
You will require a high quality SATA 6Gbps (also known as SATA 3) port to get all the performance that the C300 has to offer...

What does the need for a "SATA 3" port mean with regards to using this SSD in my ThinkPad T500 (2081) laptop? Will this plug into my laptop "as is", or will it require a special bracket (or something)?

baertracks wrote: What does the need for a "SATA 3" port mean with regards to using this SSD in my ThinkPad T500 (2081) laptop? Will this plug into my laptop "as is", or will it require a special bracket (or something)?

The C300 supports the latest version of SATA, capable of transferring data at twice the rate of the previous iteration. Your ThinkPad does not support 6Gbps SATA (it's the same physical connector, but a later version of the protocol.)

Fortunately, this only really matters for sequential reads/writes (i.e. copying massive files), and should have absolutely no tangible impact on normal desktop usage.

ThinkRob wrote:The C300 supports the latest version of SATA, capable of transferring data at twice the rate of the previous iteration. Your ThinkPad does not support 6Gbps SATA (it's the same physical connector, but a later version of the protocol.) Fortunately, this only really matters for sequential reads/writes (i.e. copying massive files), and should have absolutely no tangible impact on normal desktop usage.

Thanks!
That's very helpful to know, i.e., that this is a software (not a hardware) issue.

baertracks wrote: Thanks!
That's very helpful to know, i.e., that this is a software (not a hardware) issue.

Uh... perhaps I wasn't clear. It *is* a hardware issue -- just not one that's likely to matter for your usage (assuming you're an average user.)

ThinkRob wrote:Uh... perhaps I wasn't clear. It *is* a hardware issue -- just not one that's likely to matter for your usage (assuming you're an average user.)

You were very clear. And I was incorrect is saying "software." I was simply thinking of this in terms that I would not need to make any additional hardware changes in order to use that SSD.

baertracks wrote: You were very clear. And I was incorrect is saying "software." I was simply thinking of this in terms that I would not need to make any additional hardware changes in order to use that SSD.

Ah. Gotcha.

ThinkRob wrote: or the RealSSD C300 if speed is everything and you're willing to try newer (potentially riskier) tech.

What about that Crucial M225 256GB SSD? Would I be giving up much in terms of speed by using this one (and since my ThinkPad T500 doesn't support SATA III)? Are there other known issues with the M225 drive? It does include TRIM support.

The ad says... Crucial CT256M225 hard is part of the M225 series and is a spacious 256GB, while still offering performance & power efficiency far greater than a typical hard drive. The M225's TRIM support will help keep your SSD's performance like new, unlike other SSDs which slow down over time

baertracks wrote: What about that Crucial M225 256GB SSD? Would I be giving up much in terms of speed by using this one (and since my ThinkPad T500 doesn't support SATA III)? Are there other known issues with the M225 drive? It does include TRIM support.

A quick search indicates that the M225 is a Indillinx-based drive, so while it won't be as fast as the C300, it should provide good performance at an affordable price. Although I'm not familiar with this specific unit, I'd be willing to bet that it's more or less on par with the OCZ Vertex series (but not the Vertex 2).

ThinkRob wrote:A quick search indicates that the M225 is a Indillinx-based drive, so while it won't be as fast as the C300, it should provide good performance at an affordable price. Although I'm not familiar with this specific unit, I'd be willing to bet that it's more or less on par with the OCZ Vertex series (but not the Vertex 2).

Thanks. I found a good deal (I think) for the C300 including a data transfer kit for a bit under $500.

baertracks wrote:Thanks. I found a good deal (I think) for the C300 including a data transfer kit for a bit under $500.

I want to report that I have received and installed the Crucuial C300 256GB SSD drive. It's running great! It will indeed be difficult to ever go back to a standard HD after running at this speed.

The transfer kit that was included (Apricorn) worked fine. My only difficultly was in first making sure that all the disk errors were fixed on my old hard drive. The cloning program refused to begin the process until all errors were fixed. Running CHKDSK /R took about four hours, but got the job done.

Also, cloning from a 512GB drive to at 256GB drive worked well. I removed/backed up files on the old drive so that I would only have around 190GB before beginning the cloning process . And I ended up with using 170GB of disk space of the new drive.

BTW, I also disabled and physically removed Turbo Memory before installing the cloned drive as my primary drive.

FRANK

Hmm... I'm not sure I would have cloned the drive. SSDs benefit quite a bit from correct partition alignment, and in my experience a lot of "cloning" programs can't do the necessary fiddling.

Whenever I get a new drive I simply do a fresh install and migrate my data. 'course that's vastly easier in the Linux world, since I can have all the software I use installed automatically, and since my settings and data can be moved over with two commands...

Still, IMHO it's a good idea to do a re-install every once in a while, and a new drive is a good excuse.

Either way, welcome to the SSD world!

quote="ThinkRob"]Hmm... I'm not sure I would have cloned the drive. SSDs benefit quite a bit from correct partition alignment, and in my experience a lot of "cloning" programs can't do the necessary fiddling.[/quote]

I understand. Good point. And with your Linux setup I would have opted for the same approach, i.e., beginning with a fresh installation of Windows 7, and then reinstalling all programs and data.

In my case, however, I have more than 100 programs installed and configured on my laptop. While I would have been ready to "begin at zero" if need be, I was pleased to see that the cloning process was relatively painless.

Would my new SSD be better/faster with a fresh installation? Probably, but I'm not sure how I would even go about measuring that difference. Meanwhile, I'll simply enjoy the unfettered speed of my SSD "as is".

Cheers,
FRANK

baertracks wrote: In my case, however, I have more than 100 programs installed and configured on my laptop. While I would have been ready to "begin at zero" if need be, I was pleased to see that the cloning process was relatively painless.

Is it still a major hassle to install your applications to a directory on a separate partition? I know that when I last used Windows full-time (2000/XP era) it was not a workable solution -- but I also know that Microsoft has been trying to move developers towards making more self-contained applications, so I don't know if that's still the case.

Would my new SSD be better/faster with a fresh installation? Probably, but I'm not sure how I would even go about measuring that difference. Meanwhile, I'll simply enjoy the unfettered speed of my SSD "as is".

Yeah, it depends on the controller. IIRC the C300's controller copes pretty well with unaligned partitions, so it's probably not a big deal. Even in the worst case, your SSD will beat a mechanical drive on all the meaningful benchmarks. Enjoy!

baertracks wrote: Would my new SSD be better/faster with a fresh installation?

And what about the TRIM function? I hadn't thought about this before. I understand that with a fresh installation that Windows would have detected the SSD and automatically turned on TRIM. However, since I used the "cloning approach" does TRIM get turned on at some point? If not, then how do I turn on TRIM (or verify if TRIM is turned on)?

baertracks wrote: Would my new SSD be better/faster with a fresh installation?

I found this list of recommended configuration adjustments to be made to Windows 7 after switching to an SSD drive at http://www.hackourlives.com/ssd-hack-co ... windows-7/

I'd appreciate your advise as to whether you recommend that all of these should be implemented?

1. Disable defragmentation: most essential (might be off by default for a SSD)
2. Disable indexing: strongly recommended
3. Disable Write Caching: strongly recommended
4. Disable or reduce page file size: recommended
5. Disable Prefetch and Superfetch: recommended?
6. Disable system restore: recommended to free disk-space
7. Disable hibernation: option to free disk-space
8. Use SSDTweaker to check if TRIM is activated (and to make other adjustments)

baertracks wrote: I found this list of recommended configuration adjustments to be made to Windows 7 after switching to an SSD drive at http://www.hackourlives.com/ssd-hack-co ... windows-7/

3. Disable Write Caching: strongly recommended

There is no cache on the SSD, so there are no benefits to write caching. There are conflicting reports on whether this gains speed or not.

Simply reading that alone is reason enough for me to discard any future articles by the author. There are reasons to disable write caching, but performance isn't one of them. The explanation offered is nonsense on multiple levels.

Most SSD "tuning" tips that I've seen stem from the days of the crummy JMicron drives where the goal was to minimize random writes at all costs -- even at the expense of functionality. Now it's true that many of these tips (such as disabling indexing) will reduce I/O and thus may result in improved performance -- but since modern SSDs aren't as susceptible to being overwhelmed by small amounts of I/O, the performance improvement isn't (IMO) significant enough to warrant losing the functionality.

Agreed. Ignore the 'tips' on that list. Windows 7 will detect your SSD and optimize its performance for it. Enjoy your new drive. Be warned that you are spoiled now, and if you have any other laptops still on mechanical drives, you'll find your patience for them extremely short!

zhenya wrote:Agreed. Ignore the 'tips' on that list. Windows 7 will detect your SSD and optimize its performance for it.

Thanks for this advise (and of that from ThinkRob). I will, as you both suggest, disregard those "tips". I can see now how some of them might have been applicable in the days of small SSD drives when every GB was precious. With the new generation of larger SSD drives, however, the approach needs to be updated (and of course be technically correct).

I guess this issue here is whether/how Windows 7 will automatically adjust the settings required for an SSD drive when the new drive has been cloned from a mechanical hard drive (rather than beginning with a fresh W7 installation).

I am hopeful from your comments that those adjustments will be made automatically. On the one hand it appears that the TRIM function "kicked in" without me having to do anything. On the other hand, I noticed that the system the once-a-week defragmentation schedule that I had configured for the hard drive was not disabled. Is that an exception, i.e., a configuration that would not be under the W7 mandate for automatic detection/adjustment?

Given the number of people who may be switching to SSD drives, it seems like there should be a good documentation on what configuration adjustments (if any) will be needed for this scenario (cloning W7 to a SSD drive). Does anyone have a good reference from Microsoft for that information?

I found a program called SSD Tweaker (by http://www.elpamsoft.com). I'd appreciate your opinion as how reliable you think that program is. It may be all that I need for my situation.

I also appreciate your friendly "warning", but it is too late -- I'm already spoiled!

Hi all, I just upgraded my T500 and I want to share my experiences.

I chose an OCZ Vertex 2 240 GB SSD which cost me $450 from Amazon. Seemed like a great deal. It came with firmware 1.24 preinstalled.

I knew before I bought it (from reading other forums) that the drive wouldn't mechanically fit in my T500 without some modification. I had to use a dremel to cut down the aluminum OCZ box so that it would fully insert into the drive bay. For some reason, Lenovo has a circuit board sticking a bit into the bay, and the drive that shipped with my machine has a geometry that accommodates this. Once I did this, using the old HDD as my guide, it fit just fine, including the original tray, rubber rails, and all.

My T500 (2081-CTO) already had Windows 7 and lots of apps/data, so I opted for a cloning procedure rather than a clean install. I first tried the Apricorn EZ Upgrade kit with EZ Gig III software (the same enclosure with EZ Gig II worked for me in the past with my T43) but it was not able to even read my drive. (It requires you put your old drive in the enclosure and your blank new drive in your ThinkPad.) I recommend against even trying this. Save your time.

So I used a totally different approach and it worked. It requires three things:
1) Your machine already runs Windows 7,
2) Your new drive is bigger than your old one (or you've shrunk your old one down using the partition tool so that it appears smaller)
3) You have access to an external USB drive that's big enough to hold a disk image of your old HDD.

Here's the entire procedure:
1) Modify aluminum case of Vertex 2 SSD to fit in my T500
-----Use dremel to cut back portion of case that interferes with T500 circuit board
2) Use Windows 7 Backup to create disk image of T500, on external USB HDD
3) Use Windows 7 Backup to create Emergency Restore Disc on a blank CD
4) Remove old HDD from T500, install new Vertex 2 SSD into T500
5) Boot from Emergency Restore Disc
6) Use Windows 7 Backup to restore from image to new Vertex 2 SSD
7) Disconnect USB drive, remove CD, boot a couple of times until everything works

The advantage of this (as I see it) is that Win 7 and the native hardware are responsible for all the writing of the new drive, which (one would hope) takes care of block alignment, setting the right number of heads, and whatever else I may not know of. Of course you have to have a large external USB drive lying around, which many of us do these days.

Now my machine shows a very fast CrystalDiskMark and the storage system gets 7.6 in the Windows Experience Meter. Plus the machine just feels [censored] faster.

Hope this helps someone out there... Good luck!!!

Seems like an awfully expensive part to take a demmel to. Wouldn't this void your Vertex warranty?