Has anyone tried an SSD in the X41? *PICS*

[sjthinkpader]

Even a 60x card will seem fast for browser use. This is because there are a high number of files in a typical web page. You can see this by saving a web page. The seek time in HDD give CF a huge advantage.

Sorry, I am not sure to understand what you are saying. As far as I know, a 100x card is going at 15MB/sec, regardless of its capacity. A 66x 32GB card will not be faster than a 300x 8GB card, regardless of the types of files stored. I don't think the size of the card is relevant to its speed.

The Transcend card I bought is rated as 300x, and does around 45MB/sec in both read and write speed. Many cards like 133x have indeed a read speed of 133x 150KB/sec, but a much slower write speed.

What I am saying is that HDD will need to seek more when accessing many files used in web pages. In that case even a slow card will have an advantage as avg seek time is 10-12mSec.

If there are 10 files in a web page, within 100mSec (10x 10mSec) of total average seek time; a slow 100x CF card would have read 1.5MB and may be written 600MB.

It would be nice to have faster CF cards, but for certain application such as browser use, even a slow card will seem faster than HDD.

[sebtomato]

It would be nice to have faster CF cards, but for certain application such as browser use, even a slow card will seem faster than HDD.

I don't think modern browsers are saving all the assets of a web page to the file system before displaying them to you, so what you are talking about is anecdotal. Of course, there is caching, but if you have a lot of RAM and a fast connection, a large cache can actually slow down browsing, HD or not.

Your experience on a X40 with a slow flash card will be slower than with its original HD, starting with launching the web browser! If you want to get some visible increase of performance overall, starting Windows XP, launching applications etc, you need something which will have better performance than the standard hard drive, so more than 20MB/sec read and write. Even if you put a CF card with the same throughput as the HD, performance would indeed be better because of the much faster seek time. If you put something with much lower throughput, better seek time will not make much difference.

[sjthinkpader]

Flash cards have no seek time, only access time and cycle time. Which are in the order of 80-100 nSec. Verses 10 mSec for seek time. That's 5 order of magnitude difference.

You are right, browsers do caching in RAM. But individual elements such as radio buttons and sprites are being saved for other pages that use them. You can see disk activities as you page thru in the same website.

[loyukfai]

Please take in mind that flash writes are substantially slower when the transfer is small in size... The high/max. throughput rate is only achievable in large transfers...

I've tried using an "150X" SD in the X61T SD slot to store IE's cache. And the result is... Pity... Even slower than the spindling HDD, which has a much higher access time... Guess it's a combination of both 1) slow small write for flash and 2) write cache on the HDD...?

In case anybody is interested, my not-well-controlled test results are posted here: http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?p=445919

[weepy]

Try benching your sd card, you'll see that the card reader itself slows down a fast card. You'll get 1.3MB/s read and you'll be glad.

[loyukfai]

I've done some benchmarks with both CrystalDiskMark and HDTune and posted over that thread... But I must stress again that they're not that carefully-controlled.

But no, I was not getting 1.3MB/s read on the X61T. Even the tests on the X41T were faster than that.

All in all, it's my understanding that if you want to use flash memory to replace a hard drive, good small write speed is as important as high sequential throughput in many situations.

Cheers.

[sjthinkpader]

I ran the CrystalDiskMark 2.1 on my X40. Here are the details:

X40 Type 2386-5GU 1.2Ghz Banias, 768MB RAM
No name PATA to CF adapter

RiDATA CF 233X 8GB
Read speed 35MB/sec
Write speed 12MB/sec
http://www.ritekusa.com/product_specs.a ... ducts_id=3

File Read Write (MB), 5 pass average
Seq 39.11 4.449
512K 39.75 3.852 (random)
4K 12.50 0.042 (random)

Yes, random small file size write is very slow. Probably something to do with the Flash chip sector size being 512KB and a partially full sector will use read-modify-write operation. What is worse is erase-reclaim operation is very slow. Further more, the benchmark program may not use the flash chip feature to their advantage.

[aceo07]

I ran the CrystalDiskMark 2.1 on my X40. Here are the details:

File Read Write (MB), 5 pass average
Seq 39.11 4.449
512K 39.75 3.852 (random)
4K 12.50 0.042 (random)

The writes seem slow.

I got 39MB/s seq, 17MB/s 512K and 0.2MB/s 4K writes on my 300x Transcend card. I can't imagine that a 233x card would be that much slower.

[sebtomato]

I can't imagine that a 233x card would be that much slower.

I think this is expected, as some cards have a much slower write speed than read speed, and the speed quoted is the top one.

This is why my recommendation was to go for a Transcend 300x, as the read and write speed are similar, and the experience of running Windows XP Sp3 is much faster than the original HD.

Going for a 233x or slower will probably give a very different experience, and may not even improve on the stock HD.

[loyukfai]

sebtomato is on the point - Every flash card brand and model is built different. Even if they all claim to be "300X", their actual performance can still be much different from each other.

BTW, CrystalDiskMark has a text copy feature to export the result in a nice text format. And you may use the code tags to make them look nice, like this...

1.8" 40GB HDD

Code: Select all

--------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 2.1 (C) 2007-2008 hiyohiyo
      Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
--------------------------------------------------

   Sequential Read :   14.193 MB/s
  Sequential Write :   14.854 MB/s
 Random Read 512KB :   10.004 MB/s
Random Write 512KB :   10.860 MB/s
   Random Read 4KB :    0.237 MB/s
  Random Write 4KB :    0.562 MB/s

         Test Size : 50 MB
              Date : 2008/08/24 0:11:41

[sjthinkpader]

I can't imagine that a 233x card would be that much slower.

I think this is expected, as some cards have a much slower write speed than read speed, and the speed quoted is the top one.

This is why my recommendation was to go for a Transcend 300x, as the read and write speed are similar, and the experience of running Windows XP Sp3 is much faster than the original HD.

Going for a 233x or slower will probably give a very different experience, and may not even improve on the stock HD.

The most meaningful data will be all cards and HDD tested in the same system. So far we can only offer data of our own cards and systems.

All the datasheet info, 12MB write for RiDATA 233x, 45MB write for Transcend 300x, 45MB write for Sandisk Extreme III are all "internal testing". At least my testing showed the RiDATA 233x cannot reach their published rating in my system.

[sjthinkpader]

...

I got 39MB/s seq, 17MB/s 512K and 0.2MB/s 4K writes on my 300x Transcend card. I can't imagine that a 233x card would be that much slower.

Are these read speed (first column) or write speed (2nd column)?

The Transcend 300x datasheet lists the fastest write mode ito be 80nSec cycle time. With CF being two byte interface, the datasheet fastest write would be 25MB/sec. And yet the message above show 45MB write was achieve? Or was that a read speed?

[aceo07]

...

I got 39MB/s seq, 17MB/s 512K and 0.2MB/s 4K writes on my 300x Transcend card. I can't imagine that a 233x card would be that much slower.

Are these read speed (first column) or write speed (2nd column)?

The Transcend 300x datasheet lists the fastest write mode ito be 80nSec cycle time. With CF being two byte interface, the datasheet fastest write would be 25MB/sec. And yet the message above show 45MB write was achieve? Or was that a read speed?

Those are write speeds I got from using CrystalDiskMark. My scores are from a last month, which I posted in this thread too.

I think 45MB/s is possible in the optimal setup, which is probably not possible except by the manufacturer.

[flypenfly]

Just curious but how much can a 60gb X41 hard drive go for market value?

The ebay prices seem ridiculous.

[flypenfly]

So is this all that I'll need for the X41?

I understand in the X41 only 1 CF card can be used because of the controller limitation.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 0095221024

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 0274819339

Will the drive be a secure fit and not move around?

Admin edit: Shortened URL to prevent horizontal scrolling

[tim S]

That explains why I can't get the slave in my dual CF Addonics adapter to work!
The adapter looks OK but you'll regret not getting the fastest card possible. The Transcend 32G 300X (?), is about $175.00.
The adapter won't move once installed in an X 40/41 but getting the pins lined up can be a pain.
Tim S

[aceo07]

So is this all that I'll need for the X41?

I understand in the X41 only 1 CF card can be used because of the controller limitation.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 0095221024

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 0274819339

Will the drive be a secure fit and not move around?

It'll be secure, assume the cf adapter is secure. I don't know about the one you listed.

I would recommend a much faster cf card since that's the only one you'll use. Most people here are adamant that you should use 300x and I agree. If you get 133x, it'll be much slower than the 4200rpm drive.

[aceo07]

That explains why I can't get the slave in my dual CF Addonics adapter to work!
The adapter looks OK but you'll regret not getting the fastest card possible. The Transcend 32G 300X (?), is about $175.00.
The adapter won't move once installed in an X 40/41 but getting the pins lined up can be a pain.
Tim S

Where'd you find the transcend 32GB 300x for $175? I've been seeing that price for the 16GB 300x.

[flypenfly]

Ok thanks guys, so is this false advertising as a 133-300x?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 0253489177

Admin edit: Shortened URL to prevent horizontal scrolling

[aceo07]

Ok thanks guys, so is this false advertising as a 133-300x?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 0253489177

According to the pic, it's only a 133x card. I don't know why some website also like to state that it's a 133-300x card. Definitely not 300x.

[sebtomato]

Ok thanks guys, so is this false advertising as a 133-300x?

Might be close to 300x in read speed, in optimum conditions. However, it will probably be 133x in write speed.

I keep reading from people on this forum asking about whether cheaper, lower specification cards will work as the main CF card for the OS!

Let's be clear: if you want to be sure to have a boost in performance for a X40, and not have issues with fixed drive mode etc, just get the Addonics adapter and a proper Transcend 300x card as the primary card (the second card can be a lower spec for storage).

Buy anything else (even if the specification on paper is close, such as 266x cards), or a different adapters from eBay at your own risk, as you are likely to waste your money, have major issues installing Windows, no be able to fit the adapter, have a non UDMA system, have Windows locking up because of poor write speed etc...

Read the other posts on this thread and learn from the collective experience!

[gongo2k1]

wait, seb, so you're saying that i won't get good read/write out of a cheap mis-labeled cf on ebay and a cheap chinese adapter??

lol. c'mon folks, if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. get the real stuff, quality components make all the difference in the world.

[hurdadurda]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 0270597282

[sjthinkpader]

wait, seb, so you're saying that i won't get good read/write out of a cheap mis-labeled cf on ebay and a cheap chinese adapter??

lol. c'mon folks, if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. get the real stuff, quality components make all the difference in the world.

Are you saying the good adapters are not made in China? Or your new Thinkpad is made somewhere else?

[Bruno]

Hi guys,

I advice to everybody a CF Transcend 300x 16Gb, the speed is much better.

But I have two issues, my log off and switch off is too slow, i dont know why.
And my bluetooth isnt working (I made a clean instalation from a OEM CD). I just cant bring it work

THX for your help.

[sebtomato]

Are you saying the good adapters are not made in China? Or your new Thinkpad is made somewhere else?

No, that's not what we are saying: we are saying that good adapters and cards are from reputable brands.

If you buy a "no-brand" adapter (probably made in Asia), and a no-brand memory card from eBay, don't expect the solution to be optimum. The same applies to purchasing Sandisk cards from Chinese vendors on eBay: the large majority are fake, and just cheap, low spec rebranded cards.

For the CF card, I would buy a retail version from a reputable vendor, and not from eBay or Amazon Marketplace.

[gongo2k1]

For the CF card, I would buy a retail version from a reputable vendor, and not from eBay or Amazon Marketplace.

QFT
it's not worth all the risk and hassle just to save a couple $$$. for those of us who are lazy like me, i ordered online, but made sure that they had a b&m within 15 miles of here just in case i had to return it.

[sjthinkpader]

Are you saying the good adapters are not made in China? Or your new Thinkpad is made somewhere else?

No, that's not what we are saying: we are saying that good adapters and cards are from reputable brands.

If you buy a "no-brand" adapter (probably made in Asia), and a no-brand memory card from eBay, don't expect the solution to be optimum. The same applies to purchasing Sandisk cards from Chinese vendors on eBay: the large majority are fake, and just cheap, low spec rebranded cards.

For the CF card, I would buy a retail version from a reputable vendor, and not from eBay or Amazon Marketplace.

Chances are any adapter you buy will be made in Asia, branded or no brand, China or elsewhere.

These CF adapters are passive, they are just cards that remap the PATA pinout to CF I/O mode pins. So they are very little compatibility issues with branded or no-brand adapters.

I also agreed that CF card pricing is such that there are very little incentive to go mail order.

[sebtomato]

These CF adapters are passive, they are just cards that remap the PATA pinout to CF I/O mode pins. So they are very little compatibility issues with branded or no-brand adapters.

Apart from the fact that most CF adapters sold are not UDMA, and the large majority will not properly fit a X40 due to the 1st pin being on the wrong side, you are almost right...

If you want to ensure you get a UDMA adapter (would be very slow and bottleneck othewise), one which will fit properly, and one with two slots, I reitterate my advice to get the Addonics one.

[MrForgetable]

Hello.

I've been shopping around for an ultraportable and after reading practically the entire thread, I'd like some clarifications and guidance before I plunk down the money on an X40 and accessories that I would need for this project.

This is what I have gathered that I need (CF choices are based on what has worked best for people in the thread?):

1. Thinkpad X40
2. Addonics 2CF-IDE adapter ($30)
3. Twp CompactFlash cards
-Lexar 8GB 300X as master ($75)
-Sandisk 16GB Extreme III as slave ($75)
4. Windows XP installation CD
5. Blank CD
6. PC running Windows (is a MacBook Pro running Windows XP okay?)

Am I on the right track with materials listed above? What tools would I need for this? I have a Torx T6 and a Philips #00 currently. After I get the right equipment, I'll be able to move on to the procedural stuff.