X300 SSD Performance Benchmarks- pictures

[moore101]

Lenovo ThinkPad X300 6477-1UU with Samsung SSD Benchmarks

HDD Tune:



HDD Tach:

[hyperq]

77MB/sec seems to be slower than SATA 150 on paper. What is your user experience after using it for a few days, comparing to a regular 2.5" hard drive?

[poky]

Thanks for the posting!
I'm wondering what environment you are running?
Including the OS version and Intel Matrix Storage Manager.

[moore101]

77MB/sec seems to be slower than SATA 150 on paper. What is your user experience after using it for a few days, comparing to a regular 2.5" hard drive?

Windows boot and shutdown times are much quicker all other tasks seem comparable. Keep in mind that the drive is a 1.8" form-factor.

[moore101]

Thanks for the posting!
I'm wondering what environment you are running?
Including the OS version and Intel Matrix Storage Manager.

XP Pro SP2, Device manager shows: "Intel ICH8M 3 port Serial ATA Storage Controller- 2828" v8.2.01011.

Keep in mind that I ran this test after imaging the system with our corporate T61/X61 image, no drivers have been updated as they have not been released from Lenovo yet. Also the stock drivers on the Lenovo build are Vista only (I hate that). If I have time I will restore the OEM image and run the tests again.

[jketzetera]

SSDs usually perform very well in random and sequential reads. However, the true test of an SSD lies in the random writes. ATTO Diskbench shows how well drives perform random reads and writes in different block sizes.

ATTO Diskbench is a part of the ATTO HBA utilites and can be found on the internets.

[Jackboot]

Thanks for posting the benchmarks

Apparently there is a problem with intel chipsets limiting SSD transfer speeds. NVIDIA chipsets do not seem to suffer from the same problem.

Check out a discussion / benchmarks here:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdo ... i=3064&p=4

[computerpro3]

Something is weird though as he scored over the 80mb/s limit on the burst rate

A couple things are weird actually.

HDtune shows the 80mb/s limit correctly (assuming it still exists), but it shows too wide of a variance between minimum and maximum write speeds. A SSD should be a flat line in terms of performance.

HDtach shows the flat line correctly but seems to have inflated burst speeds, unless of course the limit is gone (which would mean HDtune is 20mb/s off).

Strange

[SHoTTa35]

hmm.. those look juicy. Seems it would be even better without that chipset limitation. I just love SSDs.

[experttease]

I know this is a can of worms, but, how does it compare to the benchmarks for the mac air ssd posted elsewhere online? I'm not sure how to interpret these tests as I know little about the technology, but I want to know whether it's worth waiting for the supposed hdd version of the x300 or not. thanks.

[radioactif]

Compared to the SSD in the MBA, the drive in the X300 just blows it.

In the MBA, you have a PATA drive that performs 55/25 (R/W), according to several tests and the benchmark on dvnation.com.

In the X300, you have a SATA SSD, not mass-produced yet, given 100/80 by Samsung.

So, I think it's wise to wait a little, to see if the increment in price equals at least the increment in equipment. If it's a 700$ option for example, I'll go for it without any second thought.

[hyperq]

A website compared the difference between SSD and HHD on MacBook Air. Here is the link:

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware ... review.ars

Summary:

The Good:

* No more entire machine slowdowns! (well, most of the time...)
* Speedy boot, disk read, and build times

The Bad:

* The moderate gains in everyday use aren't worth $1,300

The Ugly:

* Battery life. Still.

[experttease]

That's good to hear (I'm also sadistically pleased by the fact that the air has a relatively rubbish drive).

I presume the main honeytrap for the thinkpad designers was the data security in ssd having moving parts. I too am very disappointed by the reports on battery life though, and since I don't need to be able to drop my x300 5 feet onto concrete (I'd only do it to impress friends anyway, I'm usually quite careful...), I'm pefectly happy with the shock protection software for now.

I too would be quite excited by a $700 premium for ssd, except for the fact that post the english tax and bought-from-another-country-especially-the-US tax, that beautiful price would probably translate to £700. I note the ipod shuffle (or so my friend said), which is apparently £49 here, and $49 in the US.

[qviri]

note the ipod shuffle (or so my friend said), which is apparently £49 here, and $49 in the US.

Actually, the shuffle is £32 at the U.K. online Apple store. Google tells me that's 62 USD. (Apple Canada has them for equivalent of 54 USD).

It is a problem, though. The 32 GB iPod touch is $499 in U.S., $514 in Canada, and $641 in the U.K. after converting with today's rates.

[radioactif]

I may be able to have a friend bring one from Canada, let's hope I'll find the money

The thing is that the SATA controller is what consumes the more power un portable disk drives, and SATA SSDs do stick to the rule... I have been able to get something like 10, maybe 15 minutes more on my 2710p whose normal battery life under "word" mode is ca. 5 hours, since I swapped the drive for a Sandisk SSD.

[experttease]

Actually, the shuffle is £32 at the U.K. online Apple store. Google tells me that's 62 USD. (Apple Canada has them for equivalent of 54 USD).

Oh yeah, a quick look tells me he was probably mixing up 1 and 2GB versions.

it looks more like a 20% premium we pay.

---

Do not lenovo customers in the US also get regular discounts which we hear nothing of, though?