What is best SSD for Intel's smart response tech?

[ad3k]

like in the topic name.
Im looking to get ssd for asrock z68 extrme3 gen3 and i have a very hard time selecting the best choice.

Im debating on intel 311 laeson creek 20gb or crucial m4 64gb or ocz vertex 3 60gb.
If you know any better i beg you to help me choose!

[Anusha]

define best.

cheapest? most bang for the buck? fastest?

if i'm getting one today, i'd get the Crucial M4 64GB.

[cadaveca]

Max supported size is 60GB. Get a fast 60GB SSD as that's all you need.

That said, you might just want to install the OS to the SSD, anyway.

[TheLaughingMan]

I would go with the M4 as well. While its write speed is slower, it won't matter as the system will still be limited by the speed of the HDD for writes. The M4 has great read speed for the caching and the extra 4 GB can just be used for provisioning, right?

[Anusha]

Originally Posted by TheLaughingMan

I would go with the M4 as well. While its write speed is slower, it won't matter as the system will still be limited by the speed of the HDD for writes. The M4 has great read speed for the caching and the extra 4 GB can just be used for provisioning, right?

Max size supported is 64GB, not 60GB. but even the drive won't have 64GB user accessible space right? It'll be like 60GB anyways.

However, what you said about write speed limitation is not applicable if you use the maximized performance mode. It will do write back caching which means writes will only be done to the SSD until they are commited to the disk. Perhaps when idle or after a set period. But that will be dangerous if you lose power or PC crashes. Optimized mode is what everyone should use.

Also, M4 is almost as fast or sometimes faster than Sandforce when it comes to incompressible data. I believe the data that will be cached are mostly incompressible, because they are parts of compiled code aren't they?

[btarunr]

Intel 311 20GB, because it's tailor-made for Smart Response Technology (with SLC NAND flash, provides the ideal rewrite count for caching).

[NdMk2o1o]

I would say if you are getting 60GB then just put the complete OS on the SSD, why add in an extra point of failure, I assume that similar to a raid0 scenario with no redundancy that if one drive goes then the OS would go with it?

[TheLaughingMan]

If I recall correctly, no. The SSD is only used as one large cache for the HDD drive. If the SSD fails you only lose any temp data that was stored there which was nothing more than cloned data from the HDD in the first place so your system should be fine. If the HDD fails, then you are still in the same boat as if you only had a HDD.

I do not believe power failure will affect an SSD, even if it was being used as a cache. Once the state of one of the gates is flipped it will stay that way until written over or reset. However I am not completely familiar with Smart Response so I am not sure if this holds true. While the data might technically still be intact, the instructions to write to disk may not be as running instructions are kept on the CPU cache and RAM. So a power failure may not technically destroy the data, it may end up being inaccessible. Still no worse than a standard HDD's cache system.

P.S. Also data writes to a HDD do not take much power or many CPU cycles. There would be no reason to wait for the system to idle to complete those. The only time it would not do those writes immediately would be if the HDD is actively being accessed for other data.

[Jetster]

Intel's smart response thech only uses 40 MAX Gb. Anymore would just be an extra drive. Any MSATA 40Gb would do. I think I would just get the 20Gb so if you dont like the Smart responce system tehn you can just buy a full size SSD and sell it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0hrm...ayer_embedded#!

[cadaveca]

The IRST tool tells me 60GB. Funny, if the Intel guy says differntly...he better talk to the software engineers!

[NdMk2o1o]

Originally Posted by Jetster

Intel's smart response thech only uses 40 MAX Gb. Anymore would just be an extra drive. Any MSATA 40Gb would do. I think I would just get the 20Gb so if you dont like the Smart responce system tehn you can just buy a full size SSD and sell it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0hrm...ayer_embedded#!

Everywhere else says 64GB

[Jetster]

Maybe they change it after shooting the video

[NdMk2o1o]

Originally Posted by Jetster

Intel's smart response thech only uses 40 MAX Gb. Anymore would just be an extra drive. Any MSATA 40Gb would do. I think I would just get the 20Gb so if you dont like the Smart responce system tehn you can just buy a full size SSD and sell it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0hrm...ayer_embedded#!

Everywhere else says 64GB and anything more is regarded an extra drive?

Doh you edited, nvm

[Jetster]

This guy says 60Gb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U83ED...eature=related

And he makes a little more sense

[TheLaughingMan]

Ok, after some research, we are all getting things confused. Intel Smart Response does not use the SSD as an HDD cache. it uses it as a system cache. Difference is that it only clone frequently accessed data to itself. Whenever you start an app or the OS request data, it will check the SSD first. If there it loads at the SSD's read speed. If not there, loads from the HDD at its normal speed. It does the same for boot data.

Write speed is slightly lower than the HDD standard speed due the software tracking data use.
20 GB is the minimum size requirement
64 GB is the maximum
It does use a RAID system

Source: Intel Smart Response Data Page

I am unclear as to how an SSD drive failure would affect the system as it is a RAID, but functions closer to RAID 1 than anything.

[Anusha]

i made one with max size. see, 64GB is the cache drive. remainder can be used for something else.



here's my experience with SRT:
http://chroniclesofnushy.blogspot.co...eworth-it.html

[ad3k]

Anusha you sure reach a point. I like your review!
However did you btarunr ever used intels 20gb ssd thats meant for SRT?

Its so hard to make a decision since there is no solid answer.
All i use my comp is for the same every day apps and some gaming however i find it way out of my range to afford 120GB good ssd.

One more question that will answer all that i need to know - is stored cache disappear after reboot?

[Anusha]

Originally Posted by ad3k

Anusha you sure reach a point. I like your review!
However did you btarunr ever used intels 20gb ssd thats meant for SRT?

Its so hard to make a decision since there is no solid answer.
All i use my comp is for the same every day apps and some gaming however i find it way out of my range to afford 120GB good ssd.

One more question that will answer all that i need to know - is stored cache disappear after reboot?

Nope. Then it would be pointless. Then it would be same as RAM caching, which is there in windows by default. (first time takes longer to open a program than the second time.)

You cannot see the drive's content, but benchmarks show same performance increase after reboot and even the boot up is improved so cached files are there until something else replace them.

Looking at the prices, isn't M4 64GB same price or cheaper than 311? If you want a cheaper solution, get the 40GB 320.

[Jstn7477]

I was on the fence as well, but I went with a 120GB Corsair Force 3 and my 2TB Seagate Barracuda Green as standalone drives. My SSD is dedicated to Windows and programs, and my 2TB is dedicated to Steam games and storage, and the system is amazingly responsive.

I feel that Intel SRT is not worth it, because:
1) Windows and your core programs should be dedicated to the SSD, as they need the most random disk activity. Simply caching your HDD with SRT only caches bits and pieces of files.
2) If you suddenly change your computing habits, goodbye speed. Your previous cache gets evicted from the SSD in favor of new data, so programs that you stop using become slower loading when you eventually use them again.
3) All this moving of data likely causes more wear on the SSD than having your OS and core programs on one, where they can be fast 100% of the time.
4) Not having Windows on your HDD means your game files defragment better (in my case at least) and they load faster in my case.

As the owner of a Seagate Momentus XT Hybrid drive, I can attest to how crappy cache eviction is. If I do not restart my laptop a few times a day (or open a lot of programs), booting up takes longer and longer and it is very annoying. My desktop is always fast because Windows and anything that isn't a game goes on my SSD, where it remains fast. Don't buy into something just because it's an advertised feature, as it's not always optimal.

[ad3k]

when compering specs of intels 320 for 90buks and crucial m4 for 110 i guess m4 would be better by double write speeds. in the worst case when it does not have much improvement i can always drop windows on in and be somehow happy lol

Anusha you spend some of your private time to help me out. i consider you a nobel person! in return i will benchmark m4 the same way and let you add results to your page since you got that all started already. That way people that are wanting to try it out they will see its full potential from different perspectives.

Thanks to everybody that try to help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ad3k]

Originally Posted by Jstn7477

I was on the fence as well, but I went with a 120GB Corsair Force 3 and my 2TB Seagate Barracuda Green as standalone drives. My SSD is dedicated to Windows and programs, and my 2TB is dedicated to Steam games and storage, and the system is amazingly responsive.

I feel that Intel SRT is not worth it, because:
1) Windows and your core programs should be dedicated to the SSD, as they need the most random disk activity. Simply caching your HDD with SRT only caches bits and pieces of files.
2) If you suddenly change your computing habits, goodbye speed. Your previous cache gets evicted from the SSD in favor of new data, so programs that you stop using become slower loading when you eventually use them again.
3) All this moving of data likely causes more wear on the SSD than having your OS and core programs on one, where they can be fast 100% of the time.
4) Not having Windows on your HDD means your game files defragment better (in my case at least) and they load faster in my case.

As the owner of a Seagate Momentus XT Hybrid drive, I can attest to how crappy cache eviction is. If I do not restart my laptop a few times a day (or open a lot of programs), booting up takes longer and longer and it is very annoying. My desktop is always fast because Windows and anything that isn't a game goes on my SSD, where it remains fast. Don't buy into something just because it's an advertised feature, as it's not always optimal.

I appreciate your info experience review you wrote (its good m8) however all i can afford is 100 buks and from what i found a decent 120gb is at least 180buks..

[ad3k]

oooo is it possible to have two 30gb raid-ed ssds as SRT?

[Anusha]

Originally Posted by Jstn7477

I was on the fence as well, but I went with a 120GB Corsair Force 3 and my 2TB Seagate Barracuda Green as standalone drives. My SSD is dedicated to Windows and programs, and my 2TB is dedicated to Steam games and storage, and the system is amazingly responsive.

I feel that Intel SRT is not worth it, because:
1) Windows and your core programs should be dedicated to the SSD, as they need the most random disk activity. Simply caching your HDD with SRT only caches bits and pieces of files.
2) If you suddenly change your computing habits, goodbye speed. Your previous cache gets evicted from the SSD in favor of new data, so programs that you stop using become slower loading when you eventually use them again.
3) All this moving of data likely causes more wear on the SSD than having your OS and core programs on one, where they can be fast 100% of the time.
4) Not having Windows on your HDD means your game files defragment better (in my case at least) and they load faster in my case.

As the owner of a Seagate Momentus XT Hybrid drive, I can attest to how crappy cache eviction is. If I do not restart my laptop a few times a day (or open a lot of programs), booting up takes longer and longer and it is very annoying. My desktop is always fast because Windows and anything that isn't a game goes on my SSD, where it remains fast. Don't buy into something just because it's an advertised feature, as it's not always optimal.

1. You are looking at the perfect and worst scenarios only. It's not that black and white. 20GB of windows folder, how often do you access more than 10% of that in a day? Like never! Bits and pieces are what you really need to cache.

2. It's a huge cache. Sudden change of behavior won't make it full drain the existing cache. Remember, it doesn't cache large files. Say you are copying a 1GB file on the hard drive. It won't cache that.

3. Intel has specifically said they are careful with excessive writing. It won't cache big sequential files.

4. No comment there. Possibly so, but not a point that one would consider, is it? Not me at least.

If you don't install your games to SSD, SRT is the better option. You will get better "overall" performance and it is cheaper, not to mention you used a feature of your mono which you already paid for. Why don't you get a cheap 40GB 320 drive for caching and see how it does to your game load times.

Originally Posted by ad3k

when compering specs of intels 320 for 90buks and crucial m4 for 110 i guess m4 would be better by double write speeds. in the worst case when it does not have much improvement i can always drop windows on in and be somehow happy lol

Anusha you spend some of your private time to help me out. i consider you a nobel person! in return i will benchmark m4 the same way and let you add results to your page since you got that all started already. That way people that are wanting to try it out they will see its full potential from different perspectives.

Thanks to everybody that try to help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's cool.

[Jstn7477]

Originally Posted by Anusha

1. You are looking at the perfect and worst scenarios only. It's not that black and white. 20GB of windows folder, how often do you access more than 10% of that in a day? Like never! Bits and pieces are what you really need to cache.

2. It's a huge cache. Sudden change of behavior won't make it full drain the existing cache. Remember, it doesn't cache large files. Say you are copying a 1GB file on the hard drive. It won't cache that.

3. Intel has specifically said they are careful with excessive writing. It won't cache big sequential files.

4. No comment there. Possibly so, but not a point that one would consider, is it? Not me at least.

If you don't install your games to SSD, SRT is the better option. You will get better "overall" performance and it is cheaper, not to mention you used a feature of your mono which you already paid for. Why don't you get a cheap 40GB 320 drive for caching and see how it does to your game load times.



That's cool.

As far as my second point goes, I read that cache eviction was a mixed bag on this review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4329/i...ching-review/5

Granted, neither this review or my review may be perfect, but cache eviction will be there at some point slowing you down. I also heard that SSDs don't always help out game load times that much, but I've yet to try any substantial games on my SSD because I use Steam and I don't have 600GB of SSD space for all my games. My games do seem to load a bit faster than they did when both my OS and the games were on the HDD, so I can't complain.

As far as not using all the parts of Windows, that may be true to an extent, but Windows and small applications is where you really want the performance to be (and not so much games or movies) so it only makes sense to me that all of Windows and my core applications should be 100% on an SSD. Caching solutions are and will most likely always not cover all scenarios.

OP: I currently use about half of my 120GB SSD, and that includes about 10GB of junk I have stored on there from my flash drive.

[theeldest]

Originally Posted by Jstn7477

As far as my second point goes, I read that cache eviction was a mixed bag on this review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4329/i...ching-review/5

Granted, neither this review or my review may be perfect, but cache eviction will be there at some point slowing you down. I also heard that SSDs don't always help out game load times that much, but I've yet to try any substantial games on my SSD because I use Steam and I don't have 600GB of SSD space for all my games. My games do seem to load a bit faster than they did when both my OS and the games were on the HDD, so I can't complain.

As far as not using all the parts of Windows, that may be true to an extent, but Windows and small applications is where you really want the performance to be (and not so much games or movies) so it only makes sense to me that all of Windows and my core applications should be 100% on an SSD. Caching solutions are and will most likely always not cover all scenarios.

OP: I currently use about half of my 120GB SSD, and that includes about 10GB of junk I have stored on there from my flash drive.

Sorry for the zombie thread but I think Anand gave an unrealistic example for most people considering SRT. Yes, he had programs get evicted.

Did you see how many programs were running before they started getting evicted?

5 Adobe programs from the CS5.5 Master Collection and 3 big games run in quick succession. I think I'm a 'normal' user and I run BF3, Skyrim & Firefox. No eviction happening here.

And many people like to skip over the biggest benefit of SRT: convenience. No maintenance required. The stuff you use most has it's performance increased and you can store files like you did before.

You and I may be good at managing our storage for a 120GB or smaller SSD to work but the 'average' user has a hard enough time understanding folders to really grasp storage management.

Until SSDs get competitive in $ / GB I think caching is here to stay.