next »

[Please Support Us!]

Please Support Us!

Please help keep (=WDG=) alive

• Server rules
• Forum rules
• Join us
  
• Clan members
• About the clan
• Server stats
• WDG YouTube Channel
• WDG Downloads
• IRC Webchat

Steam groups:

• WDG community
• WDG clan group
• WDG Battlelog Platoon

Our allies:

• [NuB] TF2 clan
• Velocity Gamers Hub
• Destination Gamer

GoG Links:

• Wix Discord
• Wix IRC channel

TF2 Links:

• Official TF2 Blog
• TF2 Steam Forum
• The Fort 2

March 2026

Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa	Su
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30	31
	Birthdays
Tommy the Cat (40)
	Upcoming Events
Upcoming Birthdays: Tommy the Cat (40)

[Finaldeath]

Looks good. That is tempting - about double as fast as my RAID-5 and RAID-0 which both max at 135MB/s.

Tempting to get one for a Windows 7 setup which has some tuned OS options for SSD's (Defrag, the rewrite stuff being used more actively or something - Wikipedia is good for looking up that).

Still sorely expensive though. I'll have to definitely budget for space and see what kind of space I use (I'll have all video, documents on a server - ie; old PC - afterwards, so they won't be an issue). Looks good though, thanks for putting up the speeds you got

[DeadlyAvenger]

Zarf is in the process of putting together a video comparing his before/after SSD times, I for one will be interested to see it

[Zarf]

bah ..... whilst meddling around I appear to have broken my win 7 install, to the point where it BSOD's on boot even in safe mode. It's looking like I'll be spending the best part of tonight reinstalling :'/

[Chaos]

shouldnt take long on an ssd though
Takes me about half hour on my VRs

[Zarf]

Yeah, wouldn't take too long, about 20mins for Win7 by itself, it's just i've been playing around with it for so long and got it set up almost perfectly that it's hours down the drain ... i've been up since early this morning playing with it.

[Zarf]

Got everything sorted without having to reinstall.
First vid - windows boot times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJs0Us0on1w

Took me quite a while to make (had to figure out Sony Vegas from scratch), so I'll do the game times tommorow (which are a bit more impressive)
I'm not sure yet why my Win7 install is taking about 15 seconds longer to boot than i'd like, will have to experiment with disabling services and startup items one by one .... It was running the Vista equivalent of BootVis (program that can produce a graph of what causes delays in your boot) that cause all my hassle earlier.

[DeadlyAvenger]

I'm amazed by the vista / win 7 difference.

The difference between the 2 vista installs isn't that impressive imo - but you can see things like the sidebar & steam load much much quicker.

[Finaldeath]

Yeah, nice comparison, not sure what you've got running on each OS though. Always the issue - do you optimise after install before or after comparisons?

One thing to note is that man, is 255MB/s pushing the SATA-II standards, which caps at 300. It'd be damn near pointless to RAID them, which is a shame (kind of, if you had that kind of cash ) - mainly RAID for me is nice if something dies, although it's not a backup solution I'm kinda nerdy about that kind of stuff.

[DeadlyAvenger]

Yeah, nice comparison, not sure what you've got running on each OS though. Always the issue - do you optimise after install before or after comparisons?

One thing to note is that man, is 255MB/s pushing the SATA-II standards, which caps at 300. It'd be damn near pointless to RAID them, which is a shame (kind of, if you had that kind of cash ) - mainly RAID for me is nice if something dies, although it's not a backup solution I'm kinda nerdy about that kind of stuff.

but isn't that 300MBps per channel i.e. per connection? or is that the most the motherboard controller can handle? since raid is using > 1 drive - if it's just limited to 300MBps for each drive then you're not going to have any problems using RAID with them

[claws]

Bit disappointed by the boot times, but I suppose if application loading is fast it'll be a different matter.

[Zarf]

I'm amazed by the vista / win 7 difference.

The difference between the 2 vista installs isn't that impressive imo - but you can see things like the sidebar & steam load much much quicker.

This is partly because Ghost, which was the only way i could find that would clone the drive over to a smaller drive, creates the partition with an offset of 63kb, which is fine for hdd's, but not so good for SSD's, I lose a fair bit of file write performance.   Vista and Win7 align it better by default if you do a fresh install.

Yeah, nice comparison, not sure what you've got running on each OS though. Always the issue - do you optimise after install before or after comparisons? Smiley

Got loads of stuff running, I thought the fairest test would be to use my cluttered install, even though it makes the benchmarks less impressive (A lot of the time neither drive is active, it's just poorly written drivers/services starting up). In Win7 I have all the same stuff installed and running at startup as in Vista.

One thing to note is that man, is 255MB/s pushing the SATA-II standards, which caps at 300. It'd be damn near pointless to RAID them, which is a shame (kind of, if you had that kind of cash Wink ) - mainly RAID for me is nice if something dies, although it's not a backup solution I'm kinda nerdy about that kind of stuff.

255MB/s is per channel, Since SATA is one disk per channel (though you can buy SATA backplanes that can share a single channel), You're only limited by how much your motherboard or RAID controller can handle. My Board is pretty old now (ICH9 Southbridge), but reportedly can handle >600 MB/s, which is around three drives. Modern motherboards can do a bit better.

[Finaldeath]

I guess in theory - and if it is software-based on the motherboard (obviously PCI-E ones will suffer!).

In practice I wonder if we'll have to start finding "Motherboard limits" to the speed they can get data from the previously-slow hard drives.

[Zarf]

I guess in theory - and if it is software-based on the motherboard (obviously PCI-E ones will suffer!).

In practice I wonder if we'll have to start finding "Motherboard limits" to the speed they can get data from the previously-slow hard drives.

The next big thing Is going to be PCI-E SSD drives, they plug directly into a PCI-E slot, PCI-E v2.0 provides 500MB/s per lane, so the x4 slot on most motherboards is worth 2GB/s. The PCI-E v3.0 supporting motherboards should be out at the end of next year, and they are twice as fast per lane.

[Finaldeath]

I'll have to check how it all works, but the bridge for PCI-E interfacing is surely going to be slower then most direct SATA interfaces in latency or if it gets bogged down, will have to see since I've no idea.

In any case, it's all a bit "far out" - at least a few years - before it's cost effective anyway.

[Zarf]

I'll have to check how it all works, but the bridge for PCI-E interfacing is surely going to be slower then most direct SATA interfaces in latency or if it gets bogged down, will have to see since I've no idea.

In any case, it's all a bit "far out" - at least a few years - before it's cost effective anyway.

It's actually less latency to go directly from the PCI-E bus.
http://www.fusionio.com/ioxtreme/index.php - these guys are bringing out a product for home users, very expensive though.