2013-03-31, 19:02 | Link #41 | |||||||
Excessively jovial fellow
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ISDB-T
Age: 37
|
Quote:
Then it's irrelevant. It's not reading your entire 11GB mailbox on startup. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||||||
2013-03-31, 19:52 | Link #42 | ||||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||||
2013-03-31, 20:23 | Link #43 |
Senior Member
Author
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
|
Got my 840 pro. Cut booting and loading times for everything! Scored about 1000 in AS-SSD. I decided to leave my docs/pics/music on my old drive and link them to the shortcuts (not sure if this is a junction or symbolic link, but it works).
__________________
|
2013-03-31, 21:23 | Link #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Not sure if anyone has stated this, but if you are not seeing improved load times, try checking your antivirus. During the the windows experence benchmarking, I got a score of 4.3 with AV on and a 7 with AV off.
Also, do not defrag your SSD, fragmentation actually makes the SSD run faster than a normal HDD, and defraging shortens the lifespan of the SSD |
2013-03-31, 21:39 | Link #46 |
Also a Lolicon
Join Date: Apr 2010
|
I don't think Windows even allows you to defrag an SSD... All you can do is manually force TRIM commands to be sent "Optimize." On a different note, OS X does not support TRIM for SSD's that aren't from Apple, you have to third party software force it to work.
As for fragmentation making it work faster, never heard of that... However, more free space tends to increase SSD performance a fair bit (depending on the controller). |
2013-04-01, 08:56 | Link #48 | ||||
Excessively jovial fellow
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ISDB-T
Age: 37
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your entire argument boils down to "SSD's have really big numbers in benchmarks, why am I not opening Mail.app five times faster"? I've been trying to explain to you that that's not how it works, but apparently that's not relevant or I'm "trolling" or whatever?
__________________
|
||||
2013-04-01, 09:48 | Link #49 | |
Senior Member
Author
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
|
Quote:
I can only think of a few reasons I'm not getting that slightly extra speed I've seen on other benchmarks on AS-SSD, one is that I've made it my OS drive and I've read somewhere that can cause a bit extra slowdown in benchmarking (not too sure how much this is true). Another being that my drive is already 70% full after the cloning (and deleting of unnecessary stuff, I could probably find more). And lastly the way I've connected it is through some sort of bridge, I'll have to look up what it's called exactly but basically the sata and power cables are plugged into the bridge and the bridge is connected to the drive (the bridge is about 1-2 inches in length). I didn't have many options because I only have one other spot to put the drive and it's not physically practical. I'm thinking this bridge might explain it because the slowdown is so small and the .100 latency I'm getting in the benchmark results (vs .03) seems to be an obvious indication.
__________________
|
|
2013-04-01, 10:08 | Link #50 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2013-04-01, 10:17 | Link #51 |
Senior Member
Author
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
|
I did do many things in this guide (including that): http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...weak,2911.html , and it improved the random read/write speeds by a bit, but it's still falling a bit short. It's not too big a deal since the differences are so small but I at least want to find the source of the problem. If it's the bridge, I'm going to just test it without it, I'll just have to find a platform in the case to hold the drive...if at least only for this test.
Edit: Wasn't the bridge, got similar speeds.
__________________
Last edited by Alchemist007; 2013-04-01 at 16:51. |
2013-04-02, 15:21 | Link #52 |
Also a Lolicon
Join Date: Apr 2010
|
Various ideas about why you don't get as good of performance:
-SSDs have less consistent and slower performance when they are fuller (still miles ahead of HDD though) as the controller has a lot less space to work with and optimize and stuff. 70% is enough to start seeing the effects of this. -If you cloned from an HDD, there might be a performance hit if the partitions aren't aligned how an SSD likes them. The first one is pretty much a fact of life. Either buy an SSD that prioritizes having good performance when close to capacity, don't fill the SSD up, or live with it since its still blazing fast anyways. The second one, you can realign the partitions if they are off. |
2013-04-03, 11:41 | Link #53 | |||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Quote:
Do you have a misconception to correct? Can you tell me something that I don't know? Or is this another example of trolling with a condescending attitude? Quote:
I did not make an argument. I made the observation that my SSHD wasn't that much slower than the SSD I'm currently using. Your response was that SSDs only really make a noticeable impact in certain usage scenarios. That goes against what one would conclude given the benchmark numbers and mechanical differences between HDDs and SSDs, as well as "common knowledge" formed from heaps of anecdotal stories. I am not suggesting that you don't know what you're talking about, but what I'm trying to get from you is an explanation for why there's that discrepancy between what makes sense given even a basic understanding of the differences between HDDs and SSDs, what the rest of the world claims and thinks, and what you're saying.
__________________
Last edited by Ledgem; 2013-04-03 at 13:17. |
|||
Tags |
hdd, ssd, sshd |
|
|