Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: TilDeath on December 11, 2010, 08:14:16 AM
-
Benched a PCIe SSD (OCZ RevoDRIVE-2 240GB) against a SATA-3 (Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB 64mb cache). the results were dramatic to say the least. The OCZ comes with its own Raid array installed. It uses 4 Sandforce Controllers and the best part is this SSD is boot-able (Yes other SSD's are boot-able via SATA but this is PCIe).
The system its in has two drives, the RevoDrive and a SATA-3. When the SATA-3 is disabled within the BIOS the system boots from power on to desktop in less then 20 seconds, when the SATA-3 is enabled the boot time is about 30 seconds. Reason for this is the Marvell drivers for the SATA-3 (EVGA MB). Below is a speed chart done with ATTO comparing the two drives.
Sandforce technology has been around for some time now. It cycles the flash to extend its endurance by 20x, therefore making any Sandforce SSD a wise investment (SSD drives, Flash Drives).
Benefits of Sandforce over other controllers...
- Durawrite
- RAISE (Redundant Array of Independent Silicon Elements)
- Wear Leveling and Monitoring
- Advance Read/Program Disturb management
- Recycler
So if your thinking of a super fast system, look at PCIe SSD drives as an option (no they are not cheep).
(http://www.tdcomputersystems.com/builds/White/ssd-sata3l.jpg)
-
As you and I have discussed a couple of times already, the PCI-e is the ONLY SSD I'd get. :rock
-
wait, wait. SSD's have a trick called RAID0. :D
(although write speeds are only ~150MB/s better.)
(http://i50.tinypic.com/21ljtpc.jpg)
>atto run (http://www.forums.crucial.com/t5/Solid-State-Drives-SSD/4x-C300-in-RAID0-ATTO-bench/td-p/12988)
-
As you and I have discussed a couple of times already, the PCI-e is the ONLY SSD I'd get. :rock
Totally off topic, I love the new avatar Karaya!
Nice that it's got a good long shot or Rick Wright in there too, he was brilliant.
[/hijack]
-
@TD (OP): Wait a minute. You have to be a little more specific or people are going to make the wrong choices here.
First off the SSDs come in four different flavors. The first is the stand alone SSD which is not mounted on a card and which TD is not talking about.
Second is the type of SSD which is card mounted memory (basically). This is very much just a RAMdrive that doesnt lose its memory when the power is off. This is very fast in I/O and allows for many more I/Os (in most cases) than any other form of SSD (100000 IOPS+).
Third (and fourth actually) is the SSD mounted to a card. The third type is a lone SSD mounted to a card. It has a faster read/write but because its I/O is 10% or less of the card mounted memory method it makes for a choice that is not as good for boot operations or complex game forms like FSX due to the 10,000 IOPS limitations (on average). Defrag of one of these drives could very well kill it (lower its lifeteime use).
The fourth type is very much what we want (or so I believe) and is fairly much a new arrival on the scene. The SSDs in this case are mounted in a RAID configuration and this is where the read/write speed really takes off but IOPS drop again to a give-or-take 7200+. Defrag of one of these drives could very well kill it (lower its lifetime use).
When the fourth type is $100 for a TB of space things will look a lot better than they do now with 1 TB costing an average of $9000.
-
Should probably add that the 'third type' will be very much motherboard dependent as to whether it will even boot. A lot of motherboards do not support booting from PCIe.
The OP was careful to state that the OCZ drive in question was an R2 drive, 240GB. They also sell a non-R2 240Gb (cheaper) version and the warnings on the page for it from OCZ are clear ... do your homework, and make sure your mobo supports booting from PCIe.
Wicked fast drives though ...
-
why does defrag?ging kill these drives? wont not defragging make them slow down over time and lose the advantage in speed that you paid so much money for?
-
@TD (OP): Wait a minute. You have to be a little more specific or people are going to make the wrong choices here.
In what way? I was very specific in my post...
Benched a PCIe SSD (OCZ RevoDRIVE-2 240GB) against a SATA-3 (Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB 64mb cache). the results were dramatic to say the least. The OCZ comes with its own Raid array installed. It uses 4 Sandforce Controllers and the best part is this SSD is boot-able (Yes other SSD's are boot-able via SATA but this is PCIe).
I did not go into a lesson about the different SSDs available on the market. I mentioned two specific drives, one being the RevoDrive-2 (mentioning the advantage of Sandforce Technology) and the WD SATA-3. I further mentioned that this particular SSD is PCIe and is boot-able, not all PCIe SSD's are boot-able. This post was a comparison of SATA-3 and a particular PCIe SSD, nothing more. Please explain where the confusion is, because I am confused as to where there is confusion.
-
why does defrag?ging kill these drives? wont not defragging make them slow down over time and lose the advantage in speed that you paid so much money for?
When you defrag your moving data from one sector to a another and aligning the data. Currently SSD's can not be written to as many times and a platter based drive (SATA). So when you defrag your lessening the life of the drive by moving and re-writing. Hence me commenting on the Sandforce Technology. They have seemed to have built a better "mouse trap" as they say.
Quote from Sandforce's website.
(QUOTE)
DuraClass technology represents a set of NAND flash management features that work in tandem to deliver world-class SSD reliability, performance, and power efficiency that differentiate SandForce SSD Processors from standard flash controllers. Of particular importance is the use of processing elements to optimally overcome a number of the inherent issues associated with commodity NAND flash memory. DuraClass features include:
* DuraWrite, which optimizes the number of program cycles to the flash effectively extending flash rated endurance by 20x or more when compared to standard controllers.
* Powerful flash media error correction (ECC) and RAISE (Redundant Array of Independent Silicon Elements), which deliver an orders-of-magnitude improvement in drive
reliability versus today’s best enterprise HDDs and SSDs. The result is single-drive RAID-like protection and recovery from a potentially catastrophic flash block failures – all
while avoiding the inefficiencies of traditional RAID.
* Advanced Wear Leveling and Monitoring - Optimized wear leveling algorithms, further extending flash endurance
* Advanced Read/Program Disturb Management, which safeguards against errant re-programming of cells during read and program cycles
* Recycler, which intelligently performs garbage collection with the least impact on flash endurance.
With smaller silicon geometries and the trend toward packing more bits per cell in flash devices, there has been a dramatic reduction in the cost-per-Gigabyte for NAND flash-based SSDs which has accelerated deployment in mainstream applications. However, these changes have also reduced the reliability characteristics of flash devices, i.e., lower endurance, worse data integrity, and shorter data retention, placing increasing importance on advanced flash management technology. DuraClass technology is architected to scale and compensate for commodity NAND flash memory shortcomings ensuring SSDs can be reliably used in enterprise and client computing environments for generations to come.
(END QUOTE)
You can Google "Sandforce" and learn more about who they are and what they are doing to improve the technology used in memory.
Hope this helped
TD
-
What I meant was that you need to let people know about the differences in the technologies. Also it might be a good idea to point out that the Revo2 is not commonly compatible especially with older systems. Its actually my favorite form of SSD but it is not compatible with the majority of boards I have in the house while the type four I mentioned would probably be better for my needs its also nine times the expense.
Now if you have tested it (the Revo2) with every setup you sell Id like to know the outcome.
-
still confused cause its written in swahealie.....but understanding a bit more :)
thanx :aok
-
Totally off topic, I love the new avatar Karaya!
Nice that it's got a good long shot or Rick Wright in there too, he was brilliant.
[/hijack]
:rock
:devil
-
What I meant was that you need to let people know about the differences in the technologies.
Why, this was a simple drive comparison, nothing more. If I were comparing several different SSD and SATA drives then I would include the difference in the technologies.
Also it might be a good idea to point out that the Revo2 is not commonly compatible especially with older systems.
Again, why? This is a $700.00 component. I was comparing technologies that are new or not used commonly yet. If someone has a Pentium 4 and wants to install a $700.00 drive before upgrading their system overall, something is wrong. A good analogy would be " Bias Ply tires on a dragster".
Now if you have tested it (the Revo2) with every setup you sell Id like to know the outcome.
Every system I build is within a customers budget. Not everyone can afford a RevoDrive 2 as their system's main drive.
Point being, my original post was showing the speed difference between a particular PCIe SSD drive that is boot-able on the MB the system was built with and the SATA 3 that is also installed on the same system. The post was not a lesson in the different type of technology available today. Feel free speak about the different technologies available, but please do not tell me how to compose my posts.
TD
-
Why, this was a simple drive comparison, nothing more. If I were comparing several different SSD and SATA drives then I would include the difference in the technologies.
Again, why? This is a $700.00 component. I was comparing technologies that are new or not used commonly yet. If someone has a Pentium 4 and wants to install a $700.00 drive before upgrading their system overall, something is wrong. A good analogy would be " Bias Ply tires on a dragster".
Every system I build is within a customers budget. Not everyone can afford a RevoDrive 2 as their system's main drive.
Point being, my original post was showing the speed difference between a particular PCIe SSD drive that is boot-able on the MB the system was built with and the SATA 3 that is also installed on the same system. The post was not a lesson in the different type of technology available today. Feel free speak about the different technologies available, but please do not tell me how to compose my posts.
TD
+1
-
Again, why?
I dont know. Intellectual honesty? Even newer MBs are having problems with this device and until new BIOSs are available thats not going to change.
Not everyone buys from you. Do you really want someone to buy this and then say TD said it was all that and... meh...
-
I don't know. Intellectual honesty? Even newer MB's are having problems with this device and until new BIOSs are available that's not going to change.
Not everyone buys from you. Do you really want someone to buy this and then say TD said it was all that and... meh...
No offense to you, but if someone is buying a $700 part based solely on this 1 thread they don't really need to be building a system / buying parts on their own. It's rule #1 to building not to use 1 review to buy something, let alone something this expensive.
TD did also say "[. . .] look at PCIe SSD drives as an option (no they are not cheep)."
We're all nitpicky about something, but no need for anyone to get uppidy about it. :)
-
I dont know. Intellectual honesty? Even newer MBs are having problems with this device and until new BIOSs are available thats not going to change.
I thought I showed intellectual honesty, compared Drive A to Drive B and showed a chart proving my findings. When new things come out, some makers are not on the cutting edge of whats available to the consumer. The RevoDRIVE is the one having issues not the RevoDRIVE 2. The better manufactures care about being the top in their field and make sure that they are able to make use of the latest and greatest. Fact being, this drive works flawlessly with the Higher end boards from EVGA, Gigabyte, ASUS,MSI etc etc here is a short list.
Compataible ASUS Boards
Pk5-E Wifi/AP - bios 1305 - Using a x16 slot (running x4)
Asus P5E - bios 0303 grafical output low performance in W7/64bit - bios 1201 grafical output good performance
Asus P5E Deluxe - ? Bios
P5Q-E - Bios 2101 - used PCIe_2
P5Q Pro (2102 bios)
P5Q PRO Turbo - BIOS v0602
P5Q Deluxe bios 2301 (non EFI)
Asus P5E3 Premium - bios 0803
Asus Rampage Formula x48 775 motherboard http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...l=1#post571256
Asus Sabertooth 1366 - BIOS: AMI 6.6.0.1 - All Slots
Asus P6T DELUXE (version 1) - BIOS 1701, 2101 BIOS, drive in x4 slot, no issues.
ASUS P6T SE - ? Bios
Asus P6T Deluxe V2 - 1003 BIOS x 4 slot - 1108 BIOS x4 slot
P6X58D premium (with bios v1002)
Asus P6X58D-Extreme with bios 0303
Asus Rampage II Extreme using Bios 1504 and 1914
ASUS Rampage III Extreme X58 - Bios 1005 - PCIe16x, on PCIe4x works very slow
Asus Maximus III Formula ? Bios
P7P55D-E Premium - 1205 BIOS, drive in second PCIe slot, no issues.
P7P55D-E Deluxe with bios version 1404
P7P55D PRO - bios 1807 - second and third pci-e slot no issues
P7P55D EVO - BIOS 0501 -Slot 3 x4 PCIe
Rampage III Formula BIOS 0402
Striker Extreme 1 , Nforce 680I SLI, most recent BIOS version PCIex 16 Slot
MSI Boards
MSI Big Bang XPower board (BIOS 1.47 beta) See post #53
MSI 890FXA-GD70 (18T Bios) See this Thread http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/fo...FXA-bios-files
MSI H55-G43 - Bios 1.4
Gigabyte Boards
EP45-UD3P (BIOS F10)
GA-X48-DS5 (BIOS F8C)
GA-X48-DQ6 (BIOS F8D), with the 2 onboard RAID controllers enabled.
GA-P55M-UD2 Rev 1.0 - BIOS F11
GA-P55A-UD4 - BIOS F15
GA-P55A-UD6 - Bios 11 and 12c
GA-X58A-UD3R Rev2.0 - Bios FB - installed bottom slot
GA-X58A-UD5 version 1 on F6 bios
GA-X58A UD5 Rev2.0 with BIOS FB (not F8!!)
GA-X58A-UD7 REV 1.0, BIOS F7
GA-EX58-UD5 (Bios 13q) - working fine : blazingly fast, about 8 seconds from boot till Windows 7 desktop.
GAMA78GPM-DS2H - BIOS of F6g "beta" - installed in the X16 slot without any issues!
GA-870A-UD3 Rev2.1 - Bios Version F2 - See Post #102
GA-890FXA-UD5 BIOS F4 and F5 - Raid Rom Disabled
GA-890GPA-UD3H Bios F9c
EVGA Boards
EVGA P55 FTW - Bios A72 -- in the X8 slot [furthest from CPU].
EVGA X58 FTW3....see post #10 for more info
EVGA X58 SLI with latest bios (74?) .. using 3rd full pcix slot (see post 30)
X58 E758 SLI and Revo work flawlessly only with EVGA newest BIOS Version 77.
EVGA X58 Classified 3 (141-GT-E770) motherboard with BIOS version 77.
EVGA X58 Classified E760 - BIOS 74
EVGA 680i as long as you read this thread.
Not everyone buys from you. Do you really want someone to buy this and then say TD said it was all that and... meh...
No they do not. But every build I do is thoroughly researched, knowing that all the components chosen all compliment each other, no bottle necks. If someone purchases a component because a person on the boards here says "hey this is great" but they do not do any research themselves to assure that it is compatible with the other components they have or plan on purchasing, this is someone who should not be building a system. Anyone can build a system but this does not mean that they should. This post was not a sales pitch. It was a finding of an item that performs extremely well and for anyone considering a new build and has the budget for it, this item is worth looking at.
TD
-
umm.. wow. how did this thread go down in flames..
lets stick to comparing technology.
nice build td, still cheaper than 4xSSD RAID's w/ a ROC.
w/c is the equivalent performance you get to that revo2.
-
TD started a great thread and Chalenge went down in flames.
:rock
-
GA-X58A-UD3R Rev2.0 - Bios FB - installed bottom slot
Now to just get hold of the $700 so I have an excuse to upgrade my Rev 1.0 board to a Rev 2.0 board like I just put in my wife's machine. Well, $700 plus the new motherboard cost ;)
-
When threads posted completely for their potential WOW factor turn into a purse fight, it just makes me go WOW.
This thread wins! WOW!
-
I'm not even sure this deserves CAT FIGHT status... hrmmm
(http://dave34741.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/flying-cat-fight.jpg)
-
I wouldnt call it flames... but thanks for caring so much Karaya. :)
TD the manufacturers website lists six systems that are compatible with the board. When this device was introduced I checked into it for my own machine and it was a conflict. But thank you just the same for finally posting all the relevant information. Its so refreshing to finally see some intellectual honesty. :aok
-
I wouldnt call it flames... but thanks for caring so much Karaya. :)
TD the manufacturers website lists six systems that are compatible with the board. When this device was introduced I checked into it for my own machine and it was a conflict. But thank you just the same for finally posting all the relevant information. Its so refreshing to finally see some intellectual honesty. :aok
Intellectual honesty. You made a statement that these drives don't work for the most part with most motherboards, I backed up my data yet again showing a very short list of compatible boards. If you want to say "Intellectual Honesty", your statement saying that the boards don't work with... and conflicts... and BIOS... By your own admission you state it only works with SIX boards per the manufactures website, when did you check your info, because I got my list from OCZ's website, and it's only a partial list. It was done not to appease you, but to show you make statements without proper reference or lack there of. Please check your info before making statements towards my posts.
[EDIT] "BLAH BLAH BLAH"
-
Hillarious. I made a statement about "older systems" and not "most motherboards."
This is from OCZs website:
While the RevoDrive will simply plug and play for the vast majority of platforms, the following issues may arise when installing on these particular motherboards:
-Asus Crosshair IV – Please check with motherboard manufacturer for BIOS update to enable boot over PCIe.
-Biostar T-Power I45: RevoDrive is only detected in Slot 1 AND only if a PCIe GPU is used.
-DFI DK-X58-T3EH6: Not detected in PCIe Slot 2 (x4 slot).
-EVGA X758 SLI – Please check with motherboard manufacturer for BIOS update to enable Boot over PCIe.
-Gigabyte GA-890FXA-UD7 Not detected in slots 1,3,4 (it is detected in 2,5,6)
-XFX 780i SLI – Bios must be upgraded to P09 (or later).
Now take a close look and you will see six listed although if you read it it says these are problem boards. I have an EVGA 780i that I tested with the P10 MB. Non-functional. So I tested it with several other LGA775 MBs (twelve altogether). Non-functional.
You have been hanging around the AH website long enough to know that most of the gamers here are using less than stellar systems.
Yes you should check your intellectual honesty AND if you are going to give product reports then start giving plenty of background information including the differences in SSD technologies (if your talking about SSDs). Lordy I would hate to see what you have to say about PSUs! :rolleyes:
Okay... now that Ive said that... TD I like you. You keep up on the tech and you fly with us online. But if you are going to start going on the attack when really all I was trying to do was add to what you had already said... really. This stuff hangs on to the BBS for years. It will be searched again and again. Please improve your completeness. :D
-
No offense to you, but if someone is buying a $700 part based solely on this 1 thread they don't really need to be building a system / buying parts on their own. It's rule #1 to building not to use 1 review to buy something, let alone something this expensive.
TD did also say "[. . .] look at PCIe SSD drives as an option (no they are not cheep)."
We're all nitpicky about something, but no need for anyone to get uppidy about it. :)
These types of parts wont be $700 forever. Read above.
-
Hillarious. I made a statement about "older systems" and not "most motherboards."
And TD said "If your looking for a superfast system" in his original post. I believe he threw out all those "older systems" with that statement. You are confusing the issue, this was clearly brought up as information for those looking into new systems.
-
While the RevoDrive will simply plug and play for the vast majority of platforms, the following issues may arise when installing on these particular motherboards:
Your talking about a RevoDRIVE and I am talking about a RevoDRIVE 2. This is where you are confused. I am done on this post.
-
Your talking about a RevoDRIVE and I am talking about a RevoDRIVE 2. This is where you are confused. I am done on this post.
Deja vu :devil
-
:rofl TD
-
Love the results TilDeath.
-
Pretty good hardware review on the RevoDrive X2 just released:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/ocz-revodrive-x2-240gb-review/1 (http://www.guru3d.com/article/ocz-revodrive-x2-240gb-review/1)
-
I have 1 of these otw, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227590
anything special i should do? It will be my boot drive, probably dual-boot XP/Win7. current hD will
be my data drive. should i put my programs on the SSD or HD? Will i need to format the SSD or
should it be ready to go?
Whels
-
I have 1 of these otw, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227590
anything special i should do? It will be my boot drive, probably dual-boot XP/Win7. current hD will
be my data drive. should i put my programs on the SSD or HD? Will i need to format the SSD or
should it be ready to go?
Whels
This is not a PCIe SSD, it is a SATA. Make sure you disable the Defrag and other hard drive checking / re-writing to add longevity to your SSD.
TD
-
I can't believe nobody already mentioned this but Tildeaths comparison is apples to oranges. That or the comparison is poorly titled.
You can only compare 'pci-e' and 'sata3' using two SSD's that are comparative in performance and use the respective connections.
This comparison only magnifies the superiority of SSD's in general against regular harddrives.
-
I can't believe nobody already mentioned this but Tildeaths comparison is apples to oranges. That or the comparison is poorly titled.
You can only compare 'pci-e' and 'sata3' using two SSD's that are comparative in performance and use the respective connections.
This comparison only magnifies the superiority of SSD's in general against regular harddrives.
LOL How is it poorly titled? PCI SSD vs SATA3.... It shows what technology and the results between the two.
TD
-
LOL How is it poorly titled? PCI SSD vs SATA3.... It shows what technology and the results between the two.
TD
No, it shows PCI-E SSD vs SATA3 HDD. If you wanted to compare SSD vs HDD or PCI-E vs SATA3 you should do it directly, now you mix interfaces and drive technology which both impact performance in a serious way. A non-raided SSD crushes a HDD already on a similar bus and a PCI-E SSD with internal raid0 + 2 controllers increases the separation even higher. When comparing a PCI-E internal-raid 0 SSD to a SATA3 RAID 0 SSD your margin would diminish considerably. Oh, and be a fair comparison also :)
Hence my comment on the poor titling.
-
I give up... thought I would show my findings of two technologies, but all I get is complaints.
-
TD, thanks for your posts. Please ignore the nit-pickers.
-
I give up... thought I would show my findings of two technologies, but all I get is complaints.
Don't give up, I was just suggesting to be more precise on your comparison. This time you happened to compare apples to oranges if your title was correct.
-
Ripley, I think you're nitpicking. I don't think such a distinction is necessary. It's kind of self-evident in the subject line of the thread.
-
Ripley, I think you're nitpicking. I don't think such a distinction is necessary. It's kind of self-evident in the subject line of the thread.
Self evident? Please explain. You think it's self evident that a 'SATA3' must be a non-raided hdd? Or what do you mean?
You do realize that a theoretical 10 drive C300 SSD array running raid0 on a SATA3 interface would most likely be a lot faster than a lone revo x2? Hmm.. does that mean that obviously SATA3 is now superior to PCI-E? And do note the :) I'm not bashing anyone, just bringing a point.
-
Because this was the very first line that he typed:
Benched a PCIe SSD (OCZ RevoDRIVE-2 240GB) against a SATA-3 (Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB 64mb cache).
Plain english to me. I understand that a Western Digital Caviar Black is a single drive and not a RAID. I further understand that the RevoDrive is technically 1 drive but gains its speed by nature of a RAID array. This also comes out in his following text.
I don't think it needs to be spelled out. If any one person has trouble with it let them reply and state "Can you clarify what you mean by <fill in the blank>?" and an answer will no doubt be forthcoming.
-
Because this was the very first line that he typed:
Plain english to me. I understand that a Western Digital Caviar Black is a single drive and not a RAID. I further understand that the RevoDrive is technically 1 drive but gains its speed by nature of a RAID array. This also comes out in his following text.
I don't think it needs to be spelled out. If any one person has trouble with it let them reply and state "Can you clarify what you mean by <fill in the blank>?" and an answer will no doubt be forthcoming.
And I was pointing out that either he is comparing apples to oranges or he has a poor title. Which lead to this discussion. I'll title a thread 'A motorcycle engine with NOS compared to a V8'. For the sake of argument I'll state that the findings of my testings have been that a Hayabusa engine with NOS is far superior to a V8 that happened to be naturally aspirated and stuck on a heavy SUV lol. :lol
What are we comparing? NOS with no NOS? Turbo vs non-turbo? Motorcycle engine vs V8? Vehicle weight? Year, make or model? :D
-
td was just showing the pci-e card as a viable solution for system builds as compared to a sata ssd.
my post thereafter should have clarified it already; that ssd's can be raid'd too, but wouldnt be as cheap.
so i think everyone reading this thread, despite the title, would already know the difference.
-
td was just showing the pci-e card as a viable solution for system builds as compared to a sata ssd.
my post thereafter should have clarified it already; that ssd's can be raid'd too, but wouldnt be as cheap.
so i think everyone reading this thread, despite the title, would already know the difference.
Heh reminds me of a scene in Life of Brian:
Brian: "I'm not the Messiah!"
Crowd: "A true Messiah will deny being a Messiah!"
Brian: "Ok, I'm the Messiah then!"
Crowd goes crazy: "HE'S THE MESSIAH!!" :D
-
just installed my OCZ Vertex 2 120 gig SSD. Using it as a boot n main prog drive. Boot times went from 55 secs on my raptor
to under 25 secs with SSD.
-
just installed my OCZ Vertex 2 120 gig SSD. Using it as a boot n main prog drive. Boot times went from 55 secs on my raptor
to under 25 secs with SSD.
Again, this is apples to oranges and nobody really like fruit salad anyhow. But, you could probably get some other very important tasks done in the 30 seconds a day you just gained.
:neener:
-
Ripley...I just want to point out from a NON-TECHNICAL standpoint that I thought TD's comparison of two completely different technologies was concise and understood easily. UNLIKE the various technobabble that some on this BBS like to spout out just to show that they spent way too much time learning this crap for whatever reason.
-
the original thread was like, lets compare a ponyd against a p47n (just random planes here). and some people went, well its misleading, you gotta compare it against a 190 or a spitfire. then it gets pointed out that it was only a comparison of the ponyd against the p47n, and some people start screaming because the 190 or the 109 is not included. they failed to realize that it was just a comparison between 2 planes, nothing more, nothing less. I find that funny.
I bet that if TD has made a comparison of every single drive currently on the us market, it would still be people who would fault him for not including the new metamucil coded liquid state drives used in japan, but not available in the us.
semp
-
Ripley...I just want to point out from a NON-TECHNICAL standpoint that I thought TD's comparison of two completely different technologies was concise and understood easily. UNLIKE the various technobabble that some on this BBS like to spout out just to show that they spent way too much time learning this crap for whatever reason.
That's exactly my point. NON-TECHNICAL people take the comparison without understanding that the differences shown are not exactly due either to PCI-E nor SSD superiority but a combination of both compared to a *hdd* which could run on SATA2 and still get exactly same results speedwise.
So the thread had absolutely nothing to do with sata3 since the 'test' was done with a device that couldn't utilize but a fraction of the available bandwith in sata3.
I hope that clears it up a bit.
-
the original thread was like, lets compare a ponyd against a p47n (just random planes here). and some people went, well its misleading, you gotta compare it against a 190 or a spitfire. then it gets pointed out that it was only a comparison of the ponyd against the p47n, and some people start screaming because the 190 or the 109 is not included. they failed to realize that it was just a comparison between 2 planes, nothing more, nothing less. I find that funny.
I bet that if TD has made a comparison of every single drive currently on the us market, it would still be people who would fault him for not including the new metamucil coded liquid state drives used in japan, but not available in the us.
semp
In your comparison TD said 'A P47 with a radial vs an inline engine' and then proceed to compare the P47 to a WW1 plane.
-
That's exactly my point. NON-TECHNICAL people take the comparison........
This is why the post originated in the Hardware & Software forum and not somewhere else. NON-TECHNICAL people tend to stay away from here, but us TECHNICAL people who DO understand, find statistics like TD posted to be very informative. I agree it's not practical for most at this time, but 1 year from now.....
-
That's exactly my point. NON-TECHNICAL people take the comparison without understanding that the differences shown are not exactly due either to PCI-E nor SSD superiority but a combination of both compared to a *hdd* which could run on SATA2 and still get exactly same results speedwise.
So the thread had absolutely nothing to do with sata3 since the 'test' was done with a device that couldn't utilize but a fraction of the available bandwith in sata3.
I hope that clears it up a bit.
Being a non-technical person myself who reads and does understand the differences in how things are written; I did not take it like you are implying at all. I read it for what it was a comparison of two completely DIFFERENT OPTIONS for someone who was building a system and wanted faster boot times with newer SSD or SATA type technology for HDD options.
Let me spell it out for you.
A C O M P A R I S O N O F T W O C O M P L E T E L Y D I F F E R E N T O P T I O N S
-
Being a non-technical person myself who reads and does understand the differences in how things are written; I did not take it like you are implying at all. I read it for what it was a comparison of two completely DIFFERENT OPTIONS for someone who was building a system and wanted faster boot times with newer SSD or SATA type technology for HDD options.
Let me spell it out for you.
A C O M P A R I S O N O F T W O C O M P L E T E L Y D I F F E R E N T O P T I O N S
LOL! You can spell all you like but if you don't get the message, spelling won't help you. How was it a comparison of PCI-E SSD VS SATA3 when the hdd was not in any shape or form representative i.e. capable of saturating the available bandwith in sata3?
So either you admit that the title or the comparison itself was completely off.
IF the title was right as TD claimed, the comparison should indicate somehow the comparison with PCI-E vs SATA3. To do so, the comparison should have been the PCI-E device vs. Raid0 SSD on SATA3.
-
I finally understand "I'm stuck on stupid".
semp
-
I finally understand "I'm stuck on stupid".
semp
QFT Semp...QFT
"What we've got here is...failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o&feature=related
-
Yeah you just don't understand what you're even talking about and let's leave it at that :devil
-
While the title is misleading, I did enjoy his review and hope to read more TD's reviews in the future.
-
While the title is misleading, I did enjoy his review and hope to read more TD's reviews in the future.
You'll be waiting awhile. He's done giving discounts and writing in this section of the Forum.
-
You'll be waiting awhile. He's done giving discounts and writing in this section of the Forum.
Ohh, so he thinks he lost his credibility because of a couple posts? Shame. He could just have corrected his title or admit the bad comparison and this thread would have been 2 pages shorter.
-
HE lost nothing, the Community did.
-
HE lost nothing, the Community did.
So He was buried and on which day shall he be resurrected? :D
I smell a cult!
Seriously, all he needed to do was correct one line of his post instead of insisting on it. It was misleading and so was the other SATA3 reference. Wouldn't you prefer your advisors to stick to real world results and not marketing bs?
-
Seriously, all he needed to do was correct one line of his post instead of insisting on it. It was misleading and so was the other SATA3 reference. Wouldn't you prefer your advisors to stick to real world results and not marketing bs?
I can't believe that you are still stuck on this. It was a simple comparison of one storage device to another. NOTHING MORE.
While reading the Sandy Bridge CPU review, they compared the on-chip video capabilities to an add-on VC. Did you write them and tell them that they are misleading their readers because the technology isn't the same and it's an unfair comparison? Did you let them know how YOU would have preferred them to word it? I didn't think so.
-
I can't believe that you are still stuck on this. It was a simple comparison of one storage device to another. NOTHING MORE.
While reading the Sandy Bridge CPU review, they compared the on-chip video capabilities to an add-on VC. Did you write them and tell them that they are misleading their readers because the technology isn't the same and it's an unfair comparison? Did you let them know how YOU would have preferred them to word it? I didn't think so.
As mentioned earlier you should refrain from commenting about issues that you clearly know nothing of. Professional tech reviewers make comparisons correctly and do not make cardinal mistakes like mention interfaces in comparison title without having the comparison anything to do with the said interfaces. Or claim that users made a mistake choosing SATA2 instead of SATA3 on a device that can run at or near full speed using SATA 1.0!
As said multiple times, I mentioned the title was misleading. TD claimed the title was correct. Well it wasn't - and I really don't see any other reason for sticking to it but an attempt to mislead someone or perhaps fear of losing credibility. Same thing with the SATA2 vs SATA3 claim later. I gave TD every chance to back his claims up with a simple review or a benchmark. The trouble is that the benchmarks show MY point as true not vice versa. Anything I said could have been easily refuted if it was not correct.
So where are we at? I can verify every claim that I make. I very rarely if ever claim anything without some sort of assurance that I know what I talk about. Then there's someone who has a financial interest and self proclaimed expert who has not been able (or willing) to back his claims up with a neutral and trustworthy source.
I have no problem with TD selling his stuff to the community. But when I see a post with misleading or as it seems, intentionally misleading information, should I not bring it up front? When Best Buy claims their 200 dollar box is the best computer evar in their ad should we just take it for face value and go shopping?
From what I see TD has made an excellent track record with satisfied customers if we count out the one very visible case some time back. This makes me even more surprised that he should react in this way the first moment someone asks him to clarify or rectify something he writes here.
-
Chef, it's not worth it bro.
-
In reply to your posts here MrRiply. I will address them with independent (recognized) opinions which differ from yours and are aligned with my statements and findings.
So lets start here with the difference between SATA 2 and SATA 3. No SATA drives use the whole amount of bandwidth available, this we agree upon. But neither do any processors use the whole amount of bandwidth available on a motherboard. Why not stick with a 1GHz processor since it will not flood the available bandwidth, why, because the 2GHz is faster but also does not flood the available bandwidth nor does a Overclocked 6GHz. Newer technology may not fully use whats available, but it is still faster than what it is replacing. I am sure you are not using an IDE interface hard drive, if not how come? It too does not fill the available bandwidth but I am sure you are using a SATA II.
Same thing with the SATA2 vs SATA3 claim later. I gave TD every chance to back his claims up with a simple review or a benchmark. The trouble is that the benchmarks show MY point as true not vice versa. Anything I said could have been easily refuted if it was not correct.
But SATA 3 is faster in real world applications hands down. Here is one link showing the average's of a SATA 2 and a SATA 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk9oGRAxo6U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk9oGRAxo6U) Now before you get all out of shape saying... blah blah blah about benchmark utilities, I will address another one of your statements saying that benchmark programs are not real world examples. Well here is an article from Maximum PC and I quote;
"To casual observers, PC builders who fixate on benchmarks are geeks unable to see the forest from the trees. “Why,” they ask, “can’t you just enjoy your new computer and let it be?” Our answer: the difference between a person who cares about benchmarking and one who doesn’t is how much that person values their free time.
Case in point, we recently did something as simple as download two large zip files at the end of the work day. Instead of strolling out at 6 p.m., we ended up waiting 15 minutes for the files to be decompressed on our work-issued PC. To care about benchmark is to care about performance. And to care about performance is to care about having more free time on your hand." SOURCE http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/how_properly_benchmark_your_pc (http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/how_properly_benchmark_your_pc)
You Sir consistently knock Benchmarking software. I would hope a magazine who's business also is the computer and component field have a clue what they are talking about. Benchmarking software does use a lot of real world examples to actually show what you might expect (3D Mark for one as well as ATTO which I did my comparison with here)
Should I go on to show your inaccuracy's? I looked back in these forums, I had to go back close to three years to find a thread that you had started. It was about Virtual Drivers. How many players do you think actually are using virtual machines to play? No very many would be my guess. You further stated I was inaccurate in my comparison, document to me where I am inaccurate. I can list 4 sources (professional reviews) showing the same findings as I with the Revo2 and SATA3 or if you prefer the Revo3 and SATA based SSD drives.
No matter how you look at it SATA is faster then IDE, SATA 2 is Faster then SATA, SATA 3 is faster then SATA 2, SSD is faster then SATA 3 and PCI/PCIe SSD is the fastest of whats mentioned here. Please show me where I am wrong in this matter specifically that SATA 2 and SATA 3 run at the same speeds (since you mentioned this several times):
Serial ATA International Organization (The people joined to set the common perimeters, I guess they are wrong also)
http://www.serialata.org/ (http://www.serialata.org/)
Whos members include
http://www.serialata.org/membership/member_listings_alpha.asp (http://www.serialata.org/membership/member_listings_alpha.asp)
Maybe you can tell them not to do further development of SATA ? until they can fill the current available bandwidth.
Here is what Tom's Hardware has to say about SATA II vs SATA 3 from Tom's Hardware
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Seagate-AMD-SATA3-Standard,7223.html (http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Seagate-AMD-SATA3-Standard,7223.html)
This post as I have said all along was my findings of two technologies, both available to the consumers. Both being fairly new to the market but having a great difference in performance.
You have made insults and statements that are unfounded and incorrect about the technology (claiming media hype) and me personally. I believe I have proved you wrong in your statements with my links from independent sources.
I send out several specked systems per month to people whom said they are not planning on making a purchase from me. Purchase and send parts to people from these boards at cost plus shipping without profit, only to support the community (where is my commercial interest). Spend hours per month on the phone with guys who build their own or purchased somewhere else and ask me for assistance or guidance (again without cost to them, commercial interest?), research parts for guys here looking to upgrade and want a recommendation from the boards (again where is my commercial interest). Look over guys who posted "what do you think of this build" and make corrections where they could do better (your reference to SATA 2 rather then my suggestion of SATA 3 which costs the same and is faster). If I had a real commercial interest from this forum, then I would not be selling the systems I do with the components I use, I would use the same as most other builders (the cheapest they can get).
You also stated that I lost credibility, no I don't feel that way at all, I know whats faster and whats not. I am disappointed in the way that the forums have turned into a group of nitpickers. I have gained something from this thread and that is more time for myself and family and business.
-
Well said TD! :rock
-
:salute TD
Thanks for all your help over the last couple of years and I for one will be calling you in a couple of months for my next build.
-
:salute TD.
SEMP
-
And this right here was the whole purpose of the thread and how I interpreted it:
From TD:
This post as I have said all along was my findings of two technologies, both available to the consumers. Both being fairly new to the market but having a great difference in performance.
-
First of all: Nobody is claiming SATA interface doesn't need developing OR that SATA3 is not faster than SATA2. I have never said anything such. The trouble here seems to be that you for a reason or the other cannot fathom that it is totally misleading to say someone made a mistake choosing sata2 interface on a hdd that is perfectly happy running on said interface. Choosing SATA2 for a HDD is perfectly adequate because a HDD cannot come close to saturating even sata2 bandwith.
This discussion is a total deja-vu with the recent PCI-E 1.0 vs 2.0 debate not so long ago lol! Then too people didn't understand that a size S man doesn't need XL pants to fit in them - even if there are people who need XXXL size.
I'll quote a quote from the 'professional home made youtube review' link you posted:
thats not a fair comparison, the 500gb is slower then the 640gb even when they are both sata 2, compare a 640gb sata 2 with a 640gb sata 3.
This comparison is pointless.
And this is what it boils down to. You consistently present erroneus information for reasons unknown to me. Benchmarks that are done with same size WD harddrive show 0.5% performance difference with cache burst speed excluded (pointless in real life scenario). You CONTINUE to make apples to oranges comparisons, the two harddrives ARE NOT COMPARABLE IN SPEED AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INTERFACE!
This comparison has been made with harddrives with an equal capacity and you'll be blown away by the (lack of) speed difference. http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/seagate_2tb/4.htm
Notice that the two drives are the top of the line in capacity (and therefore platter density/output speed) and yet SATA2 has absolutely no trouble to handle the data. Only fastest of the SSD drives approach the limits of SATA2. On a HDD it's meaningless.
You claim that ford is faster than chevrolet, then post a link comparing a ford labeled top fuel drag racer to a basic model chevrolet Kalos. Yay look how much faster a FORD is! I mean that chevrolet tipped over from the FORD's exhaust! :rolleyes:
A simplier person would have thought the comparison was about a top fuel drag racer against a regular family car and absolutely nothing to do with the makes.
I'm really disappointed to you TD. I thought you really knew your stuff but by pressing this case you're just eroding the last remains of your credibility (at least on the eyes of anyone who understands what we even speak of here).
-
No matter how you look at it SATA is faster then IDE, SATA 2 is Faster then SATA, SATA 3 is faster then SATA 2, SSD is faster then SATA 3 and PCI/PCIe SSD is the fastest of whats mentioned here. Please show me where I am wrong in this matter specifically that SATA 2 and SATA 3 run at the same speeds (since you mentioned this several times):
Ok, now I'm beginning to think it's a mild case of dyslexia or something. I'm referring to this thing again: "SSD is faster then SATA3".
This is what baffled me earlier and it seems you really do think SATA3 is synonymous for a HDD running on SATA3?
You do realize that SSD is a storage technology and SATA3 is an interface that can run SSD, HDD, FDD or any given form of storage? You can have a RAID set of multiple SSD's on SATA3 that will exceed the speed of the Revo2.
I was not even trying to claim the Revo2 wasn't faster than a single HDD on any form of SATA that's stupendously obvious. I was saying you cannot 'compare' PCI-E SSD vs SATA3. You just can't say SSD vs SATA because you talk about two entirely different things. The other is a storage technology, the other is an interface.
-
I am not sure if you do not under stand English or not or that you feel you have to lie to try and prove your right. Here is what you purposefully quoted from the video.
I'll quote a quote from the 'professional home made youtube review' link you posted:
Quote
thats not a fair comparison, the 500gb is slower then the 640gb even when they are both sata 2, compare a 640gb sata 2 with a 640gb sata 3.
This comparison is pointless.
Here is all the text from the video, I invite anyone to please tell me the time line where the video maker states this is not a fair comparison. Open the video folks and read along with the same words typed here (follow the bouncing ball)
VIDEO VERBIAGE IN TEXT
QUOTE
Hey guys today's video is about hard drive interface, ok, ah what you can see here is its my SATA2 Western Digital Black Edition Hard Drive 500 gigabyte 32 meg of cache. Its connected to SATA2 controller on my P55 motherboard from gigabyte ok and I just finished benchmarking this hard drive using HD Tune utility as you can see we have minimum 43 megabytes per second, maximum of 94.5 an average of 75.1 you also get the access time, burst rate and CPU usage ok so what I'm gonna do today, I'm gonna take new hard drive here, and this is the SATA3 also Black Edition hard drive from Western Digital, the difference between this drive and this drive, is, the capacity is a little bit higher ok and ah they doubled the ah cache here you have 64 megabytes of cache on this drive, and also its capable to run as SATA3 interface. So what I'm gonna do now I'm gonna connect this baby to my case and to my motherboard to SATA3 controller and I'm gonna run exactly the same benchmark to see if do we really have any performance difference ok jumping from SATA2 to SATA3 so stay with me I will run the benchmark.
Ok so the drive its here in my ah hard drive cage, it's connected umm on the back to SATA3 controller and ah lets benchmark it guys. Ok so we have the results here for the HD Tune 2.55 benchmark tool and we have minimum of 82.3, maximum of 136.9 and average of 114 and half megabytes per second and access time of 11.5 milliseconds so basically if you want to jump to SATA3 go for it, it's a good upgrade. Thank you very much for watching guys.
END QUOTE
You have been caught you in a blatant lie misleading the community by trying to make yourself look good for what ever reason. I feel no need to prove anything else you have stated because you resort to untruths to make your point. You mentioned credibility, I believe mine is still in tack, but yours is the one that should be in question here.
TD
MODIFY:
By the way, read your whole Overclockers review. I will quote it. "Seagate has introduced the world's first and only hard drive that supports the SATA 6Gb/s standard with the release of the Barracuda XT 2TB drive." This article is well over a year old, get with the program things have changed, there are hundreds of SATA 6Gb/s drives available. I post my findings and seems like everyone else's but yours, you find obscure and obsolete information
-
I am not sure if you do not under stand English or not or that you feel you have to lie to try and prove your right. Here is what you purposefully quoted from the video.
Here is all the text from the video, I invite anyone to please tell me the time line where the video maker states this is not a fair comparison. Open the video folks and read along with the same words typed here (follow the bouncing ball)
ROFLOL! The video maker is a no-name noob who is comparing apples to oranges and you're not being able to see it. Several people who commented the video you linked saw the same exact thing I'm trying to explain to you over and over.
thats not a fair comparison, the 500gb is slower then the 640gb even when they are both sata 2, compare a 640gb sata 2 with a 640gb sata 3.
This comparison is pointless.
QFT. This comparison, though we appreciate your efforts, is pointless.
If you wanted to make a fair comparison, then use the same hard drive (640GB Black Sata 6Gb/s) on the Sata 3Gb/s port. Benchmark that. Then put it on the Sata 6gb/s port. Benchmark that.
The differences, ESPECIALLY on a platter drive is very very minimal on Sata 3Gb/s vs 6Gb/s. It may make a difference on your burst speeds, but sequential read will be very close.
I tried using my hd sata 2 on sata 3 port and i get almost same benchmark as what you did on sata 3...
1. I have 2x WD1002FAEX 1 GB in RAID0 and they work faster in SATAII mode then SATAIII.
2. Major problem - using SATAIII your PCI-E works only at x8 mode.
ad nauseam
MODIFY:
By the way, read your whole Overclockers review. I will quote it. "Seagate has introduced the world's first and only hard drive that supports the SATA 6Gb/s standard with the release of the Barracuda XT 2TB drive." This article is well over a year old, get with the program things have changed, there are hundreds of SATA 6Gb/s drives available. I post my findings and seems like everyone else's but yours, you find obscure and obsolete information
It does not change the technical FACT that a HDD cannot produce enough data to fill even 60% of available bandwith of SATA2. It has no need for a faster interface. The _drive_ is the limitation not the interface. Oh Lord.
Here's 700mb/s performance on SATA2 oh noes.. :) http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/07/06/ssd_raid_scaling_under_windows_7/3
Here's 2Gb/s performance on SATA2 oh gawd! Wasn't your Revo2 merely 800+Mb? http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/09/24-samsung-ssds-get-strung-together-for-supercomputer-fun/
How can it be? SATA2 is slooooowwww.
Believe it...
-
And this right here was the whole purpose of the thread and how I interpreted it:
From TD:
This post as I have said all along was my findings of two technologies, both available to the consumers. Both being fairly new to the market but having a great difference in performance.
See? See how misleading the title was. Dragon you got mislead. The comparison was about a raided multichannel ssd versus a regular hdd. You think a hdd is new tech? :)
-
OMG.. dude.. take a valium. Or 10.
You're the ONLY one crusading about a very tiny nit-pick (which you started in the first place). At this point it's looking more like personal vendetta than any interest in debate/discussion.
-
See? See how misleading the title was. Dragon you got mislead. The comparison was about a raided multichannel ssd versus a regular hdd. You think a hdd is new tech? :)
The comparison was ALSO between components that connects via a pci slot vs a sata header, I got ALL that.
Chef, it's not worth it bro.
Ya know, I was going to try to walk away, but just reading some of his posts is causing me to lose IQ points.
-
The comparison was ALSO between components that connects via a pci slot vs a sata header, I got ALL that.
In fact it had nothing to do with them, which is where you were mislead. The HDD is in no way representative of SATA3's capabilities.
Ya know, I was going to try to walk away, but just reading some of his posts is causing me to lose IQ points.
I would argue you're doing so if you ignore them.
-
OMG.. dude.. take a valium. Or 10.
You're the ONLY one crusading about a very tiny nit-pick (which you started in the first place). At this point it's looking more like personal vendetta than any interest in debate/discussion.
Proving someones false claims wrong with undisputable test references and technical data is a personal vendetta and nit-picking? :)
-
This thread has gone sideways.
I will always give someone the benefit of the doubt, as it pertains to the various symantics of the technical jargon engineers toss about like candy.
I just do not see any benefit to the continued trading blows about it all.
I get what you are saying (I actually knew it from the very first post) Ripley, but you are starting to seem obsessive about it. TD, Ripley has a point and you are starting to sound very defensive as well. A more correct title would have been PCI-E versus SATA3, or SDD versus HDD.
I knew what you were getting at. I think most people do know. Ripley even knows. I just did not think it worth pointing out. I really do not think it worth a brow beating. Both of you have made it difficult to have a civil or constructive discussion about this topic.
I'd really like to see both of you just put it aside and figure out how to get to a mutually acceptable place.
-
See? See how misleading the title was. Dragon you got mislead. The comparison was about a raided multichannel ssd versus a regular hdd. You think a hdd is new tech? :)
So with your statement saying I mislead then your also saying that SATA3 is not new technology. Heck your own post from OCC stated NEW 6Gb/s.
My main question is this... If I want to compare APPLES to GRAPES who are you to tell me I should not be doing that? If you go back and read all of your posts you contradict yourself several times. One being the SATA 2 and SATA 3, you state
QUOTE
First of all: Nobody is claiming SATA interface doesn't need developing OR that SATA3 is not faster than SATA2
END QUOTE
No where in my original post did I mention bandwidth nor the amount available, the amount used by any technology period. You said this is not a fair comparison, why, because you don't think its fair? The comparison is one technology against another STOCK from the factory plugged into the MB. The original post is AGAIN showing two "NEW" technologies (SATA3 and PCIe SSD) again as stated time and again nothing more. No where did I say that HHD is new technology, which you are making claims of. READ the post not into it. When you want to build a system and I build a system using the same parts other then me using SATA3 and you SATA2 on either interface SATA2 or SATA3, I am sure in REAL WORLD applications my system will out perform it hands down.
As for you saying the NOOB YouTube post... please explain how a video is a twisted. Its right in front of your face. Also please explain your earlier statement that BENCHMARK UTILITIES have nothing to do with real world applications when I posted from MAXIMUM PC showing you wrong (unless they are NOOBS too). You just flat out refuse to admit you are wrong. As Skuzzy stated I may have mis-labled the title but the FIRST line shows PCIe vs SATA3.... where is the confusion, where is the misdirection? No where do I state anything about SAME TECHNOLOGY (ie 200GB vs 200GB) it is what it is PCIe vs SATA3.
SKUZZY I would have dropped this and I did until MrRiply stated that I have a commercial interest in my posts, In addition in another thread I pointed out to a person making a system configuration I informed the poster that a SATA3 drive would be a better option since the MB is SATA3 compatible, MrRiply then went off telling the poster as well as me that I have no clue, then in this thread again he starts mentioning bandwidth, none of the technology uses the available bandwidth but it is still faster then the technology it has replaced. He states "First of all: Nobody is claiming SATA interface doesn't need developing OR that SATA3 is not faster than SATA2. I have never said anything such." but then he goes and says there is no difference in speed, which is it, He states "He could just have corrected his title or admit the bad comparison" Please explain why this is a bad comparison, again this is two new technologies to hit the consumer market SATA3 and PCIe SSD that's boot-able. He also states "I have no problem with TD selling his stuff to the community. But when I see a post with misleading or as it seems, intentionally misleading information" first off who is he to to say if I can or can not sell, where have I mislead anyone?
I formally give up and will not be found posting on these boards period. Not worth my time nor effort.
TD
-
This thread has gone sideways.
I will always give someone the benefit of the doubt, as it pertains to the various symantics of the technical jargon engineers toss about like candy.
I just do not see any benefit to the continued trading blows about it all.
I get what you are saying (I actually knew it from the very first post) Ripley, but you are starting to seem obsessive about it. TD, Ripley has a point and you are starting to sound very defensive as well. A more correct title would have been PCI-E versus SATA3, or SDD versus HDD.
I knew what you were getting at. I think most people do know. Ripley even knows. I just did not think it worth pointing out. I really do not think it worth a brow beating. Both of you have made it difficult to have a civil or constructive discussion about this topic.
I'd really like to see both of you just put it aside and figure out how to get to a mutually acceptable place.
Yep it's time to bury it. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it.
-
I've never seen somebody so desperate to prove a worthless as you ripley.
semp