Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Hard Drives & Storage › SSD › Noticeable Difference Between Samsung 840 Pro 512gb and 840 500gb?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Noticeable Difference Between Samsung 840 Pro 512gb and 840 500gb? - Page 4

post #31 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Webster View Post


How? HDDs are normally ~100MB/s read/write. My SSD is 500MB/s read and 300MB/s write.

Explain to me how it is more logical to write large files to a slower HDD over a faster SSD? That is like saying it is better to drag race with a stock honda civic instead of a dragster.

 

Because the price premium over an HDD that has 5-10x more capacity, is not worth 5x the price unless you have more money than sense. It's well accepted that it's better to use an SSD for apps and an HDD for mass storage for files you rarely use like your video game .ISO's or movie library

 

And secondly, the transfer speeds you see on things like Crystaldisk are completely synthetic. You don't actually sequentially transfer at 500mb...


Edited by GridIroN - 5/17/13 at 6:12pm
post #32 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by GridIroN View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Webster View Post

How? HDDs are normally ~100MB/s read/write. My SSD is 500MB/s read and 300MB/s write.


Explain to me how it is more logical to write large files to a slower HDD over a faster SSD? That is like saying it is better to drag race with a stock honda civic instead of a dragster.

Because the price premium over an HDD that has 5-10x more space given the file is going to take a long time regardless, and if you buy a good HDD, it's not that slow is not worth 5x the price unless you have more money than sense.
BUT, price has nothing to do with it. I already have SSDs and HDDs, there is no price premium to be considered. Why should I write to my HDD instead of my SSD those files? My SSD will write 3x faster. Why waste time on the slower HDDs?
Quote:
It's well accepted that it's better to use an SSD for apps and an HDD for mass storage for files you rarely use like your video game .ISO's or movie library, unless money is not an issue.
That is different. That is storage. You said you should not use a SSD for large seq writes. So far you have no backup of your claim except that SSDs are more expensive than HDDs...which has nothing to do with write performance.
Quote:
And secondly, the transfer speeds you see on things like Crystaldisk are completely synthetic. You don't actually sequentially transfer at 500mb...

...Duh...
I beg to differ. tongue.gif

You can easily hit those speeds when transferring from one array to another. Also you can get 10 gigbit network equipment and you can transfer 1GB/s over LAN to any array on any PC in your network. biggrin.gif
post #33 of 39
I can transfer large files at and over 500 mb/s also, no problem. Not synthetic, reality bud.

Moving a 1-3 GB file from one ssd to another and it happens so fast you sometimes can't even get a chance to open the more details tab to read the transfer speeds. wink.gif

It moves the files so fast that the first couple of times I did it I was sure that all that got moved was the file name, but sure enough it also moved the data. Never ever using a spinner again. Actually haven't now in 2-3 years so no going back to a crawl for me.



PS. hey Sean that avatar is awesome bud, cracks me up every time I see it, lol biggrin.gif
Edited by DooRules - 5/18/13 at 12:52am
post #34 of 39
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Webster View Post

That sounds like windows crashing and corrupting, not a drive failure. Many things could have caused that. If you have the BSOD memory dump someone can check it out and help pinpoint the reason for the crash.
Well, based on what I read the drive may have not been the culprit of the crash and the SSD has not failed. However, we won't know unless the crash dump can be analyzed. Also, it could have been corruption from a system overclock or system update or driver crash.

I don't think that I mentioned this in the previous post, but I tried to re-install Windows on the Plextor drive before I eventually installed it on the Agility 3. Windows would not install on the Plextor, nor could I reformat the drive. It was kicking back errors and saying something to the effect that the Plextor drive was invalid (though not in those words, of course). Ubuntu also prevented me from installing, not even recognizing that the drive was available. I was hoping that it was just Windows and that I could simply re-install. Being primarily a Mac and Linux user all of my life (I installed Windows primarily for school), I always blame Windows for everything, so that was my first thought! Having to RMA is no fun, especially considering that I'm going to likely get someone else's faulty but fixed drive as a replacement.

Also, I might just feel this way because I'm still bitter over the timing of the "failure" (either on the part of Windows or Plextor) and it's consequences, but..... wink.gif
I understand that "no company is perfect" and that quality control is never going to be at 100% (at least I do now). However, the latter seems to be what Plextor was claiming and the former seems to be what they eluded to. I still feel that when your selling point is dependability ("100% Enterprise-grade burn in process on each drive before it ships", or something like that) and the price is adjusted to match that selling point, there is no excuse for not having a dependable drive. You pay for something that you didn't get, and that "something" isn't really RMA-able -as it applies to the experience from beginning to end. Again, maybe I'm only sour due to the circumstances, but in my sour state of mind, that's what seems to make the most sense.
Edited by airspoon - 5/18/13 at 10:08am
post #35 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Webster View Post


BUT, price has nothing to do with it. I already have SSDs and HDDs, there is no price premium to be considered. Why should I write to my HDD instead of my SSD those files? My SSD will write 3x faster. Why waste time on the slower HDDs?
 

 

Then my argument clearly doesn't apply to you

 

 

Quote:
That is different. That is storage. You said you should not use a SSD for large seq writes.

 

No, I said basing your appraisal of an SSD purely on it's sequential write was an amateur appraisal.

 

 

Quote:
So far you have no backup of your claim except that SSDs are more expensive than HDDs...which has nothing to do with write performance.
I beg to differ. tongue.gif

 

It's an argument of logistics. It can't be "backed up". If you disagree, than you disagree, which says nothing as to whether or not your opinion is rational.

 

Quote:
You can easily hit those speeds when transferring from one array to another. Also you can get 10 gigbit network equipment and you can transfer 1GB/s over LAN to any array on any PC in your network. biggrin.gif

 

I wasn't talking about Arrays. I also wasn't talking about LAN connections.

post #36 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by DooRules View Post

PS. hey Sean that avatar is awesome bud, cracks me up every time I see it, lol biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif I laughed so hard when I first saw it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by airspoon View Post

I don't think that I mentioned this in the previous post, but I tried to re-install Windows on the Plextor drive before I eventually installed it on the Agility 3. Windows would not install on the Plextor, nor could I reformat the drive. It was kicking back errors and saying something to the effect that the Plextor drive was invalid (though not in those words, of course). Ubuntu also prevented me from installing, not even recognizing that the drive was available. I was hoping that it was just Windows and that I could simply re-install. Being primarily a Mac and Linux user all of my life (I installed Windows primarily for school), I always blame Windows for everything, so that was my first thought! Having to RMA is no fun, especially considering that I'm going to likely get someone else's faulty but fixed drive as a replacement.
frown.gif
Quote:
Also, I might just feel this way because I'm still bitter over the timing of the "failure" (either on the part of Windows or Plextor) and it's consequences, but..... wink.gif
I understand that "no company is perfect" and that quality control is never going to be at 100% (at least I do now). However, the latter seems to be what Plextor was claiming and the former seems to be what they eluded to. I still feel that when your selling point is dependability ("100% Enterprise-grade burn in process on each drive before it ships", or something like that) and the price is adjusted to match that selling point, there is no excuse for not having a dependable drive. You pay for something that you didn't get, and that "something" isn't really RMA-able -as it applies to the experience from beginning to end. Again, maybe I'm only sour due to the circumstances, but in my sour state of mind, that's what seems to make the most sense.
Yea. I understand. I also never buy new SSDs now, or if I do they were on a good sale lol. All mine I get were far cheaper than if they were new.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GridIroN View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Webster View Post

BUT, price has nothing to do with it. I already have SSDs and HDDs, there is no price premium to be considered. Why should I write to my HDD instead of my SSD those files? My SSD will write 3x faster. Why waste time on the slower HDDs?

 

Then my argument clearly doesn't apply to you
But, before you were saying it did as your statement was directed towards everyone. I am part of everyone, thus it should apply to me if your statement holds true.

Quote:
No, I said basing your appraisal of an SSD purely on it's sequential write was an amateur appraisal.
No, you said it is illogical to use a SSD for large files over a HDD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GridIroN 
I'm just saying if you're going to be writing large sequential files, it makes more sense to be storing those on an HDD anyway because that's just logical.

However there are many cases where that would be illogical. Such as storing VMs, storing raw image files, storing large documents, etc.
Quote:
Quote:
So far you have no backup of your claim except that SSDs are more expensive than HDDs...which has nothing to do with write performance.

I beg to differ. tongue.gif
It's an argument of logistics. It can't be "backed up". If you disagree, than you disagree, which says nothing as to whether or not your opinion is rational.
But, since your statement has no supporting evidence of being logical, then it is illogical. You need support or a valid reason for it. So far you presented none as to why someone should use a HDD over a SSD for large seq. files.
Quote:
Quote:
You can easily hit those speeds when transferring from one array to another. Also you can get 10 gigbit network equipment and you can transfer 1GB/s over LAN to any array on any PC in your network. biggrin.gif

I wasn't talking about Arrays. I also wasn't talking about LAN connections.
Actually you were indirectly as you stated the speeds shown in benches are simply synthetic. However, they are not. I was presenting you cases in which the speeds in benches can be seen in actual usage, aka, not synthetic applications.
post #37 of 39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Webster View Post

But, before you were saying it did as your statement was directed towards everyone. I am part of everyone, thus it should apply to me if your statement holds true.
No, you said it is illogical to use a SSD for large files over a HDD.

 

No,...No I did not. My exact arguments were A) The 840 is not a "poo-poo" drive, because... B) those who judge an SSD purely on it's sequential performance are making amateur assessments, and C) It is far more logical to use an SSD as a main/boot drive and and HDD as a mass storage device. If you already have several SSD's than obviously it doesn't matter to you, but that does not make my statement invalid. 

 

Do not try to punk me by inferring positions I did not make to make yourself sound better on the internet...

 

Do not straw-man my arguments... 

 

Do not put words in my mouth...

 

Quote:

However there are many cases where that would be illogical. Such as storing VMs, storing raw image files, storing large documents, etc.

 

The average user does not store VM's. Raw image use does not constitute a 10x price premium over an HDD for the frequency you'll be using them. If you want to pay that for that usage, you are more than welcome to do so, and your performance will increase a great deal, but that does not make is a rational decision. 

 

Quote:

But, since your statement has no supporting evidence of being logical, then it is illogical. 

 

You disagreeing doesn't make an argument invalid, nor "lacking support", it means you don't agree. If you don't agree, say so. Do not accuse my argument of being "illogical".

 

Quote:

Actually you were indirectly as you stated the speeds shown in benches are simply synthetic. However, they are not. I was presenting you cases in which the speeds in benches can be seen in actual usage, aka, not synthetic applications.

 

That's nice, but it had nothing to do with my position, so it's an irrelevant piece of information. If you and others can vouch for having seen single drives transfer speeds within windows, unassisted by anything other than the Sata port it's connected to at synthetic speeds, I am more than willing to concede that point. 


Edited by GridIroN - 5/20/13 at 11:56am
post #38 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by GridIroN View Post

The average user does not store VM's.

This is OCN. The exception is probably the rule here. tongue.gif

That said, despite the greater sequential speed of the Samsung 840 Pro, I'd still prefer the Samsung 840 500GB for VMs. With a good sale, you can get 2*Samsung 840 500GB for the price of a single Samsung 840 Pro 512GB. For me, either the higher capacity or redundancy is more important than really fast sequential performance. It's not like I'll be copying VMs constantly, anyway. For majority of the time (basically while the VM is running), the important metric is random small block read/write - same as OS. Besides, even for a 20GB image, it's not like the difference in copy time is particularly awful. The 840 Pro would take around 40 seconds while the 840 would take around 60 seconds and that's assuming you're copying to/from two equally fast SSDs. If you've got oodles of RAM and write caching enabled, individual sequential write speeds won't even matter much.
Garnet
(11 items)
 
Lucifiel
(13 items)
 
Metatron
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-3450S Intel DQ77KB Corsair 16GB DDR3 1600 SO-DIMM Samsung 830 256GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Crucial m4 256 mSATA Samsung 840 500GB Intel BXHTS1155LP Windows 7 Ultimate x64 
KeyboardCaseMouse
Logitech K800 Lian Li PC-Q05B Logitech M570 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-860 Gigabyte GA-H55N-USB3 EVGA GTX 460 1GB GDDR5 Kingston 2x4GB DDR3 1333 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
G.SKILL Phoenix Pro 120GB Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Silverstone ST45SF 450W Silverstone Sugo SG05B 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-860 Biostar TH55B HD MSI GT 240 1GB GDDR5 Kingston 2x2GB DDR3 1333 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
Intel X25-M 120GB Windows 7 Ultimate x86 Samsung 22" Antec EA-380D 
Case
Rosewill R101-P-BK 
  hide details  
Reply
Garnet
(11 items)
 
Lucifiel
(13 items)
 
Metatron
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-3450S Intel DQ77KB Corsair 16GB DDR3 1600 SO-DIMM Samsung 830 256GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Crucial m4 256 mSATA Samsung 840 500GB Intel BXHTS1155LP Windows 7 Ultimate x64 
KeyboardCaseMouse
Logitech K800 Lian Li PC-Q05B Logitech M570 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-860 Gigabyte GA-H55N-USB3 EVGA GTX 460 1GB GDDR5 Kingston 2x4GB DDR3 1333 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
G.SKILL Phoenix Pro 120GB Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Silverstone ST45SF 450W Silverstone Sugo SG05B 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-860 Biostar TH55B HD MSI GT 240 1GB GDDR5 Kingston 2x2GB DDR3 1333 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
Intel X25-M 120GB Windows 7 Ultimate x86 Samsung 22" Antec EA-380D 
Case
Rosewill R101-P-BK 
  hide details  
Reply
post #39 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by rui-no-onna View Post


This is OCN. The exception is probably the rule here. tongue.gif

That said, despite the greater sequential speed of the Samsung 840 Pro, I'd still prefer the Samsung 840 500GB for VMs. With a good sale, you can get 2*Samsung 840 500GB for the price of a single Samsung 840 Pro 512GB. For me, either the higher capacity or redundancy is more important than really fast sequential performance. It's not like I'll be copying VMs constantly, anyway. For majority of the time (basically while the VM is running), the important metric is random small block read/write - same as OS. Besides, even for a 20GB image, it's not like the difference in copy time is particularly awful. The 840 Pro would take around 40 seconds while the 840 would take around 60 seconds and that's assuming you're copying to/from two equally fast SSDs. If you've got oodles of RAM and write caching enabled, individual sequential write speeds won't even matter much.

 

Yes, I figured the natural confirmation bias here was going to work against me, lol. 

 

Yes, I agree. A 40% price increase is not worth higher sequential write from the Pro. A Crucial M4 is all most users would ever need, and the 840 is quite a bit faster than that. I'll take that deal any day. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: SSD
Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Hard Drives & Storage › SSD › Noticeable Difference Between Samsung 840 Pro 512gb and 840 500gb?