Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [THG] The SSD Power Consumption Hoax
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[THG] The SSD Power Consumption Hoax

post #1 of 44
Thread Starter 
First section and part of the section quoted, so you'll have to click the link to view the rest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Schmid and Achim Roos @ THG
Flash SSDs Don’t Improve Your Notebook Battery Runtime – they Reduce It

Flash-based solid state drives (SSDs) are considered to be the future of performance hard drives, and everyone seems to be jumping on the bandwagon. We are no exception, as we have been publishing many articles on flash-based SSDs during the last few months, emphasizing the performance gains and the potential power savings brought by flash memory. And there is nothing wrong with this, since SLC flash SSDs easily outperform conventional hard drives today (SLC = single level cell). However, we have discovered that the power savings aren’t there: in fact, battery runtimes actually decrease if you use a flash SSD.

Could Tom’s Hardware be Wrong?

No, our results are definitely correct. ...
Source: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...tery,1955.html

I thought this should be posted since there was a news thread the other day about how high-RPM drives are a waste of money compared to SSDs, which I believe to be a completely false statement. This article, if THG's data is correct, gives yet another reason why high-RPM drives are still the best available and definitely better than what SSD has to offer by a long shot - especially considering the new VelociRaptor drives.
Edited by stargate125645 - 7/2/08 at 9:41am
BladeRunner v3.0
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-5930K @ 4.6GHz Core, 4.4GHz Cache ASUS X99 Sabertooth Sapphire R9 380 Dual-X OC G.Skill TridentZ 32GB DDR4 @ 13-15-13-33-1T 320... 
Hard DriveCoolingOSKeyboard
Samsung 850 Pro 512GB Noctua NH-D15S Windows 10 Home 64-bit Logitech G910 Orion Spark 
PowerCaseMouse
EVGA SuperNova 1000W T2 NZXT Phantom 820 Black Logitech G5 
  hide details  
Reply
BladeRunner v3.0
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-5930K @ 4.6GHz Core, 4.4GHz Cache ASUS X99 Sabertooth Sapphire R9 380 Dual-X OC G.Skill TridentZ 32GB DDR4 @ 13-15-13-33-1T 320... 
Hard DriveCoolingOSKeyboard
Samsung 850 Pro 512GB Noctua NH-D15S Windows 10 Home 64-bit Logitech G910 Orion Spark 
PowerCaseMouse
EVGA SuperNova 1000W T2 NZXT Phantom 820 Black Logitech G5 
  hide details  
Reply
post #2 of 44
I'm betting mechanical harddrive's weren't the best for power consumption when they came about, but look where they've come now.

I reckon it'll reduce over time.
post #3 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by voice View Post
I'm betting mechanical harddrive's weren't the best for power consumption when they came about, but look where they've come now.

I reckon it'll reduce over time.
Of course their power consumption will reduce with newer models - especially now that this has been exposed - but what does that have to do with SSD vendors advertising improved efficiency and increased batterly life when the opposite is the case? It's false advertising, plain and simple.
BladeRunner v3.0
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-5930K @ 4.6GHz Core, 4.4GHz Cache ASUS X99 Sabertooth Sapphire R9 380 Dual-X OC G.Skill TridentZ 32GB DDR4 @ 13-15-13-33-1T 320... 
Hard DriveCoolingOSKeyboard
Samsung 850 Pro 512GB Noctua NH-D15S Windows 10 Home 64-bit Logitech G910 Orion Spark 
PowerCaseMouse
EVGA SuperNova 1000W T2 NZXT Phantom 820 Black Logitech G5 
  hide details  
Reply
BladeRunner v3.0
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-5930K @ 4.6GHz Core, 4.4GHz Cache ASUS X99 Sabertooth Sapphire R9 380 Dual-X OC G.Skill TridentZ 32GB DDR4 @ 13-15-13-33-1T 320... 
Hard DriveCoolingOSKeyboard
Samsung 850 Pro 512GB Noctua NH-D15S Windows 10 Home 64-bit Logitech G910 Orion Spark 
PowerCaseMouse
EVGA SuperNova 1000W T2 NZXT Phantom 820 Black Logitech G5 
  hide details  
Reply
post #4 of 44
So, now SSD's decrease battery life, and have a shorter life span.. awsome.
> Scotland
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE ASUS M4A89GTD 9600GT OC G.SKILL Ripjaws 4GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD Cavier Black Lite-On SATA DVD+RW Windows 7 Professional Samsung BX2335 + Samsung 2253BW 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft FSP FX600-GLN-E Aspire X-Cruiser Razer Diamondback 3G 
Mouse Pad
Wacom Intuios 4 Medium 
  hide details  
Reply
> Scotland
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE ASUS M4A89GTD 9600GT OC G.SKILL Ripjaws 4GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD Cavier Black Lite-On SATA DVD+RW Windows 7 Professional Samsung BX2335 + Samsung 2253BW 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft FSP FX600-GLN-E Aspire X-Cruiser Razer Diamondback 3G 
Mouse Pad
Wacom Intuios 4 Medium 
  hide details  
Reply
post #5 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargate125645 View Post
Of course their power consumption will reduce with newer models - especially now that this has been exposed - but what does that have to do with SSD vendors advertising improved efficiency and increased batterly life when the opposite is the case? It's false advertising, plain and simple.
There's a fine line between false advertising and flat-out lying, and the vendors crossed it.
Arthur 1.03
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E8400 @ 3.6ghz DFI LANPARTY DK P35-T2RS HD 4870 @ 790/1000ddr 2x2gb 1000mhz G.Skill 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
250gb Seagate 32mb cache SAMSUNG 20X DVD±R Windows XP Pro Acer AL2216Wbd Black 22" 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
one with keys. Corsair HX520w Modular PSU P182 a lazer one. 
  hide details  
Reply
Arthur 1.03
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E8400 @ 3.6ghz DFI LANPARTY DK P35-T2RS HD 4870 @ 790/1000ddr 2x2gb 1000mhz G.Skill 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
250gb Seagate 32mb cache SAMSUNG 20X DVD±R Windows XP Pro Acer AL2216Wbd Black 22" 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
one with keys. Corsair HX520w Modular PSU P182 a lazer one. 
  hide details  
Reply
post #6 of 44
Their analysis is flawed, for several reasons:

1. When you benchmark the SSD versus the HDD in a 100% runtime scenario you are not mimicking real world environments. SSDs benefit from not consuming ANY power while they are idle, where HDDs still consume near their maxium level. That means that in reality (where the storage device is not at 100% utilization 100% of the time) the SSD will use less power than the HDD.
2. The SSD is faster than the HDD, meaning that it can finish a task faster than the HDD and go back into its no power use idle mode.

In addition SSD's are still valuable because they make less noise, are less prone to shock (laptops are mobile), and weigh less.
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
post #7 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
Their analysis is flawed, for several reasons:

1. When you benchmark the SSD versus the HDD in a 100% runtime scenario you are not mimicking real world environments. SSDs benefit from not consuming ANY power while they are idle, where HDDs still consume near their maxium level. That means that in reality (where the storage device is not at 100% utilization 100% of the time) the SSD will use less power than the HDD.
2. The SSD is faster than the HDD, meaning that it can finish a task faster than the HDD and go back into its no power use idle mode.

In addition SSD's are still valuable because they make less noise, are less prone to shock (laptops are mobile), and weigh less.
Write speed is significantly slower on SSD, but read speed is fast
Calypso
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Q6600 @ 3.6 Ghz Gigabyte EP45-UD3P XFX 9600 GT 6 Gigabytes Mixed Ballstix,Tracers 1:1 400MHZ 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x Seagate 320, 1x 400 WD in Raid 0 Windows Vista Ultimate x86 ASUS MK241h 24" Microsoft Multimeda 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Rosewill 600W Xclio Windtunnel Microsoft Multimedia OSCS 
  hide details  
Reply
Calypso
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Q6600 @ 3.6 Ghz Gigabyte EP45-UD3P XFX 9600 GT 6 Gigabytes Mixed Ballstix,Tracers 1:1 400MHZ 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x Seagate 320, 1x 400 WD in Raid 0 Windows Vista Ultimate x86 ASUS MK241h 24" Microsoft Multimeda 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Rosewill 600W Xclio Windtunnel Microsoft Multimedia OSCS 
  hide details  
Reply
post #8 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
Their analysis is flawed, for several reasons:

1. When you benchmark the SSD versus the HDD in a 100% runtime scenario you are not mimicking real world environments. SSDs benefit from not consuming ANY power while they are idle, where HDDs still consume near their maxium level. That means that in reality (where the storage device is not at 100% utilization 100% of the time) the SSD will use less power than the HDD.
2. The SSD is faster than the HDD, meaning that it can finish a task faster than the HDD and go back into its no power use idle mode.

In addition SSD's are still valuable because they make less noise, are less prone to shock (laptops are mobile), and weigh less.
Did you read the article? Go look at the idle power consumption graphcs.
Metal Case
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 ASUS GeForce GTX285 1GB 6GB Corsair 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
500GB Vista Ultimate 64-bit Asus 24" 850W 
  hide details  
Reply
Metal Case
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 ASUS GeForce GTX285 1GB 6GB Corsair 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
500GB Vista Ultimate 64-bit Asus 24" 850W 
  hide details  
Reply
post #9 of 44
Thanks for the article stargate
The Fox Box
(16 items)
 
Macbook Pro
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 3930K ASUS P9X79 ASUS GTX 570 DCII 4 x 4GB G.Skill Sniper 1600MHz LV 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Intel 330 - 180GB LG HDDVD & Blu Ray Reader Cooler Master Hyper 612 Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
HP ZR30w Samsung 2243BWX Ducky! PCP&C 750w Silencer (coppa) 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Lian Li PC-E8 G9x S&S Steel Onkyo Receiver/Design Acoustics 2.1 system 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5 2410M HD 3000 8GB 120GB SSD 
Optical DriveOSOSOS
Super Drive OSX 10.7.2 Win 7 Enterprise (In VB) Ubuntu 10.04 (In VB) 
MonitorPower
13" 1280x800 65w Magsafe 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Q9300 Gigabyte P35 8GB DDR2 2TB WD 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
2TB WD 2TB Seagate 1.5TB Seagate 1.5TB Seagate 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
1TB Hitachi 1TB Hitachi 500GB WD DVD-RW 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Win Server 2012 Headless/15" touchscreen Apple mini USB PC P&C 500W 
  hide details  
Reply
The Fox Box
(16 items)
 
Macbook Pro
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 3930K ASUS P9X79 ASUS GTX 570 DCII 4 x 4GB G.Skill Sniper 1600MHz LV 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Intel 330 - 180GB LG HDDVD & Blu Ray Reader Cooler Master Hyper 612 Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
HP ZR30w Samsung 2243BWX Ducky! PCP&C 750w Silencer (coppa) 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Lian Li PC-E8 G9x S&S Steel Onkyo Receiver/Design Acoustics 2.1 system 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5 2410M HD 3000 8GB 120GB SSD 
Optical DriveOSOSOS
Super Drive OSX 10.7.2 Win 7 Enterprise (In VB) Ubuntu 10.04 (In VB) 
MonitorPower
13" 1280x800 65w Magsafe 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Q9300 Gigabyte P35 8GB DDR2 2TB WD 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
2TB WD 2TB Seagate 1.5TB Seagate 1.5TB Seagate 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
1TB Hitachi 1TB Hitachi 500GB WD DVD-RW 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Win Server 2012 Headless/15" touchscreen Apple mini USB PC P&C 500W 
  hide details  
Reply
post #10 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
Their analysis is flawed, for several reasons:

1. When you benchmark the SSD versus the HDD in a 100% runtime scenario you are not mimicking real world environments. SSDs benefit from not consuming ANY power while they are idle, where HDDs still consume near their maxium level. That means that in reality (where the storage device is not at 100% utilization 100% of the time) the SSD will use less power than the HDD.
2. The SSD is faster than the HDD, meaning that it can finish a task faster than the HDD and go back into its no power use idle mode.

In addition SSD's are still valuable because they make less noise, are less prone to shock (laptops are mobile), and weigh less.
Valid points - the issue here is that the manufactures didn't sort out their fine print, or at least give themselves an "in real world performance tests..." option.

Toms is correct - but the issue is not one of lying, but semantics.
Morpheus Mini
(7 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700T SN970 GTX 960 Crucial CT102464BF160B 
Hard DriveOSAudio
Samsung 850 Evo M.2 Windows 10 Pro MOTU Audio Express 
  hide details  
Reply
Morpheus Mini
(7 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700T SN970 GTX 960 Crucial CT102464BF160B 
Hard DriveOSAudio
Samsung 850 Evo M.2 Windows 10 Pro MOTU Audio Express 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [THG] The SSD Power Consumption Hoax