No BS Podcast #159: Questions and Rantswers



+ Add a Comment


Please don't eat while recording the podcast. I had to stop listening because it was driving me crazy.



Hey that dude with the Dell laptop asked the same question on podcast. He's cluster bombing all the podcasts... he must be stopped!



And only one legit one while all others are spam. There was only one Podcast the whole month of November. Will there be just one Podcast the whole month of December? :-(


Bullwinkle J Moose

At 44 min and 50 seconds, Nathan first incorrectly states that "SLC" flash is good for 10,000 Write/rewrite cycles when even SSD Noobs know that "MLC" is in the 10K write/rewrite range and SLC is in the 100,000 range.

The REAL reason for using a platter based drive for a photoshop scratch disk is due to the superior internal throughput of the platter based drive vs an SSD

A 200MB copy and paste on an XP Box with a properly aligned partition on a Vertex 2 will give you approximately 3.6 Megabytes per second throughput on an Atom Dualcore

The same 200MB copy and paste on a 640GB 7200RPM Western Digital Desktop drive will give you aproximately 3X better copy and paste speeds or about 11.8 Megabytes per second

I know you do not ever intend to use an Atom dualcore for photoshop work but the WD drive will still work better for photoshop than a Vertex 2 using the best computer you have available in XP

Windows 7's funky caching scheme will give you bad numbers for this type of realword test and should be avoided when testing the actual usable throughput of your drives (Test it yourself to verify)

The only time you will EVER see a write speed over 200MB/sec to a Sandforce based drive in the REAL world is if you are reading from one super fast SSD and writing to another super fast SSD

(Or reading from a RAMdrive and writing to a Super fast SSD)

There is no room for synthetic SSD testing in the REAL World Nathan

If you try this type of test on at least 1000 files in at least 100 directories, you must copy and paste the data to and from different directories on each test run, otherwise Windows caching will give you better numbers that do not reflect the actual throughput!

Merry F'ing Christmas NOOB!



Keith E. Whisman

Um... Could it possibly be that Windows 7 so-called funky caching scheme is actually an improvement over Windows XP simply because you can't detect a decrease in performance? Isn't that logical? Isn't that more reasonable than to say that an OS that was built years and years before SSD's were even thought of is a better benchmark than an OS that was built with getting the most performance and the best possible user experience out of SSD's and speedy HDD's?

When XP was built, Microsoft built it to get the most out of an IDE HDD. USB was new and Windows didn't even come with built in support. SATA was a future dream and wasn't built with support for it either. Hell, XP was built with a 130GB HDD maximum size limitation that wasn't fixed until Service Pack 1. So perhaps your argument is flawed. Have you ever considered that?


Bullwinkle J Moose

My ranting was about how to properly test drive speeds

Windows 7's Funky caching scheme made ALL of the drives finish the Copy/Paste test in EXACTLY the same amount of time!

So by Windows 7 fanboy logic, you should use a 5400RPM laptop drive with windows 7 because it is just as fast as a Vertex 2 under Windows 7, costs a lot less than a Vertex 2  and has far more storage space than a Vertex 2

Whenever you see a 5400RPM laptop drive, a 7200RPM desktop drive and a Vertex 2 SSD finish a copy and paste test in exactly the same amount of time under Windows 7, then your Windows 7 method of testing is obviously WRONG!!!

Windows 7 may be better for all drives under normal use because all drives finished faster than they did under XP but it is fatally flawed when trying to test the actual throughput of the drives and the relative differences in speed between the drives

In other words, you are talking about the OS caching improvement over XP and I am talking about the drive speeds and how to accuratly test them without Windows 7 induced caching errors

Apples and oranges


My hard drive is Faster than YOUR SSD



Remind me why you're using a dual-core Atom processor and a ten-year-old operating system with your top-of-the-line, very expensive SSD? Do you think that has anything to do with your glacial speeds? 

We used to test SSDs on XP (despite the fact that, you know, it's ten years old and wasn't designed for SSDs and doesn't support TRIM), and we saw similar scores to the ones we've been getting with Windows 7. I'll dig up an XP machine and see what kind of speeds I get, but the fact that you're getting slower transfer speeds from your SandForce drive than I get from a USB 2.0 thumb drive indicates that there's a problem with your system, not solid-state drives or Windows 7.


Keith E. Whisman

Mr. Edwards can you try copying a large image file or something like that from one folder to another folder on the same SSD in Windows 7 and Windows XP to see if there is a difference. Then try the same test with a standard mechanical HDD to see which is faster. I know that most people using photoshop use multiple monitors and multiple HDD's in storage and user drives. These would be timed tests to see how long it takes for the file to copy from one location on an SSD to another location on the same SSD and HDD.


Bullwinkle J Moose

Wanna try again?

Tell me oh wise one, what is the copy and paste speed YOU are getting with a Vertex 2 on the lowest common denominator?  (XP on an Atom Box)

Try it first with a NON-Aligned Partition and then jump through all the OCZ hoops to get the best performance possible and try it again on YOUR Perfect system!

We'll wait for your "Better" results..(Cough, Laugh, Cough)

Then try it with XP on the best Quadcore you can find

Show us all that Your Vertex 2 can beat a Western Digital Desktop 7200RPM drive for a copy and paste test in XP or any other OS besides Windows 7

I'd LOVE to see it on Youtube!

But, it isn't going to happen in this lifetime is it?



It's about damn time...



I was thinking you forgot about us for the podcast...   With all the delays, is there going to be the traditional Gordon all rant episode, or are we going to have to fall back on the last couple years releases to scratch our rant itch?

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.