RevoDrive 120GB PCI Express SSD Review

12

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

EricX2

I can't believe you never mention that this would technically mean you could have a PC with no internal wiring besides the motherboard power.

Referring to something like a business PC or any small form factor style PC that traditionally do not have large drives anyway. The PC's we get at work at SFF Dell OptiPlex's with 160gb drives without DVD/CD drives. Putting this in the PCI-E Slot would also eliminate the loudest part of the system.

avatar

allantang

I have this drive in 120gb and am very happy with it. Yeah the lack of trim is a bit of bummer but, there are manaul ways of "cleaning up" the drive so that it runs better again.

 

avatar

Pureoverclocking

Sequential Access - Read:
up to 540MB/s
Sequential Access - Write:
up to 490MB/s
after reading 5 review all over internet not one them show this drive hiting those speed waste of money.
avatar

Keith E. Whisman

Actually the article shows that those benchmarks are only achieved on one benchmark suite. 

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

Here's the problem

Synthetic Benchmarks won't show you how fast this drive is for uncompressible data

Only a copy and paste of several hundred megabytes to and from the same drive under XP will show you what this drive will do under actual load

First off, due to Windows 7's caching scheme, ALL drives (Slow or Fast) seem to finish a copy and paste in the same amount of time and cannot be used for this test

In a worst case scenario, using an ATOM computer with Windows XP and Zero SSD Tweaks, a OCZ VERTEX 2 will copy and paste data at only 3.6 Megabytes per second

A 5400RPM laptop drive was faster than the Vertex 2 in this test because OCZ drives require massive amounts of Tweaking and highly compressible data to get the numbers they are advertizing

A 7200RPM desktop drive was A LOT faster than the Vertex 2 in this type of test

Anyone working with uncompressible data "already on the drive" such as video editors should avoid these SSD's and stick with the much faster desktop platter drives

Using a slower ATOM computer for these tests will amplify the difference between slower and faster drives and give you a better idea of the "Relative" speed difference between drives

You should use this test for ALL SSD's and compare the results to common hard drives so that end users can get a feel for the "Actual" throughput of these drives on uncompressible data

Remember, Data on the Vertex drive's is already compressed and cannot be compressed again during a copy/paste to show you the actual throughput of the drive under XP

Worst case scenario testing under XP is the way to go with SSD's to see what they will really do under actual workloads without endless tweaking and without getting bogus results due to Windows 7's caching scheme

avatar

COMMANDER_COOK

The reason the SSD is so slow in XP is because XP doesn't recognize the physical alignment that SSDs use. The SSD is actually being commanded to rewrite each block several times instead of just once.

And no, SSDs do not require a massive amount of tweaking and 7 does not have a "caching" scheme.

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

I don't know, for my OS and games an single SSD seems to be really fast, a lot faster than a 7200RPM HDD. The OS boots faster than any platter hdd can and games load in a few seconds compared to the long wait you get with a spinning platter. Itunes pops open just like that with nearly 20,000 songs. 

Are you referring to .raw when you mention uncompressible files? 

How does any limitation like the ones you noted affect the majority of users?

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

You are correct!

A vertex 2 boots really fast 7-12 seconds on my ATOM

A 300X compact Flash boots in 12 seconds but "Seems" much slower than the Vertex in accessing and loadin programs on the same machine

I was not referring to how fast it seems to be in loading Windows or games

The access times are great but handling data that is already compressed is horrible

ALL data on a Vertex 2 drive is already compressed and will not be compressed again during a copy and paste function to and from the same drive!

You are talking about apples and I'm talking about oranges

Too simplify this, Sandforce based SSD's have excellent load times for data already on the drive that never changes and make great boot drives, but have horrible throughput during a copy and paste function to and from the same drive

So, as long as you only use it to boot your computer and load games, it's all good

But if you want to manipulate data already compressed or that is uncompressible, it's a completely different story

Anyone doing video editing might have better results with a platter based drive!

A copy and paste of 200MB with 919 files in 85 folder got the following results>

55 seconds (3.636MB per second) on a Vertex 2

54 seconds on a 640GB Western Digital Laptop drive @ 5400RPM

17 seconds on a 640GB Western Digital Desktop Drive @ 7200RPM

You do the math!

 

 

avatar

ptolemyx

Look, I don't know what you've done to your Vertex 2 to get such awful performance, but I tried your copy/paste test with a 500MB folder of 2500 files (a software project tree; ~160M is compressed distribution packages) and got around 80MB/sec.

To reiterate, this was copy/pasting across a single drive. It _was_ on Windows 7, which you claim has caching tricks that make judgement difficult -- which doesn't make sense considering W7 also shows copy bandwidth in the progress dialog; I suppose that's fake?

Anyway, I ran the first test 8 times in a row, and the copy speed never slowed down. That's 4G of data; I have less than 2G of free RAM. I'm not saying this is a scientific measure, but it's also over 20x the performance you suggest I should be getting.

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

I too got better results on a vertex 2 in Windows 7 but I also got identical results in Windows 7 with platter based drives due to that OS's funky caching scheme

Based on these results, you might as well use the cheapest platter based drive with Windows 7

To get real numbers based on the actual speed of the drive, you need to use XP

If all drives show faster but identical results in Windows 7, then the results are WRONG!!!!!

You also OBVIOUSLY used a faster computer than an ATOM to get your results as the speed of this test is also determined by the CPU and chipset

I simply used an ATOM to get the slowest times in a worst case scenario

That way, I could see the difference between one drive finishing in 54 seconds and another finishing in 55 seconds

A faster CPU would reduce the time to finish these tests, but I might not have noticed the 1 second difference between those two drives because of it

 

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

OK... I think I got it.. That's a pretty big limitation. Would it be different if the data was divided up on two or more drives in a Raid 0 array of SSD's? Or is it the same thing just spread across three drives? And would this limitation be evidenced on the new Hybrid drives now hitting the market? 500Gig HDD with a 4Gig SSD build in.

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

I don't use RAID and never tried the hybrid drive

I would supect that the hybrid drive would perform as well as any other platter based 7200RPM laptop drive though as the flash is only used for read caching and would not affect the writes

two drives however WOULD affect the copy paste times

two seperate drives that ARE NOT connected in RAID should give you MUCH better copy and paste times but that setup would not show you the internal throughput of a single drive as I have attempted to illustrate

Copying from one SSD and pasting to another should give excellent results but I have yet to try it

Sorry, I have no idea how RAID would perform with these drives under XP

 

 

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.