Intel Treats PAX Attendees to SSD Overclocking Demonstration

23

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

froggz

On-demand overclocking for emergency fast searches would be cool. At work, I sometimes have to scrounge before a meeting to find an old report to print right before it starts. So a "I need to find the fucking file right fucking now" button that overclocks the shit out of the SSD for faster file search would be worth the tiny hit to reliability.

avatar

satrain18

There's already a much better way to boost SSD performance. It's called RAID 0. You need at least two SSDs, but it works.

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

Not really

Intel could sell a single SSD with 2 controllers + internal RAID and 2 Sata ports to get RAID performance from a singe SSD

But why double performance for less than double the price when you can just let the consumer take all the risk of data loss for a few measly percentage points in speed ?

INTEL
The new OCZ of SSD's ???

avatar

Nastyman

I think the guys/gals that are saying the ssds they own are failing at an early date may be forgetting to shut off the defragger in win 7 or 8 and it is killing their drives. Both OSes have trim to keep the drive factory fresh.

I have a Samsung 840 running about six months now and it hasn't slowed down a bit since I installed it. I just did the firmware and now it benchmarks even faster. Thanks Samsung!

Nasty

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

Defragging won't kill your SSD

Defragging is Pointless on an SSD unless you are only using it to torture test an SSD

OCZ SSD's that failed after updating the firmware were not destroyed by defragging, or by failing to use the recommended partition offset or by failing to use TRIM

I have been torture testing SSD's since the Vertex 1

It NEVER failed under any abuse scenario untill the firmware was updated

This is not a fluke!

The high failure rate of OCZ SSD's back then was due to firmware updates as could be verified by thousands of angry customers at the OCZ forum itself

I have never trusted my data to an SSD without torturing the crap out of it first

Newer SSD's are tortured beyond anything I ever did to an OCZ drives and killing the power mid-job is one of the newer tests I use now

Never had a failure of the drive itself due to end user abuse
The only lost data I had was due to killing the power mid-job

Defragging is NOT the problem!

avatar

JOHNKAVEN911

wow, awesome post, I was wondering if there is a way to enlarge my penis quickly. and found your site by google, learned a lot, now i’m a bit clear. bookmarked and also signed up your rss. keep us updated.
frases de amistad
frases de cancioneses

avatar

Gikero

I hate that Maximum PC has a spam bot problem, but this is funny.

avatar

froggz

Completely agree. It's hilarious. But I'm not sure what the hell the spam bot is trying to sell here. My theory, the spam bot has gained self-awareness and is looking to enlarge it's digital penis size.

I for one welcome our small penis spambots overlords.

avatar

warptek2010

Those that purchase small capacity SSD's (like 60GB to 128GB) tend to only place their OS and most used programs on them... so overclocking would be more feasible. But the really large SSD's of 256GB and above? Hell no. Those tend to hold more important data on them. Those gains are very negligible to begin with. What's the point? If prices were more like 0.50 cents a GB, then maybe. Intel may be king of the cpu but this is nothing more than an attempt to goose their SSD sales. I will stick with other brands that are known for high performance SSD's, thank you.

avatar

vrmlbasic

We've already hit the SATA III bandwidth bottleneck so I'm not intrigued by these minor improvements in speeds for sequential data.

I want to see vastly improved 4K random read/write performance, improvements which show gains in the only area with room for improvement until SATA 4/USB 3.1: random access.

avatar

spaulding

So basically it seems you OC a SSD like you OC RAM. OCing RAM is pretty pointless and not worth any noticable gains. I see this as being a way to just take your money for minimal games. How is 1-2% boost, IF THAT, going to be worth a cost premium? The speeds are great already and getting even better, Samsung EVO anyone?

avatar

aarcane

I'd be willing to pay $20 extra as a premium, on the condition that I maintain complete feature parity otherwise. IE: No disabling of crypto instructions or other advanced features just because I want to have the ability to overclock

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

No, That just doesn't make any sense. If you pushed that thing 25% harder and barely got a 4% increase in speed, then why would you suffer the (likely 25%) decrease in lifespan? Call me when the SSD is made with ReRam and can really push out some numbers.

avatar

PCWolf

I still don't trust SSD's/ My friend got a Crucial SSD a year ago & already it's starting to fail. I'm going to wait for a bit longer until 2 things happen: Flash Nand Technology improves to where the Nand can last twice as long as today's Nand, & prices come down a bit more.

avatar

TheFrawg

I've never had a single problem with an SSD. I've been using them since the price of a 40gb drive dropped below $200. I have 4 PCs in my family, 2 laptops that use the SSD for their only drive. Those drives have been in use nearly continuously for 2 years and have had zero problems.

I recommend them to everyone I know for a dramatic improvement in your desktop experience. Boot faster, things load and respond faster. Try one and you'll never go back.

avatar

neo912

SSDs are just fine life wise...if you get the right ones. We have a lot of SSDs running in our factory on the machinery and I have seen some really good and bad ones due to that. I will never touch OCZ again with a 10 foot pole. We purchased 6 Agility drives (Yes I know those are the cheap ones) and all 6 died within 6 months of very light use (we are talking megabytes written a day). We have 10 intel ones (510s) and have yet to have one of those fail.

We switched to Samsung (830s and then 840s) and have yet to see a single one fail. I have 20 out there now and still haven't had an issue with one of them yet. We have been running the 830s for over a year now and the 840s for the last I think 8-9 months or so. The 840s are running on drafting machines that write 50GB a day easily. It is all about the brand and according to this test the write limit really shouldn't be an issue now. I guess the Samsung drives can last for over 27 years with regular writing...Since most people probably only keep their drives for 6-8 years or so I see this as pretty dang good. I have yet to see standard Hard Drives last for 6-8 years reliably so I see this as no worse off than we are now.

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/4178/hardwareinfo-tests-lifespan-of-samsung-ssd-840-250gb-tlc-ssd-updated-with-final-conclusion

avatar

dgrmouse

Yeah, but even if a drive doesn't fail you're still significantly sacrificing capacity and performance (by virtue of provisioning, etc) in the name of data security.

avatar

owen420

well said
will never touch OCZ again
I also run a Intel 510 and have no probs with it!

avatar

Nimrod

So with OCing this hard drive, you are sacrificing the reliability of the storage device and yet its STILL not as fast as my 7 month old Samsung 840 PRO? Whats the Fing point? I think ill just sit with my already faster drive and enjoy the 5 year guarantee

avatar

AFDozerman

Hell no. There is no way that you can convince me that endangering the music, videos, movies, 3d models, games, documents, and other data that I have been collecting since highschool is worth barley noticeable increases in hard drive speed.

If you really need faster hard drive responsiveness, let me suggest this: http://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/primo-cache/

Another person on this site posted about this awhile back, so thanks to whoever it was.

avatar

j_j_montez

Hopefully, being a MaximumPC reader, you run regular backups so it will not matter if a drive fails. I'm sure you are, so endangering your media isn't a great reason to not get on board with newer/faster technology. Having said that, I agree that the performance increase is extremely negligible. As others have mentioned, we're topped out at what SATA 3 (6Gbps) can give us, and not squeezing out another few Megabytes out of an already fast drive.

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

Fast enough already!

Try making an SSD that can retain data for 100 years instead

Losing our Data Faster is not what we want

Disclaimer for Clarification:
Not talking about NSA data retention here

avatar

PCWolf

+2