Advanced care system defragmente mon ssd

#ADVANCED CARE SYSTEM DEFRAGMENTE MON SSD MANUAL#

The restore process helped to fragment the drive and make sure the spare-area got some use as well. In the Anthology, to test the used state of a drive I would first fill the drive then restore my test image onto it. In fact, if we slightly modify the way I tested in the Anthology I can actually get the G1 to outperform the G2 even in PCMark Vantage.

#ADVANCED CARE SYSTEM DEFRAGMENTE MON SSD MANUAL#

TRIM on these drives will perform much like TRIM does on the OCZ drives using Indilinx' manual TRIM tool - in other words, restoring performance to almost new.Д«ecause it can more or less rely on being able to TRIM invalid data, the G2 firmware is noticeably different from what's used in the G1. Sometime in Q4 of this year, Intel will offer a downloadable firmware that enables TRIM on only the 34nm drives. The new drives come with TRIM support, albeit not out of the box. Obviously the major draw to the 34nm drives is their price, but that can't be all there is to it.can it? The advantage in the HDD suite is around 7.5%, but the rest of the tests are very close. It's in the used state that we see the G2 pull ahead a bit more, but still not drastic. The HDD suite shows the true potential of the G2 and even there we're only looking at a 5.6% performance gain. There are some tests where the G2 is faster, others where the G1 is faster. When brand new, the G1 and the G2 are very close in performance. I continue to turn to PCMark Vantage as the closest indication to real world performance I can get for these SSDs, and it echoes my earlier sentiments: The rest of the numbers are pretty much even, with the exception of 4KB random reads where the G2 is roughly 11% faster. In the most strenuous case for any SSD, the new G2 doesn't even break a sweat.

The benefit however is that the G2 doesn't drop in performance when used.at all. In fact, the G2 is slower than the G1 in my 4KB random write test when the drive is brand new. The trend however is clear: the new G2 drive isn't that much faster. It does a better job filling the drives and produces more reliable test data in general. I'm using the latest build of Iometer this time around, instead of the latest version from. Note that these results are a bit different than my initial preview. Low level performance of the new drive ranges from no improvement to significant depending on the test: I wouldn't expect that anytime soon though. Once 34nm production really ramps up, Intel could outfit the back of the PCB with 10 more chips and deliver a 320GB drive. Intel is now using 16GB flash packages instead of 8GB packages from the original drive.

We see this reflected in the 'used' 4KB random write performance, which is around 50% higher than the previous drive. More memory means that the drive can track more data and do a better job of keeping itself defragmented and well organized. The new 160GB G2 drive uses a 32MB Micron 133MHz SDRAM (CAS3):

The old 160GB drive used a 16MB Samsung 166MHz SDRAM (CAS3): The new X25-M G2 has twice as much DRAM on-board as the previous drive. The architecture of the controller hasn't changed, but it is technically a different piece of silicon (that happens to be Halogen-free). It also gave Intel the opportunity to tune controller performance a bit. Moving to 34nm flash let Intel drive the price of the X25-M to ultra competitive levels. But after weeks with the drive, I think I've got it. Intel is always purposefully vague about important details, leaving everything up to clever phrasing of questions and guesswork with tests and numbers before you truly uncover what's going on. It took me a while to understand exactly what Intel did with its latest drive, mostly because there are no docs publicly available on either the flash used in the drives or on the controller itself. Intel's X25-M 34nm vs 50nm: Not as Straight Forward As You'd Think

Advanced care system defragmente mon ssd