text:
OCZ's Vertex 2 Pro Preview: The Fastest MLC SSD We've Ever Testedby Anand Lal Shimpi on 12/31/2009 12:00 AM EST
- Posted in
- Storage
102 Comments
Back to Article
Shark321 - Monday, January 25, 2010 - linkKingston has released a new SSD series (V+) with the Samsung controller. I hope Anandtech will review it soon. Other sites are not reliable, as they test only sequential read/writes. Reply
Bobchang - Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - linkGreat Article!
it's awesome to have new feature SSD and I like the performance
but, regarding your test, I don't get the same random read performance from IOMeter.
Can you let me know what version of IOMeter and configuration you used for the result? I never get more than around 6000 IOPS. Reply
AnnonymousCoward - Wednesday, January 13, 2010 - linkAnand,
Your SSD benchmarking strategy has a big problem: there are zero real-world-applicable comparison data. IOPS and PCMark are stupid. For video cards do you look at IOPS or FLOPS, or do you look at what matters in the real world: framerate?
As I said in my post here (http://tinyurl.com/yljqxjg)">http://tinyurl.com/yljqxjg), you need to simply measure time. I think this list is an excellent starting point, for what to measure to compare hard drives:
1. Boot time
2. Time to launch applications
_a) Firefox
_b) Google Earth
_c) Photoshop
3. Time to open huge files
_a) .doc
_b) .xls
_c) .pdf
_d) .psd
4. Game framerates
_a) minimum
_b) average
5. Time to copy files to & from the drive
_a) 3000 200kB files
_b) 200 4MB files
_c) 1 2GB file
6. Other application-specific tasks
What your current strategy lacks is the element of "significance"; is the performance difference between drives significant or insignificant? Does the SandForce cost twice as much as the others and launch applications just 0.2s faster? Let's say I currently don't own an SSD: I would sure like to know that an HDD takes 15s at some task, whereas the Vertex takes 7.1s, the Intel takes 7.0s, and the SF takes 6.9! Then my purchase decision would be entirely based on price! The current benchmarks leave me in the dark regarding this. Reply
rifleman2 - Thursday, January 14, 2010 - linkI think the point made is a good one for an additional data point for the decision buying process. Keep all the great benchmarking data in the article and just add a couple of time measurements so, people can get a feel for how the benchmark numbers translate to time waiting in the real world which is what everyone really wants to know at the end of the day.
Also, Anand did you fill the drive to its full capacity with already compressed data and if not, then what happens to performance and reliability when the drive is filled up with already compressed data. From your report it doesn't appear to have enough spare flash capacity to handle a worse case 1:1 ratio and still get decent performance or a endurance lifetime that is acceptable. Reply
AnnonymousCoward - Friday, January 15, 2010 - linkReal world top-level data should be the primary focus and not just "an additional data point".
This old article could not be a better example:
In IOPS, RAID0 was 20-38% faster! Then the loading *time* comparison had RAID0 giving equal and slightly worse performance! Anand concluded, "Bottom line: RAID-0 arrays will win you just about any benchmark, but they'll deliver virtually nothing more than that for real world desktop performance." Reply
AnnonymousCoward - Friday, January 15, 2010 - linkIcing on the cake is this latest Vertex 2 drive, where IOPS don't equal bandwidth.
It doesn't make sense to not measure time. Otherwise what you get is inaccurate results to real usage, and no grasp of how significant differences are. Reply
jabberwolf - Friday, August 27, 2010 - linkThe better way to test rather then hopping on your mac and thinking thats the end-all be-all of the world is to throw this drive into a server, vmware or xenserver... and create multiple VD sessions.
1- see how many you can boot up at the same time and run heavy loads.
The boot ups will take the most IOPS.
Sorry but IOPS do matter so very much in the business world.
For stand alone drives, your read writes will be what your are looking for. Reply
Wwhat - Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - linkThis is all great, finally a company that realizes the current SSD's are too cheap and have too much capacity and that people have too much money.
Oh wait.. Reply
Wwhat - Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - linkDouble post was caused by anadtech saying something had gone wrong, prompting me to retry. Reply
Wwhat - Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - linkThis is all great, finally a company that realizes the current SSD's are too cheap and have too much capacity and that people have too much money.
Oh wait.. Reply
fertilizer - Tuesday, January 05, 2010 - linkFirst of all, my complements to a great article!
It provided me with great insight!
It seems to me that SSD manufacturers are spending a lot of time complying to the world of HDD based Operating Systems.
Would'nt it be time to get OS's to treat a SSD differently than a HDD? Reply
j718 - Tuesday, January 05, 2010 - linkthe ocz vertex ex is an slc drive, not mlc as shown in the charts. Reply
j718 - Tuesday, January 05, 2010 - linkwhoops, sorry, it's just the anandtech storage bench charts that have the ex mislabeled.
Donald99 - Monday, January 04, 2010 - linkAny thoughts on potential energy use in mobile environment? Compared to intel MLC. Still better energy efficiencey than a traditional drive?
Performance results seem uber. Reply
cliffa3 - Monday, January 04, 2010 - linkAnand,
Great article, will be an interesting technology to watch and see how mature it really is.
Question on the timeline for the price drop: When you said 'we'll see 160GB down at $225', were you talking about the mid-year refresh or the end of year next-gen? Reply
MadMan007 - Monday, January 04, 2010 - linkIs it just me or is it inaccurate to mix GB and GiB when calculating overprovisioning at the bottom of page 5? By my reckoning the overprovisioning should be 6.6% (64GB/60GB, 128GB/120GB) not double that from using (64GB/55.9GiB etc) Reply
vol7ron - Monday, January 04, 2010 - linkAnand, the right column of the table should be marked as GiB.
The last paragraph should take that into consideration. Either the second column should first be converted into GiB, or if it already is (and hard to believe it is), then you could do direct division from there.
The new table:
Adv.(GB) Tot.(GB) Tot.(GiB) User(GiB)
50 64 59.6 46.6
100 128 119.2 93.1
200 256 238.4 186.3
400 512 476.8 372.5
The new percentages should be:
(59.6-46.6) / 59.6 x 100 = 21.8% decrease
(119.2-93.1) / 119.2 x 100 = 21.9% decrease
(238.4-186.3) / 238.4 x 100 = 21.9% decrease
(476.8-372.5) / 476.8 x 100 = 21.9% decrease
And the second table:
Adv.(GB) Tot.(GB) Tot.(GiB) User(GiB)
60 64 59.6 55.9
120 128 119.2 111.8
240 256 238.4 223.5
480 512 476.8 447
The new percentages should be:
(59.6-55.9) / 59.6 x 100 = 6.21% decrease
(119.2-111.8) / 119.2 x 100 = 6.21% decrease
(238.4-223.5) / 238.4 x 100 = 6.25% decrease
(476.8-447) / 476.8 x 100 = 6.25% decrease
Note, I did not use significant figures, so all numbers are approximated, yet suitable - the theoretical value may be slightly different.
vol7ron - Monday, January 04, 2010 - linkAnand, the right column of the table should be marked as GiB.
The last paragraph should take that into consideration. Either the second column should first be converted into GiB, or if it already is (and hard to believe it is), then you could do direct division from there.
The new table:
Adv.(GB) Tot.(GB) Tot.(GiB) User(GiB)
50 64 59.6 46.6
100 128 119.2 93.1
200 256 238.4 186.3
400 512 476.8 372.5
The new percentages should be:
(59.6-46.6) / 59.6 x 100 = 21.8% decrease
(119.2-93.1) / 119.2 x 100 = 21.9% decrease
(238.4-186.3) / 238.4 x 100 = 21.9% decrease
(476.8-372.5) / 476.8 x 100 = 21.9% decrease
And the second table:
Adv.(GB) Tot.(GB) Tot.(GiB) User(GiB)
60 64 59.6 55.9
120 128 119.2 111.8
240 256 238.4 223.5
480 512 476.8 447
The new percentages should be:
(59.6-55.9) / 59.6 x 100 = 6.21% decrease
(119.2-111.8) / 119.2 x 100 = 6.21% decrease
(238.4-223.5) / 238.4 x 100 = 6.25% decrease
(476.8-447) / 476.8 x 100 = 6.25% decrease
Note, I did not use significant figures, so all numbers are approximated, yet suitable - the theoretical value may be slightly different.
Guspaz - Sunday, January 03, 2010 - linkYour pricing estimates for Intel's refreshes worry me, and I worry that you're out of touch with SSD pricing.
Intel's G2 x25-m 160GB drive currently sells for $500-550, so claims that Intel will be selling 600GB drives at the same price point raise some eyebrows. Reply
kunedog - Monday, January 04, 2010 - linkI couldn't help but roll my eyes a little when I saw that Anand was again making Intel SSD pricing predictions. Even the G1 X-25Ms skyrocketed above his predictions for the G2s:
And the G1s are still higher at Newegg (the G2s are still a LOT higher). Anand has never acknowledged the stratospheric X-25M G2 pricing and how dead wrong his predictions were. He's kept us updated on negative aspects like the firmware bugs, slow stock/availability of G2s, and lack of TRIM for G1s, but never pricing.
vol7ron - Monday, January 04, 2010 - linkI don't think Anand has ever tried to predict market price. He generally lets us in on lot prices, that is, what retailers buy the merchandise for in quantities of 1000. Generally, when he does release that information, he is close to dead on. He typically does not way in on numeric estimates of market prices, other than statements like "they should be cheaper than...[insert product here]... because material/manufacturing costs are lower." The link you gave looks less to be a prediction and more to be what the suggested retail price is; much like buying a car, although the suggested price is printed, it does not mean the actual market price will be equal to it.
As for the G1/G2, as you recall, the G2 was very low on initial release (at least at Newegg) to the tune of ~$225. There have been several factors that have driven this price up (~$300). This is due to demand, but really it is a step demand. They are on Revision 5 of the G2, but the important thing is the fact that the G2 has been recalled twice. Where demand is generally steady in terms of price, abnormal release dates have pushed demand higher at different points (the graph looks more like a staircase, hence "step"). The price will again fall in the future.
You should note that whenever things go "out of stock," the prices will go up, supply is low and demand is high, hence bargaining power from retailers, basic economics. Criticizing Anand does not accomplish anything as his facts were correct.
vol7ron - Monday, January 04, 2010 - linkGrammar/Syntax edit:
"...lets us in on lot prices; that is, what retailers..."
"He typically does not [weigh] in"
Further note:
If you look at the Arrandale article, there is a price supply list. Those prices are for lots of 1Ku (1000 units), which reaffirms the point I made earlier, before I even looked at the Arrandale article.
As for Newegg, it's a unique site, which prices are close, but generally higher than the 1,000unit price. The fact that the G2 price was ~$225 on initial release was probably a promotional price point that often happens with new products. Reply
viewwin - Monday, January 04, 2010 - linkMarket forces are driving the price higher than MSRP(Manufacture Suggested Retail Price). Intel tried to have lower prices, but market demand pushed it higher. Prices were far lower on Newegg.com went the G2 first came out, but shot up to $600 at one point for the 160 GB. I recall an article about it, but can't find it. Reply
kunedog - Tuesday, January 05, 2010 - linkOK, so he's "out of touch" with actual market prices, instead of made-up retail prices (MSRP).
"I recall an article about it, but can't find it."
That's OK, I saw the whole thing play out firsthand. After Anand posted these articles . . .
. . . stressing the expected performance and *affordability* of Intel X-25M G2 drives (I quote: "The performance improved, sometimes heartily, but the pricing was the real story."), they quickly disappeared from Newegg at the Anand-predicted price (with Newegg suggesting the G1s as an alternative, for which I call foul because many or most people wouldn't know the difference). They stayed out of stock for weeks. A month later, he posts this on the weekend:
The very next day (a Monday), G2s were suddenly in stock again at a huge markup, and the prices continued to climb for a few days. They've slowly fallen since that week, but never to the Anand-predicted price, and that fact has never been acknowledged in any of the subsequent reviews.
The pattern repeated with the Kingston 40GB drives:
The pricing prediction ($85 w/ rebate, $115 without) for it was apparently so important that it had to be right there in the summary (so you don't even have to click the full article to see it). I checked Newegg every day for a couple weeks after it was posted (and somewhat less often since) but *never* saw it in stock for less than $130 (which is the current price). Further, that article was repeatedly updated and bumped for minor and predictable updates (like new bugs/firmware), but the pricing of the Kingston never updated (even though the rebate is expired).
I would argue that market prices matter *more* than MSRP, and deserve Anand's attention. The high prices themselves aren't a problem; clearly people are willing to pay that much, therefore the drives are "worth it." It's Anand's complete obliviousness to them (after previously stressing their importance and total awesomeness) that comes across as strange.
chemist1 - Sunday, January 03, 2010 - linkHi Anand,
When you wrote: "Current roadmaps put the next generation of Intel SSDs out in Q4 2010, although Intel tells me it will be a 'mid-year' refresh," didn't you mean "*there* [not 'it'] will be a mid-year refresh?" I.e., that the next generation is still not expected out until Q4, but that there will be a mid-year updating of the current generation? [By writing "it" will be a mid-year refresh, you communicate that Intel told you that the next gen will be released mid-year instead of Q4, which is not what I think you meant to say .... or is it?] Reply
vol7ron - Sunday, January 03, 2010 - linkGood question.
To clarify what he's asking:
Is it a mid-year refresh and a 2010Q4 release?
Is the mid-year refresh going to take place instead of the Q4 release (Q4 is pushed back). Reply
vol7ron - Saturday, January 02, 2010 - linkI thought GIGABYTE released a motherboard with SATA6 for AMD (GA-790FXTA-UD5). It might be nice to start testing it out and putting these SSDs to the test.
Also, is it fair to take the enterprise level controller (SF-1500) and compare that to the consumer market product (X25-M)? Granted the SF-1500 has already stood well against the X25-E, but it's going to cost a heck of a lot more than the X25-M and the target market is the enterprise sector, anyhow.
Regardless of what it compares to, I'm already saying that the cost of this controller is overpriced. They can justify it however they would like; that is, better performance, high research and development costs, market barriers to entry, eg. The truth, though, is that they're overcharging. The logic is mostly sound, but the price is not. OCZ should sign a contract to buy the controller for a year, sell what they can, and negotiate a lower price, or else drop the controller. I'd like to see what that does to SF's profits.
I also would like to say that not using DRAM can have bad effects down the line. To get rid of it to justify a more expensive controller seems like an ignorant bargaining chip that SF is using to make more money. That's like saying, "I've upgraded your Ferrari with a newer, bigger engine, but it'll only take Regular [gas]." There's a high correlation between horsepower and Premium fuel; suffice to say the product might be faster, but it could be better.
vol7ron - Sunday, January 03, 2010 - linkGiven time to think about this:
Maybe it is fair to compare the SF-1500 to the X25-M, since they're both MLCs. However, if the SF-1500 is still supposed to be the enterprise version, the two products are not price equivalent.
Regardless, I do like to see the comparison. I just don't like to see the criticism when one is deemed an enterprise version and the other is still targeted for the home consumer/enthusiast. Reply
Capt - Saturday, January 02, 2010 - link...it would be nice to have a shootout between the test field (Vertex 2, X25-M, ...) and a pair some drives in a RAID0/Stripe configuration, especially comparing equal total sizes and different platforms (Intel/AMD chipset, hardware controllers). With the new about-to-be-released Intel RST drivers SSD stripe performance got boosted quite a bit, and although I guess there won't be much of an improvement in the 4k area, reading/writing larger blocks and sequential does improve by a massive amount. As a pair of two 80GB X25-Ms costs only 10% more than a single 160GB drive this scenario is very tempting... Reply
vol7ron - Saturday, January 02, 2010 - linkI also have been trying to get the reviewers to show more SSD RAID configurations. Not just because the price difference is semi-negligent, but because SSDs are suppose to be more error-free, and thus a more suitable technology for RAID. After all, isn't the exponential error potential the reason why RAID-0 was frowned upon?
On the downside, I think there have been problems recently with the Intel Matrix Storage Manager, which might be one reason why the topic has been delayed. Regardless, it would be nice if this topic was re-addressed, if only to remind us readers that it is still in your thoughts :) Reply
Howard - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkDid you REALLY mean 90 millifarads (huge) or 90 uF, which is much more reasonable? Reply
korbendallas - Saturday, January 02, 2010 - linkYep, it's 0.09F 5.5V Supercapacitor.
http://www.cap-xx.com/images/HZ202HiRes.jpg">http://www.cap-xx.com/images/HZ202HiRes.jpg Reply
iwodo - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkIf, all things being equal, it just shows that the current SSD drives performance aren't really limited by Flash itself but the controller.
So may be with a Die Shrink we could get even more Random RW performance?
And i suspect these SSD aren't even using ONFI 2.1 chips either, so 600MB/s Seq Read is very feasible. Except SATA 3.0 is holding it all up.
How far are we from using PCI-Express based SSD? I am sure booting problem could be easily solved with UEFI,
ProDigit - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkOne of the factors would be if this drive has a processor that does real life compression of files on the SSD,that would mean that it would use more power on notebooks.
Sure it's performance is top, as well as it's length in time that it works, but how much power does it use?
If it still is close to an HD it might be an interesting drive. But if it is more, it'd be interesting to see how much more!
I'm not interested in equipping a netbook or notebook/laptop with a SSD that uses more than 5W TDP. Reply
chizow - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkI've always noticed the many similarities between SSD controller technology and RAID technology with the multiple channel modules determining reads/write speeds along with write differences between MLC and SLC. The differences in SandForce's controller seems to take this analogy a step further with what is essentially RAID 5 compared to previous MLC SSDs.
It seems like these drives use a lot of controller/processor power for redundancy/error checking code, which is very similar to a RAID 5 array. This allows them to do away with DRAM and gives them the flexibility to use cheaper NAND Flash, but at the expense of additional Flash capacity to store the parity/ECC data. I guess that begs the question, is 64MB of DRAM and the difference in NAND quality used more expensive than 30% more NAND Flash? Right now I'd say probably not until cheaper NAND becomes available, but if so it may make their technology more viable to widespread desktop adoption when that
Last thing I'll say is I think its a bit scary how much impact Anand's SSD articles have on this emerging market. He's like the Paul Muad'dib of SSDs and is able to kill a controller-maker with a single word lol. Seriously, after he exposed the stuttering and random read/write problems on Jmicron controllers back when OCZ first started using them, the mere mention of their name combined with SSDs has been taboo. OCZ has clearly recovered since then, as their Vertex drives have been highly regarded. I expect SandForce-based controllers to be all the buzz now going forward, largely because of this article. Reply
pong - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkIt seems to me that Anand may be misunderstanding the reason for the impressive write amplification. The example with Windows Vista install + Office 2007 install states that 25GB is written to the disk, but only 11GB is written to flash. I don't believe this implies compression. It just means that a lot of the data written to disk is shortlived because it lives in temporary files which are deleted soon after or because the data is overwritten with more recent information. The 11GB is what ends up being on the disk after installation whether it is an SSD or a normal hard-drive. If the controller has significantly more RAM than other SSD controllers it doesn't have to commit short-lived changes to flash as often. The controller may also have logic that enables it to detect hotspots, ie areas of the logical disk that is written to often to improve the efficiency of its caching scheme. This sort of stuff could probably be implemented mostly in an OS except the OS can't guarantee that the stuff in the cache will make it to the disk if the power is suddenly cut. The SSD controller can make this guarantee if it can store enough energy - say in a large capacitor - to commit everything it has cached to flash when power is removed. Reply
shawkie - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkUnless I misread it the article seems be claiming that the device actually has no cache at all. Reply
bji - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkI think the article said that the SSD has no RAM external to the controller chip, but that the controller chip itself likely has some number of megabytes of RAM, much of which is likely used for cache. It's not clear, but it's very, very hard to believe that the device could work without any kind of internal buffering; but that this device does it with less DRAM than other SSDs (i.e., the smaller amount of DRAM built into the controller chip versus a separate external tens-of-megabytes DRAM chip).
gixxer - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkI thought the vertex supported Trim thru windows 7, yet in the article Anand says this:
"With the original Vertex all you got was a command line wiper tool to manually TRIM the drive. While Vertex 2 Pro supports Windows 7 TRIM, you also get a nifty little toolbox crafted by SandForce and OCZ:"
Does the Vertex drive support windows 7 trim or do you still have to use the manual tool? Reply
MrHorizontal - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkVery interesting controller, though they've seemed to have missed a couple of tricks...
First why is an 'enterprise' controller like this not using SAS which is at 6GBps right now and we can see what effect a non-3GBps interface has on SSDs, and why when SATA 6GBps is being shipped in motherboards now, then in 2010, when these SandForce drives are going to be released will still be using 3GBps SATA...
Second, the 'RAID' features of this drive seem to be like RAID5 distributing parity hashes across the spare area which is also distributed across the drive. However, all controllers have multiple channels and why they don't use RAID6 (the one where a dedicated drive holds parity data, not the 2-stripe RAID5) whereby they use 1 or 2 SLC NAND Flash chips to hold the more important data, and use really cheap MLC NAND to hold the actual data in a redundant manner? Reply
Holly - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkHmm, I thought MLC/SLC is more the matter of SSD controller than memory chip itself? Anybody could throw a bit light pls? Reply
bji - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkMLC and SLC are two different types of flash chips. You can find out more at:
Holly - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkwell,
according to
they are not nescessary the same chips... the transistors are very much the same and it's more or less matter of how you interpret the voltages
Intel actually uses the same transistors for its SLC and MLC flash, the difference is how you read/write the two. Reply
shawkie - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkCall me cynical but I'd be very suspicious of benchmark results from this controller. How can you be sure that the write amplification during the benchmark resembles that during real world use? If you write completely random data to the disk then surely its impossible to achieve a write amplification of less than 1.0? I would have thought that home users would be mostly storing compressed images, audio and video which must be pretty close to random. I'd also be interested to know if the deduplication/compression is helping them to increase to the effective reserved space. That would go a long way to mask read-modify-write latency issues but again, what happens if the data on the disk can't be deduplicated/compressed? Reply
Swivelguy2 - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkOn the contrary - if you write random data, some (probably lots) of that data will be duplicated on successive writes simply by random chance.
When you write already-compressed data, an algorithm has already looked at that data and processed it in a way that makes sure there's very little duplication of data. Reply
Holly - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkIt's always matter of used compression algorithm. There are algorithms that are able to press whole avi movie (= already compressed) to few megabytes. Problem with these algoritms is they are so demanding it takes days even for neuron network to compress and decompress. We had one "very simple" compression algorithm in graphs theory classes.. honestly I got ultimately lost after first read paragraph (out of like 30 pages).
So depending on algorithms used you can compress already compressed data. You can take your bitmap, run it through Run Length Encoding, then run it through Huffman encoding and finish with some dictionary based encoding... In most cases you'll compress your data a bit more every time.
There is no chance to tell how this new technology handles it's task in the end. Not until it is ran with Petabytes of data. Reply
bji - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkPlease don't use an authoritative tone when you actually don't know much about the subject. You are likely to confuse readers who believe that what you write is factual.
The compression of movies that you were talking about is a lossy compression and would never, ever be suitable in any way for compressing data internally within an SSD.
Run Length Encoding requires knowledge of the internal structure of the data being stored, and an SSD is an agnostic device that knows nothing about the data itself, so that's out.
Huffman encoding (or derivitives thereof) is universally used in pretty much every compression algorithm, so it's pretty much a given that this is a component of whatever compression SandForce is using. Also, dictionary based encoding is once again only relevent when you are dealing with data of a generally restricted form, not for data which you know nothing about, so it's out; and even if it were used, it would be used before Huffman encoding, not after it as you suggested.
I think your basic point is that many different individual compression technologies can be combined (typically by being applied successively); but that's already very much de riguer in compression, with every modern compression algorithm I am familiar with already combining several techniques to produce whatever combination of speed and effective compression ratios is desired. And every compression algorithm has certain types of data that it works better on, and certain types of data that it works worse on, than other algorithms.
I am skeptical about SandForce's technology; if it relies on compression then it is likely to perform quite poorly in certain circumstances (as others have pointed out); it reminds me of "web accelerator" snake oil technology that advertised ridiculous speeds out of 56K modems, and which only worked for uncompressed data, and even then, not very well.
Furthermore, this tradeoff of on-board DRAM for extra spare flash seems particularly retarded. Why would you design algorithms that do away with cheap DRAM in favor of expensive flash? You want to use as little flash as possible, because that's the expensive part of an SSD; the DRAM cache is a miniscule part of the total cost of the SSD, so who cares about optimizing that away?
Holly - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkWell I know quite a bit about the subject, but if you feel offended in any way I am sorry.
More I think we got in a bit of misunderstanding.
What I wrote was more or less serie of examples where you could go and compress some already compressed data.
It's quite common knowledge you won't be able to lossless compress well made AVI movie with normally used lossless compression software like ZIP or RAR. But, that is not even a slightest proof there isn't some kind of algorithm that can compress this data to a much smaller volume.
To prove my concept of theory I took the example of bitmap (uncompressed) and then used various lossless compression algorithms. In most cases every time I'd use the algorithm I would get more and more compressed data (well maybe except RLE that could end up with longer result than original file was).
I was not forcing any specific "front end" used algorithms on this controller, because honestly all talks about how (if) it compresses the data is mere speculation. So I went back to origins to keep the idea as simple as possible.
Whole point I was trying to make is there is no way to tell if it saves data traffic on NANDs when you save your file XY on this device simply because there is no knowledge what kind of algorithm is used. We can just guess by trying to compress the file with common algorithms (be it lossless or not) and then try to check if the controller saves NANDs some work or not. OFC, algorithms used on the controller must be lossless and must be stable. But that's about all we can say at this point.
Sorry if I caused some kind of confusion.
What _seems_ to me is that basically there is this difference between X25-M and Vertex 2 Pro logic (taking the 25 vs 11 gigs example used in the article):
System -> 25GB -> X25-M controller -> writes/overwrites -> 25 GB -> NAND flash (but due to overwrites, deletes etc. there is 11GB of data)
compared to Vertex 2 Pro:
System -> 25GB -> SF-1500 controller -> controller logic -> 11 GB -> NAND flash (only 11GB actually written in NAND due to smart controller logic)
sebijisi - Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - link[quote]
It's quite common knowledge you won't be able to lossless compress well made AVI movie with normally used lossless compression software like ZIP or RAR. But, that is not even a slightest proof there isn't some kind of algorithm that can compress this data to a much smaller volume.
Well actually there is. The entropy of the original file bounds the minimum possible size of the compressed file. Same reason you compress first before encrypting something: As the goal of encryption is to generate maximum entropy, encrypted data cannot be compressed further. Not even with some advanced but not yet know algorithm. Reply
shawkie - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkAs long as the data is truly random (i.e. there is no correlation between different bytes) then it cannot be compressed. If you have N bits of data then you have 2^N different values. It is impossible to map all of these different values to less than N bits. If you generate this value randomly its possible you might produce something that can be easily compressed (such as all zeros or all ones) but if you do it enough times you will generate every possible value an equal number of times so on average it will take up at least N bits. See
As you note, it is possible to identify already-compressed data and avoid trying to recompress it but this still means you get a write amplification of slightly more than 1.0 for such data. Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkCorrect. Highly Random and highly compressed data will not work well with SandForce's current algorithm. Less than 25% of the writes you'll see on a typical desktop machine are random writes, even then they aren't random over 100% of the LBA space. I'm not sure how well the technology works for highly random server workloads (SF claims it's great), but for the desktop user it appears to be perfect.
Take care,
Anand Reply
shawkie - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkThinking about this further I've come to the conclusion that the files must be divided into small blocks that are compressed independently. Firstly because the disk doesn't know about files (only sectors) and secondly because its the only way you could modify a small part of a compressed file quickly. I don't think 512 bytes would be big enough to acheive respectable compression ratios so I think 4KB is more likely. This might explain why Seagate are pushing to make 4KB the smallest addressable unit for storage devices. So then they take each 4KB block, compress it, and write it to the next available space in flash. If they use 64 bit pointers to store the location of each 4KB block they could easily address the entire space with single-bit granularity. Of course, every overwrite will result in a bit of irregularly sized free space. They could then just wait for a bit of compressed data that happens to fit perfectly or implement some kind of free space consolidation or a combination. I'm starting to come around to the idea. Reply
shawkie - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkApologies to Anand, I completely missed the page titled "SandForce's Achilles' Heel". I do think there are some scenarios that still need testing though. What happens when a small modification has to be made to a large file that the drive has decided to compress? Not an easy thing to benchmark but something I can imagine might apply when editing uncompressed audio files or some video files. The other question is what happens when the disk is made dirty by overwriting several times using a random write pattern and random data. What is the sequential write speed like after that? Reply
lesherm - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkwith a Seinfeld reference. Reply
LTG - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkDefinitely the only one with a Seinfeld and a Metallica and a StarWars reference :).
Sponge Worthy
Enter the Sandforce
Use the Sandforce Reply
GullLars - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - linkIt seems anand has a problem with identifying the 4KB random performance of the drives.
Intel x25-M has time and time again been shown to deliver 120MB/s or more 4KB random read bandwidth. x25-E delivers in the area of 150MB/s random read and 200MB/s of random write at 4KB packet sizes for queue depth of 10 and above.
I do not know if the problem is due to testing not being done in AHCI/RAID mode, or if it is because of a queue depth lower than number of internal flash channels, but these numbers are purely WRONG and misrepresentative. I probably shouldn't post while drunk :P but this upsets me enough to disregard that.
Anandtech is IMO a site too good to post nonsensical data like this, pleese fix it ASAP. If you choose to sensor my post after fixing it, pleese mail me notifying me of it in case i don't remmeber posting. Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkMy 4KB read/write tests are run with a queue depth of 3 to represent a desktop usage scenario. I can get much higher numbers out of the X25-M at higher queue depths but then these tests stop being useful for desktop/notebook users. I may add server-like iometer workloads in the future though.
All of our testing is done in non-member RAID mode.
Take care,
Anand Reply
GullLars - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkThank you for the response, but i still feel the need to point out that posting 4KB random numbers for queue depth 3 should be explicitly pointed out, as this only utilizes less than 1/3 of the flash channels in the x25-M. Here is a graph i made of the 4KB random read IOPS numbers of an x25-M by queue depth: http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?act=attach&t...">http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?act=attach&t...
As shown in this graph, the performance scales well up to a queue depth of about 12, where the 10 internal channels get saturated with requests.
A queue depth of 3 may be representative for average light load running windows, but during operations like launching programs, booting windows, or certain operations whitin programs that read database listings, the momentary queue depths often spike to 16-64, and it is in theese circumstances you really feel the IOPS performance of a drive. This is one of the reasons why x25-M beats the competition in the application launch test in PCmark vantage despite having the same IOPS performance at queue depths 1-4 and about the same sequential performance.
The sandforce SF-1500 controller is rated for 30.000 4KB random IOPS, 120MB/s. In order to reach these read performance numbers with MLC flash, you need at least 6 channels, with corresponding outstanding IO's to make use of them. Then you also need to take into account controller overhead. The SF-1500 controller has 16 channels, and the SF-1200 controller has 8 channels.
To test IOPS performance of a drive (not enterpreted for usage but raw numbers), outstanding IOs should be at least equal to number of channels. Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkI'm not sure I agree with you here:
"A queue depth of 3 may be representative for average light load running windows, but during operations like launching programs, booting windows, or certain operations whitin programs that read database listings, the momentary queue depths often spike to 16-64,"
I did a lot of tests before arriving at the queue depth of 3 and found that even in the most ridiculous desktop usage scenarios we never saw anything in the double digits. It didn't matter whether you were launching programs in parallel or doing a lot of file copies while you were interacting with apps. Even our heavy storage bench test had an average queue depth below 4.
Take care,
Anand Reply
GullLars - Saturday, January 02, 2010 - linkI'm not out to be difficult here, so i will let it be after this, but what i and a few others who have been doing SSD benchmarking for about a year now have found using the windows performance monitor indicates Queue Depth spikes in the area of 16-64 outstanding IO's when launching apps, and certain other interactions with apps that cause reading of many database entries.
Copying files will only create 1 outstanding sequential IO-queue, and does not contribute significantly to the momentary queue depth during short high loads.
Scanning for viruses may contribute more to the queue depth, but i have not tested it this far.
At a queue depth of 1-4 for purely reads, there is little difference between JMicron, Indilinx, Samsung, Mtron, and Intel based SSDs, and the difference seen in PCmark Vantage applauch test and real world tests of "launch scripts" (a script launching all programs installed on the computer simultaneously) also indicate there is a notable difference. Some of this may be caused by different random write performance and sequential read, but queue depths above 4 in bursts help explain why x25-M with the 10-channel design beats the competing 4-channel controllers in this type of workload even when sequential read is about the same.
I also like to think Intel didn't make a complex 10-channel "M" drive optimized for 4KB random IOPS targeted at consumers only to win in benchmarks. If the queue depth truly never went above 3-5, even when counting bursts, there would have been wasted a ridiculus amount of effort and resources in making the x25-M, as a 4-channel drive would be a lot cheaper to develop and produce.
Thanks for taking the time to reply to my posts, and i hope you know i value the SSD articles posted on this site. My only concern has been the queue depths used for performance rating, and a concern for the future is that the current setup does not forward TRIM to drives supporting it. Reply
semo - Saturday, January 02, 2010 - linkAnand,
After reading your very informative SSD articles, I still found something new from GullLars. I think it would be useful to include the queue length when stating IOPS figures as it will give us more technical insight of the inner workings of the different SSD models and give hints to performance for future uses.
When dial up was the most common way of connecting to the internet, most sites were small with static content. As connection and CPU speeds grew, so did the websites. Try going to a big ugly site like cnet with a 7-8 year old pc with even the fastest internet connection. I'm sure that all this supposed untapped performance in SSDs will be quickly utilized in future (probably because of inefficient software in most cases rather than for legit reasons). With virtualization slowly entering the consumer space (XP mode, VM unity and so on) as giant sandboxes and legacy platforms, surely disk queue lengths can only grow... Reply
shawkie - Saturday, January 02, 2010 - linkAnand,
I agree that its also helpful to know what the hardware can really do. It seems to me that longer queue depths are becoming important for high performance on all storage devices (even hard disks have NCQ and can be put in RAID arrays). At some point software manufacturers are going to wake up to that fact. This is just like the situation with multi-core CPUs. I'm fortunate because in my work I not only select the hardware platform but also develop the software to run on it. Reply
DominionSeraph - Monday, January 04, 2010 - linkA jumble of numbers that don't apply to the scenario at hand is nothing but misleading.
Savvio 15K.1 SAS: 416 IOPS
1TB Caviar Black: 181.
Ooooh... the 15k SAS is waaaay faster!! Sure, in a file server access pattern at a queue depth of 64. Try benchmarking desktop use and you'll find the 7200RPM SATA is generally faster. Reply
BrightCandle - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkWith which software and parameters did you achieve the results you are talking about? Everything I've thrown at my X25-M has shown results in the same park as Anand's figures so I'm interested to see how you got to those numbers. Reply
GullLars - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkThese numbers have been generated by several testing methods.
*AS SSD benchmark shows 4KB random read and random write at Queue Depth (QD) 64, and x25-M gets in the area of 120-160MB/s on read and 65-85MB/s on write.
*Crystal Disk Mark 3.0 (beta) tests 4KB random at both QD1 and QD32. At QD32 4KB random read, Intel x25-M gets 120-160MB/s, and at random write it gets 65-85MB/s here too.
Here's to a screenshot of CDM 2.2 and 3.0 of x25-M 80GB on 750SB with AHCI in fresh state. http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?act=attach&t...">http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?act=attach&t...
*Testing with IOmeter, parameters 2GB length, 30 sec runtime, 1 worker, 32 outstanding IO's (QD), 100% read, 100% random, 4KB blocks, burst lenght 1. On a forum i frequent most users with x25-M get between 30-40.000 IOPS with theese parameters. For the same parameters only 100% write the norm is around 15K IOPS on a fresh drive, and a bit closer to 10K in used state with OS running from the drive. x25-E has been benched to 43K random write 4KB IOPS.
Regarding the practical difference 4KB IOPS makes, the biggest difference can be seen in the PCmark vantage test Application Launching. Such workloads involve reading a massive amount of small files and database listings, pluss logging all file access this creates. Prefetch and superfetch may help storage units with less than a few thousand IOPS, but x25-M in many cases actually get worse launch times with these activated. Using a RAM disk for known targets of small random writes make sense, and i've put my browser cache and temp files on a RAM disk even though i have an SSD.
With x25-M's insane IOPS performance, the random part of most workloads is done whitin a second and what you are left waiting for is the loading of larger files and the CPU. Attempting to lower the load time of small random reads during an application launch from say 0,5 sec by running a superfetch script or read-caching with a RAMdisk makes little sense. Reply
Zool - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkFor a average user 4KB random performance are the most useless results out there. If a user encounters that much random 4KB read/writes than he need to change the operating system asap.
And if something realy needs to randomly read/write 4KB files than your best bet is to cache it to Ram or make Ram disk i think.
LTG - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - linkThis statement seems really dubious - Isn't it in fact the opposite?
The majority of storage space is taken up by things that don't compress well: Music, Videos, Photos, Zip style archives...
Everything else is smaller.
Anand Says:
That means compressed images, videos or file archives will most likely exhibit higher write amplification than SandForce's claimed 0.5x. Presumably that's not the majority of writes your SSD will see on a day to day basis, but it's going to be some portion of it. Reply
DominionSeraph - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkThat stuff just gets written once.
Day-to-day operations sees a whole lot of transient data. Reply
Shining Arcanine - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - linkAs someone else suggested, I imagine that the SATA driver could take all of the data written/read to the drive and transparently implement the algorithms on the much more powerful CPU.
Is there anything to stop people from reverse engineering the firmware to figure out exactly what the drive in terms of compression is doing and then externalizing it to the SATA driver, so other SSDs can benefit from it as well? i.e. Are there any legal issues with this? Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkPatents :) SandForce holds a few of them with regards to this technology.
Obviously that's up to the courts to determine if they are enforceable or not, SandForce believes they are. Other companies could license the technology though...
Take care,
Anand Reply
Holly - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkWell, you can patent implementation and technology, but not the idea itself. (At least that's what my boss was trying to explain me). So, in case this idea seems worthy enough other manufacturers will come with their own MySuperStoringTechnology (c).
Personaly I think any improvement (even if it comes out to be dead end) is worth it in global scale and this tech seems very interesting to me.
I only have some worries about using cheaper NAND chips... Taking cheap USB flash they tend to go nuts in about 6-12 months of usage (well, I am stressing them quite a bit...) Putting them together with the best controller seems to me a bit like disbalancing things. Definitely not for servers/enthusiasts (who want the best quality for good reasons) and still too expensive for pple earning their paychecks Reply
Holly - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkP.S. Happy New Year Reply
yacoub - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - linkI don't know that I want lower-quality Flash memory in my SSDs. I think I'd rather have both a better chip and high quality memory. But you know corners will be cut somewhere to keep the prices affordable. Reply
frontliner - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - linkPage 10 talks about Random Write in MB/s and you're talking IOPS:
At 11K IOPS in my desktop 4KB random write test, the Vertex 2 Pro is 20% faster than Intel's X25-M G2. Looking at it another way, the Vertex 2 Pro has 2.3x the 4KB random write performance of today's OCZ Vertex Turbo.
Random read performance is quite good at 13K IOPS, but a little lower than Intel's X25-M G2.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - linkwoops! you're right, I decided to go with the MB/s graphs at the last minute but wrote the text based on the IOPS results. Fixed! :)
Take care,
Anand Reply
Makaveli - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - linkMy guess is intel will release another firmware to increase the write speed on the G2 drives. As Q4 2010 is quite a long wait for a refresh. So new firmware with increase write speed and a price drop should still keep them in the driving seat.
Kudos to OCZ for the constant shove in the back to intel tho. Reply
mikesown - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - linkHi Anand,
Great article! Along the subject of Intel's monopoly bullying, I was curious if you had any information about Micron manufacturing their own C300 SSDs with (very nice, it seems) Marvell controllers(see http://www.micronblogs.com/category/ssd-concepts/)">http://www.micronblogs.com/category/ssd-concepts/). I know Micron and Intel manufactured NAND jointly through their IM Flash Technologies venture, so it seems a little bit strange that Micron would manufacture competing SSDs while in a partnership with Intel. Did Intel and Micron part ways for good?
Mike Reply
efficientD - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - linkAs an employee of Micron, I can say that Intel and Micron have not parted ways, but rather only had the agreement for the actual flash memory and not all of the other parts of an SSD (controller, dtc.) We are still very much in cooperation on what was agreed upon in the first place. You will notice that the OCZ in this article is Micron, and not from IM flash (the Intel/Micron joint venture). If you crack open an Intel drive, however, you will nearly exclusively find IM Flash chips along with Micron DRAM, the first gen didn't even have Micron DRAM. Hope this clarifies some things. Reply
Doormat - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - linkI'm disappointed in the lack of SATA 6Gb/s support, but a lot of that is product timing (its only now showing up in add-on chips, and controllers in late 2010/early 2011). You really wonder what the speeds are on an unbridled SF-based drive. Reply
Jenoin - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - link"SandForce states that a full install of Windows 7 + Office 2007 results in 25GB of writes to the host, yet only 11GB of writes are passed on to the drive. In other words, 25GBs of files are written and available on the SSD, but only 11GB of flash is actually occupied. Clearly it's not bit-for-bit data storage."
"What SF appears to be doing is some form of real-time compression on data sent to the drive."
Based on what they said (and what they didn't say) I have to disagree. It appears to me that they are comparing the write that is requested with the data already on the SSD and only writing to the bits that need changed thereby write amplification ~0.5. This would explain the high number of IOPS during your compressed file write test perhaps. That test would then be a mixed test of sequential and random writes giving you performance numbers in between the two other tests. Could you verify the actual disk usage with windows 7 and Office installed? If it indicates 11gb used then it is using some kind of compression but if it indicates the full size on the disk then it is using something similar to what I detailed. I just thought it interesting that Sandforce never said things would take up less space, (which would be a large selling point) they only said it would have to write about half as much supporting my theory. Reply
Wwhat - Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - linkYou make a good point, and anand seems to deliberately deflect thinking about it, now you must wonder why.
Anyway don't be disheartened, your point is good regardless of this support of 'magic' that anad seems to prefer over an intellectual approach.
Shining Arcanine - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - linkAs far as I can tell from Anand's description of the technology, it seems that this is being done transparently to the operating system, so while the operating system thinks that 25GB have been written, the SSD knows that it only wrote 11GB. Think of it of having two balancing sheets, one that other people see that has nice figures and the other that you see which has the real figures, sort of like what Enron did, except instead of showing the better figures to everyone else when the actual figures are worse, you show the worse figures to everyone else when the actual figures are better. Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - linkData compression, deduplication, etc... are all apparently picked and used on the fly. SandForce says it's not any one algorithm but a combination of optimizations.
Take care,
Anand Reply
AbRASiON - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkWhat about data reliability, compressed data can normally be a bit of an issue recovering it - any thoughts? Reply
Jenoin - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - linkCould you please post actual disk capacity used for the windows 7 and office install?
The "size" vs "size on disk" of all the folders/files on the drive, (listed by windows in the properties context tab) would be interesting, to see what level of compression there is.
Thanks Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - linkReported capacity does not change. You don't physically get more space with DuraWrite, you just avoid wasting flash erase cycles.
The only way to see that 25GB of installs results in 11GB of writes is to query the controller or flash memory directly. To the end user, it looks like you just wrote 25GB of data to the drive.
Take care,
Anand Reply
notty22 - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - link
It would be nice for the customer if OCZ did not produce multiple models with varying degrees of quality . Whether its the controller or memory , or combination thereof.
Go to Newegg glance at OCZ 60 gig ssd and greeted with this.
OCZ Agility Series OCZSSD2-1AGT60G
OCZ Core Series V2 OCZSSD2-2C60G
OCZ Vertex Series OCZSSD2-1VTX60G
OCZ Vertex OCZSSD2-1VTXA60G
OCZ Vertex Turbo OCZSSD2-1VTXT60G
OCZ Vertex EX OCZSSD2-1VTXEX60G
OCZ Solid Series OCZSSD2-1SLD60G
OCZ Summit OCZSSD2-1SUM60G
OCZ Agility EX Series OCZSSD2-1AGTEX60G
219.00 - 409.00
Low to high the way I listed them.
I can understand when some say they will wait until the
manufactures work out all the various bugs/negatives that must
be inherent in all these model/name changes.
Which model gets future technical upgrades/support ? Reply
jpiszcz - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - linkI agree with you on that one.
What we need is an SSD that beats the X25-E, so far, there is none.
BTW-- is anyone here running X25-E on enterprise severs with > 100GB/day? If so, what kind of failure rates are seen?
Lonyo - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - linkI like the idea.
Given the current state of the market, their product is pretty suitable when it comes to end user patterns.
SSDs are just too expensive for mass storage, so traditional large capacity mechanical drives make more sense for your film or TV or music collection (all of which are likely to be compressed), which all the non-compressed stuff goes on your SSD for fast access.
It's god sound thinking behind it for a performance drive, although in the long run I'm not so sure the approach would always be particularly useful in a consumer oriented drive. Reply
dagamer34 - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - linkAt least for now, consumer-oriented drives aren't where the money is. Until you get 160GB drives down to $100, most consumers will call SSDs too expensive for laptop use.
The nice thing about desktops though is multiple slots. 80GB is all what most people need to install an OS, a few programs, and games. Media should be stored on a separate platter-based drive anyway (or even a centralized server). Reply
blowfish - Friday, January 01, 2010 - link80GB? You really need that much? I'm not sure how much space current games take up, but you'd hope that if they shared the same engine, you could have several games installed in significantly less space than the sum of their separate installs. On my XP machines, my OS plus programs partitions are all less than 10GB, so I reckon 40GB is the sweet spot for me and it would be nice to see fast drives of that capacity at a reasonable price. At least some laptop makers recognise the need for two drive slots. Using a single large SSD for everything, including data, seems like extravagant overkill. Reply
Gasaraki88 - Monday, January 04, 2010 - linkJust as a FYI, Conan take 30GB. That's one game. Most new games are around 6GB. WoW takes like 13GB. 80GB runs out real fast. Reply
DOOMHAMMADOOM - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkI wouldn't go below 160 GB for a SSD. The games in just my Steam folder alone go to 170 GB total. Games are big these days. The thought of putting Windows and a few programs and games onto an 80GB hard drive is not something I would want to do. Reply
Swivelguy2 - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - linkThis is very interesting. Putting more processing power closer to the data is what has improved the performance of these SSDs over current offerings. That makes me wonder: what if we used the bigger, faster CPU on the other side of the SATA cable to similarly compress data before storing it on an X25-M? Could that possible increase the effective capacity of the drive while addressing the X25-M's major shortcoming in sequential write speed? Also, compressing/decompressing on the CPU instead of in the drive sends less through SATA, relieving the effects of the 3 GB/s ceiling.
Also, could doing processing on the data (on either end of SATA) add more latency to retrieving a single file? From the random r/w performance, apparently not, but would a simple HDTune show an increase in access time, or might it be apparent in the "seat of the pants" experience?
Happy new year, everyone! Reply
rree - Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - link
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
New era cap $15
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25
FREE sHIPPING
http://ecartshopping.biz">http://ecartshopping.biz Reply
rree - Wednesday, January 06, 2010 - linkhttp://ecartshopping.biz">http://ecartshopping.biz
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
New era cap $15
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25
FREE sHIPPING
http://ecartshopping.biz">http://ecartshopping.biz Reply
jacobdrj - Friday, January 01, 2010 - linkThe race to the true 'Isolinear Chip' from Star Trek is afoot... Reply
Fox5 - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - linkThis really does look like something that should have been solved with smarter file systems, and not smarter controllers imo. (though some would disagree)
Reiser4 does support gzip compression of the file system though, and it's a big win for performance. I don't know if NTFS's compression is too, but I know in the past it had a negative impact, but I don't see why it wouldn't perform better if there was more cpu performance. Reply
blagishnessosity - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - linkI've wondered this myself. It would be an interesting experiment. There are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison...systems#... (NTFS, Btrfs, ZFS and Reiser4). In windows, I suppose this could be tested by just right clicking all your files and checking "compress" and then running your benchmarks as usual. In linux, this would be interesting to test with btrfs's SSD mode paired with a low-overhead io scheduler like noop or deadline.
What interests me the most though is SSD performance on a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-structured_file_s... as they theoretically should never have random reads or writes. In the linux realm, there are several log-based filesystems (JFFS2, UBIFS, LogFS, NILFS2) though none seem to perform ideally in real world usage. Hopefully that'll change in the future :-) Reply
blagishnessosity - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - linkcorrection:
There are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison...systems#...">several filesystems that support transparent compression (NTFS, Btrfs, ZFS and Reiser4).
What interests me the most though is SSD performance on a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-structured_file_s...">Log-based filesystem as they theoretically should never have random reads or writes.
(note to web admin: the comment wysiwig does not appear to work for me) Reply
themelon - Thursday, December 31, 2009 - linkNote that ZFS now also has native DeDupe support as of build 128
grover3606 - Saturday, November 13, 2010 - linkIs the used performance with trim enabled? Reply


text:
Feminism: From Grassroots to Full Bloom
by Ali Mailen Perrotto
Ali is the Online Resource Specialist at the National Sexual Violence Resource Center.
Blogger Bio: Feminism excites me! Let's take a look at the way it informs, impacts and shapes the movement against sexual violence.
Blog Description: A blog about the growth of feminist thought and praxis in the movement to end sexual violence.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Our community will take part in a 40 Days For Life. A ground breaking, coordinated international pro-life mobilization with a vision to access God's power through prayer, fasting & peaceful vigil to end abortion. The vigil will be 24 hours a day seven days per week at 137 Warren Street, Glens Falls, NY (right next door to an abortion clinic).
THE MISSION of this campaign is to bring together the body of Christ is a spirit of unity during a focused 40 day campaign of prayer, fasting, and peaceful activism with the purpose of repentance, to seek God's favor to run hearts and minds from a culture of death to culture of life, thus bring and end to abortion. We are looking for volunteers to pray with us 24 hours a day. GOD didn't save you to sit, but to serve! We want your help. Please contact Susan Balfour at 518-744-8902 for additional information.


text:
What's going on September 4th at Gainesville Hackerspace:
- Lots of hanging out and working on projects!
- Tuesday nights are open to all. Doors open at 7pm. Feel free to bring a project to work on!
This meeting will be held at our new location, 101 SE 2nd Pl, Ste 100, Gainesville, FL 32601.


text:
—— or ——
Sign up to receive exclusive updates and online-only offers.
Browse our limited editions exclusively available on Lancome.com
Shop for your favorite discontinued items while supplies last.
Give the gift of beauty.
For more than 80 years, Lancôme, the world's leading luxury beauty brand, has epitomized beauty and glamour with a quintessential French touch.
Discover Lancôme Now
In 1935, Lancôme made its debutin Paris. Discover the story behindour name, our signature rose, andthe evolution of our iconic products.
Discover Our Heritage
By Haleigh WalsworthTake a weekly adventure with an American girl in Paris
Your profile is complete
Elite Rewards error message


text:
Can I Get My Medical Records if a Doctor Moves Away?
Please Note: By clicking a link to any resource listed on this page, you will be leaving the TeensHealth site.
Society for Adolescent Medicine
The Society for Adolescent Medicine is committed to advancing the health and well-being of adolescents. Their site also offers a locator for adolescent health professionals.
American Medical Association (AMA)
The AMA has made a commitment to medicine by making doctors more accessible to their patients. Contact the AMA at: American Medical Association 515 N. State St. Chicago, IL 60610 (312) 464-5000
Adolescent Health Transition Project
This is a health and transition resource for adolescents with special health care needs, chronic illnesses, and physical or developmental disabilities.


text:
You've already got 5 items in your shopping cart, so there's no room to reserve another one. If you'd like, you can take something out of your cart to make room for this one.
Movie & Video Game Rentals at Winn Dixiesearch locations browse by state
Redbox at Winn Dixie
Kiosk A
2131 Ross Clark Cir
Dothan, AL 36301-5747
Browse available movies and video games at the Redbox location in your local Winn Dixie. You can reserve your rentals online and pick them up when it's convenient for you.
Movies & Games Available at This Location: ·
Snatched (Blu-ray) King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (Blu-ray) The Fate of the Furious (Blu-ray) The Boss Baby (Blu-ray) Going In Style (Blu-ray)
Sorry, no results match what you're searching for.
Agents of Mayhem PS4 Agents of Mayhem Xbox One LEGO Star Wars: The Force Awakens PS4 LEGO Star Wars: The Force Awakens Xbox One Micro Machines World Series PS4


text:
The votes are in, and the winner is: And Now for Something Completely Different...
The idea behind this month's Online Block Party is to try something out of the ordinary. For example, if you've never tried cooking a pork shoulder or brisket, now might be a good opportunity. If kebabs or seafood are unfamiliar to you, maybe it's time to try them out. Or if you've seen a recent blog from Steven or there's a recipe you've always been itching to try, now's the time to try!
And "try" is the operative word here - feel free to even post your mistakes.
So step outside your comfort zone, warm up your grill or smoker, and let's see what you've got!


text:
Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme: Is More Better?by Wesley Fink on 3/7/2007 12:05 AM EST
- Posted in
- Cases/Cooling/PSUs
54 Comments
Back to Article
Clem - Thursday, March 15, 2007 - linkIs the 'Intel Stock HSF for X6800' connected to a:
1. Molex 12v outlet (3 pins utilized) fan running at full speed and would you know approximated what that speed that is ?
2. 3 pin Motherboard header - fan running at full speed (approximately what RPM) ?
3. 4 pin Motherboard header - fan running at various speeds ?
I think the 'Intel Stock HSF for X6800' fan can run from 800 RPM to 2600 RPM but somethimes a motherboard will only let it run at 1600 RPM on the 4 pin header. Reply
hox - Thursday, March 08, 2007 - linkHere are my thoughts of the Anadntech Heatsink reviews, while helpful, there is a growing body of end user discrepancies in temperatures realized. This post is to stimulate discussion to determine why end users are not acheiving the same results (degrees C at idle and load) as reported in so many heat sink reviews.
I would like to know what you have enabled or disabled in the bios that controls CPU automatic throttling. Typically that would include Enhanced C1 control (C1E), SpeedStep, and for my Asus MB, something called CPU internal thermal control.
These settings affect how the cpu "handles" load and will affect the temps reported to the Ntune program. Programs like CpuZ and Coretemp and Ntune do not detect some of these rapid throttling instances, but the temps of the processor are reduced because of this throttling. The Righmtark CPU temp utility is one of the few programs I know that allows you to visualize this throttling even when you have several of the throttling paramters disabled.
This issue is important because the temps you are seeing, even at idle, are very different for several of your reviewed heatsinks then what end users will experience when they have altered these parameters in the bios.
I believe this will be helpful for end users to feel like the products your reviews are deeming as superior are performing in their hands in a manner similar to your review. Please provide the bios settings to help the end users decide if the equipment they have purchased is functioning properly.
I suspect by doing this, many RMAs and emails to the manufacturer would be reduced.
There is a clear 10C difference between the reported CPU temps at both idle and full load for my QX6700 cpu caused by changing these three settings. Enabling these parameters in the bios I routinely see temps of 33 to 35 C for the cores of my QX6700 at stock speeds, MB temp is 35C. Disabling these parameters, temps on all 4 cores rise to 44C. Thus discrepancy in temps could lead someone to think that the Monsoon II lite cooler I am using is malfunctioning, when in reality it is working properly.
Also it would be helpful if you also tested these devices with the quad core processors which have a higher heat output. By testing the quad core cpus the high end capacity of these heat sinks to move heat would be tested. Providing the thermal resistance Degrees C/Watt would also be a helpful guideling for these devices.
It would also be helpful to comment whether the side door will fit with the thermalright heat sinks. As far as I know this heat sink is taller than the Tuniq which caused end users to move side panel fans and vents.
Thank you
Wesley Fink - Sunday, March 11, 2007 - linkAll BIOS settings that affect automatic throttling are turned OFF in our reviews. Reply
classy - Thursday, March 08, 2007 - linkBut unless you test all of the top solutions with the same fan, there really is no way to determine if one is truly better than the other. While I understand the logic for testing them as is, to not explore apples to apples is clearly short sighted. Now we know that the Extreme 120 is better than the Ultra because they were both tested with same fan. Great job though none the less. Very good quality on these heatsink reviews. Reply
chyew - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkI'm quite surprised that the Scythe Ninja is omitted. Wesley, can you be kind enough to add in Scythe Ninja? Thanks!!!! Reply
Gary Key - Thursday, March 08, 2007 - linkWes will have the Ninja B review up after he returns from vacation. It appears in early testing to be a very good solution also. Reply
quanta - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkThat's just great, the a.s.S-Flex sounds like another potential source where rookit will strike... :) Reply
lopri - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkI might have missed this information so if that's the case please someone enlighten me how heavy this HSF is? Considering the heatpipes are made of copper outfit and whatever liquid-ish stuff Thermalright chose to use, the added weight from 2 extra heatpipes wouldn't be trivial, is my guess. The Ultra 120 is already quite heavy and I'd like to know this Extreme version is safe enough for average ATX motherboards.
Thanks for this excellent review. My next HSF looks to be definitely this Ultra 120 Extreme. Reply
Gary Key - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkThermalright has contacted us and the name of the cooler will now be the Thermalright Ultra Extreme. We will update the article shortly. Still no word on a ship date but it should be shortly. Reply
PICBoy - Thursday, March 08, 2007 - linkHi Gary.
Just wanted to let you know there are still some traces of the name "PLUS" on the article. I hope this helps:
* Page 1, last paragraph: "To isolate just the impact of the ***Plus*** modification we tested with the same Scythe S-Flex fan used in the Thermalright Ultra 120 review."
* Page 2, Cooling Performance Test Configuration table: "Thermalright Ultra 120 ***Plus***"
* Page 2, last paragraph: "Results with the Ultra 120 Extreme should be even better with the extra cooling provided by the additional heatpipes in the ***PLUS*** design."
* Page 6, fourth paragraph: "We don't know the final selling price for the Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme, but unless it is a lot more than the Ultra 120 you should definitely opt for the ***Plus*** model."
By the way, can we expect a cooling review for next week also? That's all. Keep up the good work! Reply
PICBoy - Thursday, March 08, 2007 - linkOops! actually on every table and image the name "PLUS" is used instead of Extreme. My bad, that's all! Reply
Spoelie - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkFor the quieter power supplies, I'd look at the Seasonic S12+ series, and the Corsair HX series for a higher powered system.
Why? That particular Seasonic is by many a reviewsite considered to be one of the quietest around, and starts ramping up the fan around 250w (depending on how much case cooling you have). The corsair is ~2dB louder in the low wattage scale, but only starts ramping up around 300w given the same conditions.
The ramping-up spot is pretty important, for example, before I had a Venice+x850xt and CM RealPower psu, this proved to be a pretty quiet combination. However, once I upgraded to an oc'd denmark+x1950xt, idle power jumped up and the PSU was already ramping up during idle. It only got worse under load, and I couldn't stand the noise at all. I replaced the PSU with a Corsair HX and have yet to actually hear it ramp up, the other TC fans in the system drown out any noise it makes.
A passively cooled mobo is standard these days, and a minimum of case airflow should be considered as well. Reply
Frumious1 - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkNoise and performance tend to be conflicting goals. Sure, you can get a passively cooled motherboard, and with a down-facing PSU fan you can probably go fanless on the CPU (with something like an Ultra 120/120+). You should probably still mount a low RPM case fan, however, as a "good" PSU that doesn't ramp up fan speed is also not going to move a lot of air.
The problem is, if you want to overclock all of that silent/fanless stuff becomes much more difficult (if not impossible). 680i motherboards are known to use quite a bit of power, and the chipsets definitely require active cooling if you want to do some real overclocking. Then you get higher CPU temperatures, and without active cooling on the CPU you tend to rapidly increase temperatures until the system crashes/shuts down.
The cooling test bed appears to be configured as a reasonable compromise between extremes. Some people want silence, some people want performance and quiet be damned, but most are just looking to build a reasonably fast and reasonably quiet PC - hopefully without breaking the bank. Besides, as Wes mentions above, SPCR already covers the "silence above all" market quite well. Why go up against them when there's a vast user base that has more moderate needs? Reply
Spoelie - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkThe thing is, with the right aftermarket parts, you can have a totally silent pc AND a high performance/overclocked one. There isn't a need for compromise, as long as you don't want to break any world records. I mean, even in this review, they have a core2 duo overclocked to 3.9ghz without any case air flow. I call that pretty high performance.
http://www.jaha.be/ashop/?mod=product&cat_id=5...">http://www.jaha.be/ashop/?mod=product&cat_id=5... Thermalright HR05 for the chipset, this is a passive heatsink that dropped my chipset temperature 10°C over the standard HSF combo. Granted, I only have the DFI nForce4, but there are plenty of high performance alternatives for the 680i. Thermalright also has a good passive cooler for scorching hot ram: http://www.jaha.be/ashop/?mod=product&cat_id=5...">http://www.jaha.be/ashop/?mod=product&cat_id=5...
Choose a good case like the Antec P-series, put the silent psu's mentioned earlier in there, change the exhaust fan for a nice 1000rpm nexus/papst, get the reviewed heatsink (or a tuniq/scythe, it's not like i'm a thermalright fan) with another 1000rpm nexus/papst and you're set. All modern gpu standard cooling solutions can be made extremely quiet at idle with some software tweaking, so you'll only hear them when you're gaming. I guarantee the above combination will support heavy overclocking and be extremely quiet at the same time. Reply
Spoelie - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkHmmm just want to add that you do have a point about the moderate user not going to put all that aftermarket stuff in their pc, so the thing about the differing user bases is right. On the other hand, a moderate user isn't going to provide extra active cooling to overclock (or even have) a 680i. Reply
Baked - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkNice review. Have the Ultra-120 on my C2D system. When I get the chance to get a C2Q, the Ultra-120+ is going in there. Reply
nrb - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - link...is you need to actually benchmark the Tuniq Tower using the same S-Flex fan. Reply
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkOne more time. If a cooler comes with a fan we test with that fan. We chose the S-Flex because the Ultra 120 and 120+ do NOT come with a fan, and the other fans we had available would not fit the Ultra 120/120+ clips. We may well test 120mm fans in the future, but we do not plan to do cooler reviews using several different aftermarket fans as a routine test procedure. We do our best to test the cooler as shipped.
Having said that, it is likely a good idea to compare a few of the top-performing coolers using the same top-performing fan in a separate review. We agree that would be interesting. Reply
PCTechNow - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkWhy not go back and test the other coolers with the same fan used in this review? It would at least show if the fan or the cooler is making the difference. Better yet, take the fan off the Tuniq and test with it on the Thermalrights and see what the difference is. Reply
dm0r - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkAir cooling is gettin better and quieter this days...good to see a cooler that improves them both.I was choosing tuniq tower for my next desktop system but i liked the Thermalright ultra 120 in Noiseless cooling.Thanks AT for this review.BTW Any results difference between 120 and 120+ in noiseless cooling? Reply
Visual - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linknow it's time that someone combines this 6-pipe ultra with a "TEC" or whatever its called in its base
what could the results be.... Reply
Lord Evermore - Monday, March 12, 2007 - linkProbably worse, or at least no better. The contact area of the TEC with the cooler is limited to the size of the cooler base. That's not a heck of a lot larger than the contact area of the CPU itself, and assumes you could actually fit in a TEC to cover the entire heatsink plate. A TEC generates heat, it cools one side, that heat is put out on the other side, plus extra heat from the energy used by the TEC. So you'd have more heat (and of course, the more energy used, the better the cooling, and the more excess heat generated) being transferred to the same or slightly more surface area of the heatsink. With equal contact areas, there's just no way for a TEC to actually provide better cooling. It might cool really well for a very short period, but then it would burn out if that heatsink contact wasn't able to carry away the heat well enough. If the heatsink can't cool the CPU down to ambient, it won't be able to cool a TEC any lower with the same contact.
The old days of using TECs are pretty much gone, because of the issues involved. But when they are used, they're used in conjunction with a larger heatsink, both in contact area and radiating fin area. Or with liquid cooling. Reply
Reynod - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkNice review Wes ... liked it.
Well done Thermalright ... good response to customer needs.
Thermaltake should take a page out of this book and produce some decent stuff that works ... the emphasis on bling might be fine with noobs ... but they are off my shopping list as an overclocker Reply
sephiros64 - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkis it confirmed that the new model will be the 120 ultra plus ? I'm sure a lot of consumers looking for this product will want this newer, better version and are concerned of the model number when ordering. Reply
ceefka - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkI am still hoping for a review of this model. I want to cool my CPU fanless. The airflow is already taken care of with two Nexus 92mm intake fans @5v and 120mm Antec Tricool (low rpm) exhaust fan.
Is that S-Flex fan also suitable to operate as case exhaust fan? Reply
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkIf your case can mount 120mm fans the Scythe S-Flex will operate fine as a case exhaust fan. Reply
Philxxx - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkHi,
im fairly new to custom building computers and i wonder if there is a performance change when the heatpipes are placed vertically vs. horizontaly like your picture indicates.
From what i understand so far a heatpipe evaporates a fluid inside the pipe and uses the vapor to transport the heat away from the CPU. Would the heatpipes and the evaporation/condensation proccess behave different when the cooler is mouted vertically like in a tower? Any chance to test this senario?
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkFrom the Test Configuration (p. 3)of the Thermalright Ultra 120 review: "All cooling tests are run with the components mounted in a standard mid-tower case. The idle and stress temperature tests are run with the case closed and standing as it would in most home setups. We do not use auxiliary fans in the test cooling case, except for the north bridge fan attached to the 680i for overclocking."
yyrkoon - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkI can not help but wonder how much better all the coolers in your roundup would do with a 'better' fan. There are fans out there, with two ball bearings that will push 220CFM. Granted, if memory serves, these fans also exhibit 65+ dba noise levels, but it would be interesting to see the results.
Barring a 220CFM fan pushing too much air ( dislodging a cooler in the process, heh ), I would at least expect minimal improvements.
http://epowerhousepc.com/delta-120x38mm-tfb1212ghe...">Link Reply
Ender17 - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkAny idea when this will be available?
Or any word of an improved mounting mechanism for 775? Reply
DrMrLordX - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkI can't see many reasons to go with the Tuniq Tower 120 over this thing except maybe for the price. The Ultra-120 and Ultra-120+ both cost more after you pay for the fan. Reply
Gigahertz19 - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkI'll have to look through the article again but what about noise level for the fan? It can be a great cooler but if it emits a lot of noise then it's worthless in my book.
Any possible chance of reviewing some water-cooling systems for the Core 2 Duo in the future? I'd be curious to see how a cheap water cooling system would compare with a high end cooler like the Ultra 120+? Specifically a $50 water cooler like the Cooler Master aquagate mini or a higher end water cooling system like the Corsair Nautilus 500.
COOLER MASTER AQUAGATE Mini R80 / R120 Liquid Cooling System - $50 Newegg
Thermaltake CL-W0065 Liquid Cooling System - $60 Newegg
CORSAIR Nautilus 500 Water Cooling Sytem $150 Newegg
Swiftech H20-120 PREMIUM CPU Liquid Cooling Kit $122 Newegg
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkThe noise is all cases, both Idle and Stress, and High and Low speeds, was at or below the system noise floor which is determined by the quiet OCZ PowerFlex 520W power supply. For a fan with 64 CFM output these noise levels are extremely low. Scythe rates the fan at 28 dbA at full output and our tests did not reveal any results that would bring that spec into question. Reply
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkAs we said on page 2 the SAME S-FLex fan was used for testing the Ultra 120+ that we used in the Ultra 120 review. THe noise test results are the same as the Ultra 120 review at http://www.anandtech.com/casecooling/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/casecooling/showdoc.aspx?... Reply
Ender17 - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkhow about some tests with the reference fan at 7V?
31 dBA is way too loud for any quiet system Reply
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkOur OCZ Power Stream 520 is one of the quietest performance power supplies we have tested and it has a noise floor of 38.3dB from 24" (61cm) and 47dB from 6" (152mm) - both measured from an open case side. Noise measurements will be lower with a closed case, so ours should be considered worse case. The measured noise level of the test room is 36.4dB.
Since you consider 31db to be too loud can you please tell us the power supply you are using for your quiet system and how you measure noise? Distance conditions, ambient room noise, etc. We see no point in measuring noise below a Power supply noise floor since few users will run their systems with a fanless PS.
You can also run the 120+, 120, or HR01 without a fan for near zero noise, or choose an S-Flex SFF21D fan with 8 DBA noise at around 34cfm. Reply
ATWindsor - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkThe OCZ isn't that a quiet PSU, han 36.4 db isn't a paticulary quiet room either. If there is no other equipment in the room, I would even say its a bit high on background noise.
AtW Reply
ATWindsor - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkThe OCZ isn't that a quiet PSU, han 36.4 db isn't a paticulary quiet room either. If there is no other equipment in the room, I would even say its a bit high on background noise.
AtW Reply
Marlowe - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkI must agree. I sold my 520W Powerstream because it was too noisy.
I have the Tuniq Tower also, it's a great cooler I agree! =) Reply
Ender17 - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkalso, the PowerStream isn't even close to be the quietest PSU available.
Checkout Corsair or SeaSonic. Reply
Ender17 - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkI'm basing my statements off of SPCR's results.
You can read their testing methodology here:
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article687-page1.htm...">http://www.silentpcreview.com/article687-page1.htm... Reply
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkWhile we respect the quest for a silent PC, testing fans in a foam block isolated from power sources is not real world. It does allow isolation of the lowest possible noise that can be emitted by a component. However, in a system power supplies do generate noise, cases do vibrate with mounted fans, and the video card does have a fan.
You can minimize all these variables in a specialized PC that is not overclocked,but many users want a system that is very competent, reasonably quiet, but still uses a power supply with a fan. That makes the PS the noise floor. The configuration (open/closed cases), measurement distance, and measurement method determines the dbA level. Our noise measuremtns aim at measuring a real world computer enviromment and they do not isolate the PS in another room for noise measurement. They should also be considered worst case noise in the cooler being tested.
Our test room has all other equipment turned off and only incandescent lights. Reply
PCTechNow - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkIf you do not isolate the components for testing then why measure it all? There are so many variables within the case and your room that any measurements provided are worthless.It would be nice to see how these air coolers compare to water systems. Why is there not a review or at least a comparison in your results? Reply
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkWe measure and report total system noise with each cooler using a standardized test system that is typical of an enthusiast system. We have not evaluated individual fans. Reply
PCTechNow - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkIs the noise level in your room and case always the same between test measurements? If you do not isolate the test parts and ensure the room noise level is equal then how are your results valid? I am not a gamer so I expect to have a quiet system. I do not think you are providing numbers that cater to the majority of people who use computers. It is hard to tell from any of your results if a unit is really quiet or not. The power supply is already at 38db so any cooler that is quieter than this will not be reported. Is there anyway to tell us if a cooler is quieter than 38db? Reply
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkThe noise level in my test room is always below the noise floor of the single standardized test system with the case side open. I measure the room noise each time before I begin system/cooler noise measurements.
There is already a web site for users who are obsessed with system noise, and we are not a substitute. We are trying to address users who care about system noise and want to build a quiet PC on a relative basis - not those who make noise their only concern in choosing computer components.
Manufacturers are definitely doing a better job of addressing noise these days - mainly because users like our reders complain about high noise components and stop buying them. There are not many 62db fans around like the screamers that used to be common on Socket A builds.
I wish the northbrdge coolers were quieter - that is where the highest noise is these days. The Northbridge fan on the test EVGA 680i is the noisiest component in our system. It is so gbad we have to disconnect it before making any noise measurements on coolers. Reply
PCTechNow - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkWhat is your problem with not using quieter components in the test PC or even changing rooms? Fine with not catering to quiet pc users but at least get your noise floor down to something reasonable like 30db. I am sure I am not in the minority here but most of the boards used now are passively cooled so the two main noise issues in a pc are the cooler and power supply. I am not after total silence but having something that is not louder than the ambient noise in the room is important. Reply
gramboh - Thursday, March 08, 2007 - linkThe review is fine for users like me, those that are going to build a PC, want it to be REASONABLY quiet, but also overclock and have a high end video card for gaming. If you browse the AT forums, a lot of the users fall into this bucket. Yes there are also silence enthusaists, HTPC etc. If I were building one of those systems I would be reading up on SPCR.
The review is gauging an overall end user experience. Reply
kmmatney - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - link"I am not after total silence but having something that is not louder than the ambient noise in the room is important."
That doesn't really make sense - anything lower than the ambient noise will be pretty much silent. If you want a silent cpu, then go fanless. Most people have a power supply that makes noise, as well as video cards that make noise, and these reviews make sense. Reply
bigpow - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkI was absent for a one year and now I never see it being compared anymore..
How is it compared to today's top coolers?
Is Scythe Infinity the new Ninja/p? Reply
neogodless - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkA lot is still never enough! In this case, I'm talking about having enough coolers, because I'm curious how my Thermaltake Blue Orb II would stand up against this crowd, and what sort of cooling upgrade the 120+ would be. I will have to find some of the other units in tests against the Blue Orb II and find out! Reply
Marlin1975 - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkI was going to ask about the Thermaltake TMGi1
It can be had for less then $29 plus shipping at newegg.com right now.
I just got it and it is very quiet, keeps my hot Intel chip cooler then factory, and (big one) does not require me to remove my motherboard to install it.
Being that there are no thermaltake coolers in any anandtech reviews I think it is time to add a couple. Reply
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkWe have some Thermaltake coolers in for review. Some of these will definitely be included in our under $30 cooler roundup. Reply
Marlin1975 - Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - linkIs one of them the Thermaltake CL-P0370 ?
That is tghe one I was talking about above but typed in the wrong info for the model number. Reply


text:
Puzzle Levels
Download a FREE Solution for your puzzles!
Click Image to Enlarge
3D Skewb-Cube - Limited Edition
Currency Converter: * Exchange rates shown above are estimates only, and may vary slightly from the rates charged by PayPal or your Credit Card Company.
Product Information
|Mix up and put back to the start
|Level 6 - Tricky
|Uwe Meffert, Meffert's Rotational Puzzles
|3 in x 3 in x 3 in / 7.5 cm x 7.5 cm x 7.5 cm
Product Description
This is a rotational puzzle that comes from Meffert's Puzzles. There is no packaging for this puzzle, it comes wrapped in bubble wrap. If you like the Rubik's cube then you will love this 12 color rotational puzzle!
Customer Reviews |Write your own review!
3 out of 5 stars
Disclaimer: These reviews are written by our customers. Puzzle Master makes every attempt to keep these posts informative and relevant. If you find a post objectionable or inappropriate, please let us know by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.com
On Friday November 25th Xavier wrote,
it's well um.......... how do ya say it people do not ex plane how to do it well