text:
Samsung SSD 840 EVO Review: 120GB, 250GB, 500GB, 750GB & 1TB Models Testedby Anand Lal Shimpi on 7/25/2013 1:53 PM EST
- Posted in
- Storage
- SSDs
- Samsung
- Samsung SSD 840
138 Comments
Back to Article
MrCommunistGen - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkYES! I've been excitedly waiting for this review since the announcement! Reply
Byte - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkWrites for the 120GB are still quite slow. Reply
chizow - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkThat's nearly universal though for all the entry-level capacity SSDs on the market, it's similar to RAID 0, when you can write to symmetrical NAND packages you see a significant increase in write speeds. Reply
OUT FOX EM - Monday, July 29, 2013 - linkSpeaking of RAID 0, if you'll notice, all the drives of 250GB and higher perform around the same. You are MUCH better off getting 4x250GB drives instead of the 1TB. With most models the cost will actually be about the same, but the speed of the RAID will be 4x faster as well while maintaining the same capacity.
Of course there are other drawbacks like space inside your PC and amount of available SATA ports on your motherboard, for instance, but if those aren't a factor, buying multiple SSD's is a much better option in terms of performance. I don't see many reviews mention this fact. Reply
Jorgisven - Thursday, August 01, 2013 - linkMuch better in terms of performance, but I wouldn't recommend RAID 0 for 4 SSD hard drives. RAID6 is likely a better option, as it is fault tolerant without losing too much space. It's a bit of a personal decision, but the RAID concepts stand true whether it's SSD or not. Additionally, 4x250 is likely a good percentage more expensive than the already expensive 1TB SSD. Reply
Democrab - Thursday, August 15, 2013 - linkI'm not sure about you, but I'm only storing replaceable data on my SSDs...There are game saves but they're automatically put on Google Drive too so I get backups easily, it's easy to set something like that up and then just get the benefits of RAID0 although I'd be using a RAID card as the chipset would likely bottleneck it. Reply
yut345 - Thursday, December 12, 2013 - linkI agree. Due to the volatile nature of SSDs, and the fact that if they go down your data can't really be recovered like it could be on mechanical drive, I do not plan to store anything on the drive that I don't also back up somewhere else. Reply
m00dawg - Friday, August 23, 2013 - linkWith only 4 drives, a RAID10 would be much preferable. 1/2 the available space (same as a 4 drive RAID6 in this case), but without the need to calculate parity, worry (as much) about partitioning alignment, and you can still handle up to 2 drive failures (though only if they are on different stripes). Reply
fallaha56 - Friday, September 19, 2014 - linksorry but disagree this will defeat the point unless you're on a top-end raid controller -and then you get no TRIM
when there's no moving parts reliability becomes much less of an issue, esp for an OS drive with cloud and local backup like most of us high-end users do Reply
Stas - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - linkThat's what I did for the recent laser data processing builds. 4x250GB 840s and a 1TB HDD for nightly backup. Only data is stored on the array. Speeds are up to 1600MB/sec. Needless to say, the client is very happy :) Reply
yut345 - Thursday, December 12, 2013 - linkThat would depend on how large your files are and how much space of the drive you will be using up for storage. I would fill up a 250GB drive almost immediately and certainly slow it down, even though I store most of my files on an external drive. For me, a 1TB would perform better. Reply
HenryWell - Monday, July 29, 2013 - linkLove my job, since I've been bringing in $82h… I sit at home, music playing while I work in front of my new iMac that I got now that I'm making it online. (Home more information)
http://goo.gl/IxKJ1G Reply
Romberry - Saturday, July 27, 2013 - linkWell...that sort of depends, doesn't it? The first 2.5-3GB or so are at close to 400mb/s before depleting the turbowrite buffer and dropping down to around 110-120mb/s, 2-3GB covers a lot of average files. Even a relatively small video fits. And as soon as the turbowrite cache is flushed, you can burst again. All in all, long (very large file) steady state transfer on the 120gb version is average, but more typical small and mid file sizes (below the 3GB turbowrite limit) relatively scream. Seems to me that real world performance is going to be a lot quicker feeling than those large file steady state numbers might suggest. The 120gb version won't be the first pick for ginormous video and graphics file work, but outside of that....3GB will fit a LOT of stuff. Reply
MrSpadge - Saturday, July 27, 2013 - linkAgreed! And if your're blowing past the 3 GB cache you'll need some other SSD or RAID to actually supply your data any faster than the 128 GB 840 Evo can write. Not even GBit LAN can do this. Reply
Dewend - Friday, March 04, 2016 - linkMy partner and I were sitting yourself down for lunch, as i mentioned to her which i read a script in the morning newspaper, thus i wanted to do a certain amount of research. Thankfully, I stumbled upon this web site, which helped me see why people consider even the idea of such a thing. http://clashpros.com Reply
nathanddrews - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkRAPID seems intended for devices with built-in UPS - notebooks and tablets. Likewise, I wouldn't use it on my desktop without a UPS. Seems wicked cool, though. Reply
ItsMrNick - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkI don't know if I'm as extreme as you. The fact is your O/S already keeps some unflushed data in RAM anyways - often times "some" means "a lot". If RAPID obeys flush commands from the O/S (and from Anand's article, it seems that it does) then the chances of data corruption should be minimal - and no different than the chances of data corruption without RAPID. Reply
Sivar - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkYou can always mount your drives in synchronous mode and avoid any caching of data in RAM.
I wouldn't, though. :) Reply
nathanddrews - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linksoo00 XTr3M3!!1 Sorry, I just found that humorous. I've actually been meaning to get a UPS for my main rig anyway, it never hurts. Reply
MrSpadge - Saturday, July 27, 2013 - linkIt does hurt your purse, though. Reply
sheh - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkI wonder how it's any different from the OS caching. Seemingly, that's something that the OS should do the best it can, regardless of which drive it writes to, and with configurability to let the user choose the right balance between quick/unreliable and slower/reliable. Reply
Death666Angel - Friday, July 26, 2013 - linkThat was my thought as well. The OS should know what files it uses most and what to cache in RAM. Many people always try to have the most free RAM possible, I'd rather have most of my RAM used as a cache. Reply
halbhh2 - Saturday, July 27, 2013 - linkExactly. I found that even moving up from 8GB to 16GB had a great effect for me with an old Samsung F3 hard drive. The difference: after just 30 minutes from boot, loading an often used program like iTunes (for podcasts) was very similar to the speed on my laptop which has an 830 SSD and only 4GB. Both load in about 4 seconds, and the 16GB desktop loads so fast because it has had time to cache a lot of iTunes. Before the ram upgrade, that load time for iTunes on the desktop computer was about 14 seconds. Quite a difference due to windows 7 caching. The extra improvement I'd get from installing an SSD onto the desktop computer now would be modest, since I usually only need to reboot once or twice in a week. Still, the sweet spot of price/performance for me is approaching, probably around $60-$70, and that won't be long. Reply
Klimax - Sunday, July 28, 2013 - linkIt's in wrong place. Unlike OS level caching (at least in Windows), which is in cooperation between memory manager, cache manager and file system driver, this is too low in the chain and sees only requests but nothing else and also takes memory from OS and takes too few. Reply
Coup27 - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkTypo: "although I wouldn't recommend deploying the EVO in a write heavy serve Microsoft's eDrive standard isn't supported at launch"
Excellent article. Samsung continue to push SSDs and I'm really excited about RAPID. Is the 840 Pro due for a successor any time soon? I am selling my current ATX Sandy Bridge + 830 and getting a mITX Haswell + (840 Pro?) and want the fastest Samsung consumer SSD available and I'd be gutted to buy an 840 Pro to see it's successor released a few weeks later. Reply
vLsL2VnDmWjoTByaVLxb - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkAnother typo last page:
"Even though its performnace wasn't class leading, it was honestly good enough to make the recommendation a no-brainer. " Reply
JDG1980 - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkWill there be an 840 EVO Pro coming out later? To me, TLC is still a deal-breaker.
By the way, what happens if power goes out during a TurboWrite (before the data has been written to the normal storage space)? Does this result in data loss, or, worse, bricking? I'd suspect Samsung at least avoided the latter, but I'd like to see some confirmation on this. Reply
sherlockwing - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkI guess you didn't read the Endurance part of the review? Even if you write 100GiB a day all of those drives last longer than their warranty( 3 years), that's more than enough endurance. Reply
Coup27 - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkSome people just don't want to accept the facts. TLC could get to 99.9% of MLC endurance and people would still want MLC. I've been deploying 840's in a light duty enterprise environment and they've been fine. The only reason I use MLC at home is because I want the absolute fastest performance and I can afford it, not that I actually need it. Reply
Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkThe SanDisk Extreme 240 was just on sale for $150. TLC NAND still seems like a solution in need of a problem. Reply
Spunjji - Friday, July 26, 2013 - linkYou can approach TLC pricing with an MLC drive in a sale, but the fact remains that when it comes to actual sustainable production pricing TLC NAND has a 50% density (and thus manufacturing cost advantage) over MLC. Given that NAND price determines drive cost and drive costs are the primary barrier of entry to SSDs, I'm fairly sure it has a problem to solve.
FWIW I have not seen any drive touch the 120GB 840's price here in the UK, on sale or otherwise. Reply
Oxford Guy - Friday, July 26, 2013 - linkHowever, there is also the problem of increasing latency and lifespan from node shrinkage. Reply
MrSpadge - Saturday, July 27, 2013 - linkAgreed: no real drive (read: not a rubbish sale) can touch the price of a 128 GB 840 here in Germany either. Reply
MamiyaOtaru - Friday, July 26, 2013 - linkhell with that I want SLC Reply
Notmyusualid - Friday, July 26, 2013 - linkMe too... Reply
Dal Makhani - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkwhy still a dealbreaker? Unless you write a TON. Its a great drive and you dont really need MLC. Reply
Heavensrevenge - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkThe worries of TLC is a pretty useless worry. I still have a 32MB Sony flash stick I used around 2003, and its flash memory wasn't rated and wear-leveled like it does nowadays by design and It's not dead nor corrupted somehow lol. If you have a USB stick older than 5 years old or any flash cards for a camera that's a few years old and still working 100% fine when people weren't so uselessly worried about flash endurance, then these drive will pose no problems whatsoever. Reply
Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkI thought the Vertex 2 firmware problems (especially the wake-from-sleep bug) were overblown until I had three of them die. I finally gave up on RMAs because the replacements died, too. Anandtech was so positive about OCZ and its Vertex 2. Funny how the drives didn't turn out to be so great. I don't remember the rave reviews covering the wonderful panic mode, either. Reply
HisDivineOrder - Saturday, July 27, 2013 - linkLots of people were raving about OCZ back then. Today, it's clear. Friends don't let friends OCZ. Reply
Shadowmaster625 - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkCan you test RAPID by cutting power to a pc while doing normal everyday stuff like surfing the web or watching a youtube or loadign a game. I would like to know how likely it is for windows to have an unrecoverable error if it loses power while this cachign solution is active. Reply
Spunjji - Friday, July 26, 2013 - linkI second that request. Reply
MrSpadge - Saturday, July 27, 2013 - linkYou'd need to be writing to the disk to provoke errors, not reading. Reply
B0GiE-uk- - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkSeeing as this drive is similar to the 840 basic, it will be interesting to see the performance of the 840 Pro with the rapid software enabled. Has the potential to be faster than the EVO. I have heard that the rapid software will be backwards compatible. Reply
sheh - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkCaching speed is based on RAM, flushing speed on drive. I don't think there will be any surprises. Reply
Heavensrevenge - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkFinally were seeing transition to RAM caches, it's nice a RAM disk is being utilized and I hope the trend continues so that HDD/SDD can actually be taken out of the storage hierarchy for the OS & operating memory and have EVERYTHING reside in a non-volatile RAM space together for CRAZY increases in perf since HDD's in a way are a side-effect of old memory's being so small there had to be a drive backing the RAM. But of course we need traditional storage for actual storage purposes afterwards. But I'll hope for a migration of RAM towards a similarly fast combination of RAM+Drive being the main root drive built right onto the motherboards in a stick-like way within 10 years to cause a nice little computing revolution via re-architecting the classical storage hierarchy that's now, I believe, is quite possible and reasonable. Reply
DanNeely - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkModern OSes have been doing ram cache for years. Samsung is able to "cheat" with rapid because they've got a much better view of what the drive is doing internally to optimize for it (even if the data isn't normally exposed via standard APIs). Eventually OS authors will catch up and have SSD optimized caches instead of HDD optimized ones and it will again be a moot point. Reply
Jaybus - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkYes. It is doing the same thing as the O/S cache, but using a different algorithm to decide which blocks to cache, one that is tailored to SSD. So the O/S is very likely to adapt something similar in future.
What is more interesting is TurboWrite. If you consider the on board DRAM a L1 cache, then TW implements a more-or-less L2 cache in NAND by using some of the NAND array in SLC mode instead of TLC mode. In addition to greater endurance, SLC mode allows much faster P/E cycles than TLC (or MLC). And unlike the DRAM cache, the SLC-mode NAND cache is not susceptible to power failure data loss. It still is not nearly as fast as DRAM, so the L1 DRAM cache is still needed. Encryption would kill performance without DRAM. But because data can be moved from DRAM cache to SLC cache more quickly, it frees up DRAM at a faster rate and increases throughput. So unless writing an awfully lot of data continuously, you essentially get SLC performance from a TLC drive. That is the EVO (lutionary) thing about this drive, much more so than RAPID software. Reply
Heavensrevenge - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkHeh yes of course, I mean removing the "hard drive/solid state drive" out of the storage hierarchy completely and putting all OS and cache data into non-volatile silicon where the ram sits today, making all operations go as fast as ramdisk speed, not just have it there as a way to hide latency. like boot from the modules plugged directly into the motherboard and everything :) THATS what I'd love to see, 1-2GB/s 4K read & write speeds all-around not just for special use cases, All because the fab process is becoming small enough o fit the amount of data there we can actually re id f that part of the storage hierarchy if you know what I mean. Reply
Spunjji - Friday, July 26, 2013 - linkI think there's always going to be a space for slower, more density-efficient storage in any sensible storage hierarchy. I think what you're looking forwards to is MRAM / PRAM, though. :) Reply
Heavensrevenge - Saturday, July 27, 2013 - linkMRAM or any NVRAM is basically the concept I was wanting :) Thank you for the reference!!
The day/year/decade that type of memory become our RAM & OS/Boot drive replacement in the storage hierarchy will be the one of the best times in modern computing history.
Honestly all HDD/SDD manufactures should stop wasting their R&D on this type of crap even though SSD's are a wonderful "now" solution to the problem and I'll still recommend them for the time being.
The sooner that type of memory is our primary 1st level storage directly addressable from the CPU the better our modern world of computing will become and begin evolving again. Reply
MrSpadge - Saturday, July 27, 2013 - linkI don't think Samsung is doing anything better here, or working some SSD-magic. They're just being much more agressive with caching than Win dares to be. Reply
Touche - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkI don't think your tests are representative of most people's usage, especially for these drives. TurboWrite should prove to be a much better asset for most, so the drive's performance is actually quite better than this review indicates. Reply
Sivar - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkReally well-written article.
I have to admit, while most of Samsung's products are crap, their 840 and later SSDs are not bad at all.
(The 830, while not prone to electronic failure, was built really poorly. It's SATA connector would snap off if you tilted your head the wrong way while looking at it). Reply
Coup27 - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkSamsung have gotten into the world position they are in today by selling crap. I have used plenty of 830's and I have never had an issue with the SATA connector so I have no idea what you are doing with it. Reply
Coup27 - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkHaven't ^^ (why is there no edit button?) Reply
piroroadkill - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkSo you accidentally broke a SATA connector, and now that's suddenly a flaw? I have two Samsung 830 256GB in my system, and somehow I didn't break the SATA connectors...
I also fitted 4x Samsung 830 256GB to a server at work.. and somehow I didn't break the SATA connectors.. Reply
HisDivineOrder - Saturday, July 27, 2013 - linkTrue, this. SATA connectors are poorly designed, but that's the fault of the people who made the spec, not the specific one in the 830. I'm not saying it can't break. I've had SATA connectors break on a variety of devices. None of them were my 830, but I'm not saying it's impossible or whatever.
I've seen WD, Seagate, and Hitachi drives all have a problem with the connector, though. Seems like SATA and HDMI were designed to make the connection as loose and easily broken as possible. I guess that gives them some small percentage of people buying all new product to replace something on said product that's small and plastic... Reply
mmaenpaa - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkGood article once again Anand,
and very good perfomance for this price range.
Regarding Torx, I believe this is one the main reasons why it is used:
"By design, Torx head screws resist cam-out better than Phillips head or slot head screws. Where Phillips heads were designed to cause the driver to cam out, to prevent overtightening, Torx heads were designed to prevent cam-out. The reason for this was the development of better torque-limiting automatic screwdrivers for use in factories. Rather than rely on the tool slipping out of the screw head when a torque level is reached, thereby risking damage to the driver tip, screw head and/or workpiece, the newer driver design achieves a desired torque consistently. The manufacturer claims this can increase tool bit life by ten times or more"
(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torx)
Markku Reply
hybrid2d4x4 - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkFor what it's worth, my experience with screws is consistent with your post. I've never had a torx screw slip out, which is definitely not the case with philips or the square or flathead varieties. I'd like to see them used more often. Reply
piroroadkill - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkAgreed. I love Torx. Philips and pozidriv are the terrible bastard children of the screw universe. Always slipping and burring. Ugh. If everything was replaced with totally cam-out free designs like Torx, allen head, robertson screw.. etc, etc.. then I'd be more than happy. Reply
psuedonymous - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkI'd LOVE for Torx to be used more often. They're much easier to work with (not once have I had a Torx screw fall off the screwdriver and roll under the desk), the screwheads are more robust, and they frankly look a lot nicer than Philips or Pozidriv.
It'd make pulling apart laptops all day a darn sight less onerous if Torx were the standard rather than Philips. Reply
camramaan - Friday, February 14, 2014 - linkBut then there would be less security in other areas of the mechanical world... not everyone can carry a bunch of Torx bits everywhere they go, so breaking into, or disassembling something built with Torx is more time laborious and pre-planned. I fully understand the sentiments, but the development of alternative screw heads was more for security than ease of use. Reply
ervinshiznit - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkTypo? On the Turbowrite page you say "For most light use cases I can see TurboWrite being a great way to deliver more of an MLC experience but on a TLC drive."
It should be deliver more of a SLC experience but on a TLC drive. Reply
ciri - Sunday, July 28, 2013 - linkSLC>MLC>TLC Reply
Guspaz - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkThe fact that RAPID sees any performance improvement at all illustrates to me a failure of the operating system's disk caching subsystem. That's all that RAPID really is, after all, a replacement for the Windows disk cache.
I'd be curious to see the performance results of RAPID compared to the disk caching subsystems on other platforms, such as Linux and ZFS (which even on Linux has it's own cache called the "ARC"). Are the large improvements because Windows disk caching is particularly bad, or because RAPID is a better implementation than anybody else? Reply
themelon - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkWindows is absolutely horrible at filesystem caching and I don't think it does any sort of block caching. It seems to use more of a FIFO algorithm that has no sequential write bypass no matter what you do. ZFS and the 2 block device caches that recently integrated into the linux kernel, bcache and dm-cache, use more of an LRU method. All of them have at least basic sequential bypass detection as well. bcache in particular is tuneable to your load in almost all aspects of performance. Of course these are only block side caching and currently have no filesystem specific knowledge.
There is some interesting work going on to track hot spots that will eventually allow for preemptive cache warming and/or hot relocation. Right now it is BTRFS specific but it is being integrated below the filesystem layer so any filesystem will eventually be able to take advantage of it.
ZFS on Linux is a waste of time in my opinion. ZFS's L2ARC and SLOG are great but limited by some of what I feel are architectural flaws in zfs itself. I used to love zfs but the Linux kernel block stack has caught up to it in features and still offers all of the flexibility that it always has. Reply
aicom - Friday, July 26, 2013 - linkWindows' cache system is better than you give it credit for. It does support sequential bypass (see FILE_FLAG_SEQUENTIAL_SCAN flag). It works with filesystem drivers with the Cc* APIs in the kernel. It also supports caching files over a network, even with other clients modifying the files. It does standard read-ahead and write-behind and is supplemented by an adaptive prefetcher (SuperFetch).
The reason we're seeing such huge gains is because the programs being tested explicitly ask NOT to be cached. The whole point is to test the drive, so they pass FILE_FLAG_NO_BUFFERING to disable caching on the files being accessed. Reply
MrSpadge - Saturday, July 27, 2013 - linkExcellent post! Reply
Timur Born - Sunday, July 28, 2013 - linkQuestion still arises why the Anand Storage Bench is affected beneficial by RAPID?! Is it because ASB also asks the Windows cache to be bypassed, is it because of the Windows cache flushing parts of its pages every second or does RAPID communicate with the drive (firmware) at a more fundamental level that allows further optimizations? Reply
watersb - Friday, July 26, 2013 - linkExcellent points. I stick with ZFS because I trust it (after many hardware failures but no data loss) and because it is cross-platform.
Mac HFS does "hot relocation", I believe. And NTFS has always tried to keep hot files in the middle of the disk in order to reduce hard disk seek times. So maybe I don't understand what is meant by hot relocation. Reply
piroroadkill - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkI agree. I'm pretty sure Windows' own disk caching is terrible. It's pretty poor even on the server side. They really need to work on that shit. Reply
tincmulc - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkHow is rapid any better from SuperCache or FancyCache? Not only do they do the same thing, but can also be configured to use more ram or use os invisble memory (32 bit os with more than 3GB of ram) and they work for any drive, even HDDs. Reply
spazoid - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkIt's free. Free is better. Reply
jhh - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkAre there any latency measurements in milliseconds as opposed to IOPS? With IOPS, the drive may be queuing rquests, making it difficult to translate IOPS to milliseconds per request. Reply
Kibbles - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkIf I write 1gb/day on average to my SSD, since media files go on my home server, this drive would last me 395 years LOL! Reply
sheh - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkAnand, would you consider writing an article on the other aspect of endurance: data retention time? With TLC entering the fray it's starting to get even more worrying.
It'd be interesting to know how retention time changes throughout a drive's life, trends in the last few years, differences between manufacturers, the effect of the JEDEC standard, whether there's any idle-time refreshing for old written cells, etc.
And an idea: I'd like to see drives where you can configure whether to use the drive as SLC/MLC/TLC. Switch to SLC for reliability/performance, TLC for capacity. Reply
MrSpadge - Saturday, July 27, 2013 - link"And an idea: I'd like to see drives where you can configure whether to use the drive as SLC/MLC/TLC. Switch to SLC for reliability/performance, TLC for capacity."
Or a drive which switches blocks from TLC operation to MLC as it runs out of writes cycles. And finally to SLC.. at which point in time it should last pretty much infinitely. Reply
mgl888 - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkGreat article.
Does RAPID require that you install a separate driver or does it just work automatically out of the box? What's the support like for Linux? Reply
bobbozzo - Friday, July 26, 2013 - linkIt's a driver, for Windows. Reply
TheinsanegamerN - Saturday, July 27, 2013 - linkand i dont think that rapid has a reason to be on linux. linux is already much better with ssd writes than windows. Reply
chizow - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkMinor spelling correction: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7173/samsung-ssd-840...
"counterfit" should be "counterfeit" Reply
chizow - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkNice review Anand, I'm really glad to see almost all the top SSDs from numerous makers (Samsung, Crucial, SanDisk, Intel) are creeping up and exceeding SATA2 specs across the board and nearly saturating SATA3 specs.
It really is amazing though how Samsung seems to be dominating the SSD landscape. I know this review is a bit skewed though since you presumably tried to include almost all the Samsung capacity offerings (for comparison sake), but the impact of the 840, 840 Pro and now the 840 EVO on the SSD market are undeniable. They really have no weaknesses, other than perhaps the Seq. Write Speeds on the 840/EVO.
I guess this is why there's so many deals currently on the 840, I bought the 250GB version earlier this month and don't really regret it given the price I got it for, but the EVO is certainly a step up in nearly every aspect. Reply
Riven98 - Thursday, July 25, 2013 - linkAnand,
Thanks for the great article. I had just been thinking that there had been a downturn in the number of articles like these, which are the main reasons I visit on an almost daily basis. Reply
chrnochime - Friday, July 26, 2013 - linkStill recommending a technology that's known to not last as long as the MLC. Yes the *extropolated* result indicates that its lifetime is far longer than advertised, but really, why when even M500 is not that slow in the first place and cost about the same, why risk going with the TLC? Not to mention Samsung's 830 has its fair share of horror stories as well... Reply
watersb - Friday, July 26, 2013 - linkExcellent review.
How does write amplification scale as the disk fills up? Wouldn't a full disk fail more rapidly than a half-full one? Reply
BobAjob2000 - Tuesday, January 28, 2014 - linkHopefully wear leveling and TRIM/garbage collection algorithms should take care of your concerns. They should take existing unchanged 'cold' data and move it around to make way for regularly changed 'hot' data. This should reduce the impact of both data longevity and write amplification as it guides new writes to hit the 'freshest' unused or rarely written blocks on the disk and also helps to ensure that data goes not go 'stale' after being untouched for years. Different vendors use different algorithms that have evolved and improved over time. I think Samsung (being a RAM manufacturer) can possibly provide better RAM caches for their disks that may provide advantages for garbage collection and wear leveling algorithms by improving the available 'thinking space' for the caching and sorting/organizing of 'hot' data.
Its all to do with managing the 'temperature' of your data somewhat like a data 'weather forecast' which can be very useful in the short term or for simple predictable/settled patterns but less practical for long term or unseasonal data storms.
Would like to see these things tested by 'what if' scenarios though to demonstrate the differences between different vendors algorithms. Reply
xtreme2k - Friday, July 26, 2013 - linkCan anyone tell me why I am paying 90% of the price for 33% of the endurance of a drive? Reply
MrSpadge - Saturday, July 27, 2013 - linkBecause endurance doesn't matter (very likely also for you), but price does. Reply
log - Friday, July 26, 2013 - linkCan you partition this drive and still take advantage of its features? Thnaks Reply
Timur Born - Friday, July 26, 2013 - linkI don't quite understand exactly why the Samsung RAPID software cache brings higher performance in *practice* than Windows' own cache? Using two software caches will lead to the same information being stored in RAM twice or even thrice, which is exactly what the Windows cache tries to avoid since XP days.
That the usual benchmark programs get fooled is visible, as they think to be working without a software cache. So the higher values there are not surprising. But I am a bit puzzled why the Anand Storage Bench results increase, too?! Why is RAPID software caching better than Windows' own cache in this scenario? Or does the ASB bypass Windows' cache, too (like most benchmarks)?
By the way: ATTO allows the Windows cache to be turned ON for testing. My "old" Crucial M4 256 gets sees very high read results once ATTO makes use of Windows' cache. Only the write rates remain significantly smaller.
Therefor an ATTO test with combinations of either or both software caches (RAPID and Windows) would be interesting. Reply
MrSpadge - Saturday, July 27, 2013 - linkI think it's because Samsung is being much more agressive with caching than Win dares to be, i.e. it holds files far longer before writing them, so they can be combined more efficiently but are longer at risk of being lost. Reply
Timur Born - Sunday, July 28, 2013 - linkI am not convinced about that yet, especially since you can turn off drive cache flushing via Device-Manager and thus should get an even more aggressive Windows cache behavior than what RAPID offers (which is reported to adhere to Windows' flush commands).
The Windows cache is designed to keep data in RAM for as long as it's not needed for something else. Even more important, data is *directly* executed from inside the Windows cache instead of being copied back and forth between separate memory regions. This keeps duplication to a minimum (implemented since XP as far as I remember). So at least for reads the Windows cache is very useful, especially in combination with Superfetch, which is *not* disabled for SSDs btw (even Prefetch for the boot phase isn't disabled, but in practice it makes not much of a difference whether you boot with or without Prefetch from an SSD).
There is something funky going on with Windows' cache and the drive's onboard cache of my Crucial M4 in combination with ATTO (Windows cache enabled). Different block sizes get very different results, with some *larger* block sizes not benefiting from Windows' cache either at read or write, the latter depending on the block size chosen. Turning the drive's own cache flushing on/off via Device-Manager can have an impact on that, too.
In some cases I get less throughput with Windows cache than without (i.e. 512 kb block size with drive flushing on). This may be an issue of ATTO, though, because I also got some measurements where ATTO claimed a write speed of zero (0)! Turning off either drive cache flushing or the Windows cache or both helps ATTO to get meaningful measurements again.
So the main question remains: How and why would RAPID affect "real-world" performance on top of the Windows cache and does the Anand Storage Bench deliberately circumvent the Windows cache?
The reason I was looking at this review was that I am currently looking for a new SSD to build a desktop PC and the 840 EVO looks like the thing to buy. So once I get my hands on one myself I will just try RAPID myself. ;) Reply
Timur Born - Sunday, July 28, 2013 - linkJust did a quick test: On my 8 gb RAM system Windows 8 uses quite exactly 1 gb for write caching and all available RAM for read caching. It doesn't matter whether the 1 gb consist of one or several files and whether they fit into the cache as a whole or not (first 1 gb is cached if not). Reply
1Angelreloaded - Friday, July 26, 2013 - linkHold on a second correct me if I'm wrong on this paradox. Did Samsung not scale back on NAND production in order to drive the price up for greater bloated profits, now as stated in Korea press conference they want "SSDs for everyone". WTF is going on here, and why are SSDs not at more reasonable pricing by now about .33cents per gig.?They had a complete shot at burying HDDs after the flood and the price hike. Reply
FunBunny2 - Friday, July 26, 2013 - linkDon't confuse capitalists with intelligence. They look at unit margin and ignore gross profit. IOW, they'd rather sell 100 at $2 margin than 1,000 at $1 margin. They're stupid. Reply
MrSpadge - Saturday, July 27, 2013 - linkThere's also the factor of marget saturation to take into account. You can't sell an infinite number of drives. Reply
Notmyusualid - Friday, July 26, 2013 - linkExciting technology indeed! Impressive numbers, nice identification of spare computer resources, and put to good use too. I'd imagine this would be the go-to drive for most users...
But I'd like my clocks available for my applications thanks.
In addition, I'm not willing to put my data on any non-enterprise disk now, cost be damned. Burned too many times now.
Interesting product though.... Reply
z28dreams - Friday, July 26, 2013 - linkI recently saw the Plextor M5P (pro) for $190 on sale.
If the 840 evo comes out in the same price range, which would be a better buy?
It looks like the write seems of the M5P are better, but I'm not about overall performance. Reply
K_Space - Friday, July 26, 2013 - linkHelp a noob here: How is Rapid any different to a custom nonvolatile RAM disk with your selected cached files stored on it & these being written to the SSD at an interval? Is it mainly because Rapid can writes in blocks and it's more intelligent in its choice of cached files? Reply
wpapolis - Saturday, July 27, 2013 - linkHey there all,
I have a MacBook 13" from late 2008, the first gen of the unibody construction (Model MB467*/A).
My bus speed is SATA 3Gbit/s.
What's the best SSD for me?
Trim doesn't work automatically for me, though I have found the commands to use in terminal to enable it.
This Samsung drives looks really good, but it seems like I won't be able to use RAPID, or perhaps even TRIM. Plus I am limited by my bus speed. Should I still go for this Samsung just because the price might be the same as lower featured alternatives?
What do you guys suggest? I want one in the 250GB range.
Bill Reply
TheinsanegamerN - Saturday, July 27, 2013 - linkif you have a mac, the samsung is your best bet. TRIM can be enabled quite easily on a mac if it is not done automatically, so you can use trim. as for RAPID, it replaces window's terrible i/o caching process. osx does not have this problem, so you dont have to worry about that. now, the sata2 interface will be a bottleneck, but it will still be much faster than a hard drive. id go for either this evo drive or the 840 250gb Reply
wpapolis - Saturday, July 27, 2013 - linkYes, you reaffirmed what I was already thinking.
Plus, when I upgrade this MacBook, I have the option to move the drive. Though, I have to say, performance is still pretty good, but each OS upgrade seems to make things a bit more sluggish.
With 8GB RAM, and a current SSD, things should be good for a bit longer.
Thanks for the feedback,
Bill Reply
Grim0013 - Sunday, July 28, 2013 - linkI wonder what, if anything, the impact of Turbo Write is on drive endurance, as in, does the SLC buffer have the effect of "shielding" the TLC from some amount of write amplification (WA)? More specifically, I was thinking that in the case of small random writes (high WA), many of them would be going to the SLC first, then when the data is transferred to the TLC, I wonder if the buffering affords the controller the opportunity to write the data is such a way as to reduce WA on the TLC?
In fact, I wonder if that is something that is done...if the controller is able to characterize certain types of files as being likely the be frequently modified then just keep them in the SLC semi-permanently. Stuff like the page file and other OS stuff that is constantly modified...I'm not very well-versed on this stuff so I'm just guessing. It just seems like taking advantage of SLCs crazy p/e endurance in addition to it's speed could really help make these things bulletproof. Reply
shodanshok - Sunday, July 28, 2013 - linkYea, I was thinking the same thing. After all, Sandisk already did it on the Ultra Plus and Ultra II SSDs: they have a small pseudo-SLC zone used both for greater performance and reducing WA. Reply
shodanshok - Sunday, July 28, 2013 - linkI am not so exited about RAPID: data integrity is a delicate thing, so I am not so happy to trust Samsung (or others) replacing the key well-tested caching algorithm natively built into the OS.
Anyway, Windows' write caching is not so quick because the OS, by default, flush its in-memory cache each second. Moreover, it normally issue a barrier event to flush the disk's DRAM cache. This last thing can be disabled, but the flush of the in-memory cache can not be changed, as far I know.
Linux, on the other side, use much aggressive caching policy: it issue an in-memory cache flush (pagecache) ever 30 seconds, and it aggressively try to coalesce multiple writes into a single transactions. This parameter is configurable using the /proc interface. Moreover, if you have a BBU or power-tolerant disk subsystem, you can even disable the barrier instruction normally issued to the disk's DRAM cache. Reply
Timur Born - Sunday, July 28, 2013 - linkMy Windows 8 setup uses quite exactly 1 gb RAM for write caching, regardless of whether it's writing to a 5400 rpm 2.5" HD, 5400 rpm 3.5" HD or Crucial M4 256 gb SSD. That's exactly the size of the RAPID cache. The "flush its cache each second" part becomes a problem when the source and destination are on the same drive, because once Windows starts writing the disk queue starts to climb.
But even then it should mostly be a problem for spinning HDs that don't really like higher queue numbers. Even more so when you copy multiple files via Windows Explorer, which reads and write files concurrently even on spinning HDs.
So I wonder if RAPID's only real advantage is its feature to coalesce multiple small writes into single big ones for durations longer than one second?! Reply
Timur Born - Sunday, July 28, 2013 - linkBy the way, my personal experience is that CPU power saving features, as set up in both in the default "Balanced" and the "High Performance" power-profiles, have far more of an impact on SSD performance than caching stuff. I can up my M4' 4K random performance by 60% and more just by messing with CPU power savings to be less aggressive (or off). Reply
shodanshok - Monday, July 29, 2013 - linkIf I correctly remember, Windows use at most 1/8 of total RAM size for write caching. How much RAM did you have? Reply
Timur Born - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link8 gb, so you may be correct. Or you may mix it up with the 1/8 part of dirty cache that is being flushed by the Windows cache every second. Or both may be 1/8. ;-) Reply
zzz777 - Monday, July 29, 2013 - linkI'm interested in caching writes to a ram disk then to storage. This reminds me if the concept of a write-back cache: for almost everyone The possibility of data corruption is so low that there's no reason not to enable it: can this ssd ramdisk write quickly enough that home users also don't have to worry about using it? Beyond that I'm not a normal home user, I want to see benchmarks for virtualization, I want the quickest way to create, modify and test a vm before putting it on front life hardware Reply
Wwhat - Monday, July 29, 2013 - linkI for me still say: I rather go for the pro version. Reply
andreaciri - Thursday, August 01, 2013 - linki have to decide if buy an 840 now, or an EVO when it will be available, for my macbook. considering that RAPID technology is only supported under windows, and that i'm more interested in read performance than write, is 840 a good choice? Reply
eamon - Thursday, August 01, 2013 - linkUnless you want to run some kind of continual I/O server, I suspect performance will be fast enough not to matter; I'd only look at pricing if I were you... Reply
Busverpasser - Thursday, August 08, 2013 - linkHi there, great review, thanks a lot. Actually I do have a question... The article says "The performance story is really good (particularly with the larger capacities), performance consistency out of the box is ok (and gets better if you can leave more free space on the drive)..."
Does leaving more free space mean that this space is supposed to be unpartitioned or just not filled with data? When I bought my Intel Postville SSD some time ago, I left some space unpartitioned but never really knew whether that was the right thing to do :D. Can someone give me a hint here? Reply
xchaotic - Wednesday, August 14, 2013 - link@Busverpasser just leave more space free, it doesn't have to be unpartitioned.
Worst case if you need that extra space for a while, you'll get lower performance, but more storage whenever you need it. Reply
speculatrix - Saturday, August 17, 2013 - linkthe table titled "Samsung SSD 840 EVO TurboWrite Buffer Size vs. Capacity" should be titled "Capacity vs Usage vs Endurance" Reply
rdugar - Friday, August 23, 2013 - linkAm in the market for an SSD finally to replace an HDD on a Windows 7 laptop. Was almost set on the 128GB Samsung 840 Pro, but saw the comment on poor performance at almost full capacities.
Price, reliability and endurance being the most important to me, which one should I go for?
128Gb Samsung 840 Pro? approx $119 after coupons, etc.
120 GB Samsung 840 EVO? probably $99 or so
256 GB Samsung 840 EVO? probably $165 or so
Other brand and model?
If I have to spend $120 odd, may as well spend another $50 and get double the capacity.... Reply
tfop - Saturday, August 24, 2013 - linkI have a question regarding to the NAND Comparison table.
How do this Page and Block sizes affect the right Clustersize and Alignment of the Partition?
If i am getting this right, the SSD 840 EVO would need a 8 KiB Clustersize and a 2 MiB Alignment. Reply
Gnomer87 - Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - linkI have a couple of questions:
First, how much data is typically written to the average consumer HDD on a daily basis these days? I am thinking it's nowhere close to 50GiB. I guess what I am really interested in knowing, is how much data the operating system(windows 7) writes to the drive for various maintenance uses(if there are any beside defragmenting). In my mind, simply booting up the computer shouldn't mean any writes to the drive at all. Ergo, given my typical use, a 120GB SSD of that caliber, should last a lifetime. Am I right in thinking this? I mean, reading doesn't affect the durability right?
Secondly: I've been considering getting an SSD for use as a OS drive for a long time, reason of course was to speed up boot time. However, I've long wondered WHY windows boots so slowly from HDDs in the first place. After all, the amount of data loaded during boot up isn't large. In my case the processes post-boot take up around 200 MBs, Assuming the actual amount of data loaded from the drive is about the same, it really shouldn't take that long. My HDD is capable of reading up to 120 MBs in optimal situations, so it's obvious the boot up process isn't optimal by a long shot.
But why this slow? It can take over a minute before she(my computer) is done loading and starting all processes. Last semester I took course in Operating system at the local university. I must confess I was a horrible student, I didn't show up much. But I do remember a few key elements, namely the scheduler and how this scheduler continually does context switches, letting each process use the CPU, and thus creating parallelism. Now what was really interesting was resource management. It's the scheduler that decides which process is currently running on the cpu, and the scheduler process is run in between each context switch, effectively letting each user process run and have access to resources, such as the hard drive. Now, what happens if all the processes want data from the drive at the same time? Would each process continually interrupt the other processes loading of data, and thus causing the HDD to seek constantly?
Could that explain why booting takes such idiotic amounts of time? An extremely inefficient resource management that basically ignores the inherent seek-time related weaknesses of an HDD? SSDs, as we know, barely have seek-time, and thus the performance loss from context switching should be negligible.
I know my cousins SSD powered computer boots near instantly, once it's done with the usual BIOS stuff, the OS is booted and ready for use in mere seconds. And yes, we are talking a completely cold boot here, no sleep or anything like that. Reply
abhilashjain30 - Friday, September 20, 2013 - linkI purchased Samsung 120GB EVO 3 days back from OnlySSD ( http://goo.gl/HqgjId )and Drive performance is too good compare to 120GB 840 Basic Series. Reply
abhilashjain30 - Friday, September 20, 2013 - linkAvailable at OnlySSD dot com Reply
abhilashjain30 - Wednesday, October 02, 2013 - linkSamsung Evo Series now available online in India. You can check on OnlySSD dot com or PrimeABGB dot com Reply
MVR - Thursday, November 14, 2013 - linkIt will be very interesting when they start loading these up with more than 512MB of DRAM cache. Imagine a drive with 4-8+ GB on board. The response times would be insane. It is only a matter of time considering you can buy 8GB of SODIMM memory for $70. They could probably put it on board for $50 added cost to the drive - then these would truly act like PCIe SSD cards, except it would totally max out the SATA3 throughput limit. Reply
MVR - Thursday, November 14, 2013 - linkOf course SATA revision 3.2 at 16gbit/sec would sure enjoy it. Imagine a pair of those in RAID 0 :) Reply
Wao - Sunday, November 24, 2013 - linkI'm going to change my old noisy hard disk with a Samsung 840 EVO 1TB model. I am wondering if I really need to enable TRIM in OS X. I check the data sheet. It only said "Yes" about garbage collection and TRIM support. Does it meant that this model has its own garbage collection built-in, or I really need to enable TRIM in OS X. Honestly, I don't like to hack around the system files.
Thanks ! Reply
iradel - Monday, November 25, 2013 - linkIn the "IMFT vs. Samsung NAND Comparison" table, how did you get a Pages per Block value of 256 for 19nm TLC (a.k.a. the 840 EVO)? 8KB * 256 pages per block would imply an erase block size of 2048KB, whereas I've read that the 840 EVO has an EBS of 1536KB (which would mean 192 pages per block).
Where did you get the 256 value? Reply
sambrightman - Sunday, September 20, 2015 - linkI have the same question. I've read both the 840 and 840 EVO have 1536KiB EBS due to TLC, this is the only place saying 2MiB. Did you find an answer? Reply
Scraps - Tuesday, November 26, 2013 - linkWhat would be the optimum configuration for this situation. A MacBook Pro with 2 samsung evo 1tb. Would striped raid zero be the best ? Reply
code42 - Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - linkCan I use the Samsung 840 Pro 1TB with a NAS solution? Can some propose a nice setup? Thanks Reply
Hal9009 - Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - linkJust received my new ASUS N550JV and updated the slow HD with 840 EVO-Series 750GB SSD, 16GB of G.SKILL 16GB (2 x 8G) 204-Pin DDR3 and a fresh copy of win-7x64...could not be happier, Samsung makes great SSDs Reply
7beauties - Saturday, December 28, 2013 - linkI bought the Samsung 840 EVO 1TB because Maximum PC gave it a 9 Kick *ss award, but they described it as being MLC. Good ole Anand tells it like it is. This is TLC. I was pretty steamed with Samsung because they describe this as their "new 3 bit MLC NAND," which I wouldn't have bought over Crucial's M500 960GB MLC SSD. Though Anand tries to calm fears of TLC's endurance, I can't understand what a "GiB" is and how I can calculate my drive's life span. Reply
verjic - Thursday, February 13, 2014 - linkI have a question. In some of the tests I found of real life use shows that Kingston V300 and Samsung a practically the same speed and even at copy 2 GB of 26000 files is slowly on samsung with about 30 %!!! Also installing a program like photoshop, takes longer on Samsung than Kingston, difference is not so big but is arou 10-15 %. Why is that? From all the test for kingston and Samsung, everyone say that Samsung is better but I don't see how? If anyone can explain to me, please Reply
verjic - Thursday, February 13, 2014 - linkI'm talking about 120 Gb version Reply
verjic - Thursday, February 13, 2014 - linkAlso what is Write/Read IOMeter Bootup and Write/Read IOMeter IOMix - what means their speed? Thank You Reply
AhDah - Thursday, May 15, 2014 - linkThe TRIM validation graph shows a tremendous performance drop after a few gigs of writes, even after TRIM pass, the write speed is only 150MBps.
Does this mean once the drive is 75%-85% filled up, the write speed will always be slow?
I'm tempted to get Crucial M550 because of this down fall. Reply
njwhite2 - Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - linkKudos to Anand Lal Shimpi! This is one of the finest reviews I have ever read! No jargon. No unexplained acronyms. Quantitative testing of compared items instead of reviewer bias. Explanation of why the measured criteria are imortant to the end user! Just fabulous! I read dozens of reviews each week, so I'm surprised I had not stumbled upon Anandtech before. I'm (for sure) going to check out their smartphone reviews. Most of those on other sites are written by Apple fans or Android fans and really don't tell the potential purchaser what they need to know to make the best choice for them. Reply
IT_Architect - Thursday, October 22, 2015 - linkI would be interested in how reliable they are. The reason I ask is one time, when the time the Intel SLC technology was just under two years old, and there was no MLC or TLC, I needed speed to load a database from scratch 6 times an hour during incredible traffic times. I was getting requests by users at the rate of 66 times a second per server, which each required many reads of the database per request. I couldn't swap databases without breaking sessions, and mirror and unmirror did not work well. I would have to pay a ton to duplicate a redundant array in SSDs. Then I asked the data center how many of these drives they had out there. They (SoftLayer) queried and came back with 700+. Then I asked them how many they've had go bad. They queried their records and it was none, not so much as a DOA. I reasoned from that I would be just as likely to have a chassis or disk controller go bad. None of them have any moving parts, and the drives are low power. Those were enterprise drives of course because that's all there was at that time.
In 2011 I bought a Dell M6600. Dell was shipping them with the Micron SSD. I was concerned about the lifespan and I do a lot of reading and writing with it and work constantly with virtual machines while prototyping, and VM files are huge. It calculated out to 4 years. While researching, I came across that situation where Dell had "cold feet" about OEMing them due to lifespan. Micron/Intel demonstrated to them 10x the rated lifespan, which convinced Dell. There was plenty of other trouble with consumer-level SSDs at the time, which gave the technology a bad name. The Micron/Intel was one of the very few solid citizens at the time. I went with it, although I didn't buy my M6600 with it because Dell had such a premium on them. I had two problems with the drive, which by the way is still in service today. The first was the drive just stopped doing anything one day. I called Micron and it turned out to be a bug in the firmware. If I had two drives arrayed, it would have stopped both at the same time. I upgraded the firmware and never had that problem again. The next time I was troubleshooting the laptop and putting the battery in and out and the computer would no longer boot. I again called Micron. It was by design. They said disconnect the power, pull the battery, and wait one hour. I did, and it has worked perfectly since. If I had an array, it would have stopped both at the same time.
Today, the market is much more mature and the technology no longer has a bad name. A redundant array is no substitute for a backup anyway. A redundant array brings business continuity and speed. Are we just as likely or more so to have a motherboard go out? We don't have redundant motherboards unless without having another entire computer. Unlike a power supplies and CPUs, SSDs are low-current devices. I'm considering the possibility that we may be at the point, even for consumer-level drives, where redundant arrays for SSDs are just plain silly. Reply
Gothmoth - Sunday, January 08, 2017 - linkin real life my RAPID test showed no benefits AT ALL!!
all it does is making low level benchmarks look better.
you should test with real applications. RAPID is a useless feature. Reply


text:
If this is your first time on BYC, we suggest you start with one of these three options:
If you're already a member of our community, click here to login & click here to learn what's new!
-1 day old caught a chill... What to do?
Discussion in 'Raising Baby Chicks' started by Echoes, May 12, 2009.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Tuesday, January 31, 2017 8:55:00 AM Atlantic/Reykjavik
go to theblondesalad
Your selected shipping country isTaiwan Confirm or Change Country
Please note: when changing country, you will lose the content of your cart.
Prices, currency and shipping costs may vary.
If you can't find the country you live in from the lists, it means that we do not deliver to where you live right now.
Select International website to browse the website.
Close Recently added item(s)
You have no items in your shopping cart.


text:
Emmy Award winning, multi keyboardist musician and composer Jim Oliver is a highly regarded pioneer of healing with sound and color. Since 1982 he has created more than 3500 hours of transformational self-healing music. Jim's musical career has encompassed a wide range from performing with a symphony orchestra to being a composer-in-Residence at Sundance Institute with Robert Redford. He is an extremely popular guest on radio shows and telesummits world-wide.
Jim's music study began nearly 60 years ago when at age 5 Jim began piano lessons. Ultimately, Jim majored in Classical Organ at Hartt College of Music. He has passionately pursued the understanding of how music resonates with Body, Mind, Spirit and Emotions with the focus of being of the highest service through music and harmonized color.
His special gift is to spontaneously welcome the Music of the Spheres. You experience the music with every cell in your body and the very Essence of your Beingness / Your True Self.
Jim has recently developed Harmonies of Light – A one-of-a-kind lighting system that as Jim plays live music, the mathematically related colors shine. This is a profound, multi-dimensional experience. Jim globally livestreams Harmonies of Light Music and Color Meditation Experiences to people simultaneously connecting with each other from all over the world. This offers an expanded, cohesive and harmonized place for self-healing and self-awareness with full integration of Your True Self. True Freedom – True Liberation.
Jim's music is a beautiful blend of art and science that is immediately engaging and rejuvenating.
Dr. Bruce Lipton enjoys playing Jim's music while writing. He finds Jim's music to be "so calming and intellectually energizing."
Jim provided live music for a very special event with Braco at the United Nations Chapel in NYC and participated in a special meditation for World Peace at the UN Meditation Room. Jim's recording Harmonic Resonance is listed in the Top 10 Spiritual Play List in the best selling book DaVinci Decoded by Michael Gelb.
Here is what Debra Poneman and others write about Jim's music.
Jim Oliver's music is unlike anything you've ever heard before. You don't listen to this music, you experience it. In fact, every cell of your body experiences it. It creates coherence in your brain and opens you to an influx of light, love and deep peace. I truly believe this music is a technique for spiritual awakening. I am counting the days until September 27th. I can't even imagine the power of this music coupled with harmonically coordinated color. Just the thought of it takes my breath away.
Debra Poneman, bestselling author and Founder of Yes to Success Seminars, Inc.
"Bravo Jim! A "splendid and marvelous" musical experience of the highest level. A beautiful journey into the inner worlds of deep serenity and peace. I loved the clarity and crispness of the tones, layered with many levels of possibility and potential. Thank you from my heart for a blessed journey of Light and Sound. It took me about 45 minutes to come back. Still feeling the effects .."
Kenji Kumara, Seattle, WA
From Auntie White Dove Kahuna Elder; Re: Your music Living In Heaven On Earth
Aloha Oliver thank you for your music which I listened to and felt my Higher Heart soar,
blissful thanks to you and the guidance you are given. For humanity and through your music I felt you touch millions. Mahlonui Auntie White Dove
Hi Jim. First – Thank you for that out of this world and beyond description musical event you offered everyone. As I listened there were times when I cried, my body shook, I laughed, I lost any sense of a personal sense, felt the bliss and I know that I am eternally changed and shifted through the vibrations you offered. Bless you and Deep, Deep Gratitude and Joy that you are here with us Jim. – Much Love, Miri
"Thank you, thank you, thank you, Jim for this gift!!
The moment your music started, I felt it go inside me through every pore of my being, making me feel one with it and with all………….Beautiful!"
Thank You. I work in a Multi-Sensory Center in Delaware with many handicapped and autistic consumers. For one of the autistic young men I play Harmonic Resonance every day from Monday to Friday. The changes in him in thirty minutes are wonderful. He goes from screaming and self-abuse to a happy camper. After about twenty minutes of track one he begins to laugh and leaves his session smiling. Great work Jim Oliver. Thank you.
"Wow!!! Beautiful!!! As I listened I had the real sense of the Divine coming through you. Thank you for sharing your gift!" Judy
"Absolutely gorgeous! Touched me in such a beautiful way. Music for the soul. Thank you so much!!! Such a gift you have." Carol
"Jim, your beautiful music has a magical way of taking us into another dimension…another realm. I truly felt that I was floating amongst the stars with the angels serenading…and experiencing "heaven right here on earth". Thank you so much!" Karen
"Jim Oliver's music is one of the best examples I know of "healing music," music to relax, and heal the body, mind and soul. I use his music in my music therapy sessions. His music is a 'must have' for people interested in the full potential of music to heal." Barbara J. Crowe, MT-BC Arizona State University Director of Music Therapy
Here are 3 videos from the studio:
Watch The Mystery of Love
Watch Essence
Watch Starfield


text:
- 515 Wayne Ave. New Smyrna Beach, FL 32126
- 2 beds
- 2 baths
- 1,772 sq. ft.
- Single-Family
To manage reports, go to your Dashboard.
The data relating to real estate for sale/lease on this web site comes in part from the New Smyrna Beach Board of REALTORS® Multiple Listing Service (MLS) in which this real estate firm (Broker) participates. The properties displayed may not be all of the properties in the MLSs database, or all of the properties listed with the Brokers participating in the cooperative data exchange program. Properties listed by Brokers other than this Broker are marked with the MLS IDX logo. Information provided is thought to be reliable but is not guaranteed to be accurate; you are advised to verify facts that are important to you. No warranties, expressed or implied, are provided for the data herein or for their use or interpretation by the user. Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, handicap, familial status or national origin in the sale, rental or financing of housing.


text:
Intel Settles With the FTCby Ryan Smith on 8/5/2010 11:48 AM EST
63 Comments
Back to Article
Ric902 - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkEven today, Intel removed existing SSE2 and SSE3 optimizations from their latest high-performance IPP libraries, reverting to compiler-generated scalar code. They only optimize SSSE3 for Atom and up. Guess how massive the AMD Phenom performance drop is! Reply
Pirks - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkThis part fucking killed me, fucking Dell, a piece of shit PC maker, I knew these fucks are shitty but didn't know the extent of their shittiness. Holy F.
BTW spent half a day yesterday looking for 64-bit driver for my Vostro 1700 Ricoh 82c592 fucking memory stick controller, Dell fucks just don't give a shit about users upgrading to x64. Fuck. Reply
justaviking - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkI think you need to expand your limited vocabulary. Reply
Pirks - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - link"Intel is under no obligation to license QPI or DMI"
nVidia is fucked too Reply
Nataku - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkand... stop the swearing Reply
cknobman - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkI couldnt agree more. Fuck those fucking fuckers!!!
Dell can rot in hell, never have and never will buy their overpriced and under featured pieces of sh!t. Reply
Pirks - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkI've been pretty happy with my Vostro 1700, the rare FULL-MATTE laptop, no fucking moronic glossy shit anywhere ever! Everything is matte! Keyboard is top notch, rivals best macbooks and vaios, and battery didn't die after 6 months like on my Alienware laptop, it's still running nice after 3 years of use, has lotsa juice, so quality wise Dell is pretty cool.
Well... until I tried to upgrade to win7 x64, this is where Dell clowns screwed me hard. But I found all the drivers on my own and problem's solved. Screw ya Dell scumbags, you think if you don't post your fucking 64-bit drivers for older laptops I'm going to run out and buy Dell 1720 with win7 preinstalled or something now?
How about you suck my dick again, Mikey Delley? :P Suck deep bitch, 'cause I gonna do it AGAIN when I'm about to upgrade to win8, har har har har harrrr
I'm not gonna buy your new laptops every time I upgrade windows, eat that bitch Reply
icrf - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkDidn't the majority of the consumer PC market not do so well around then, too, meaning it was likely more contributory than causal? Reply
Pirks - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkIn 2007? Are you serious? Reply
IlllI - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linktell us how you really feel Reply
Hector2 - Friday, August 06, 2010 - linkI spent several years in the military so am used to bad language, but that doesn't mean I enjoy seeing it --- especially on tech sites where you'd expect something better. If you want to sound like you actually made it beyond grade school, act like a grownup.
Otherwise just stick to the non-tech sites where it seems to be popular these days to throw up toilet comments like your's.
If Anand wants to maintain a focus on technical comments and opinions, I'd expect him to delete this garbage Reply
crazylocha - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkWell written for almost every level of reader. Appreciate the combining of details, some of which was only able to garner from financial sites postings, and putting them together clearly.
Substantial enough victories for AMD/Via. Nvidia may only claim partial victory, but foresee more lawsuits from them later, if they can afford it. Latest loss of patent issues combines with lower than expected sales of GF100 products may mean trouble for them. Wait and see. Reply
JMS3072 - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkAbove in the table, I think you mean "recompense", not "reprimands". Reply
Taft12 - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkFirst off, this is a fantastic article Ryan! I have read several since the announcement and none have nearly the technical depth.
One of the things not imposed by the FTC that I am very unhappy about is allowing 3rd parties to develop chipsets for current and future Intel CPUs.
Socket 1156 chipsets are flat out neutered - a wonderful business opportunity that could be addressed not only by Nvidia, but smaller companies as well like SiS that could compete on price. There is no need for P55 and H55 boards to cost what they do now that the GPU is on the CPU die, but the monopolist won't share the ball.
Hell, I'm looking at the result of this right at the side of my page in Anand's Twitter feed!
the best P55 boards for 6Gbps SATA would be any board that uses a PLX chip to bridge multiple PCIe lanes together
FAIL chipset from a scum company. Reply
Pirks - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkDon't buy Intel shit, buy AMD! I buy AMD 780 and 880 boards and I'm the happiest guy ever. Best IGP ever and very solid 4 and 6 core monster CPUs. Intel can suck my dick. For free. Reply
Swivelguy2 - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkYeah... your comments on this article so far sure make you sound like the happiest guy ever. Reply
bah12 - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkAgreed. If this is the same "Pirks" user on DT, just go ahead and ban this troll. He rarely has anything constructive to add. Mod's keep an eye out, don't want AT to turn into the free fro all DT comments have become. Reply
Pirks - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkdon't you stifle the freedom of speech, poo-bah Reply
synaesthetic - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkSince Anand and co. run this place, there really isn't any free speech here (or on any privately-owned site). They can delete whichever comments they want (and ban whomever they wish).
The First Amendment only applies to free speech and the *government.* Reply
Hector2 - Friday, August 06, 2010 - linkstay away from tech sites, Pirks, until you learn some better english. Stick to the 'tweener sites that oogle Lindsay & Britney. Reply
crimson117 - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkIt's frustrating that the SEC can just settle over such a severe issue.
We'll never know the extent of the payments or how badly Dell and Intel misled their investors because Dell bought off the SEC for $100 million.
Although the FTC didn't prove anything, at least they made Intel promise not to do those things in the future.
Unless a settlement establishes accountability and responsibility, and sets things straight, it's just a bribe. Reply
AmdInside - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkI think the real winner in all of this was Intel. They did not have to concede much nor pay a heavy penalty.
AMD came second for their CPU businesses.
The settlement almost does nothing for the GPU business so NVIDIA got screwed.
Does Via do anything today with their x86 license? Reply
Taft12 - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkyes they do - the C7 is lacking in performance, but you can run x86 Windows and Linux on it no problem:
Unfortunately the Atom really made this stuff from Via obsolete. Reply
Rayb - Friday, August 06, 2010 - linkFor Nvidia has to takeover Via to compete in the future with intel, it's their only option if they want to remain viable to go head to head with the competition. Reply
synaesthetic - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkI've been saying this for over a year now. NVIDIA needs to buy VIA, VIA needs to release an improved counter to Atom and NVIDIA needs to stop putting ION in netbooks with Intel processors.
NG-ION was really disappointing due to the chipset issue. Thanks to the limited PCIe lanes available to the GPU, the GT218 performs almost as poorly as a 9400M (not that the GT218 is a very good GPU anyway).
None of the new ION netbooks are as good as the HP Mini 311 is. Reply
sotoa - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkThis was a great article. An easy read too.
Interesting how Dell is now not turning a profit. LOL! But that's big business for ya.
It's a shame that AMD's 64 got crippled because of Pentium 4. AMD had a good run back then. Reply
Wurmer - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - link''It's a shame that AMD's 64 got crippled because of Pentium 4. AMD had a good run back then.''
It's not so much that AMD's 64 has gotten crippled by the crappy Netburst Pentium 4 as much as it has been crippled by Intel's very questionable way of doing business. What the quality of their product couldn't impose, their money did. Back then, AMD had clearly the best product but it seems that it didn't not suffice for obvious reasons. A lot of storms and bumpy roads can be weathered when you spread enough money around... Reply
tejas84 - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkWell Anand you are a self confessed Intel fanboy and I can imagine you are not too happy at what has transpired with Intel.
Intel now have to play on level terms and I think that Nvidia and AMD are going to show what they are made of.
No more swooning over people like Pat Gelsinger any more for you Anand. The Intel joyride was fun but is now coming to an end.
Anand I would like you to meet the future.... AMD and Nvidia please step forward Reply
Pirks - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - link"Nvidia please step forward"
then bend over and open your gape hole wider, Intel has some more QPI/DMI love for ya, HARDcore style! Reply
Taft12 - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkI think Intel's business practices are deplorable and this slap on the wrist is a slap in the face to the US consumer, but Anand is certainly entitled to be a fan of their engineering accomplishments.
I am too, even if I won't buy any. Reply
erple2 - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkI'm not sure where this is coming from. For a surprising amount of time, Intel has had the top spot in the CPU space (from Core2Duo through the i7's today) so there's no reason not to be a fan of Intel's CPUs.
It's also true that on the lower spectrum, AMD has done very well. They more or less toss Intel aside in the sub-200 dollar market.
I haven't detected any serious "fanboism" that you're accusing Anandtech of. Talking with industry professionals has been one of the highlights of reading Anandtech. The AMD 4xxx story alone was worth jumping to this site over many other ones. And that was pure AMD marvelousness. Reply
synaesthetic - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkIntel didn't really get in as much trouble as the FTC hoped. This won't really change anything, especially not between NVIDIA and Intel.
I'm disappointed that the FTC was unable to force Intel to license chipset makers for current-gen processors.
It's really a shame for consumers, because the GeForce 320M is an excellent IGP and I'd like to see it in more laptops with Arrandale CPUs, rather than just the Penryn-equipped Macbook Pro 13.
I hope AMD's new crop of mobile CPUs actually let them break into the business in a real way. The battery life figures for the new quad-cores are really surprising considering AMD's history for poor power efficiency in mobile CPUs. Reply
rickcain2320 - Thursday, August 05, 2010 - linkRemember all that matters is dollars. I will NEVER buy an intel chipped PC. I'm happy with my X2 but am needing an upgrade badly..
I'm salivating over that 6-core AMD and its on my must-buy list before Christmas. Reply
ClagMaster - Friday, August 06, 2010 - linkSEC to Intel : I'll be back.
Intel being Intel, and having such a powerful commanding lead, this is what has really happened.
SEC will be back.
What is said about the Intel Fortran Compiler is true. It has terrible performance on AMD processors. And as far as I know, it still is addled for AMD processors. That takes a deliberate act where the code queries the processor, and if its AMD, disables certain optimizing features. This is notorious where I work. Reply
Hector2 - Friday, August 06, 2010 - linkFortran ? Really ? Does anyone still use that ? Reply
ClagMaster - Friday, August 06, 2010 - linkYes.
Fortran is still the heavy lifter for scientific and engineering codes. Reply
n0x1ous - Friday, August 06, 2010 - linkAm I alone in that how this settlement affects Nvidia was the primary concern to most enthusiasts here? The FTC is supposedly after making things fair with this suit, but like Ryan said all the points the FTC won on were already being done/not done and won't change much for Intel.
However, Nvidia is actively getting screwed by Intel every day that they are not allowed to make a chipset for i7 forward. Its the most blatant anti-competitive move in all of this and there is barely a mention or reason for not forcing Intel to give the license to Nvidia. FTC honchos probably were paid off by Intel.
Cmon Intel, well we don't want to have to make reasonably priced boards so we will just take a monopoly on it. I mean its not like Intel still wouldn't sell a bunch of X58 P55 etc boards. Its such BS and it really pisses me off. I have been using an EVGA 680i board for 3 years and never had a problem with it, and it looks like it will be the only high end Nvidia chipset I will ever be allowed to buy..
This really is a big deal, because we all know Nvidia's IGP's have been and will always be superior to Intel's. If I was AMD I would worry about ever having a better performing CPU then Intel. Next day x86 license might disappear after FTC gets paid off again!!!!!
Ryan, do you think Nvidia will press on with a suit of their own about this? Reply
Ryan Smith - Friday, August 06, 2010 - linkThe NVIDIA vs. Intel suit in Delaware over NVIDIA's chipset license is still ongoing. So yes, NVIDIA will still be pressing on. However the trial got pushed back from August to December, so that case still has quite a long time to go. Unless NV and Intel settle ahead of time, it won't be until Sandy Bridge (or later) before the Nehalem chipset issue is ruled on. Reply
jensend - Friday, August 06, 2010 - linkSince this doesn't do anything to get Intel to license the technology necessary for third parties to make chipsets, this does very little for consumers. Intel will keep on illegally using their CPU monopoly to strongarm themselves a GPU monopoly (the chipset monopoly already being a fait accompli), and since they have no chipset competition they have no reason to innovate or even bring decent products to the table in this space (native USB3 delayed until 2012). Reply
ClagMaster - Friday, August 06, 2010 - linkIntel does not have a CPU or chipset monopoly with AMD around.
And lets not forget the nonsense nVidia has about licensing SLI for Intel products.
Intel has restricted access to DMI/QPI technology so only Intel Designed chipsets are available for i3/i5/i7 processors. Its not illegal but I feel Intel is actually restricting their competitiveness.
Fundamentally, there are too many IT and enthusiasts too obsessed with performance and priced be damned. And Intel really exploits this with stunts like restricting access to DMI/QPI.
If you find this too objectionable, there is always AMD. AMD produces CPU and Chipsets that offer great value (performance/dollar). Reply
Hector2 - Friday, August 06, 2010 - linkI agree that it's hard to believe that Intel sells below costs. In fact, to be more plain, I just don't believe it. Intel's margins have been >50%. Even AMD's margins had been >40%. To sell below cost, especially for the tiny Atom when wafer costs are fixed, would mean selling it for <$10, I think. It's a lot smaller than standard CPUs. Chipsets are even cheaper than CPUs. The accusations (from NVidia) that Intel is selling some Atoms below cost are ridiculous Reply
AmdInside - Friday, August 06, 2010 - linkThe point I believe is that Intel is giving away their chipsets essentially by selling them at below cost in order to move much higher margin CPUs. So NVIDIA can't complete with Intel because Intel is giving OEMs super cheap chipsets and NVIDIA doesn't have a CPU to bundle with. And as for Atom, Intel charges more for an Atom processor alone than it does for an Atom + chipset bundle. Reply
Calidore - Friday, August 06, 2010 - linkHow many copies of gcc can you buy for $10 million?
If AMD doesn't want to create their own compiler, maybe they could contribute tweaks to gcc, thus creating an AMD-friendly compiler that, unlike Intel's, is also free. Reply
Quantumboredom - Friday, August 06, 2010 - linkAMD does have it's own compiler (a version of the Open64 compile), they just haven't bothered to support it on Windows yet.
They currently have a poll where Windows support is on the list though, here: http://developer.amd.com/cpu/open64/Pages/default.... Reply
Roy2001 - Friday, August 06, 2010 - linkMy whole feeling is, when AMD/Nvidia cannot compete with Intel, FTC steps in to help.
Is there anything Intel did illegal? If it is, then we need to regulate many,. virtual all business area. When I was trying to find a guy to mow the lawn, the one mowering my neighbours told me that he could offer the service at a lower price since he will work on two house. It would be even lower if the whole street (8 families) switch to him.
When I tried to find a contractor to do wood floor and tile, the 2nd guy I interviewed said he can give me 15% discount if he got both jobs.
Do you think these practices are illegal? Reply
HolKann - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - linkPerhaps you're not fully grasping the details of market functionality. Let me explain it this way - keeping in tune with the lawn mower analogy: You have 10 lawns, and each of them is a bit peculiar and requires a slightly different approach. Intel comes up to you and says: "I can do 9 of them, at a very good price, only if you don't let AMD do the 10th one, which I'm unable to mown. If you do let AMD do the tenth one, you'll pay double to me." Intel is frightened you'll like AMD, because then you might let AMD do the 4 lawns it offers you to do, leaving only 6 to Intel in the future. Ofcourse, this situation is not optimal, like say, let AMD do 2 lawns and Intel 8, having all lawns mown. No, in this situation one lawn will never be mown, because it can only be done by AMD.
Each lawn is a market niche, and the lawns AMD can do better are for instance the "chipset+gpu+cpu" market, or the "cheap-ass quad core" market, or the "bang 4 bucks" market, or simply the "AMD-fanboy/Intel haters" market (which Intel will never be able to address). However, Intel abuses it's monopoly, because it forces OEM's to choose between Intel OR amd, while oem's would rather like Intel AND amd. And ofcourse, OEM's will choose Intel over AMD, because Intel has a de facto monopoly.
There's nothing wrong with offering discounts on large volumes, but there's something wrong with offering discounts to not sell other brands. Reply
Wurmer - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link''There's nothing wrong with offering discounts on large volumes, but there's something wrong with offering discounts to not sell other brands.''
Indeed, couldn't agree more. I have both Intel and AMD machines and I like it that way, competition is good far all of us. Reply
softdrinkviking - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - linki noticed that intel closed their online store that sells their C++ compiler as of "JUNE 30th, 2010." hahaha. i wonder if this has anything to do with the new customer reimbursement fund?
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-sof... Reply
softdrinkviking - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - linkhttp://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/buy-or-re... Reply
softdrinkviking - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - linkit was fun to read the comments from this 2003 article for the Athlon 64!
I wonder what would have happened if Intel had not (allegedly) paid off the OEMs to shut AMD out of the business?
The 64 VS 32 compiling benchmark is especially interesting since we are just now seeing a wider adaptation of 64 bit OSs. Reply
Wurmer - Monday, August 09, 2010 - link''I wonder what would have happened if Intel had not (allegedly) paid off the OEMs to shut AMD out of the business?''
I was wondering the same thing a while ago. I think that in the end it wouldn't have changed the big picture but AMD might have end up in a better financial situation this allowing them to put more $$ in R&D. They had the better product for about like 2 years during the Athlon 64 era, that's a hell of a long time in the computer business. Anyways, you can speculate all we want we'll never know. Reply
cesthree - Saturday, August 07, 2010 - linkI like my limited vocabulary, fucking fuckers.
Intel has done nothing wrong. Evil rebate mongering corporations exist in every fucking facet of business; it's not Intel's fault, they're just playing the game and winning!
Fuck AMD, but first fuck Nvidia for ever venturing past GPU's. Intel needs to keep them AWAY from DMI and QPI. They totally FUCKED up 939, AM2, and 775 with their piece of shit NF4-7 bullshit, especially 775.
If a motherfucking software patch can enable SLI on ANY motherboard that has the electrical capability, because it is totally possible, then Nvidia can go get fucked and never engineer another motherboard, PLEASE.
AMD, well if they don't like being outcompeted by Intel, then stop making CPU's and chipsets and just stick to the ATI bullshit. Maybe if they weren't fucking around with bullshit CPU's and chipsets they could get a Catalyst release that didn't suck-off 100 donkeys simultaneously.
That was a last fuck for good measure you fucking fuckeddy fucks.
Don't tell me you don't like the cursing or that it offends you; you know you like it Shit Fuck. Reply
rscoot - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - linkDespite your obvious troll, perhaps you are merely too young to remember when nVidia offered the best AMD chipsets on the market during a time when AMD did not make chipsets of their own. Their onboard audio solution back in 2002 is still better than 99% of the onboard audio solutions provided by intel/AMD right now, it's too bad they had to drop it on the nForce 3's because of cost issues.
And maybe it's just me, but I remember my nForce 4 SLI board working quite well with my manchester 939.. Reply
cesthree - Sunday, August 08, 2010 - linkOk, I was a bit drunk when I posted that last bit; but you've still helped me prove my point.
Yes, I had two NF4 boards. One DFI LP UT NF4 Ultra-D and one Asus A8N32SLI-Deluxe. The DFI is my current HTPC. Couldn't agree with you more. The only reason I bundled NF4 in is for Nvidia's garbage software patches preventing SLI for running on any setup; the NF4 was guilty of that too.
Do you see it now?
One stupidly obvious point is that neither of those boards had QPI or DMI on them. Well, not exactly.
Still not catching it?
The IMC and pretty much everything else that needs to be stable was already designed and packaged on the physical CPU. (no, not 754 and before, but those NF2-3 boards were good for what, on-board sound is what you're telling me? Maybe they were good OC'ers, but AMD didn't shine until 939 and then only for a minute.)
Let me tie it together for you now.
That's the same as, you guessed it, the i3/i5/i7 CPU's that Intel has today.
The NF4 series worked fine, because Nvidia couldn't screw up what was designed by AMD. Mostly I am talking about the communication of the major parts in an x86 design: CPU, RAM, IMC.
No wonder Intel wanted Nvidia not designing parts to do those jobs. The Nvidia 775 IMC controllers were trash aside from hand selected boards given to review sites.
Maybe it was just the EVGA 775's I had; I've never like their BIOS releases.
If Intel is shady so is Nvidia, and so is AMD. The only reason anybody is looking at Intel like they are, is because they are on top. If AMD or Nvidia were on top, they would be the one's answering to the FTC.
Nothing any of us can do about it. Besides, AMD should be glad they have lasted this long after getting their start on Intel's coattails. Reply
ClagMaster - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkSilly Troll Scumbag. Being drunk does not excuse you for the worthless profane remarks about nVidia chipsets.
Nvidia chipsets were really meant for AMD parts. Nvidia chipsets for Intel parts were an afterthought that I believed did not recieve the same level of attention and testing as those for
I myself have used nForce 2 400 chipset with a nicely overclockable AMD XPM-2500.
I have also used an nForce 4 chipset with an Optron 175. Built in 2006, it still runs fine today.
I have been satisfied with the performance of both chipsets. What I was not satisfied with is the poor construction of motherboards associated with AMD chipsets. Since 2004, this has markedly improved. Reply
synaesthetic - Monday, August 09, 2010 - linkIs there a full moon or something tonight?
The trolls are really coming out of the woodwork... comments on AT are usually very civil. Reply
matt b - Thursday, August 12, 2010 - linkRyan, I read that Anandtech is still looking into the performance of Intel compiler with non-Intel chips.
Here is Agner Fog's updated blog where he describes how Intel compiler treats AMD chips, and Intel dishonesty to him about it in 12/30/09. http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#4...
Intel's newly released beta June 2010 of its Math Kernel Library v.10.3 is still crippling AMD processors.http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#1...
Agner says that he is working on a list of software and benchmarks that are crippled on AMD processors due to the Intel Compiler or libraries.
From a year ago at ArsTechnica, PCMark05 memory performance increased 47% by changing CPUID from VIA to Intel.
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2008/07/at... Reply
matt b - Thursday, August 12, 2010 - linkNote they allege that Cinebench is compromised by using Intel compilers. Until Cinebench responds, I think that Anandtech should quit using it.
64. Several benchmarking organizations adopted benchmarks that measured performance of CPUs running software programs compiled using the Intel compiler or libraries. Intel's deception affected among others, the Business Applications Performance Corporation ("BAPCo"), Cinebench, and TPC benchmarks.
67. Intel publicized the results of the benchmarking to promote sales of products containing its
x86 CPUs even though it knew the benchmarks were misleading. For example: ... Reply
saifikhan - Sunday, August 15, 2010 - linkBuy AMD based laptops and notebooks/netbooks ! Let the dealer know that you're interested in AMD. Unfortuntately in India, one can still see HP selling underpriced Intel laptops with overpriced AMD laptops. eg here. Compaq Presario range http://is.gd/eiUXo , Essentials http://is.gd/eiV0n and EliteBook http://is.gd/eiV20
The same sad story repeats with Vostro, Acer, Sony, Benq laptop models in India.
AMD is offering a large number of Notebook processors, please see the list here http://products.amd.com/en-gb/NotebookCPUResult.as...
India. Reply
davidri - Friday, September 03, 2010 - link"In reality most of the things Intel is being barred from doing are things that they discontinued doing long ago if they did them at all (note that this settlement is not an admission of guilt on Intel's part)."
Uh, ok... then why was Intel sued by the FTC and fined by the European Commision and going to be under such scrutiny and regulation by the FTC for years to come??!!
There is probably a whole crap ton of other despicable and undermining business practices Intel could be held accountable for that no one but top Intel execs know about.
Big B.S. Reply
davidri - Friday, September 03, 2010 - linkp.s. The only other place I have seen more F-bombs is when worked for an AHL hockey team!! Reply
Onslaught2k3 - Saturday, December 04, 2010 - linkAMD had the capacity to continue with lawsuits with a great chance of winning up to 7 billion USD from Intel ALONE. Forget the FTC, forget the European Trade Commission, forget any other entity that can claim from Intel. Nvidia, on the other hand should settle differences with Intel soon so that viable Intel/nvidia solutions can be available. I'm a huge AMD fan but I do admit to the i7 engineering feat that still today blows AMD's solutions out of the water performance-wise. Though I admit I feel that performance gap would be bridged by getting myself a x6 1090T by finding a good batch and OC'ing past the 4 Ghz barrier. Reply