2009 SSD vs. a modern one

[jsz]

My current SSD is from 2009 and I don't think was sold to customers directly, as there isn't a huge amount of information online about it (Intel SSD X18-M 160GB). Even with the performance I have now with that SSD, would I see a noticable speed bump by purchasing a new SSD?

[BicycleMafioso]

Mostly no. You would notice it if you were looking for it or if you were benchmarking it. That is, if I remember the SSD correctly, but might be thinking of the 25?

[Mormolyce]

Not really, if it isn't malfunctioning stick with it.

[Fallen Angel]

Are you wanting a bigger capacity SSD?

[Fuzzykins]

There haven't really been any massive user-end changes to the controllers. Just to echo what Tetris said: No, you'll likely notice no performance increase/decrease unless you're benchmarking or timing.

[glo]

Not to call anyone out here, but it sounds like you guys aren't aware of what SSD performance was like 5 years ago. Here's what typical performance of OP's drive looks like:



It's slower writing than even a typical mechanical drive, random access is also awful compared to what we have today.

@OP You would notice significantly better performance with a new SSD.

[JosephStylin]

From the Intel Website

Intel® SSD X18-M Series
(160GB, 1.8in microSATA 3Gb/s, 34nm, MLC)

Launch Date Q3'09
Sequential Read 250 MB/s
Sequential Write 100 MB/s
Random Read (8GB Span) 35000 IOPS
Random Read (100% Span) 35000 IOPS
Random Write (8GB Span) 8600 IOPS
Random Write (100% Span) 300 IOPS

Versus say a 256GB Crucial MX100 SSD ($109 at Newegg.com)
Interface SATA III

Max Sequential Read Up to 550 MBps
Max Sequential Write Up to 300 MBps
4KB Random Read Up to 85,000 IOPS
4KB Random Write Up to 70,000 IOPS

Or a Samsung 250GB 840 Evo mSATA SSD ($139 at Newegg.com)

Max Sequential Read Up to 540MB/s
Max Sequential Write Up to 520MB/s
4KB Random Read Up to 97,000 IOPS
4KB Random Write Up to 66,000 IOPS

Things have only gotten better in the world of SSDs.

[Fuzzykins]

Not to call anyone out here, but it sounds like you guys aren't aware of what SSD performance was like 5 years ago. Here's what typical performance of OP's drive looks like:



It's slower writing than even a typical mechanical drive, random access is also awful compared to what we have today.

@OP You would notice significantly better performance with a new SSD.

That's where my SSD is at right now. ;_;

Mushkin Chronos from like-- 2012... So to be fair, I was correct. :3

...

*sob*



I never get nice things.

[BicycleMafioso]

It's slower writing than even a typical mechanical drive, random access is also awful compared to what we have today.

@OP You would notice significantly better performance with a new SSD.

Continuous sequential writes is not really the typical or intended workload for a system drive. And that is basically the weak spot of that drive, it appears. The rest of the numbers are solid, and he will probably not notice any difference in usual day-to-day with a new drive. People overestimate the benchmarking numbers for that. By a lot. Access times might be higher than today. Sure. But they are still 25-30x faster than a mechanical drive iirc, and that's what matters.

Perceived difference might be apparent in load times for high texture games. Otherwise, none.

From the Intel Website

(...)

Things have only gotten better in the world of SSDs.

In reliability, power of the controller, price and storage capacity, yes.
In real numbers, yes.
The perceived difference is really not that much more.
I did not notice a speed difference between any of my three SSDs, despite them having a varied performance difference in benchmarks, because they are all so much faster than a mechanical drive.

Corsair F60 60GB
Seq read 285 MB/s
Seq write 275 MB/s
4K read 21 000 IOPS
4K write 50 000 IOPS

Intel 320-series 160GB
Seq read 270 MB/s
Seq write 165 MB/s
4K read 39 000 IOPS
4K write 21 000 IOPS

Samsung 840 EVO 250GB
Seq read 540 MB/s
Seq write 520 MB/s
4K read 97 000 IOPS
4K write 66 000 IOPS

I would not do well in a blind test. : P

[moremana]

Depends on the entire system.

Would need to know your specs, if you aren't running sata 3 probably not, maybe a little. The performance is also based on your pc.

[Ulfhedinn]

If the SSD isn't messing up yet you are probably fine with it. The only things that really improve with SSDs is load times. As others pointed out it also has to do with the entire system....

My PS3 for example got an insane boost from an SSD but much of that is because the system doesn't have a lot of memory and needs to load things all the time which is something SSDs are good for. However my laptop with the same SSD doesn't seem any better most of the time. Boot time and game startup time is really the only difference.

[Deleted]

Not sure what year the vertex3 was from, which is my old drive, i recently bought an EVO500GB because the vertex's space was limiting me too much (120GB) and performance wise i notice no difference honestly. I'm sure benchmarks will show differently, but actual real world usage, not really.