Intel X25-M SSD 80GB RAID-0 or NOT?

Z

Zer0Cool

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
375
I am thinking about upgrading my PC that is in my signature with a new SSD, but im trying to see if it will be worth it for me first.

I currently use x2 WD640AAKS in RAID-0 as my main OS HDD with another WD640AAKS as a storage HDD.

From what I have seen the new best thing is the "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD". I had looked at a few reviews and I think its fair to say that a single "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD" will be faster then my current RAID-0 setup. Is this the one? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167018

If you would have to estimate, how much faster, more snappier will a single "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD" be compared to my two WD640AAKS in raid 0? For the last hour I spend time reading about "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD" in raid-0 compared to a single "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD" and there seems to be a lot of different information out there. I am really considering a raid 0 and would appreciate your input on this. The SSD will be used for gaming.

If I would to assume that an "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD" will give me 50% increase performance over my current setup, how much do you estimate a RAID-0 "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD" will give me in terms of percentage?

Looking at my current hardware, do I have everything I need to be able to fully utilize a single and or RAID-0 with "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD"?

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
An SSD RAID thread pops up every few days, why not look back. Off the top of my head, the SSD will be faster than your RAID0 and TRIM isn't supported in SSD RAID. So, do you really need to spend $600 for such an increase in speed?
 
vischo said:
Do you really need to spend $600 for such an increase in speed?
Click to expand...

Well that is what im trying to figure out here... All depends on how much more performance im going to get from a raid-0 compared to a single drive.
 
It might give you a 50% increase in benchmarks, but I doubt you'll feel a significant difference.

I have 2 x 640Gb Black, though I never even Raid 0'd them and an Intel X25-M G2 80Gb.

It was a nice little increase in performance, but it wasn't world changing. I you had an older harddrive then you'd probably notice a nice speed bump, but considering you already have two of the fastest spindle drives out there Raided, you might be a little disappointed.

I noticed about the same amount of improvement going from my 74Gb Raptor to a (single) 640Gb Black, as I did going from the (single) 640Gb Black to the 80Gb X25-M G2. Both cases I approx. doubled my sequential reads. Don't get me wrong things are fast, but I was a LITTLE disappointed in lacking a WOW factor (ie: a very noticeable amount) of improvement.

80gb-ssd.gif
 
C-rizzle said:
It might give you a 50% increase in benchmarks, but I doubt you'll feel a significant difference.

I have 2 x 640Gb Black, though I never even Raid 0'd them and an Intel X25-M G2 80Gb.

It was a nice little increase in performance, but it wasn't world changing. I you had an older harddrive then you'd probably notice a nice speed bump, but considering you already have two of the fastest spindle drives out there Raided, you might be a little disappointed.

I noticed about the same amount of improvement going from my 74Gb Raptor to a (single) 640Gb Black, as I did going from the (single) 640Gb Black to the 80Gb X25-M G2. Both cases I approx. doubled my sequential reads. Don't get me wrong things are fast, but I was a LITTLE disappointed in lacking a WOW factor (ie: a very noticeable amount) of improvement.
Click to expand...

hmm that is very interesting. Now I wonder if the speed boost will be more noticeable with a raid-0 setup. What im trying to deturmine if the speed boost is worth $300. However the 80GB ammount is fairly small, I wonder if I will be able to fit all my games there plus an OS, so going with a raid might be a purfect solution for me.

Im looking on newegg rigth now and from what I see, they have 3 different second Gen 80GB HDD, are they all the same in terms of performance?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167023

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167018

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167016
 
I would just get a 160GB X25-M.

1) It will give you the space of two 80GB drives in RAID 0, with 1/2 the risk of losing all of your data.

2) When the new firmware gets re-released, TRIM will work with a single drive but not a RAID setup. RAID's performance advantage will deteriorate due the inability to use TRIM to keep their performance up. TRIM should eventually support RAID, but it's anyone's guess as to when.

3) The new firmware improved write speeds by 40%, but only for the 160GB model.

Performance would probably be better with RAID, and a couple of guys here say that RAID is the way to go with SSDs but there are plenty of people out there that are happy with their single 80GB and 160GB drives. As C-rizzle pointed out, I believe that the performance benefits of RAID are more noticeable in benchmarks for most people. Each option has its pros and cons, and you (usually) can't have everything.
 
vischo said:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1470472
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1469435
Click to expand...

Thank you for the links, I found them educational.

imyourzero said:
I would just get a 160GB X25-M.

1) It will give you the space of two 80GB drives in RAID 0, with 1/2 the risk of losing all of your data.

2) When the new firmware gets re-released, TRIM will work with a single drive but not a RAID setup. RAID's performance advantage will deteriorate due the inability to use TRIM to keep their performance up. TRIM should eventually support RAID, but it's anyone's guess as to when.

3) The new firmware improved write speeds by 40%, but only for the 160GB model.

Performance would probably be better with RAID, and a couple of guys here say that RAID is the way to go with SSDs but there are plenty of people out there that are happy with their single 80GB and 160GB drives. As C-rizzle pointed out, I believe that the performance benefits of RAID are more noticeable in benchmarks for most people. Each option has its pros and cons, and you (usually) can't have everything.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your input. This is a hard decision to make... Ether one 160GB model or two 80Gb in raid.... I honestly don't know just yet.
 
If you're willing to deal with the possible issues of a SSD RAID 0 array, I would go with RAID 0 (as I have), but if you rather perform less maintenance, go with a 160GB G2. I would not go with a single 80GB simple due to write speeds ( I was not satisfied with install times).. Meaning installs take as long if not longer than a HDD. You're used to high write speeds, I would recommend learning the proper maintenance for a RAID 0 array with SSD's and go with 2 80GB G2's.

When I say proper maintenance what I mean is, first optimizing your OS for SSD performance, and second running HDDErase3.3 on a regular basis to keep performance (like new) until TRIM for RAID is released.

I posted benchmarks with Crystal Disk Mark of before and after running HDDErase3.3.. 80GB G2 Raid0 array here big difference in benchmark, but to be honest did not notice any difference in real-world performance.

Regardless I'm stoked that I can shut down every application on my PC, and Windows 7 in 5 seconds flat, and if I made a mistake shutting down I can get it back up in 13 seconds (after bios, and raid config load) :), happy with purchase, expecting another 80G2 soon.
 
ShiShKaBoB said:
If you're willing to deal with the possible issues of a SSD RAID 0 array, I would go with RAID 0 (as I have), but if you rather perform less maintenance, go with a 160GB G2. I would not go with a single 80GB simple due to write speeds ( I was not satisfied with install times).. Meaning installs take as long if not longer than a HDD. You're used to high write speeds, I would recommend learning the proper maintenance for a RAID 0 array with SSD's and go with 2 80GB G2's.

When I say proper maintenance what I mean is, first optimizing your OS for SSD performance, and second running HDDErase3.3 on a regular basis to keep performance (like new) until TRIM for RAID is released.

I posted benchmarks with Crystal Disk Mark of before and after running HDDErase3.3.. 80GB G2 Raid0 array here big difference in benchmark, but to be honest did not notice any difference in real-world performance.

Regardless I'm stoked that I can shut down every application on my PC, and Windows 7 in 5 seconds flat, and if I made a mistake shutting down I can get it back up in 13 seconds (after bios, and raid config load) :), happy with purchase, expecting another 80G2 soon.
Click to expand...

I had been using raid 0 for as long as I can remember :)

After reading your post I think I will go with two 80GB in raid 0, I just really hope they will have TRIM working soon :)
 
Zer0Cool said:
I had been using raid 0 for as long as I can remember :)

After reading your post I think I will go with two 80GB in raid 0, I just really hope they will have TRIM working soon :)
Click to expand...

I also have been using RAID 0 forever, but I have never had my array break apart without warning after a shutdown...

So here is the story.. I set up my RAID0 array.. wrote about a terabyte of data worth to the array because my Spinpoint F3 had not arrived yet (to be used as a secondary).

Once my F3 arrived I ran HDDErase3.3 on both drives in IDE mode (per instructions), and all went smooth. I turned RAID back on in bios, recreated my RAID0 array and installed W7.. all went smooth. I loaded some of my apps back on, and a game.. all was still nice and smooth.. no problems. I shut down, went to work, came back and turned the system on and received the "disk error" message and noticed my array had broke apart (not failed - just all single drives). So I ran HDDErase again on each drive, reset up the array, and before loading windows I shut it down and waited 15 minutes, booted back up and low and behold my array had broken apart again!!! I reset the array again shut down, waited 15 minutes, booted back up and my array was still in tact. I installed W7 again, shut down, waited, booted back and my array has been solid ever since.

So the moral of the story from what I can tell is. After running HDDErase3.3, set your raid array up, and shut down,wait 15 minutes, and boot back up, if you array has disappeared then set it up again and shut down, it should be set this time around and should stay set.

Im not sure what causes it, but I think it has to do with what HDDErase does to the blocks of data.. really not sure.. weird, and have never had an issue like this with any HDD RAID0 array, a bit of a hassle but very much worth it IMO.
 
Last edited:
Zer0Cool said:
I am thinking about upgrading my PC that is in my signature with a new SSD, but im trying to see if it will be worth it for me first.

- Asus P6T Deluse v2 - Intel i7 920 @4Ghz- Prolimatech Mega Shadow Deluxe - Cosmos S Case -
- ABS Tagan BZ Series BZ800 PSU
- GeForce 9800GTX - G.SKILL 6GB DDR3 1600 - Razer Barracuda™ AC-1
- 3X WD640AAKS HDD (2 in RAID 0)
- Dell 24" 2407WFP-HC Monitor - Logitech G15 Keyboard - Razer DeathAdder Mouse – Qck Heavy - HD555’s Sennheiser’s – Razer Barracuda™ HP-1 5.1 - Logitech Z5500 Speakers
Click to expand...

Copy/pasted because people change their sigs, but threads remained archived.
 
WD 640 AALS in RAID0

OSDrive.jpg


Intel x25M 80 GB G2 SSD

DiskSSD.png


(The access time is actually 0.1 ms, dunno why this test fubared)

Go SSD and don't look back, the snappieness is amazing
 
k1pp3r said:
WD 640 AALS in RAID0

OSDrive.jpg


Intel x25M 80 GB G2 SSD

DiskSSD.png


(The access time is actually 0.1 ms, dunno why this test fubared)

Go SSD and don't look back, the snappieness is amazing
Click to expand...

Speeds are pretty close between 2x Blacks in Raid 0 & 1 x 80Gb X25-M.

I think OP will be disappointed in the "feel" of anything other than Raid 0'ing the SSDs.
 
C-rizzle said:
Speeds are pretty close between 2x Blacks in Raid 0 & 1 x 80Gb X25-M.

I think OP will be disappointed in the "feel" of anything other than Raid 0'ing the SSDs.
Click to expand...

Not truely,

I am quite impressed when moving from the RAID0 black drives to the single SSD.

The response time alone will make you say wow, and if you look at the read tests, the SSD speeds are consistant, much more than the RAID0 setup.

SSD make your system respond insanly fast
 
OP-

Don't be misled by sequential benchmarks, it's the small reads and writes that make the difference and the access time. This is where an SSD will be many times faster than a HDD.

About 80GB G2 Raid versus 160GB G2. I understood that the new firmware (when it is re-released) for the 160GB increased the speed of it's writes by 25%. I would also be inclined to get the 160GB G2 due to the soon to be available trim function which will not be available if you raid the two 80GB G2's.

Also, if you get one 160GB G2, you might feel like getting another in a year or so when the prices have fallen to try raid.
 
I have a single 160GB X25-M Gen 2 and thought about the RAID also, and read
all of the threads.

I have no desire to run benchmarks or have a setup that benchmarks faster than
another person's does. You will feel a huge difference with a single X25-M.

Also, I have had failed RAID arrays in the past and I was less than happy when it occurred.
IMHO, RAID 0 on an on-board controller is a data accident waiting to happen!

Get a single 160GB Gen 2 and wait a year.

There will be better, faster, larger SSD's then that you are going to want.


That was my decision, anyhow.
 
@k1pp3r

Thank you for the comparison charts.

azides said:
OP-

Don't be misled by sequential benchmarks, it's the small reads and writes that make the difference and the access time. This is where an SSD will be many times faster than a HDD.

About 80GB G2 Raid versus 160GB G2. I understood that the new firmware (when it is re-released) for the 160GB increased the speed of it's writes by 25%. I would also be inclined to get the 160GB G2 due to the soon to be available trim function which will not be available if you raid the two 80GB G2's.

Also, if you get one 160GB G2, you might feel like getting another in a year or so when the prices have fallen to try raid.
Click to expand...

You sad the TRIM function will only be available for raid-0 160GB G2 model's, are you sure? Is there a link where I can get all of this information 1st hand?

aamsel said:
I have a single 160GB X25-M Gen 2 and thought about the RAID also, and read
all of the threads.

I have no desire to run benchmarks or have a setup that benchmarks faster than
another person's does. You will feel a huge difference with a single X25-M.

Also, I have had failed RAID arrays in the past and I was less than happy when it occurred.
IMHO, RAID 0 on an on-board controller is a data accident waiting to happen!

Get a single 160GB Gen 2 and wait a year.

There will be better, faster, larger SSD's then that you are going to want.

That was my decision, anyhow.
Click to expand...

Well spending $1200 for a raid is a lot of money for me, I know you sad the price should fall by then well lets hope so...

I am also concerned with the comparison that k1pp3r posted and thinking that I will not see a good difference between my raid and a single X-25M.
 
Zer0Cool said:
@k1pp3r

Thank you for the comparison charts.
Click to expand...

NP

You sad the TRIM function will only be available for raid-0 160GB G2 model's, are you sure? Is there a link where I can get all of this information 1st hand?
Click to expand...

TRIM is not support in RAID by Intel, not even with the new firmware which is no longer available.

I am also concerned with the comparison that k1pp3r posted and thinking that I will not see a good difference between my raid and a single X-25M.
Click to expand...

You will see a difference. trust me, i did and when i use my PC at work which is pretty powerful, (i7 at home vs quad at work) the difference is night and day i hate standard hard drives now lol
 
i wish there was trim support now

does anyone know of any thing we can do to our current g2s
 
123Lanoix said:
i wish there was trim support now

does anyone know of any thing we can do to our current g2s
Click to expand...

get a hold of the Intel SSD Toolkit and run it manually.......if you dare...

even when the new firmware comes out, make sure you grab the SSD Toolkit and run the TRIM command with it BEFORE flashing the new firmware. this will allow your SSD to "catch-up" to where it should be.
 
Zer0Cool said:
You sad the TRIM function will only be available for raid-0 160GB G2 model's, are you sure? Is there a link where I can get all of this information 1st hand?
Click to expand...

Just to reiterate what k1pp3r said, I think he was simply suggesting that you go with a single 160GB drive rather than two 80GB drives in RAID 0. It's not as if TRIM is only supported with RAIDed 160GB drives -- it's not currently supported in any RAID setup.

Zer0Cool said:
I am also concerned with the comparison that k1pp3r posted and thinking that I will not see a good difference between my raid and a single X-25M.
Click to expand...

Oh, you will. Your sequential writes might be faster with the two 640's in RAID, but your access times (what makes the OS feel quick & "snappy") will drop to ~0.1ms and, as you can see from the charts that C-rizzle posted, your 4k random reads/writes will destroy mechanical drives. And I believe the majority of writes that occur in the operating system are 4k writes. So you'd be giving up a bit of performance as far as large file copies, but you're gaining a LOT of performance where it counts.
 
TechloGoblin said:
get a hold of the Intel SSD Toolkit and run it manually.......if you dare...

even when the new firmware comes out, make sure you grab the SSD Toolkit and run the TRIM command with it BEFORE flashing the new firmware. this will allow your SSD to "catch-up" to where it should be.
Click to expand...

No, You can't use the Toolbox without the TRIM firmware.
 
MJZ said:
No, You can't use the Toolbox without the TRIM firmware.
Click to expand...

Thought he had the pulled firmware already on it. Thats why I was saying make sure he runs the Toolbox before upgrading to the NEW NEW firmware Intel will release soon.

In that case yeah he is SOL.
 
azides said:
About 80GB G2 Raid versus 160GB G2. I understood that the new firmware (when it is re-released) for the 160GB increased the speed of it's writes by 25%. I would also be inclined to get the 160GB G2 due to the soon to be available trim function which will not be available if you raid the two 80GB G2's.
Click to expand...

imyourzero said:
Just to reiterate what k1pp3r said, I think he was simply suggesting that you go with a single 160GB drive rather than two 80GB drives in RAID 0. It's not as if TRIM is only supported with RAIDed 160GB drives -- it's not currently supported in any RAID setup.
Click to expand...

This is where I got confused... is azides saying there soon will be function for raid-0 160GB G2 with Trim? or a Single 160GB G2?

imyourzero you saying that there is no indication of it right? Because if there is an indication that 160GB will soon have support for TRIM in raid-0 that changes a lot of things.

I am not afraid of going with raid-0 because I had 3 systems with it and it never failed me :) And when I go with SSD I will have 2 640GB HDD to store all my data. However I will not be able to support two 160GB ($1200). I am very much leaning towards two 80GB and raiding them.

I do hear what you saying that my system will be snappier with just one, but by how much you know? Is it enough to justify $600? In my opinion raid-0 should give me a much more noticeable feel for the same money.

Thats just my thoughts for now, im not in a rush with this decision so please keep posting :)

Thanks
 
Just to confirm what I should have said clearly:

TRIM is not supported in Raid for any Intel drive. When the new firmware for the G2 is re-released the 160GB G2 will be 25% faster in writes than the 80GB G2 ... see Anandtech article. I would thus choose one 160GB G2 over 2x 80GB G2 in Raid-0 ... just for trim and simplicity, and I am fairly sure that raid-0 controllers add some latency giving a higher access time (someone correct me if I am wrong!).

I have had many years running raid-0 with HDD and had no problems. I do not see the need to run raid-0 with G2's unless you are going to be doing a lot of large sequential writes, like video editing. As an operating system drive, the small writes and access times are most important so that one G2 will be very fast compared to an HDD; your system would be much snappier. I would also suggest that raiding 2 G2's would not reap much, if any benefit in the real world.

Anandtech has a few very good articles on Intels G1's, G2's and the Kingston Boot Drive. Stay clear of any reviews elsewhere that only have sequential benchmarks, that data is only good for video editing, acronis backups and other large file transfers! Stick to articles with real world benchmarks, such as productivity, small file read/write/copy rates, game frame rates and the like.

I ordered my G2 from PCNation as the egg was mighty inflated (>$600), scrambled even, it was on backorder but arrived within a week. They have the 160 actually in stock:

http://www.pcnation.com/web/details.asp?item=CD4205

$472.32, free shipping.

Search the forums here two for comparisons of the G1 in raid and as a standalone; the data would be equivalent to the G2's only a little slower. Again, don't look at sequential data, look at small file transfers and real life simulated benchmarks.
 
azides said:
...and I am fairly sure that raid-0 controllers add some latency giving a higher access time (someone correct me if I am wrong!).
.
Click to expand...

Im not saying your'e wrong, but I will say I have not noticed any difference between RAID0 and a single 80GB G2.. other than the RAID0 is faster installing and uninstalling.. other than that, zero difference. According to HDTune, the access time is still the same (.01ms) feels just as snappy if not snappier with RAID0. Granted adding a RAMDrive to my system to direct IE and Firefox's Temp, and Cache writes to, has caused a tiny bit of latency while booting and shutting down, I suspect some decent hardware review sites will begin offering real world experiences/benchmarks between a single drive and RAID0
 
azides said:
Just to confirm what I should have said clearly:

TRIM is not supported in Raid for any Intel drive. When the new firmware for the G2 is re-released the 160GB G2 will be 25% faster in writes than the 80GB G2 ... see Anandtech article. I would thus choose one 160GB G2 over 2x 80GB G2 in Raid-0 ... just for trim and simplicity, and I am fairly sure that raid-0 controllers add some latency giving a higher access time (someone correct me if I am wrong!).

I have had many years running raid-0 with HDD and had no problems. I do not see the need to run raid-0 with G2's unless you are going to be doing a lot of large sequential writes, like video editing. As an operating system drive, the small writes and access times are most important so that one G2 will be very fast compared to an HDD; your system would be much snappier. I would also suggest that raiding 2 G2's would not reap much, if any benefit in the real world.

Anandtech has a few very good articles on Intels G1's, G2's and the Kingston Boot Drive. Stay clear of any reviews elsewhere that only have sequential benchmarks, that data is only good for video editing, acronis backups and other large file transfers! Stick to articles with real world benchmarks, such as productivity, small file read/write/copy rates, game frame rates and the like.

I ordered my G2 from PCNation as the egg was mighty inflated (>$600), scrambled even, it was on backorder but arrived within a week. They have the 160 actually in stock:

http://www.pcnation.com/web/details.asp?item=CD4205

$472.32, free shipping.

Search the forums here two for comparisons of the G1 in raid and as a standalone; the data would be equivalent to the G2's only a little slower. Again, don't look at sequential data, look at small file transfers and real life simulated benchmarks.
Click to expand...

ShiShKaBoB said:
Im not saying your'e wrong, but I will say I have not noticed any difference between RAID0 and a single 80GB G2.. other than the RAID0 is faster installing and uninstalling.. other than that, zero difference. According to HDTune, the access time is still the same (.01ms) feels just as snappy if not snappier with RAID0. Granted adding a RAMDrive to my system to direct IE and Firefox's Temp, and Cache writes to, has caused a tiny bit of latency while booting and shutting down, I suspect some decent hardware review sites will begin offering real world experiences/benchmarks between a single drive and RAID0
Click to expand...

Thank you both for your feedback!

azides thank you for the link :) Well after hearing your testimonials I think one 160GB G2 is the one for me. If what you guys are saying is true that i will not see any "snappier" performance with raid-o, but only faster file transfer, then there is no point of having raid-o for me because I mainly need it for faster loading (games, apps, boot...etc)
 
you should have got the 160 from newegg when they were $415 shipped. maybe again for cyber monday deals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top