Windows 7 &SSD performance

  sil_ver 13:52 19 Sep 2010

I don't think my spec is relevent here - ASUS M2N SLI Deluxe, Phenom 9850 cpu - I'm just puzzled. I fitted a 30gb Kingston SSD and a fresh install W7 Ult 32bit & drivers which used up about 12gb. I disabled Paging as I've 4gb of DDR2 RAM. Checking the 'Windows Experience' figures I was disappointed to see my score had dropped from 6.8 to 5.9 and it was due to the score of my SSD at 5.9 as opposed to a HDD score of 6.8 all other scores were as before. Anyone any ideas as to why this should be so?

  skeletal 17:56 19 Sep 2010

Out of interest, how quick does your computer “feel”?

I have read mixed reports about SSDs. Some say there is no real difference between them and conventional hard drives. Occasionally, like you, there are reports of them being slower.

I do know that different makes give very different performances. I recently installed an Intel SSDSA2M080G2GC, reportedly a fast drive (I don’t have a clue how “good” yours is). Although I had huge problems with the install, now it’s done, the performance boost is easily the biggest I have ever experienced for an upgrade (i.e. other than buying a new computer).

If anyone asked me, I would say forget extra memory, or new processors, get an SSD!

All of Office, for example, opens the instant you click on a shortcut, before there was a short wait; my boot time is around 45 seconds, it was getting on for a couple of minutes (I’m using XP).

So, do you see this huge performance increase? I ask because I wonder if your problem is actually the algorithm making the measurement rather than the drive itself.

Finally, all SSDs will reduce performance over time if you do not “Trim” them. I do this weekly using the Intel software, but I think (perhaps??) that W7 has this command built in. It would be worth you trying that, although if you’ve only just started using the drive, I would not have thought you would be reaching the problem point yet.


  I am Spartacus 18:26 19 Sep 2010

Is it this model? click here Review comments on 'stuttering' and in some tests slower than a Samsung F3 1GB.

  sunnystaines 19:09 19 Sep 2010


any one explain what you mean by this.

[i know diskdefrag and chkdsk is not done]

  I am Spartacus 19:28 19 Sep 2010

click here As skeletal says above it's a built in command for Windows 7.

  sil_ver 20:57 19 Sep 2010

Thanks for your replies. The drive installed without any problems and I think the OS loaded quicker than onto a HDD once it had got past the transfer of data from CD. I do think it opens pages faster than before. I've not had it running long enough to make a definitive yes or no as to SSDs benefits. Anyway I suspect skeletal's comments regarding algorithms may be relevent, not that I understand the math -I got straight A's in general ignorance. As for TRIM, as I understand it SSDs don't like defrag, pagefiling,or any other operation that involves a lot of background activity involving read/writes. It probably isn't keen on making the tea either :)

  sunnystaines 21:23 19 Sep 2010

good link thanks never knew about trim.

  skeletal 23:24 19 Sep 2010

Well, I guess that if you can see it’s quicker, then it is! There is no question in my case, the computer flies now.

The technology behind SSDs is such that they are limited in the number of read/writes per cell. IIRC it is around 10,000 (happy to be corrected). I think the control electronics shifts which cells are used to even out the read/writes; so called “wear levelling”.

There is absolutely no point in defragging an SSD; you only have to do it on a conventional drive to try to minimise the movement of the pick-up head. As there is no mechanical head to move around, there is no benefit.

They are happy, and fast, to do the read/writes, but the more you do, the faster the drive will wear out. I’ve never tried to work out how long they would typically last in normal use. I hope it’s a few years! I do use mine as the page file, so I guess I’m going to find out one day!

During my troubles to make it work, I discovered Windows (XP) treated it differently; it was weird, and I got it to work eventually, but given the differences, it would not surprise me if other things were different as well. I don’t know, just a guess.

I tried making tea with it, but the results were not very good...


  sil_ver 00:10 20 Sep 2010

Quote: I tried making tea with it, but the results were not very good...Skeletal

I think the problem is, because SSDs use less power the water isn't hot enough ;)

  skeletal 09:20 20 Sep 2010

sil_ver: Thanks for the heads up, I never thought of that!

Joking apart, something else I forgot to say was that the lightning performance of Office (etc.) is because I also put all my program files on to the SSD.

Ideally, you should have one big SSD drive, but they are phenomenally expensive ATM. Thus, for best performance/price ratio, put the operating system and all program files on the SSD, and all documents/photos etc. on a conventional drive.

You may struggle even with 30 gigs. I did a massive clean up to get my system files down to about 55 gigs, but that includes two games (games also load faster of course).


  sil_ver 09:56 20 Sep 2010

I bought the 30gig as a trial but have now invested in the 64gig version. My intention is to put W7 Home Prem clone on it, reformat the 30gig and clone XP to it. I think I'm going to have to look into the AHCI business as I think this may have a bearing on performance but I could be wrong.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Alienware 17 R4 2017 review

Is this the future of VR and AR?

Best iPad buying guide 2017

Comment regarder le Bureau des Légendes en ligne ?