Showing Results: Most Recent
Pros: I haven't used these as main drives but using them as Write Back Cache for Storage Spaces. I wanted to use Parity but the write performance hit was a down factor in Storage Spaces.
To compensate I used 3x OCZ Vector 150 120GB SSD's for their steady state performance and 5 year warranty.
Transferred files over the home network (Around 4-6 TB so far) with no issues and the speeds were consistent on large files at home. (I wasn't using SMB3 or have a 10Gig network at home) It was over 100MB/s consistent on large files and went as low as 60MB/s on smaller files but quickly jumped back up to 100MB/s +
Before write-back cache and SSD's, the write performance on Storage Spaces for Parity was roughly 25-35MB/s (roughly USB 2.0 Speeds)
Cons: None as of yet for these drives.
Other Thoughts: OCZ drives have always been top performers but from my experience the reliability wasn't there. I would always recommend either Crucial, Samsung, or Intel because I have had 0 drive failures.
I've had very bad experience in the past with OCZ drives (before Toshiba acquisition) so it makes me weary in using their drives as main drives. My opinion may slowly change though as time passes.
Pros: Boots into Windows fast, that's about it.
Cons: Be careful of technical specs listed on Newegg for this drive. It's not true comparison when comparing to other manufacturer's.
I used an old laptop (SATA II / 3Gb/s) to perform the test using Crystal Disk Mark with Paragon Migration Software to migrate/copy it from Kingston V300 120GB (higher spec'ed) to a Crucial M500 120GB (lower spec'ed).
Results: READ (MB/s) | Write (MB/s)
Kingston V300 120GB:
Seq.: 172.6 | 136
512K: 160.5 | 512K: 72.46
4K: 12.87 | 4K: 11.74
4K QD32: 66.36 | 4K QD32: 81.32
Crucial M500 120GB:
Seq.: 258.8 | 143.9
512K: 238.7 | 512K: 143.8
4K: 13.02 | 4K: 25.83
4K QD32: 106.5 | 4K QD32: 92.60
Laptop Specs used to perform test on both SSD's:
Model: Toshiba T135-S1305
CPU: Intel SU4100
Memory: G. Skill 4GB
OS: Windows 7 64-bit
What prompted me to perform this test was I installed this drive on another laptop. I never questioned it but when I performed a clean install of Windows 7 on the Kingston V300, the Windows Updates took longer than usual to update. I didn't think anything of it but thought it was odd.
1-2 months later I purchased the Kingston V300 SSD and installed it on the Toshiba laptop I have above. Clean Windows 7 install and everything but Windows Updates took very long to install (I estimate 2-3 hours). This is when I started seeing reviews on Newegg around Jan/Feb. regarding the possibility of firmware/NAND change.
Fast forward now I decided to run a benchmark (not ATTO but Crystal Disk Mark because it represents more real world) on both SSD's. I first ran it on Kingston, then I performed the Migration with Paragon's software to Crucial's SSD. I then ran the same program for the benchmark. The results above is what you see.
This would explain why the Kingston SSD took long to even install Windows Updates.
Other Thoughts: This drive is faster than a HDD, but not by much. Spend a few bucks more and get better performing SSD or just use the money you would otherwise spend on this Kingston SSD and get a higher capacity HDD.
Given this experience I will no longer purchase Kingston products for personal use. Nor recommend and purchase Kingston products where I am currently employed.
Pros: Very neat little box. Enough for basic internet usage.
- Upgraded the wireless to Centrino N 6230 (2.4GHz and 5GHz)
- Max memory at 4GB (used G.Skill F3-8500CL7S-4GBSQ | N82E16820231265)
- VESA mount
Cons: Very picky with memory. Would not work with GeIL GS34GB1333C9SC
Other Thoughts: Great for casual PC users. I mounted this behind the monitor and use a wireless keyboard / mouse. (Great space saving)
Not sure how this machine runs with a SSD, I have a 1TB HDD on this machine.
This is my 3rd nettop box with Foxconn, so far i'm 3/3 and no DOA.
Some manufacturers place restrictions on how details of their products may be communicated.