Showing Results: Most Recent
This review is from: Maglite M2A016 Black Mini Flashlights
Pros: It shoots highly concentrated amounts of photons in the form of an adjustable beam.
Cons: It doesn't have that double/triple click feature that you can use to give people seizures.
Other Thoughts: Someone I know has a Maglite flashlight with the triple click bit, this one you twist the front. The original batteries still work so it's not some cheap flashlight that is horribly inefficient. I use it for working on my computer and taking the dog out at night.READ FULL REVIEW
Pros: 411MB min | 413MB Max | 412MB Average Read, full capacity test
302MB | 379MB | 376MB average write speed / 10GB test
In comparison to the 512GB Samsung drives that replace them the benchmarks tend to be a bit more stable/consistent as far as numbers goes visually however the fact of the matter is I needed these to support RAID 1 on the AMD SATA controller (trying to get RID of the PCI-Express addon cards (yes plural)) as the boot time gets killed with having two extra controllers.
Moderately fast in single drive mode, probably faster in RAID mode like the Samsung replacements when I tested RAID 0 though I wouldn't because...
Cons: First RAID and then HALVED read speeds...
These drives are NOT recognized in Windows 7 64 Bit on two different socket AM3+ 990FX motherboards: Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 and Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5. 8350 CPU.
The UD5 has a separate internal controller with two ports that I'm using to boot from a 750GB Samsung SSD and my Blu-ray optical drive in AHCI mode. The AMD SATA controller sees these drives in RAID and the BIOS/UEFI see the RAID no problem. After numerous attempts (different ports, motherboards, wires (data/power), etc I called Crucial and the tech confirmed that it is a known issue with absolutely no ETA on a fix or IF there would be a fix.
READ SPEEDS were HALVED immediately after performing HD Tune Pro write test in single drive mode (again RAID won't work) down from a 412MB read average to 250MB average read speed. While relatively speedy not acceptable. I used the erase tab and was able to recover most of the read speed back to an extent but still that is ridiculous.
Other Thoughts: Rating two eggs because if it was one you'd skip this review just like how I read 2|3|4 egg reviews first.
C:\ 750GB Samsung single SSD.
D:\ 512GB RAID 1 Samsung Pro, My Documents (reg hack with two users, thanks MS >__>)
E:\ 1.5TB RAID 1, old mass storage.
F:\ 4TB RAID 1, newer mass storage but grey screens in VLC so will replace with 5400/7200 RPM 4TB drives.
I like redundancy and speed. The Samsung drives just worked without any of the hassle and I had thought for years that motherboard controllers simply didn't competently support RAID.
I wasn't wild about spending the extra money for Samsung but the fact that they work is key and the performance is good. Would have opted for $200 more to double to 1TB RAID 1 but just can't stretch it that far just yet, the prices will keep coming down.
If you're looking for a single drive I'd still go with a different controller, I've bought nothing but SandForce based SSDs for clients (no RAID setups there yet) and after chancing it with the Samsung I'm happy with the performance and results.
My advice is that if you're squeezing your money to do a RAID to CALL the manufacturer first and ask them if there are any chipsets that the drives you are interested have any compatibility. Do NOT specify which chipset you have or CPU platform (AMD/Intel); always see if the tech knows what they're talking about and it could help save you losing the shipping costs and much worse, the time spent. I do appreciate the tech's honest answer. It *MIGHT* be a possibility that a firmware update has or will correct this issue though there were no firmware updates for my SPECIFIC model available on the official website. I do NOT know if the issue is with the SSD's Anand Tech reports this SSD's controller is a Marvell 88SS9189 for those who REALLY don't appreciate the controller not being listed here OR Crucial's website. SSD controllers are the video card memory interfaces of SSDs, relatively speaking.
This review is from: SanDisk Ultra 16GB microSDHC Flash Card With Adapter Model SDSDQUA-016G-A46A
Pros: Reasonably large size / good price ratio.
Cons: Could have been better at some of the benchmarks?
Other Thoughts: Posting for those curious if the Ultra edition is worth the extra dollar or so...
Test : 100 MB [J: 0.0% (0.0/14.8 GB)] (x3)
Date : 2014/09/17 6:16:43
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)
Sequential Read : 22.164 MB/s
Sequential Write : 13.577 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 21.786 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 1.826 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 5.314 MB/s [ 1297.4 IOPS]
I did not do the 4K QD32 test; these tests were 3X runs at 100MB of test data. The sequential write of an older 4GB SDHC card was 7.020MB (Ultra is almost twice as good) and the Random Write 512KB on the 4GB was 0.845MB so twice the speed there. Mostly negligible speed variations otherwise.