F2-8500CL5D-4GBPK on MA790FX-UD5P

[YodaBob]

Am experiencing similar issues with the AMD controller on my motherboard. The capability to reach ddr3 1600 speed was among criteria I used in reaching a decision to buy. I'm able to run the (4) sticks reliably at only 1333. It is disappointing. I'd be furious had it been crucial to my app, but falling into the category of "would have been nice", I can accept it as a learning experience and move on.

The SSD's performance under Vista did not disappoint. While I have read of stalls, stutter, and lags attributed to this generation of hardware, I did not experience them. I was careful to read the many posts within these forums and applied a number of tweaks gleaned from these pages. I recommend you have a look at the stickys on the "SSD" page, there are suggestions there which will improve both the performance and reliability of your drive.

I do a fair amount of multi-tasking myself. Keep in mind, no matter the raw speed of the drive itself, we are limited by the throughput of the SATA interface and the PCI-e bus architecture on which it depends. While SATA II is theoretically capable of some 375MB/s, it is depending on a single PCI-e lane (250MB/s PCI-e v1, 500MB/s PCI-e V2) to put this data in use. A single SSD (210MB/s) will not overtax this architecture, I'm only suggesting it's getting close. Serious multi-tasking will require more data lanes.

I've put a great deal of time into the study of what is possible using reliable old spindles rather than these often finicky SSD's. As an early adopter, I expect to encounter a fair number of dips in the road using first or second generation gadgets. The persistence of firmware issues leads me to relegate SSD's to the potentially useful gadget category. I've decided to put my critical apps back on the spinners.

You may be interested to see that in terms of raw disk throughput, a RAID stripe using 3 spindles can surpass a 2x SSD RAID0 at 1/3 the cost. I've posted on it here.

http://forums.vr-zone.com/hardware-a...60-club-5.html

A RAID5 using 4 spindles could reach the same speeds plus provide parity at only half the cost.

Oh, the time! Off my soapbox and back to work...

Always happy to give my opinion,

YodaBob

[Ginsok]

Yoda, again thanks for the reply.

Can I assume the issue for you in regards to the memory lies with AMD (as with my issue). I was greatly disappointed as I stated earlier that AMDs can only run 2 DIMMs of RAM @ 1066. I wish that there was more information regarding this posted as I would have maybe altered my choice. I also think this would benefit G.Skill as it would save them a large number of returns.

In your estimation, how many of these tweaks are required to have the SSD running at a premium level? Does it take a large amount of time? What I'm trying to balance is not just the cost and performance but the practicality. I do a LOT of browsing and multi tasking from different applications etc so I want to know if like many others, my performance will slow to a crawl when I install the SSD.

As I've learned, it's not a one way street.

[YodaBob]

Sorry, Ginsok, but it has been my experience that no combination of the tweaks are sufficient to keep the drive running at premium level. Tweaks appear only to delay the inevitable by controlling and reducing the frequency of writes to the drive otherwise made for the sake of system maintenance and user's convenience. Still, over time, the performance WILL degrade! The firmware interface between the controller and the operating system is still in its infancy, uncoordinated and wobbly, the O.S. in many cases conceived well before SSD's showed up on the horizon.
The cycle goes sort-of like this:
A - The drive runs, then slows to a crawl, then falls on its face!
B - Manually running "wiper.exe" fixes everthing FOR A WHILE!
C - Repeat from A.
I've read lots in this forum about the technical nature of the problem, but comprehend only a little. These folks are often much smarter than I!
My spin on it is that the controller fails to communicate adequately to the operating system which registers are cleared in the SSD's memory banks as files are erased. Consequently, over time the file system becomes quite the mess, the number of contiguous usable clusters diminish at an ever accelerating rate, writes to the drive are eventually reduced to a fine spray of file fragments to fill the bits of remaining space. Reading and writing to this fouled-up file system puts extraordinary I/O pressure on all parties concerned (even at near-light speeds!)... and the once majestic performance is humbled once again!
These SSD's are wonderful gadgets! When they're running well... Sweet Jesus, look out! They offer simply astonishing performance, not only in terms of data throughput (which I've aready explained we can exceed with spindles), but their incredible, speed-of-electricity seek times (which spindles sadly will never duplicate). Unfortunately, the Devil is in the details... a detail overlooked in this case is the coordination between the drive and the o.s. It's been near a year since I purchased my drive and no firmware revision has yet set things right.
I can justify my prior endorsement only in saying I REALLY would like to own two of these things, I see them as really fun TOYS! I would LOVE to run a pair of these up against my spindle arrays using every benchmark utility I could get my hands on! I want to understand every difference between them, I'd like to understand every nuance of their behavior, every subtlety of their operation... I am just that geeky!
Please listen to more than my enthusiasm for this "new to me" technology... I will not again trust my critical data to an SSD until the little bug-a-boos are straightened out once and for all! I therefore CANNOT JUSTIFY THEIR USE IN ANY PRACTICAL CONTEXT!
If you're like me, and like TOYS>>> GET TWO!!! They're exactly that much fun!

YodaBob

[Ginsok]

So by that saying, because for my needs I would be multi tasking, it would be impractical for me to use an SSD as writes would be an issue. Right?

[YodaBob]

It is fair to assume that the number of writes increases with the number of applications running. The volume of writes and erases accelerates the decline in performance experienced in light or infrequent use.

The SSD reads and writes well enough at first, but over a period of days or weeks the performance diminishes to the point at which is no longer satisfactory, requiring the user to manually run wiper.exe to restore performance.

Using an SSD in any application becomes impractical in the sense that it requires a fair amount of effort by the end user to maintain a satisfactory level of performance. The tweaks and utilities used to maintain performance do so at risk to your data.

One should not be required to go to such lengths to protect and maintain the premium performance which has been purchased at such a premium price. The drive should work to specifications without user intervention and it should do so every single time!

My G.Skill Falcon SSD is a terrific little toy, but it remains a fairly poor data storage appliance. It is simply too much trouble to maintain.

YodaBob