Slashdot Mirror


Are SSDs Really More Power Efficient?

Bakasama writes "Tom's Hardware compared the power performance of several available SSD cards with a Rotating HDD that was chosen specifically for its poor power efficiency. The results seem to fly in the face of current wisdom. 'Flash-based solid state drives (SSDs) are considered to be the future of performance hard drives, and everyone seems to be jumping on the bandwagon. We are no exception, as we have been publishing many articles on flash-based SSDs during the last few months, emphasizing the performance gains and the potential power savings brought by flash memory. And there is nothing wrong with this, since SLC flash SSDs easily outperform conventional hard drives today (SLC = single level cell). However, we have discovered that the power savings aren't there: in fact, battery runtimes actually decrease if you use a flash SSD.'"

4 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Not so good benchmark by marc.andrysco · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah, another post mentioned that a SSD's power consumption during load is higher than another magnetic disk on idle... here it is:

    "The SanDisk SDD drive at LOAD requires 1.0 mW while Hitachi HDD requires 1.1 mW at IDLE"

    Of course, benchmarks are always a better indicator. Also, to be clear, as mentioned in the article (which I'm sure nobody else read), the test was performed by repeatedly running a benchmark on the system until it ran out of battery, so the test with the SSD is likely to have run the test more often.

  2. Author = Clueless and Stupid by slaker · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have a 32GB SSD in my T61. My real life usage shows that I get between 30 and 45 more minutes of battery life out of my SSD-equipped notebook than on my other T61, which has a 160GB 7200rpm drive in it, when both of them are on the "medium" power saving setting in Windows.

    --
    -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
  3. Re:Not so good benchmark by afidel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually two out of four SSD's reviewed used MORE power when idle than the 7200rpm drive, that's just stupid. The Sandisk used about 60% less, so there's a reason to go with the name brand in this case, they do a heck of a lot more R&D than simply throwing some components together off the shelf.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  4. Old and inaccurate by jlp2097 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article states nothing new - there are two very interesting blogs from Lenovo which already stated the same in August 07 (!). To quote:

    Solid state HDDs promise to save power compared to traditional hard disk technology. And they will. However today's generation of SSDs have no power savings benefit compared to traditional HDDs. The big reason is that current SSDs with a Serial ATA interface are actually Parallel ATA hard disk drives with a serial bridge chip. They don't offer support for low power interface states and the architecture has a potential for data-losing error conditions when recovering from a low power state like suspend or hibernate. In the future, there will be native SATA solutions which will solve many of these problems and will at the same time offer a real power savings benefit which should increase battery life.[1]

    An updated quote from a newer blog:

    Power Consumption - All SSDs are going to save you battery life on your notebook, but some will save you more than others. Again, the native SATA drives will give you better battery life.[2]

    To summarise: old news and mostly outdated with very recent SSD drives.

    [1]: SSD part 1 (Aug 07)

    [2]: SSD part 2 (March 08)