Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Notebook Storage SSDs and HDs Compared

Posted by kdawson on from the now-what-would-you-pay dept.

The Raindog sends us a particularly timely showdown article comparing seven 2.5" mobile hard drives, four of them HDs and three SSDs, across a wide range of application, file-copy, power-consumption, and noise-level tests. Tom's Hardware was recently forced to issue a correction to a claim, which we discussed here, that SSDs aren't actually much more power-thrifty than HDs. The Tech Report's in-depth comparison provides some data points on the question of whether solid-state storage is ready to supplant traditional mechanical hard drives, but notes that the price disparity is still substantial.

4 of 149 comments (clear)

  1. How about a link? by digitac · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think someone forgot a critical link... try this for the Tech Report article:

    http://techreport.com/articles.x/15079

    1. Re:How about a link? by MBCook · · Score: 5, Informative

      How about the link to the just published (today) update on Tom's that not only has useful methodologies, but shows a new OCZ drive that wipes the floor with the rest of the drives in both power draw and performance?

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  2. What about recovery? by allaunjsilverfox2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've read that the algorithms used in SSD's are usually proprietary. The problem with SSD's is that they DIDN'T fix the wear leveling problem. It exists, just a lot slower now due to the algorithms referenced above. If my drive dies, I'll have to find a service that can recover my files, but they will have to be certified in samsung, seagate, white label, etc. I really feel uncomfortable with that idea.

    --
    Restore the madness of youth's lechery
  3. Re:How can a 32gb Thumb Drive by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're missing SLC vs. MLC and high-performance controllers.