Mushkin 120GB Chronos MKNSSDCR120GB $129 @ Newegg

Not a go since it's asynchronous NAND Flash, will wait for a synchronous one.. thanks!

what do u mean by asynchronous NAND Flash?

Quote from slimlma04 : what do u mean by asynchronous NAND Flash?

Just two types of NAND memory.

They can benchmark about the same, but in real world applications synchronous are significantly faster. The synchronous version of this drive would be the Enchanced Chronos Dexluxe ($200).

You are better off paying $140 for a Crucial M4.

Quote from NdeM : Not a go since it's asynchronous NAND Flash, will wait for a synchronous one.. thanks!

This drive is perfectly acceptable. The differences between the Chronos and the Chronos Deluxe will be minimal in real life.

Quote from noobcake : Just two types of NAND memory. They can benchmark about the same, but in real world applications synchronous are significantly faster. The synchronous version of this drive would be the Enchanced Chronos Dexluxe ($200).

This is why you need to be extra careful about how you read benchmarks and studies. Take this report for example:

http://hardocp.com/article/2011/0...chronous/1

Initially it sounds like they are confirming your statement: "The reality is one of these products is excellent, the fastest SSD currently available on the market. The other is much slower in nearly all real world tasks." They are saying that the async is much much slower in real life, even though the specs say they should be similar.

They even posted charts that look impressive:

http://hardocp.com/images/articles/1...fhgN4o_4_5.png

According to that chart, in real life the boot up in the async was garbage! But look closer. Look at the actual boot times - the faster drive getting 18.2 second boot time, while the "slower" drive booted in 18.4 seconds.

Now look at this other chart:

http://hardocp.com/images/articles/1...fhgN4o_4_7.png

Woah! it looks so much faster! But notice the charts don't start at zero?


In real life, the drives will be within a few percent of each other. The only place where you will see a true difference is if you copy, without decompression, encryption, install routines, or anything else that has CPU interaction. In those rare cases you'll see 10% difference (in real life).

Remember, you are going to pay 40% more for the same drive with sync.

Do the math on what the cost difference is vs actual performance gains. There are studies that confirm this. If you must have the absolute best performance regardless of price, then get the sync. For most people, getting 1-2% lower performance for 40% savings is worthwhile.

PS: I just bought a Chronos

Quote from mysql : This drive is perfectly acceptable. The differences between the Chronos and the Chronos Deluxe will be minimal in real life. This is why you need to be extra careful about how you read benchmarks and studies. Take this report for example: [...] According to that chart, in real life the boot up in the async was garbage! But look closer. Look at the actual boot times - the faster drive getting 18.2 second boot time, while the "slower" drive booted in 18.4 seconds. [...]

HardOCP has very pretty charts... that are very hard to read when you try to extract actual information.

One thing I don't follow you on. How did you arrive at "actual boot times" of 18.2 vs 18.4 seconds?

Quote from K6-2 : HardOCP has very pretty charts... that are very hard to read when you try to extract actual information. One thing I don't follow you on. How did you arrive at "actual boot times" of 18.2 vs 18.4 seconds?

Sorry - I should have been clear, that was an example. Obviously the article left out any information that would disprove their premise. You would think that if one machine boots up at 250 mbps and the other at 150 mbps, they'd tell you the boot time (which is the only meaningful number to the user during the boot up process) since by their own claim, the sync unit is soooo much faster.

You can run the test yourself to confirm though. It will be within 1-3%.

Quote from mysql : This drive is perfectly acceptable. The differences between the Chronos and the Chronos Deluxe will be minimal in real life. This is why you need to be extra careful about how you read benchmarks and studies. Take this report for example: http://hardocp.com/article/2011/0...chronous/1 Initially it sounds like they are confirming your statement: "The reality is one of these products is excellent, the fastest SSD currently available on the market. The other is much slower in nearly all real world tasks." They are saying that the async is much much slower in real life, even though the specs say they should be similar. They even posted charts that look impressive: http://hardocp.com/images/articles/1...fhgN4o_4_5.png According to that chart, in real life the boot up in the async was garbage! But look closer. Look at the actual boot times - the faster drive getting 18.2 second boot time, while the "slower" drive booted in 18.4 seconds. Now look at this other chart: http://hardocp.com/images/articles/1...fhgN4o_4_7.png Woah! it looks so much faster! But notice the charts don't start at zero? In real life, the drives will be within a few percent of each other. The only place where you will see a true difference is if you copy, without decompression, encryption, install routines, or anything else that has CPU interaction. In those rare cases you'll see 10% difference (in real life). Remember, you are going to pay 40% more for the same drive with sync. Do the math on what the cost difference is vs actual performance gains. There are studies that confirm this. If you must have the absolute best performance regardless of price, then get the sync. For most people, getting 1-2% lower performance for 40% savings is worthwhile. PS: I just bought a Chronos

Those were benchmarks from very old C300 drives.

Try looking up a benchmark from the current generation Vertex 3 vs Agility 3 both using the Sandforce 2281 controller that this drive uses. The differences are extremely substantial.