PDA

View Full Version : Best SSD or HDD for G750JM?



Phat Fireman
04-10-2015, 07:32 PM
Title says it all, I'm looking to upgrade my computer to make it faster. I'm leaning more towards an SSD and would like to know if anyone has any suggestions. Any feedback is greatly appreciated! Thanks!

Korth
04-10-2015, 08:50 PM
The G750JM (http://www.asus.com/ca-en/Notebooks_Ultrabooks/ASUS_ROG_G750JM/specifications/) is compatible with any 2.5" SATA drive.
It comes with either a 7200rpm HDD or a 5400rpm HDD(SHDD). These are all much slower than a proper SSD.

How much storage do have? How much do you need? How do you want to use it?
How much are you willing to spend?

The best, fastest, and most robust SSD on the market right now is probably the (256GB/512GB/1TB) Samsung 850PRO (http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/minisite/SSD/global/html/ssd850pro/overview.html). But any SSD (whatever happens to be on sale this week) will be a huge upgrade in storage performance. I personally think it's always better to buy a pair of smaller drives (and combine their performance with RAID striping) than to buy a single massive drive - basically about the same price but double the performance.

GottiBoi55
04-11-2015, 06:25 PM
I would go with the Samsung 850 Pro.
The drive is supersonic fast, and very reliable.
The web site Fastest SSD (http://www.fastestssd.com/featured/ssd-rankings-the-fastest-solid-state-drives/)rates the Samsung 850 PRO the King of the hill.
Good Price from Newegg below.

SAMSUNG 850 Pro Series MZ-7KE256BW 2.5" 256GB SATA III 3-D Vertical Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147360&cm_re=850_pro-_-20-147-360-_-Product)

The 256 GB drive is a great size for the OS, and some apps you use most often.
You can use the HDD as a DATA drive, and games installs.
I have no performance issues with games on the HDD, just load times are a little slower.
Once the game loads there's no, and I mean no performance issues.
I can play on max settings, and get 70+ FPS! (average FPS is 80 FPS to over 100 FPS at times)

Hope this helps in your decision my friend.

Phat Fireman
04-13-2015, 03:25 PM
This SSD is compatible with my G750 correct? After reading all the reviews it looks like I will be purchasing this SSD. Thanks.

Light
04-13-2015, 07:40 PM
Yes it is compatible, I have a Samsung 850 PRO 256GB fitted inside my G750JW. The 850 EVO is almost as fast and cost less.
With RAPID enabled performance significantly increases as main memory is used to further boost performance.

This is what the Samsung Magician Performance Benchmark shows:

48340

hmscott
04-13-2015, 09:10 PM
Yes it is compatible, I have a Samsung 850 PRO 256GB fitted inside my G750JW. The 850 EVO is almost as fast and cost less.
With RAPID enabled performance significantly increases as main memory is used to further boost performance...

Light, as fun as getting high RAM disk benchmark numbers are, they mean little to nothing for actual application performance. Look at the real world benchmark results for RAPID:

A closer look at RAPID DRAM caching on the Samsung 840 EVO SSD A RAM disk for your SSD
https://techreport.com/review/25282/a-closer-look-at-rapid-dram-caching-on-the-samsung-840-evo-ssd

"Conclusions
We can summarize storage performance with an overall score derived from a subset of our benchmark results. Without RAPID mode, the Samsung 840 EVO sits high in the standings. Enabling the DRAM cache drops the drive way down the list, though."
...
"Although I wouldn't recommend that folks enable RAPID mode as it exists right now, I am encouraged to see Samsung exploring new ways to speed up its SSDs. RAPID mode definitely has the potential to become more appealing as it matures, and it won't be restricted to the 840 EVO for long."

Essentially, turning off the RAPID mode saves 1GB of memory and 1GB of writes at shutdown, and helps performance off more than on.

The Evo vs Pro should be up to no just better performance of the Pro (native non-RAPID real performance), but also the longer warranty and better history of consistent performance and long life - PETAbytes of write life way over the advertised performance.

Here is a newer 850 review:

Samsung's 850 Pro solid-state drive reviewed - 3D V-NAND comes to the PC
https://techreport.com/review/26701/samsung-850-pro-solid-state-drive-reviewed

Korth
04-13-2015, 09:40 PM
Avoid the 128GB version, it has less onboard DRAM cache than the 256GB+ versions. Enough less to substantially reduce performance.

The conclusions (about RAPID Magician performance) on that techreport review exaggerate the results. In most cases "way down the list" looks like a measure on the order of 0.1-0.2s (roughly 1% or less of total measured performance times, and within repeatable benchmark variances) combined with "Samsung" getting shuffled far down an alphabetically sorted list after a pile of competitor products with exactly the same results. I'm not saying the tests were invalid, nor that this product is clearly superior to all others in every measurable capacity - I'm just saying that in this instance the reviewer's raw data is more representative of this product's real qualities than his wordy conclusions. Definitely worth reading the review firsthand if this concerns you.

hmscott
04-13-2015, 09:57 PM
Avoid the 128GB version, it has less onboard DRAM cache than the 256GB+ versions. Enough less to substantially reduce performance.

The conclusions (about RAPID Magician performance) on that techreport review exaggerate the results. In most cases "way down the list" looks like a measure on the order of 0.1-0.2s (roughly 1% or less of total measured performance times, and within repeatable benchmark variances) combined with "Samsung" getting shuffled far down an alphabetically sorted list after a pile of competitor products with exactly the same results. I'm not saying the tests were invalid, nor that this product is clearly superior to all others in every measurable capacity - I'm just saying that in this instance the reviewer's raw data is more representative of this product's real qualities than his wordy conclusions. Definitely worth reading the review firsthand if this concerns you.

Korth, other than the benchmarks that run in the cache, showing your RAM performance, do you have any real world performance improvements shown for using RAPID?

After trying it myself, and doing tests, I came to the same conclusion they did after their extensive testing, the RAPID cache isn't worth enabling.

RAPID is of no use for performance comparisons between SSD's, use actual real performance READ/WRITE results through to the device without any other assistance, it is the only fair comparison.

Posting RAPID results alone for Samsung drives when doing an SSD comparison isn't helpful.

If you feel the RAPID results are important enough to post, then please also post your real results for comparison with SSD's that don't have RAPID.

nigrr
04-14-2015, 05:13 AM
48347

850Pro 512GB, just in time for GTA5 :D
Didn't install OS on it yet

Light
04-14-2015, 01:16 PM
nigrr, you show the data with RAPID disabled, what do you get with RAPID enabled ?

hmscott, my machine uses DDR3L 2133 MHz SO-DIMM memory so that makes a lot of difference compared with 1600 MHz when RAPID is enabled.
I notice you have a 840 PRO fitted and an interesting RAID0 2 x 128GB SanDisk SD6SP1M128G1002 configuration, that combo should fly. I had the 840 EVO fitted a while back when typically scans would run around 25% slower when RAPID was disabled, the same goes for the 850 PRO, it runs scans around 25% faster with RAPID enabled. The 850 PRO is around 25% faster than the 840 EVO in real world applications, with or without RAPID enabled. However, once in a while RAPID gets disabled as a result of an internal error and immediately I notice the difference as IO becomes sluggish. A cold start-up makes no difference time wise as RAPID needs about 1 min to get into memory but once in memory the 850 PRO with RAPID enabled uses up to 4 GB of memory (assuming at least 16 GB of memory is available) and that makes a very significant difference to performance.

When I've compared a Kingston HyperX 3K SSD 240 GB with the 840 EVO 250 GB with RAPID enabled the EVO is easily faster, turn off RAPID and there isn't much difference. Same goes for 850 PRO only the performance difference is even more noticeable. I haven't compared the 850 EVO but test reviews suggest it is similarly to the 850 PRO.

hmscott
04-14-2015, 01:31 PM
nigrr, you show the data with RAPID disabled, what do you get with RAPID enabled ?

hmscott, my machine uses DDR3L 2133 MHz SO-DIMM memory so that makes a lot of difference compared with 1600 MHz when RAPID is enabled.
I notice you have a 840 PRO fitted and an interesting RAID0 2 x 128GB SanDisk SD6SP1M128G1002 configuration, that combo should fly. I had the 840 EVO fitted a while back when typically scans would run around 25% slower when RAPID was disabled, the same goes for the 850 PRO, it runs scans around 25% faster with RAPID enabled. The 850 PRO is around 25% faster than the 840 EVO in real world applications, with or without RAPID enabled. However, once in a while RAPID gets disabled as a result of an internal error and immediately I notice the difference as IO becomes sluggish. A cold start-up makes no difference time wise as RAPID needs about 1 min to get into memory but once in memory the 850 PRO with RAPID enabled uses up to 4 GB of memory (assuming at least 16 GB of memory is available) and that makes a very significant difference to performance.

When I've compared a Kingston HyperX 3K SSD 240 GB with the 840 EVO 250 GB with RAPID enabled the EVO is easily faster, turn off RAPID and there isn't much difference. Same goes for 850 PRO only the performance difference is even more noticeable. I haven't compared the 850 EVO but test reviews suggest it is similarly to the 850 PRO.

Light, thanks for the feedback, it will likely encourage others to try RAPID, and hopefully it helps out with their usage too.

For my own usage it wasn't noticeable, but everyone's perceptions / usage are different :)