PDA

View Full Version : Crucial M4 vs Samsung 830 for a G74???



AQUASTEVAE
11-23-2011, 12:53 AM
i was all set to purchase a 256gb crucial m4 on black friday, and now am reading how much faster a samsung 830 is. so i would like to put it to the people who know this computer the best, which ssd would be better with the asus g74? (price, reliability, longevity and all out performance) please explain why.

BrodyBoy
11-23-2011, 01:51 AM
I'd go with Crucial, just because it has a bigger installed user base and, therefore, probably more help and info available if you need it. As for any speed difference, I really think you're talking about undetectable (essentially theoretical) variances at this point. The big jump that you'd actually notice is going from an HDD to an SSD. Between different SSDs, there will be no discernible difference.

AQUASTEVAE
11-23-2011, 03:38 AM
I'd go with Crucial, just because it has a bigger installed user base and, therefore, probably more help and info available if you need it. As for any speed difference, I really think you're talking about undetectable (essentially theoretical) variances at this point. The big jump that you'd actually notice is going from an HDD to an SSD. Between different SSDs, there will be no discernible difference.

really? the stats show a pretty big difference. but i'll take your word for it, as i know very little about ssd's. at the very least most of what i've read says that the samsung uses a lot less energy, and therefore much better battery life. some people have claimed up to a full hours difference once adding the 830. some on other chats say that the crucial drive's energy savings is not much more than a hdd. any opinion on that?

i am still a bit confused. my gut tells me to go with the crucial, but so much i've read tells me that the samsung is ten times lighter on power, and a little faster overall. they are within ten dollars of each other. so i need something definitive to make a final decision. once i hear from you and others on the power thing, i will make a decision. the other thing is, can i go wrong either way???

BrodyBoy
11-23-2011, 06:28 AM
at the very least most of what i've read says that the samsung uses a lot less energy, and therefore much better battery life. some people have claimed up to a full hours difference once adding the 830. some on other chats say that the crucial drive's energy savings is not much more than a hdd. any opinion on that?
Yeah....if that's true, and your usage involves a lot of use on battery power, that would seem to tip it in the Samsung's favor. I use my computers so much on A/C that I hadn't thought of that factor.....but I can see where that might matter a lot to some people.

I still think that benchmark numbers, and their differences, seldom translate directly to real-world differences. For the ways we actually use computers the vast majority of the time, I just don't think any of us could detect any impact whatsoever if one drive can attain a theoretical RAW transfer rate that's a little higher than another drive.

Kipper
11-23-2011, 07:19 AM
Go with your gut

I put the M4 256 in my G74 and dam it is fast. I also put a SF controlled SATA III in it for a day and I could not tell the difference in real world speed.

JRd1st
11-23-2011, 03:33 PM
Did you ever bench that speed with CrystalDiskMark?

AQUASTEVAE
11-23-2011, 04:44 PM
Go with your gut

I put the M4 256 in my G74 and dam it is fast. I also put a SF controlled SATA III in it for a day and I could not tell the difference in real world speed.

how about the power consumption? do you use it on battery at all? i get what brodyboy was saying, and respect that the speed difference is negligible. but i am now looking hard at the big deal some have made about the extended battery life the samsung provides versus the crucial.

Kipper
11-23-2011, 06:36 PM
No, I didn't do the benchmarks, I have done them so many times with other SSDs and even with shown speed increases with one over the other in real life you will never notice it in my opinion anyways.

As far as power draw with both the crucial and the samsung should have the same amount of drain on the battery; no moving parts and less heat buildup is a good thing.

BrodyBoy
11-23-2011, 08:57 PM
No, I didn't do the benchmarks, I have done them so many times with other SSDs and even with shown speed increases with one over the other in real life you will never notice it in my opinion anyways.
+1 People tend get to hung on numbers that simply have no real-life, real-use value.

AQUASTEVAE
11-23-2011, 10:33 PM
yeah, if it's not seat of the pants, i have no use for it. i couldn't care less that my drive is a few numbers faster than your drive, if i can't actually see the difference in every day computing. so these are just people hyped about their purchase, huh? ok. sounds reasonable to me.

BrodyBoy
11-23-2011, 11:10 PM
yeah, if it's not seat of the pants, i have no use for it. i couldn't care less that my drive is a few numbers faster than your drive, if i can't actually see the difference in every day computing. so these are just people hyped about their purchase, huh? ok. sounds reasonable to me.
I think you nailed it. It's human nature for people to get somewhat defensive about their buying decisions. Nobody likes to admit that they really can't see any difference after spending a bunch of money on a slightly faster processor, or some faster memory, or a faster hard drive. So they find validation in benchmark numbers....

But the bottom line remains- we lowly humans can't see beyond a certain image resolution, we can't hear beyond a certain frequency range, and we simply can't differentiate between miniscule levels of "instantaneous!" ;)

JRd1st
11-23-2011, 11:49 PM
All I wanted was a number to compare to mine so I can know I'm in the right ballpark.

I went from 225 Mb/s to about 450 after installing Intel RST. But I'd had over 400 to start with before ever installing RST. :confused:

So anyway, I didn't want numbers so I could brag or feel bad or whatever. I don't care about that crap. I only use benches as diagnostic tools.

geez Brody. Cut the speeches.

AQUASTEVAE
11-23-2011, 11:58 PM
All I wanted was a number to compare to mine so I can know I'm in the right ballpark.

I went from 225 Mb/s to about 450 after installing Intel RST. But I'd had over 400 to start with before ever installing RST. :confused:

So anyway, I didn't want numbers so I could brag or feel bad or whatever. I don't care about that crap. I only use benches as diagnostic tools.

geez Brody. Cut the speeches.

no, no, no!!! we weren't talking about you. i was saying in an earlier post, that so many people were claiming to have so much less of a power drain, that they were getting hours more on battery from their samsung. they made such a big deal about their drives being so much faster than another brand... and then these guys came on and said that without moving parts, they all are approximately the same, in experience, and only miniscule number differences were shown in benchmarks. so that is why i was replying that i don't care if my numbers are a little better than his... if i can't actually see the difference. we weren't dogging you.


ive never put in a ssd. so another question is do i need the transfer kit with the usb interphase, even if i am looking to do a fresh load? will i need to reformat it, or do they already come formatted these days? and how do you update the firmware, by dropping it in, or do i need to do this before putting it in the computer?

BrodyBoy
11-24-2011, 02:16 AM
geez Brody. Cut the speeches.
It was a conversation with AQUASTEVAE about his SSD choice, and I commented on a conclusion he drew about some reviews or comments he had read:


yeah, if it's not seat of the pants, i have no use for it. i couldn't care less that my drive is a few numbers faster than your drive, if i can't actually see the difference in every day computing. so these are just people hyped about their purchase, huh? ok. sounds reasonable to me.It's not a speech, it's an opinion. And it never mentioned or had anything to do with you.

BrodyBoy
11-24-2011, 02:20 AM
ive never put in a ssd. so another question is do i need the transfer kit with the usb interphase, even if i am looking to do a fresh load? will i need to reformat it, or do they already come formatted these days? and how do you update the firmware, by dropping it in, or do i need to do this before putting it in the computer?
If you're doing a fresh installation, you don't need any kind of transfer kit or utility. The Windows Installer will format it for you.

You'll have to look at the specific instructions for updating that drive's firmware, but usually it's a lot like updating a computer's BIOS....you put it on a USB thumbrive, etc. Just do it, if necessary, before doing the fresh install.

AQUASTEVAE
11-24-2011, 03:16 AM
If you're doing a fresh installation, you don't need any kind of transfer kit or utility. The Windows Installer will format it for you.

You'll have to look at the specific instructions for updating that drive's firmware, but usually it's a lot like updating a computer's BIOS....you put it on a USB thumbrive, etc. Just do it, if necessary, before doing the fresh install.

cool. i assumed as much, but just wanted to make sure. seems i've read a lot of threads, where people got all screwed up because they didn't uninstall this, or didn't tweek that, ect... then i noticed the dates on the threads. most of them were last year, or early this year. well less than a week before i fly back to the states, i'm going to buy the m4 256. people swear by it's reliability, and say once you update the firm to 009, it is lightening quick. then i will do a fresh install of win 7 ult, and start loading the software from the other thread. thanks for all the help.

BrodyBoy
11-24-2011, 05:55 AM
cool. i assumed as much, but just wanted to make sure. seems i've read a lot of threads, where people got all screwed up because they didn't uninstall this, or didn't tweek that, ect... then i noticed the dates on the threads. most of them were last year, or early this year. well less than a week before i fly back to the states, i'm going to buy the m4 256. people swear by it's reliability, and say once you update the firm to 009, it is lightening quick. then i will do a fresh install of win 7 ult, and start loading the software from the other thread. thanks for all the help.

Oops! Correction, and a reminder to read those firmware update instructions carefully. I just remembered that when I updated a Crucial SSD, it actually required burning the update software to a bootable CD. I don't know if Crucial requires this procedure with all their drives, but I thought I'd better mention it. (I also recall that I had to do two updates, because they weren't cumulative.)

AQUASTEVAE
11-24-2011, 07:01 PM
as long as it's correctly described in the documentation, i don't have a problem with that. just want it to work perfectly, and be fast as hell.

BrodyBoy
11-24-2011, 07:32 PM
as long as it's correctly described in the documentation, i don't have a problem with that. just want it to work perfectly, and be fast as hell.
It will! The main things you'll notice are much faster boot, shut-down, and wake-from-sleep/hibernate times. I also really like you they run so quiet and cool.

JRd1st
11-24-2011, 07:43 PM
Won't a hibernation file wear out that part of the SSD; writing to the same space over and over? I'd use hibernation if I could move the file to my D: drive, where I have my page file.

BrodyBoy
11-24-2011, 07:55 PM
I was worried about that at first, but I've come to think that wear concerns for SSDs are overblown. The Intel SSD in my N73, which has gotten almost gotten constant use every day for the year it's been installed, now shows a wear level of 99. I think I'll have long since moved on to another laptop before the wear on this drive is even worth thinking about.

That said, I don't use hibernation very much. I open and close my laptop a lot throughout the day (just a usage habit), and I don't want it to go into hibernation every time. So I've set a pretty long delay before it hibernates....it basically only happens at night.

AQUASTEVAE
11-25-2011, 02:54 AM
Won't a hibernation file wear out that part of the SSD; writing to the same space over and over? I'd use hibernation if I could move the file to my D: drive, where I have my page file.

good point! i usually migrate my page file, documents, downloads and music folders to my d drive. but didn't think about the hibernation. probably because i have rarely used hibernation with my laptops. i usually rarely turn my laptop off, i just let it go into screensaver with my photography switching every ten seconds. what are the advantages of using hibernation instead?

BrodyBoy
11-25-2011, 03:22 AM
good point! i usually migrate my page file, documents, downloads and music folders to my d drive. but didn't think about the hibernation. probably because i have rarely used hibernation with my laptops. i usually rarely turn my laptop off, i just let it go into screensaver with my photography switching every ten seconds. what are the advantages of using hibernation instead?
The one advantage of hibernation over sleep is that the current state of the computer, including whatever's in RAM, is saved to disk. Should there be a power outage or other failure, you can presumably go back to where you were from the hibernation file. But because everything is loaded from disk upon wake-up, that's also why it takes a lot longer than sleep wake-up.

JRd1st
11-25-2011, 04:38 AM
I would use hibernation just so I could "turn on" remotely from my kb without opening my notebook. But I don't wanna have the file on my ssd. Maybe win8...