SSD

[Guest CC.Decayed=US=]

[IMG]http://files.enjin.com.s3.amazonaws.com/45114/modules/forum/attachments/ssdraid0_1292113215.png[/IMG] I had stuff running in the background :(

[Guest MAJ.Kaossilator=US=]

Yeah but that make sense, because if you think about the computer architecture in general, that doesn't necessarily say anything about the SSD. If Windows assigns the CPU to a certain process for 'x' amount of time, that process does not necessarily need to do any/many hdd r/w. Depending on what processes you had going in the background, your SSDs could be perfectly solid, it's just showing a bit of real-life performance instead of abstract numerical benchmarks.

[Guest CC.Decayed=US=]

Any idea why my burst rate is low?

[Guest MAJ.Kaossilator=US=]

[QUOTE]Some benchmarks appear to use test patterns that don’t seem to work well with SSDs and, thus, generate artifacts. For example, HDTune consistently generates burst speed numbers that are below the sustained transfer rate values. From a technical point of view, this is not possible since the measuring of internal media performance (sequential transfers) is limited by the bus interface (burst rate) bottleneck. This type of numbers needs to be viewed as artifact and the benchmark cannot be viewed as representative of the SSD performance. [/QUOTE] This snippet from [URL='http://www.ocztechnology.com/res_old/images/Configuring-and-Setting-Up-SSDs.pdf']HERE[/URL]. Could just be an artifact.

[Guest Ret.Maj.Xander=US=]

OHHH Decayed just got GOOGLED! But seriously I hate you for being able to afford that. I have a SSD with PCI connection on my xmas list, i'm not holding my breath.

[Guest CC.Decayed=US=]

Well I got each for $95 during BF, which I think is a decent price. The PCIE ssd are sick