- This topic has 10 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi,
A couple days ago I got a G.Skill Titan 128 GB SSD SATA II drive from Newegg. Installed it without probs, re-imaged my Vista Home Premium SP1 I took form my 160GB HDD back to the SSD and off I went.
The speed is very good, computin gexperience smooth and benchmarks much better than the previous drive, so overall my computing experience did greatly go up, considering that my 2GB RAM machine is more used as a business notebook rather than a netbook (running VMware’s etc.) on this baby, no problems, great performance.However, I got an unexpected problem now, my battery runtime significantly decreased from 5-6 hours to just below 4 usually 3.5 but not more right after installing the new SSD drive. I have not installed anything nor changed any setting. I have tried all the tweaks for SSD (no fetching etc.) but performance is and was never an issue, just the battery runtime is 30-50% below the 160 GB slow-drive experience.
Did anyone tried this on his/her NC10? I already asked for help from G.Skill to confirm this is an expected behavior.
Thanks
jmanyeow. I’d be interested to hear what that’s all about before I go out and buy an SSD. You would think an SSD would have the opposite effect and prolong battery life!
From this link http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-hdd-battery,1955-2.html:
Quote:So while conventional hard drives may operate at relatively low power when little movement is required — such as during sequential read access — flash based drives do not. They will draw their maximum power level constantly when in use, and as a consequence, simply spend more total time drawing maximum power than conventional drives.I totally agree with the above statement. Have been thinking of getting one myself. The only thing that holds me back was the power draw issue. Thank you ragman for poiting out the article.
Before ‘totally’ agreeing, I’d suggest some more research on the web, indicating that the test Tommy boy has run, did not resemble a real life scenario. The only question remaining is if SSDs are saving energy, but even Tommy boy is confirming their error in testing, indicating it should not be worse!
Mine is 30-50% worse, so something may not be kosher…that’s what I totally agree with… 😉http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/07/16/ssds-do-increase-battery-life/1
[quote1235523074=jman]
Before ‘totally’ agreeing, I’d suggest some more research on the web, indicating that the test Tommy boy has run, did not resemble a real life scenario. The only question remaining is if SSDs are saving energy, but even Tommy boy is confirming their error in testing, indicating it should not be worse!
Mine is 30-50% worse, so something may not be kosher…that’s what I totally agree with… 😉http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/07/16/ssds-do-increase-battery-life/1
[/quote1235523074]Great point. Here is the key statement of that counter-point article…….
Quote:If these latest figures have convinced you to go down the SSD route, Tom’s Hardware’s latest test has highlighted the best of the bunch: the OCZ SATA II 2.5†SSD showed a performance-per-watt (PPW) in the region of five to six times better than the traditional spinning-platter drives it was compared to, making it a clear winner if you want the best possible runtime from your notebook.
According to wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive
Quote:For low-capacity flash SSDs, low power consumption and heat production when in active use, although high-end SSDs and DRAM-based SSDs may have significantly higher power requirements (flash).so if the drive is low capacity flash SSD it will draw less energy than spinning hard drive
if its high capacity flash or DRAM based SSD it will draw more energy than spinning hard driveThat’s pretty interesting.
Is there an >easy< way to tell if a SSD is based on flash memory or DRAM?
[quote1235551206=Don_Audio]Is there an >easy< way to tell if a SSD is based on flash memory or DRAM?[/quote1235551206]
If it’s DRAM based then you loose all your data when the power (to the memory) is turned off.I am not a techie and have no capability to judge the test results in the articles mentioned above. However I would like to share my personal experience with an SSD drive in a netbook.
Before I bought my Samsung (which performs so well with a 7200 RPM SATA II drive I’m not even tempted to install an SSD) I purchased an HP 2133. I have installed Win 7 on the HP which improved the the overall performance of the Via chip but battery life never exceeded 3.5 hours.
Recently I had a chnce to buy an OCZ SATA II 2.5†SSD with a hefty rebate. After installing the SSD my battery life jumped to at least 4 hours per charge. Of course this may also be due to the much cooler operation of the SSD as my fan isn’t running nearly as much any more (the 2133 being a notoriously warm running netbook).
Ok, just for everyone interested, I also posted in the G.Skill forum
http://www.gskill.us/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9
and got the response from tech support: The 128GB TItan SSD is a battery hog, consuming significantly more power than a slowmo HD (two controllers are maybe the reason). IN any case is that not an option for me and I am retunring this beast in the next days and finally bite the bullit and buy the famous Intel X25-M for a great price instead, guaranteed performance and better battery life!
Just to close this thread, SSDs should not be worse when it comes to battery runtime.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.