Is an mSATA (SATA II) SSD Worth Purchasing as a Boot Drive?

So, I'm trying to decide whether to get an SSD. My initial plan was to get a 256GB SSD, but as I can't afford it, and really shouldn't be buying an SSD, I'm thinking that if I were to get one, I might be better off to get a smaller drive, likely ~128GB. What I'm wondering is if I'll notice much of a difference between booting off my current 7200RPM HDD via SATA III vs a 128GB mSATA drive in a port that only supports SATA II speeds on my Lenovo ThinkPad W530.

The reason I'd like to get an mSATA is because I've got a 500GB HDD in the laptop and a 750GB HDD in a disc drive caddy, and I'd really like to keep those as I've grown accustomed to the space.

I really want an SSD but I don't know if it would make a noticable difference worth the price I'd pay. I'm running Windows 7 currently, and I'm undecided as to whether I would upgrade to Windows 8 or not.

I'd also like to know if you think a 128GB is enough space for a boot drive, and to throw most of my applications on. There wouldn't be anything massive on it, just Windows and most of my programs, like Adobe CS6, VMWare (not the VMs themselves, unless there is lots of space left over on the drive), Microsoft Office, Chrome, Skype, etc.. My Steam library is well over 200GB so there's no way that'll go on there.

tl;dr Is a 128GB mSATA worth buying and using, let alone at SATA II speed?

So, what do you think? Any help is appreciated.

 

128gb is going to be tight. If your notebook has the msata slot and supports Intel Smart Response caching, you can install up to a 64gb ssd that the system uses just for caching (ie doesnt use it as a a boot drive, but uses it to cache programs/applications that you use most frequently) It should also allow for some fairly quick boot up/shut down times.

 

I would think it has Intel SRT, but I don't think caching is the way I want to go. To me, at least, it just seems kind of silly. I'd rather get something that I can actually boot from. You say 128GB is going to be tight. Why do you think that? Legitimate question, not trying to be rude or anything, just curious.

 

Against my better judgment, , I would say you'll see a real improvement in the usability of your system - even with a 128GB SATA2 mSATA SSD. With the following caveats...

I would only be doing a 'clean' copy of Windows 8 x64 on it along with the minimum drivers necessary and ONLY your program installs and with your 16GB or RAM, I would be disabling the pagefile, hibernation and system restore points too.

I would point the Temp and Scratch Disk variables to your other drives (the opposite HDD drive*** of where your data is on that you'll be loading/editing) and if you have at least 35GB free space (or more) - I would leave 25GB 'free' and the remainder of the drive's capacity as 'unallocated' to ensure that your SSD remains as fast as possible. At this small capacity, even an as few as an extra 10GB 'unallocated' will make a difference to the WA, GC and TRIM functions of the SSD - as will using Win8x64 ensure the most sustained performance from your SSD going forward.

I am guessing that you should be able to leave at least ~25GB as 'unallocated' with your indicated programs - which should help immensely with the sustained performance over time of your new SSD. Remember that if you need this capacity in the future; you can simply 'Extend' the C: drive up to the maximum of ~119GB that a 128GB (nominal) SSD will allow.


*** - To make the overall system as fast as possible:

Partition your current HDD's to put 25GB, 50GB or up to a 100GB partition at the front of the drives. Depending on how heavily you use your system and/or CS6 (I wouldn't put it much less than 25GB for the Temp partition - but how heavily is your Scratch disk used in CS6?).

Point the Temp and Scratch Disk locations to these partitions.

Making these partitions as small as possible, (while also ensuring they are large enough for your future editing needs) will give your system access to the fastest parts of the HDD's at all times for temp/scratch file use - especially if you point the temp and scratch locations to different HDD's.

While a larger (or only...) SSD setup will be faster than the setup above, this will still be a significant increase in the responsiveness of the system and with the above caveats, should be just as gratifying over your current setup.


Some background on the limitations/differences of SATA2 vs. SATA3 and mSATA SSD's vs. standard 2.5" SSD's:

1) Ignore rated 'specs' - mSATA and standard SSD's are not performance equivalent in the same workloads. Although they are close in specific metrics.


- While it may seem 'logical' that SATA2 won't limit any benchmark 'scores' less than the interface limit, that is not the case in actual use.
- At the same time, SATA2 will not be simply half the overall performance - it is roughly 2/3's as fast, ime, 'overall'.
- Some things though will seem like an order of magnitude slower with an mSATA SATA2 SSD vs. a 2.5" SATA3 enabled drive (certain installs, like .NET for example).


Performance-wise:
- mSATA SSD's are compromised by having half (or less) of the controller channels available to standard SSD's (4 or less vs. 8 or more).
- mSATA is also limited by having much less nand interleaving (think of this as almost nand RAID0).
- mSATA is also power limited vs. 2.5" drives - in certain scenarios, this makes for a lesser performing drive, comparatively.


When all the above are taken together, the SATA2 mSATA route is not the most desirable if maximum performance is the goal.

Worse, with a HDD (or two) being actively used by the system - it will have a 'dual personality' - with instances of high performance (when data is retrieved/saved exclusively to the SSD) and 'what the *ell happened performance' when the HDD's are accessed.


Still, the overall benefits are significant enough - and as long as you're willing to put in the time to move data around (to partition the HDD's properly for the temp files) - it will be worth it if you'll keep the system for the next 18 months or more.


Hope some of the above helps.


Good luck.

 

I don't use a Scratch very often. I don't edit audio/video often enough. I mainly use Photoshop and Illustrator, so a Scratch drive partition is a bit of a waste. I don't have one currently, I just have a folder on my secondary HDD and that works just fine for my needs. Same with the Temp folder.
Also, I'm not aiming for a high performance setup, I just don't have the resources or the need for it.. I'd just like everything to be a little snappier, specifically boot-up and application loading. Planning on using this laptop for at least 3 more years, but this SSD is more of a temporary solution. A few years down the road I'll most likely get a newer, larger SSD, or a combination of multiple SSDs. It's just right now I don't have a whole lot of money, but I'd still really like one, and am trying to decide if it's worth it or not.

 

If you use CS6, you're using the Scratch disk whether you know it or not.

It defaults to the C: drive and PS especially uses it as a proprietary Adobe 'pagefile'.

If you can implement most of the other suggestions, I would say go for it. You'll be pleasantly surprised.

I have provided a pretty complete background on the setup to ensure sustained performance and reliability - if you need further details, search the forums with my name.


For the is it worth it question...

A Crucial M4 128GB at $114.95 (or price match Memory Express for a $112.44).


See:
CT128M4SSD3 from CRUCIAL - CRUCIAL - Hard Drives - Computer Parts - - Home Computer Parts, Computer Components, low price computer at Hookbag


Would be a solid choice for most bang for the buck.


While an Intel 525 Series 120GB mSATA SSD is more expensive ($156.16 or price match ME at $152.70), it will easily give noticeably more performance for O/S + program use - even if it is nominally 8GB smaller (it is using compression technology and therefore ultimately writes less to the nand chips making it class leading fast in those scenarios).


See:
SSDMCEAC120B301 from Intel - Intel - Hard Drives - Computer Parts - - Home Computer Parts, Computer Components, low price computer at Hookbag

See:
Memory Express - Price Protection


(See if you can find better deals over the next few days/weeks to get a better price match from ME).


Either of these choices will make a huge difference from your HDD setup (in responsiveness).

For less than $200 - you will need at least a two generation platform upgrade (at 4 - 6 times the $$$) to equal the gains possible.


Good luck.

 

Didn't know this. Now I do.

Was looking at either this, or the M500, or the M5M. I don't know much about the M500 or the M5M though.

Don't care so much about it being smaller, but I feel like if I'm going to get something more expensive, I might as well just get a larger drive instead. It's a silly way to look at it, but for some reason I can't change my thinking on that haha.

I'm not sure I follow what this means, specifically "two generation platform upgrade"...?

thanks for the responses

 

Avoid the M500 120GB mSATA. There is a discussion about the 240GB 2.5" and mSATA starting here:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/solid-state-drives-ssds-flash-storage/715499-official-crucial-m500-series-thread-14.html#post9305537

The 120GB will perform worse than the 240GB.

 

Generally speaking, don't all manufacturer's 120/128 GB ssds perform worse than their 240/256 versions? 240/256 GB seems like the sweet spot for perfomance, whether a 2.5" or an mSATA, so if you could swing it, I'd go at least that size. Leaving it 2/3rds empty seems like a waste from an HDD way of thinking, but for SSDs, its actually preferable. Whatever you choose, I would follow the advice to leave 25-30% of the drive unallocated. I'm going with a 256GB plextor M5M ($199), but will probably only fill 70-80GB or so. Good luck.

 

Yes, that's generally true, especially in the last generation of SSDs, 240-256 was the sweet spot. But in this gen the 240-256 and larger perform on par with smaller NAND.

With the NAND shrink, the 240GB M500 2.5" or mSATA also is a very poor performer and should be avoided. The M500 480GB and 960GB are the performance drives. One reviewer commented that Crucial was trying to hide the 120-240 drives from reviewers, the results were likely to be so bad. They are pretty bad.

 

If you are looking for a good fast low density drive we just released the MyDigitalSSD Super Cache 2 line they can be used as a cache drive or boot drive. Review samples are on the way to Jerry Jackson now. There is nothing on the market right now in the low density sector that gets even close to the performance we are delivering with this line. Also I really think you will like the price tag if you are on a budget.

MyDigitalSSD