Flash-based solid state drives (SSDs) are considered to be the future of performance hard drives, and everyone seems to be jumping on the bandwagon. We are no exception, as we have been publishing many articles on flash-based SSDs during the last few months, emphasizing the performance gains and the potential power savings brought by flash memory. And there is nothing wrong with this, since SLC flash SSDs easily outperform conventional hard drives today (SLC = single level cell). However, we have discovered that the power savings aren’t there: in fact, battery runtimes actually decrease if you use a flash SSD.
Could Tom’s Hardware be Wrong?
No, our results are definitely correct. We’ve looked at almost a dozen different flash SSDs from seven vendors over the last few months, and measured acceptable or sometimes even disappointing power requirements with most flash SSDs. In an effort to determine the actual impact on notebook systems, we took four SSDs that we had available in our test lab, and ran a series of Mobilemark benchmark runs on a Dell Latitude D630 notebook. We found runtime differences of up to one hour (!) when using a flash SSD compared to a high-performance 7,200 RPM 2.5” notebook hard drive.
Will this slow down the hype? Not a chance.
Wouldn’t 10k RPM use more power than 7200 like 7200 uses more than 5400?
SSD seems to be an even trade for performance.
Do you guys really believe TOM’s is smarter than EMC corp that that qualified the Zeus SSD for over a year in their products before they committed to use them Or Apple do really think their engineers have not done their homework. I read someone say SSD’s aren’t new they’ve been around for ever. Cars have been around for 100 years are they the same or improved?