I just got my SSD drive and am very happy with it. Although I'm having trouble with Intel X25-M (G2) SSD only operating in SATA 1 mode. The disk is installed in a fresh released laptop Acer Aspire Timeline 4810TG with OS Windows7. I presume the laptop should is SATA2. So, how can I change the disk to operate in SATA2? Any ideas? Also, the BIOS is set to AHCI mode as it should be (default) for best performance.
Looking at the specs on your laptop, it would appear the controller is SATA only. If I were you I'd get in touch with Acer to clarify the issue. Even if it doesn't support SATA2 I'm sure you'll notice a huge difference between SSD and a mechanical drive.
I did contact Acer and thy suggested me to
1. Update the Intel chipset drivers.
2. If doesn't work then update to latest BIOS.
So I did and still it doesn't works. Yes, Acer Laptop is SATA2 so is Intel X25-M, maybe I'll just wait for the SSD firmware update to see if it solves the problem.
Sure there's a big difference in speed but still far from the optimal 250MB/s reading. I'm getting only 137MB/s which nearly half the speed.
But that's not the point. I bought the SSD for Speed and I ofcourse also wish for optimal settings to work.
The problem is not the SSD, but your laptop.
Some manufacturers voluntarily limite the SATA speed for power saving or data consistency reasons.
For example Sony VAIO SZ1->7 are limited to Sata 1.5Gbps even if the ICH7M and ICH8M officialy support Sata 3Gbps mode.
Thx for the info. I have contacted "The acer guy" an inofficial support site and hopes he knows why Acer has done so on this model. Seems strange to me why the other models1810, 3810, 5810 has SATA300 (I have 4810). Booooh! for Acer. Their phone support was really hopeless. Hopefully I'll recieve an answer from ACER GUY and get back if the problem is resolved.
ICH7-M does not support SATA revision 2.0 at all. On Intel technical data sheet, it is written that mobilty version of ICH7 does not support SATA 3 Gbit/sec transfer. So if you own this southbridge, you will only get around 120 Megabyte per second of transfer rate.
Do not buy Mainstream SSD, because you waste money.
I`ve Dell Studio 1535 (ICH8M-E chipset) laptop with Sata1 speed. You`re not the only one who has the same problem as you...
I`ve asked Dell support what Sata speeds support my laptop and they`ve said nor Sata1 or Sata2, it just supports Sata !??? Are they Normal??
Hey, that's just what happened to me. I emailed the Acer support and asked if my model was SATA1 or SATA2. Guess what answer I got? The answer was "Yes! it's got SATA". Incredible!! What noobs are sitting on the support side?
Wow, that is really pathetic. Obviously, those people have not been trained, before or after getting that job. OTOH, when they give seemingly stupid answers like that, at times that means they don't want you to know the reality of the situation, that this laptop is using a SATA 1.5Gb/s interface. That's not from the people on the phone, but their supervisors, that hopefully know the difference.
Doesn't ASUS understand the impression they give people when things like this happen? As well as the damage to their reputation? It seems as if they don't care.
Frankly, and I'll be entering dangerous territory here, but the reason things seem to be as they are, is due to cultural differences. Not necessarily wrong or right, just different. A U.S. corporation I worked for employed people from all over the world, and I worked with many of them. Occasionally I would ask them what they liked the most about the U.S., and the most common responses were, the lack of corruption, and that organizations were more responsible, and are held responsible for their actions, whether that is a government agency or a private corporation. The subtle point here is that this is more of a mind-set then obeying laws. We simply may not receive the kind of respect we get from American companies than from those off-shore.
You are not wasting you money with an SSD, even if you are stuck with the SATA 1.5Gb/s interface. The SSD will still be faster in many ways then a HDD will be on the same interface. If you get a new PC, you can use the SSD with it, so it is hardly a waste.
Companies sometimes will intentionally make their cheaper products perform slower than the higher priced ones, in order to motivate people to purchase the more expensive ones. Regardless, your experience lowers my opinion of that company.
That would be true if sequential speeds were all that mattered. The cap on sequential speeds does not change the fact that small random reads are still significantly faster than a HDD and that is where performance matters for the vast majority of tasks. Most laptop users would not even notice the difference in the capped sequetial speeds.
Laptops are typically optimised for power efficiency and reliability. I've got a reasonably powerful workstation , however if I push it to its limits by running an abnormal amount of tasks simultaneously the CPU/ RAM/ GPU become the bottleneck not the storage system.
Laptops have less powerful hardware, so pretty much any task, apart from file copying, is more dependent on small random reads and processing power as opposed to just fast sequential storage speeds.
It could therefore be argued that the capped sequential speeds are a reasonable off set for better power efficiency.
This does seem to reduce random small file performance as well but only marginally when compared to the cap in sequential speeds.
Bottom line I guess is that it is trade off. ASUS etc have to design to what they think will be best for the majority of their customers.
Either way performance were it matters (small random reads, low latency) is where SSD will always win hands down when compared to a HDD, regardless of the storage configuration.
redux, are you saying that there is a savings in power when using the SATA 1.5Gb/s interface instead of the SATA 3Gb/s interface? I don't know, I'm just asking. That of course should include the drive in the evaluation, which would be using less power in SATA 1.5Gb/s mode? (I read recently that the correct or preferred way to refer to the SATA interfaces is not as SATA 1, 2, or 3, but as SATA 3Gb/s, etc, which is more of a pain to type, of course...)
As you point out, small random reads and more IOPs are really what is important, which is where SSDs usually excel. Simply to discuss this, I've read that with modern hardware, it is not the CPU and RAM that is the bottleneck, but the storage system, which is the opposite of your claim. That would be the processing part of the system waiting for the data storage area to respond. In the multi-tasking situation, where the processing area is very busy and near or at saturation, does that allow the data storage portion to catch up and actually be waiting for the processing area to accept the requested data?
In the laptop world, and I've never owned one, I always thought the data storage system was the weak link, even given the relatively (compared to desktops) slower processing capability. A co-worker of mine has an Apple "Air', that super slim laptop with an SSD, and that thing is not slow at all, but I imagine most of that is due to the SSD.
There could be any number of reasons why SATA speeds might be capped. Lots of (perhaps more plausible) reasons have been quoted apart from power efficiency.
An X25-M can achieve up to 35,000 random 4K read IOPS. Outside of benchmarks and enterprise applications I can't think of any task or combination of tasks that could utilise that capability.
Outside of file copying I have have yet to find an app or game that utilities sequential speeds above ~100MB/s.
If anyone knows of a task (outside of file copying) that can utilise sustained sequential speed above 100MB/s I would be happy to test it out with hIOmon.
For these reasons I believe if you use SSD for storage then storage will no longer be the bottleneck in your system, but I'd be happy to be corrected if anyone knows better.
Another possible reason of SATA 1.5Gb/s implementation..... lower costs. The company has already validated it and might be recycling an existing design. Just a thought...
Signal integrity and trace length play a large part as you increase the speed from 1.5 to 3.0 to 6g.
The window of acceptable bus noise is halved at each step.
I would think laptops would have minimal impact, but as ducky said, reusing on old design is cheaper than validating a new one.
Regarding trace length, I can see that on my ASUS mother board with an ICH10R for SATA 3Gb/s and a Marvell 9128 for SATA 6Gb/s, the Marvell chip is located within an inch of the SATA connectors. The ICH10R is located farther than that from it's SATA connectors
Considering how long SATA cables can be, running inside the electronically noisy PC case, and that they have usually have simple shielding (foil), all that does not seem to be a problem. I don't understand circuit board construction, and the noise and shielding issues, but apparently shielding them is more difficult to achieve.
But once leaving the SATA interface chip, is that signal still as susceptible to noise as it is between the connectors and chip?
Cables don't have nearly the problem that the board traces do.
(I am going from memory here and it is too late at night, but I seem to recall) 1 ft standard pair SATA cable has about the same signal integrity as 1 inch of board trace in high speed sata .Has to do with the twisted pairs in the cable vs parallel traces and capacitance between them on the board and for 3G sata your limited to ~ 7 inch total board trace where 1.5g ran find with over 12 inch of trace length. So the part that is of concern is from the sata chip to the connector and on any back plane to the HDD. Laptops frequency favor interconnect boards over cables which could be why the system is configured to run 1G sata.
I don't know about the SSD's, but a lot of SATA HDD have a jumper on them to force the HDD to SATA 1.
Otherwise they should negotiate for the best speed