I would also ask if there's anything to the stuff you read online about disabling indexing, things like that.

Crucial M4 64 GB

Corsair Force GT 120GB Standard no tweaking. Indexing enabled.

3 x Intel X25-M 80 GB in Raid 0 (SATA 3Gb/s)

I don't see anyone sharing "tips or tweaks"; I only see folks posting performance numbers.

If this thread is only going to be a "My SSD is faster than your SSD!" thread, then what's the value?

Ok, ok...

Make sure 'Write Caching' is enabled for your SSD in Device Manager.

If you are cloning your system from a hard drive to an SSD using disk cloning software such as Acronis TrueImage, make sure to read about SSD partition alignment first.

Do NOT use a disk defragger on your SSD, this provides no speed gains and seriously reduces the life span of your SSD (Windows 7 is SSD savvy, so you don't need to worry about the Windows defragger).

Make sure AHCI mode is enabled instead of IDE mode, it's faster. If you're still using IDE mode, read THIS before switching or you risk not being able to boot into Windows afterwards.

Read about TRIM and why it's so important. Read about Garbage Collection too.

Someone else takeover now...

If you ain't got one....get one...

No, it's Sata II. What you missed in the description is the 'RAID 0' part: that means these are three individual drives which the OS sees as a single drive, with each drive connected to an individual SATA port.

The maximum bandwidth *per device* for SATA II is 300 MB/s, but here we have 3 drives/devices. Again, note that the SATA II 300 MB/s limit is *per device*.

None of the X25-M G2 drives is *individually* able to transfer data faster than the 300 MB/s limit (the X25-M G2 maximum read speed is about 257 MB/s). However, the RAID 0 splits (distributes) data across all the 3 drives simultaneously, i.e.; it reads and writes data to all 3 drives at the same time.

For instance, imagine you have a 9 MB block of data you are writing to the SSD, the first 3 MB of that data gets written to the first drive, the middle 3 MB to the second drive and the remaining 3 MB to the third drive. All three write operations are performed simultaneously.

The theoretical limit then becomes 3 x 300 MB/S, or 900 MB/S. Theoretical because there is another limit, the SATA II interface, which saturates at around 700 MB/s (in other words, I would not gain anything by adding a fourth SSD to the RAID 0 array, except in *write* speeds, since the read speeds of all 3 X25-M drives already fully saturate the SATA II bus).

RAID 0 has a major potential problem: if one of the drives goes south, the whole array goes south and you lose all your data. Same thing would happen if you were using a single drive, of course, but the difference is that every time you add a drive to a RAID 0 array you are doubling your chances of a malfunction (for the simple reason that you are adding one more component that can go wrong). On the other hand, SSDs, having no moving mechanical parts, are much more reliable than hard disks - plus I backup my data everyday to external hard disks.

Yup! That and the fact they're most likely set to use AHCI.

Edit: Oh yeah, and that whole RAID thing Jorge has going on.

I think you have to turn indexing off manually. You can use the tweak guides at the bottom of the post to do that.

I'm not sure about actual data but the non MLC drives are SLC and eMLC drives and are generally used in enterprise. They cost a heck of a lot more than the kind you or I may buy, but if I remember right, that's because they also have more writes than ours, which are generally limited to around 10,000 (which is still a lot). Here's an article that may help LINK

Hybrid drives basically offer more storage than just a pure SSD, though the memory part of the drive does help somewhat and acts as cache for most used programs, etc. I'm not quite sure, so don't quote me, but I think while they are faster than just a standard mechanical drive, they still aren't as fast as a pure SSD.

Various manufacturers are starting to offer an SSD that acts purely as cache once it is connected to a regular drive. Though they do seem to have their downsides. Here's a link for an article only published today LINK

SATA III is better than SATA II because of the speed difference. SATA III is 6Gbps, whereas SATA II is limited to a maximum of 3Gbps. A SATA II or SATA III SSD on a SATAII mummyboard is still going to perform better than a SATA II mechanical drive (or a SATAIII one for that matter).

Me personally, I'd plunk down the extra cash on a SATA III SSD, but that's just me. They're not as pricey as they once were.

Crucial, Intel and Samsung seem to be the most reliable SSD's from what I can tell, though they aren't necessarily the fastest.

Oh, and some tweak links that may be useful. Though they all offer much the same tweakwise.

TWEAK GUIDE 1

TWEAK GUIDE 2

TWEAK GUIDE 3

A single SATA III SSD will saturate a SATA II connection, so you will be getting only half the maximum possible read speed. For the laptop, for instance, I went with a SATA II SSD, no point in paying extra for a SATA III drive on a laptop with a SATA II interface.

For a Desktop, on the other hand, I would probably get a SATA III SSD, provided I was already planning to upgrade the motherboard/CPU later. Personally I prefer to upgrade most components all at once and then keep the same system for 2-3 years.

For instance, I'm currently waiting for either the 690 GTX or the AMD 7990 to come out to buy a new system: it will have an Intel Ivybridge 3770K CPU, Asus P8Z77-V Deluxe motherboard, two SATA III Samsung 830 256 GB SSDs in RAID 0, 16 GB RAM, Comos II case, and either the 690 GTX or the AMD 7990 dual GPU graphic cards (whichever comes out first, and dependent on initial reviews).

I hate you, Jorge!

JK (can I have your old rig.... pleeeeeeeease!)

Ehehe, sorry, already promised to my girlfriend.

A RAID 0 array, besides multiplying read/write speeds, also multiplies capacity. For instance, each of my three Intel SSDs has 80 GB. As such, the OS sees them as a single 240 GB drive (3x80 GB).

Sure, I do it frequently! That will clean up temporary files that are no longer needed, etc... Nothing to do with defragging a drive.

Yes. But I have my CCleaner set to not use the Wipe Free Space, not Wipe Free MFT Space and only use the normal delete option. Secure delete options aren't necessary on an SSD and I've read that they can damage an SSD. Oh, and I don't use CCleaner as often on my SSD as I used to on my mechanical drive (I think has something to do with the limited number of writes). I clean the crud out once every couple of weeks or so.

Bugger!