I need to choose between an Intel 510 250GB, a Crucial Real C300 256GB or a Vertex 3 240GB SSD for FSX. Tabs recommends the Intel or Vertex. Which random reads affect FSX the most? The Anandtech link below shows the Crucial random reads in a good light, and it is a lot cheaper than the other two SSDs. For all other computer tasks I'm sure the Vertex and Intel win hands down but as I'm only interested in FSX performance, does anyone know which I should go for?If the Crucial isn't the quickest I'll probably go for the Intel as I don't have the computer skills to deal with all the problems I've been reading about with the Vertex 3, though I'd love to be persuaded otherwise. So has anyone been able to make a direct comparison on a system running FSX? If not, I'd like to hear peoples experiences with FSX only with the above SSDs. http://www.anandtech.com/show/4316/ocz-vertex-3-240gb-review/2ThanksBrian O'Donnell

Go for the Intel S510 if you are running Sata3.You can't go wrong.I am running SSD with FSX, and i am loving it!Avistudent

Forgot to mention I'm using a 2500k CPU, a Gigabyte UD4 Sandybridge mobo and a MSI GTX580 O.C. (in case it matters)Brian O'Donnell

No experience, nor will I have for a long-time to come as I am not on the SSD bandwagon.If it helps FSX is random read intensive, so I would be basing my decision on that.

NickN over at Simforums reckons I should go for the reliability of the Intel 510, and that I wouldn't notice a difference between this and the Vertex 3 in FSX anyway. 510 it is.Thanks for your input.Brian O'Donnell

I'm not a fan of the Intel 510s...in a rush to get some SATA III SSDs to market, they use a third-party Marvel 9174 controller chip since theirs isn't ready for prime time yet, so you're not really getting the Intel product you're paying a premium for. The proprietary intel wear-levelling/trim etc coded into their firmware and their related management utility software is, IMHO, what made it worth paying a premium price for the previous generations of Intel SSDs. I suspect you can find another Marvel-based SSD cheaper, too.

What would be the best controller / SSD available now and why in your opinion Bob?

What would be the best controller / SSD available now and why in your opinion Bob?

My gut feel is that the SATA III SSD field hasn't matured enough that I'd be comfortable with any of the 6Mb/s drives available at this point. If I were building a new machine and needed/wanted the higher throughput made possible by the SATA III interface, I'd consider instead going with the Intel 320 series SATA II SSDs together with a good hardware controller card with 2GB+ of cache (i.e. something like the Areca 1231-ML). Or wait to see how the SATA III SSDs shake out.It was pretty evident that with the last generation of SSDs, the controller and firmware made a big difference in preventing slowdowns due to write amplification and the likes. Intel's 2nd and 3rd gen SATA II SSDs are very resilient...some of the others turned out to be real problem children even after moderate use.

My gut feel is that the SATA III SSD field hasn't matured enough that I'd be comfortable with any of the 6Mb/s drives available at this point. If I were building a new machine and needed/wanted the higher throughput made possible by the SATA III interface, I'd consider instead going with the Intel 320 series SATA II SSDs together with a good hardware controller card with 2GB+ of cache (i.e. something like the Areca 1231-ML). Or wait to see how the SATA III SSDs shake out.It was pretty evident that with the last generation of SSDs, the controller and firmware made a big difference in preventing slowdowns due to write amplification and the likes. Intel's 2nd and 3rd gen SATA II SSDs are very resilient...some of the others turned out to be real problem children even after moderate use.

Ok, thanks Bob. Most helpful like always

My gut feel is that the SATA III SSD field hasn't matured enough that I'd be comfortable with any of the 6Mb/s drives available at this point. If I were building a new machine and needed/wanted the higher throughput made possible by the SATA III interface, I'd consider instead going with the Intel 320 series SATA II SSDs together with a good hardware controller card with 2GB+ of cache (i.e. something like the Areca 1231-ML). Or wait to see how the SATA III SSDs shake out.It was pretty evident that with the last generation of SSDs, the controller and firmware made a big difference in preventing slowdowns due to write amplification and the likes. Intel's 2nd and 3rd gen SATA II SSDs are very resilient...some of the others turned out to be real problem children even after moderate use.

Bob, why not set-up multiple SSDs in RAID0 configuration?

1. Double, triple n-tuple the read/write access,
2. No processing overhead at all
3. No increase in probability of losing data due to head crash because SSDs have no heads that can crash.

An even better alternative IMHO is to keep the SSDs separate and spread activity accross different drives: Operating system, FSX, meshes, terrain textures/photoreal, landclass, etc. smartly grouped into the available SSDs could give you better performance. You could also mix-and-match, i.e. with 4 SSDs you could set-up 2x RAID0 arrays, or 1x RAID0 array plus 2x individual SSDs.Cheers,- jahman.

This is apparently the fastest so far:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227661&Tpk=ocz%20ssdNow my question would be - do you need a separate controller for this type of card?

This is apparently the fastest so far:http://www.newegg.co...1&Tpk=ocz%20ssdNow my question would be - do you need a separate controller for this type of card?

No, those are (two?) SSD's in RAID 0 with an onboard RAID controller.

Bob, why not set-up multiple SSDs in RAID0 configuration?

1. Double, triple n-tuple the read/write access,
2. No processing overhead at all
3. No increase in probability of losing data due to head crash because SSDs have no heads that can crash.

An even better alternative IMHO is to keep the SSDs separate and spread activity accross different drives: Operating system, FSX, meshes, terrain textures/photoreal, landclass, etc. smartly grouped into the available SSDs could give you better performance. You could also mix-and-match, i.e. with 4 SSDs you could set-up 2x RAID0 arrays, or 1x RAID0 array plus 2x individual SSDs.Cheers,- jahman.

I see couple good arguments at present, against RAIDing SSDs for FS.First and foremost is that the TRIM command--needed to communicate empty block info from the OS file system to the SSD firmware--doesn't work with RAID configurations. I don't know of any at this point that can pass TRIM commands from the OS through the RAID controller to the drives. That's a huge negative.Second, RAID is most useful for increased throughput, because it spreads the data in parallel across several I/O channels. FS doesn't generally make use of that very well, as its file activity is predominantly large numbers of smallish files. What FS needs to shine is low random access time, and RAID configs are actually a bit slower in their random access numbers than single drives because of the interdevice syncing that has to occur to move data across the bus. It should also be noted that many of the high-capacity SSDs are (internally) RAID-like configs being controlled by a common controller chip...they are typically better performers in the access department than independent PCIe devices RAIDed together. They are also TRIM-capable.The one notable exception is those using humongous photoreal scenery databases--the increased throughput of a RAID array can be helpful moving massive photoscenery files.

Interesting comparison of these drives at Anandtech:http://www.anandtech...e-ssd-roundup/1

Interesting comparison of these drives at Anandtech:http://www.anandtech...e-ssd-roundup/1

I have to add, though, that any review that does not address performance degradation after an SSD has been "seasoned," IOW after all the cells have been written-to at least once, is missing an important aspect of the device's performance. Doubly so if the devices are to be used in a RAID configuration where TRIM isn't available--at that point the firmware's internal garbage collection and wear-levelling can make an enormous difference in drive performance, at least until the drive is secure-erased and can again start with a clean slate.