Help, X25-M (G2) operating in SATA 1 mode

[idata]

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.

[idata]

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.

[idata]

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.

[idata]

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.

[idata]

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.

[idata]

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...