Kingston SSDNow V Series 40GB Desktop Upgrade Kit - HDTune Test Results

Ardjuna Seghers

By Ardjuna Seghers

Reviewed:

Summary

Our Score:

7

For performance testing on the Kingston SSDNow V Series 40GB Desktop Upgrade Kit we used our usual test bed:

Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad QX9770

Motherboard: Asus P5E3

Memory: 2GB Corsair CM3X1024-1333C9 DDR3

Graphics Card: AMD ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 using Catalyst 9.4 drivers

Operating System: Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit

The SSD is initially added as an unformatted slave drive, and subjected to read and write test runs of HD Tune Pro.

Wow, just look at that read speed, and on the other hand, damn, just look at that write speed. In terms of reading data, this is one of the fastest performers we've yet seen, coming second only to Intel's own SSD. Yet, from being nearly the best at reading, this Kingston goes to being the worst write performer by quite a margin.

AJ

November 20, 2009, 4:35 pm

Thanks for the review. Very interesting.





I have a fairly nice Rig at home (i7 @3.6Ghz, 6 Gb RAM, GTX285 overclocked) that presently boots from the main 1.5TB Seagate drive and in the next few weeks I will be removing the RC of Windows 7 and installing a full version. This is a chance to slot in an SSD as I will be doing a complete re-install.





My question though is "is it worth it" ? I've never used an SSD before and I'm just wondering what difference it will make in the real world. If I ignore a slightly faster boot time (which I'd appreciate) would I actually notice any difference in the general performance of the PC ?





With only 40Gb I can't see that I'd be able to install much on the SSD apart from the OS and perhaps MS Office and a few small programmes (not big games). But if I buy a bigger SSD then your test show that most of them are massively more expensive, not that much bigger and often slower. So really it seems like this one or nothing (for now).





I'd be really interested in your thoughts.





Btw - I take it that Windows Swapfile is also located on the SSD ? How big do these things grow now-a-days and is the SSD the best place for it ?

Jimimac

November 22, 2009, 10:09 am

AJ - have a look at the last paragraph in the article linked below, then read the rest of it if you are in any doubt about committing to an SSD.





This is the most recent in a series of highly informative articles about SSD development Anandtech has published in the last 18 months or so. All are worth reading if you are interested in the technology. I have just built an i5 system using an Intel X25M 160Gb, largely on the strength of them. Very fast!





http://anandtech.com/storage/s...

Xiphias

November 22, 2009, 6:59 pm

The other TR's test of the 80GB version of this kit concluded that it wasn't worth it for a desktop: http://techreport.com/articles...

AJ

November 23, 2009, 5:44 pm

Thanks Guys. I thought the comments at the end of the 80Gb review especially relevant. Basically they thought even that was not big enough and in day-to-day use didn't really think it was worth it.





Seems SSD's are still more at home in a laptop.

John614

November 26, 2009, 4:01 pm

40gb is more than enough for my system drive. I have win 7 pro 64, office, photoshop, and a host of other things and my c drive is at 27gb. You need a tool like treesize to see where the big folders are, and you can trim it by disabling hybernation and keeping your pagefile.sys in order.

Rickysio

November 26, 2009, 6:06 pm

Get 2 of these, RAID them, and compare them to the 64GB Agility?

TechVegan

January 20, 2010, 7:28 pm

@AJ:


Sorry for getting back to you so late, didn't check this review for comments in a while.





The simple answer to your question (if it's not already too late to be of use) is that it IS worth getting an SSD, as overall this should give you a more responsive system in the 'real world', and would appear to be the only thing that still really can make a difference to your high-end beast :)





40GB should be plenty for a Windows 7 install and a selection of most-used applications. The SSD is the best place for the Windows swap file (or PageFile), though with 6GB of RAM it's not likely to often be an issue either way. Ideally you should count on keeping double your memory size free for Windows to play with, but 28GB is still plenty for the OS and essential apps.





As to your point on SSD size relating to speed, in fact BIGGER drives tend to be FASTER - as long as they're using the same controller. Smaller SSDs, having fewer memory 'chunks' to write to simultaneously, will often be slower. Basically, get the best controller you can afford, and then the biggest size using that controller you can afford.

John614

February 12, 2010, 8:42 pm

On page 2 you suggest this drive as full Trim support. It most certainly does not. Also, using acronis copies across the wrong partition alignment, so that might explain your slow write speeds. I'm surprised you don't mention alignment and offset here, it's a crucial issue. But I'm more surprised about the Trim assertion.

TechVegan

August 18, 2010, 9:14 pm

@John:


Just rereading this article and noticed your comment. You are correct in saying that this SSD does not OFFICIALLY support TRIM, but it was supposed to. Since it uses the exact same controller and memory as the Intel X25-M, there is no practical reason for it not to, but unfortunately Kingston was undercutting Intel on price, so Intel did not allow them to update their firmware with TRIM support - hence why the drive has now been discontinued.





However, there is apparently a way to activate TRIM support on this Kingston SSDNow V Series 40GB after all: http://www.overclock.net/ssd/6...


(We have not tried this, so use at your own risk.)

comments powered by Disqus