Transcend TS16GSSD34E: SSD ExpressCard for those on the Go...
by Dave Robinet on October 25, 2007 12:15 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
Test Setup
We are using an Intel E6600 dual core CPU to ensure we are not CPU limited in our testing. We've used a 2GB memory configuration for these tests, but will soon be updating our test beds to a consistent 4GB platform due to current DDR2-800 pricing and upcoming game and application requirements. Our choice of budget level OCZ Reaper HPC PC2-6400 memory offers a very wide range of memory settings with timings of 4-4-3-10 used for our storage benchmark results.
The MSI 8800GTX video card in our system ensures that our 1280x1024 resolutions are not GPU bound for our test results. Our video tests are run at 1280x1024 resolutions for this article at High Quality settings. All of our tests are run in an enclosed case with a dual optical/hard drive setup to reflect a moderately loaded system platform. The OS is fully updated and we load a clean drive image for each platform to keep driver conflicts to a minimum.
The test drive is formatted before each test run and five tests are completed on each drive in order to ensure consistency in the benchmark results. The high and low scores are removed with the remaining score representing our reported result. The Windows XP swap file is set to a static 2048MB and we clean the pre-fetch folder after each benchmark.
For these tests, we will be using the USB adapter for use with our test-bed system. To be sure this would not produce a bottleneck, we compared the performance of the unit with and without the USB adapter in an ExpressCard-equipped Lenovo T60 laptop in our labs, and found the performance to be virtually identical. Given that this module uses the USB host for its ExpressCard interface, this is an expected result.
We will also be including results from an MXI ClipDrive 2.0 USB stick which we use in our labs for comparison purposes.
| Desktop Test Bed | |
| Processor | Intel E6600 - 2.4GHz 4MB Dual-Core |
| Motherboard | Gigabyte GA-P35-DQ6 |
| RAM | 2 x 1GB OCZ Reaper HPC PC2-6400 Settings: DDR2-800 @ 4-4-3-10 |
| OS Hard Drive | 1 x Western Digital WD1500 Raptor - 150GB |
| System Platform Drivers | Intel 8.3.0.1013 Intel Matrix RAID 7.6.0.1011 |
| Video Card | 1 x MSI 8800GTX |
| Video Drivers | NVIDIA ForceWare 162.18 |
| Optical Drive | Plextor PX-760A, Plextor PX-B900A |
| Cooling | Tuniq 120 |
| Power Supply | Corsair HX620W |
| Case | Cooler Master CM Stacker 830 |
| Operating System | Windows XP SP2 |
We are using an Intel E6600 dual core CPU to ensure we are not CPU limited in our testing. We've used a 2GB memory configuration for these tests, but will soon be updating our test beds to a consistent 4GB platform due to current DDR2-800 pricing and upcoming game and application requirements. Our choice of budget level OCZ Reaper HPC PC2-6400 memory offers a very wide range of memory settings with timings of 4-4-3-10 used for our storage benchmark results.
The MSI 8800GTX video card in our system ensures that our 1280x1024 resolutions are not GPU bound for our test results. Our video tests are run at 1280x1024 resolutions for this article at High Quality settings. All of our tests are run in an enclosed case with a dual optical/hard drive setup to reflect a moderately loaded system platform. The OS is fully updated and we load a clean drive image for each platform to keep driver conflicts to a minimum.
The test drive is formatted before each test run and five tests are completed on each drive in order to ensure consistency in the benchmark results. The high and low scores are removed with the remaining score representing our reported result. The Windows XP swap file is set to a static 2048MB and we clean the pre-fetch folder after each benchmark.
For these tests, we will be using the USB adapter for use with our test-bed system. To be sure this would not produce a bottleneck, we compared the performance of the unit with and without the USB adapter in an ExpressCard-equipped Lenovo T60 laptop in our labs, and found the performance to be virtually identical. Given that this module uses the USB host for its ExpressCard interface, this is an expected result.
We will also be including results from an MXI ClipDrive 2.0 USB stick which we use in our labs for comparison purposes.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
10 Comments
View All Comments
strikeback03 - Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - link
Any chance of comparing one of these to a 16GB Corsair FlashVoyager? The Corsair would seem to be more useful unless you always leave the card in a laptop, the Corsair is less expensive, and IIRC quotes higher speeds as well.Also the Extract Archive chart on page 5 - is that really supposed to say 4000 seconds?
JoeBleed - Monday, November 12, 2007 - link
What file system format was used on this drive and the regular USB memory stick?The reason i ask is that i find NTFS under 2k and XP to perform much better than FAT 32.
darkfoon - Saturday, October 27, 2007 - link
On page 5 of the article, at the bottom, the ClipDrive is called the "MSI ClipDrive" however, throughout the rest of the article its been called the MXI ClipDrive.I assume that MSI is a typo, however I've never heard of the MXI brand, so I'm a little confused, I suppose.
ksherman - Thursday, October 25, 2007 - link
This is an ExpressCard SSD, but uses the USB standard to communicate with the computer (even when in the ExCard slot)?! That seems odd, wouldn't the express slot provide faster performance?Dave Robinet - Friday, October 26, 2007 - link
Expresscard uses either USB or SATA as means for communication (page 1 diagram shows that a bit better), so not really - if they'd chosen SATA as the communication method, then it would have better throughput, though.Regardless, the card doesn't approach the maximum transfer rate of the USB bus, so it's a non-issue.
Thanks for reading!
defman - Thursday, October 25, 2007 - link
Some info on how this would perform as a Windows Readyboost device would be nice....dvinnen - Thursday, October 25, 2007 - link
I was thinking it would make for a good ReadyBoost device for the laptop as well. Some info on how it performs there would be nice.Also, is it USB2 that is holding the speed back? If so they really should of done a dual bus, cardbus for when in a laptop, usb for when using the adapter...
Dave Robinet - Friday, October 26, 2007 - link
No, USB isn't holding the speed back at all. You've got loads more room in the USB2 bus for additional performance from the card - it just isn't there.As for ReadyBoost... given the performance of the card, it's doubtful that it would have made an improvement worth spending the additional money on. Good suggestion, though - if we do another Expresscard device in the future, I'll make sure to include it.
Thanks for reading!
-dave
Weiman - Thursday, October 25, 2007 - link
My thoughts exactly.yyrkoon - Thursday, October 25, 2007 - link
One one hand you have the ability to have more storage with potential for less power draw, fast access times, and the ability to just connect it and not have an external power source to worry about.On the other hand, you had a VERY slow product, that barely outperform the average USB v2.0 device, with limited amount of storage potential.
Price does not look terrible though, but I would imagine you could just as easily buy a Corsair 16GB thumb drive for the same price, and not worry about one of these . . . although if this were bootable(did not see it in the article).