Kingston SSDNow V+ 64GB

Loading times

Loading Times
Obtaining accurate loading times is always difficult, especially when it comes to testing the Operating System. As you start getting into measuring tenths of seconds it is possible to introduce too many variables if timing solely from the power-on to the desktop, as the BIOS and similar things can vary too wildly to enable accurate timing.
To reduce this the system was set up as follows. Both the Kingston SSDNow V+ and the Samsung Spinpoint were freshly formatted and had a new version of Windows 7 64 installed. Identical drivers, Windows updates and the two games on test were installed so that the system was fully operational whilst having the minimum of extraneous programs. Each test was run 5 times with the slowest and fastest runs discounted and the average of the remaining three taken. The PC was rebooted between each run to ensure that any speed increase wasn't due to data caching in the memory.
Windows 7 Boot time
For testing the Windows 7 boot time the system was configured as a dual boot. This ensured that an accurate time could be taken between selecting either the SSD or the HDD, and awaiting the displaying of a text document that had been placed in the start menu. The Kingston SSDNow V+ was just under twice as fast as the standard drive. The fastest time seen was 20.1 seconds, which is very impressive. Having run the SSD tests first the HDD took an age. The time shown on the stopwatch felt wrong because it was just SO slow. As a reviewer who has to reboot a lot to obtain standardised test results this was a boon, but even when I was just using the PC normally, having the desktop appear so quickly was a delight.
Company of Heroes Tales of Valor
Company of Heroes makes an excellent testbed for all sorts of PC components. By utilising some very large maps, high detail large textures and an array of small files to load for each map it is especially good at testing storage devices. For this test we maximised the settings as high as they would go, set up a Skirmish on the largest map available with the default game, Route 13, which is an 8 player map. Both sides consisted of two British, two American, two Wermacht and two Panzer Elite, to further stress the loading needed. Timings were taken from pressing the proceed button, to the game showing the begin button.
Initially I was surprised with the small gain to be had. An average of a nine second improvement isn't to be sniffed at, but I expected slightly more. However if you extrapolate these gains across a more sensible map selection and perhaps an afternoons gaming, they quickly add up to quite a significant amount of time not spent twiddling thumbs.
Worthy of note was the extra smoothness the gameplay itself had. We're all familiar with large-scale maps or worlds in which the initial stages of gameplay are a little jerky as each texture and model gets loaded into the cache. Not so here. On the Kingston SSDNow V+ is was smooth as silk from the first Pioneer to the last burning Sherman.
Need For Speed SHIFT
EAs venerable franchise keeps rolling on. Shift marked a big departure from the pimping up of standard cars to race on rainy night-time streets, to a more adult measured approach reminiscent of Forza or GRiD. In this reviewers opinion it's much the better for it too.
In a similar way to Company of Heroes, the game was set to maximum details and the very large Nordschleife was chosen for a quick race with 15 level 3 cars. All cars were set to be "same" and a high-polygon Works Nissan GTR R35 Vspec was chosen. Timings were taken from the pressing of the accept button to the track appearing. The results nicely mirror those of Company of Heroes. Where that saved about 9 seconds over a minute load, this saved on average 4.6 seconds over a half-minute load. Two very different games, two similar results.
The gains one might expect to see in a game that takes an hour to play such as CoH, would naturally be exponentially larger in a title such as Shift in which races are short and being loaded on a regular basis.
Time to wrap this up and provide some thoughts on the Kingston SSDNow V+.
«Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next»

Most Recent Comments

03-12-2009, 21:30:51

Von Blade takes a look at the Kingston SSDNow V+ 64GB to see if the low price means a drop in performance.

Continue ReadingQuote

03-12-2009, 23:45:26

Very nice review mate, after reading;

"Luckily you aren't the type who want the quick answer otherwise you'd have skipped on to the conclusion", I decided to continue reading as I am the kind of person referred to that skips on !

I do agree that an SSD is the best performance upgrade for a PC, however the price is still way too high and unfortunately it doesn't look like it will be dropping soon. That said, I know I will have one/three soon ! Good job.Quote

04-12-2009, 04:33:19

damn tempting for Red October Mk2... really want something a bit bigger, but £130 for a fast as hell drive is tempting, and I imagine 64gb is enough for Windows 7 and a handful of games... damn you, I want this now!

Still, those write speeds are very impressive, anyone know how much the 128Gb model costs?Quote

07-12-2009, 06:14:27

Mr. Smith
Nice review VB of a decent budget drive, it would deffo make a nice boot drive

I'm managing to resist buying anything until the new year becasue I think once the sata3 ssd's arrive the sata2 tech should drop in price.Quote

07-12-2009, 08:54:36

going on for £120... is that the same drive?

Cause if it is I might just buy one, or get Santa to get me oneQuote

07-12-2009, 10:33:45

Mr. Smith
Originally Posted by name='GavX'
going on for £120... is that the same drive?

Cause if it is I might just buy one, or get Santa to get me one
I don't think it is... The reviewed drive is the V+... That is the V and it looks slower...Quote

07-12-2009, 16:59:18

Where are you seeing it for £130?Quote

09-12-2009, 23:50:09

Great review.

All we really need now is for another company to undercut Kingston by £20 and the cycle of sanity can continue.

I do agree that the pricing of this is 'good' in comparison with it's fellow suspects, but on the whole, whilst also considering the traditional drive it's reviewed against, I strongly disagree with the 9 rating in the price category. I personally think ssds should start with a '5' rating handicap on general principle.

What does bother me is whilst it boots an OS nicely faster by some 10-15s usually, the files in consideration against the game loading are not a fair template for comparison. What I took from it is that forgiving 10-15s, the traditional harddrive is an awesome purchase, whilst ssds are what they are.

If a traditional harddrive comes out with a 128mb (or even 64mb) cache, the ssd drive will look pretty poor. This ofc will only happen with those manufacturers who don't make ssds.Quote

14-12-2009, 11:24:13

All scores for pricing within reviews are taken against similar products.

Otherwise the HD5970 should get 1 because you can get a X1950 for £20. Logical fallacy.Quote

14-12-2009, 11:37:29

That an@logy has never worked for me. I can't think of anything relevant to today that the X1950 could do better than the HD5970. Mode promote to an external tv whilst using mpclassic perhaps as the drivers are old enough and u could use an unupd8d xp.

Whereas the F1 can do what HDD's were designed for alot more than all but 1 (that I know of) single SSD can. And that's to store more pr0n, I mean data.Quote

14-12-2009, 14:00:23

It's not an analogy. It's pointing out that your argument is invalid.

HDDs are not priced comparably to SSDs, nor even are they in competition with them. The sole feature is that they both store data. Thusly HDDs are not taken into account when scoring the price.

Maybe the F1 can do what HDDs are designed to do. But in case you didn't notice this is an SSD review.Quote

14-12-2009, 14:14:08

Originally Posted by name='VonBlade'
It's not an analogy. It's pointing out that your argument is invalid.

HDDs are not priced comparably to SSDs, nor even are they in competition with them. The sole feature is that they both store data. Thusly HDDs are not taken into account when scoring the price.

Maybe the F1 can do what HDDs are designed to do. But in case you didn't notice this is an SSD review.
U need to look up what it means butt.

And u need to rethink - thinking that SSDs are not in competition with HDDs. They each have more than just the unique feature to store data.

If u also didn't notice, the F1 is used as a comparison more-or-less through-out the review.

Infact, what the fudge was the point in posting what u just posted ?Quote

14-12-2009, 14:21:36

It is very difficult to justify a price tag like that on what is essentially a 64gb hard drive. Sure it's priced well compared to the competition, but the competition is priced at laughable levels.

Good review all the same Quote

14-12-2009, 14:32:12

Anyone seen one in stock at any reputable re/e-tailer?Quote

07-01-2010, 16:56:42

me want!Quote

Register for the OC3D Newsletter

Subscribing to the OC3D newsletter will keep you up-to-date on the latest technology reviews, competitions and goings-on at Overclock3D. We won't share your email address with ANYONE, and we will only email you with updates on site news, reviews, and competitions and you can unsubscribe easily at any time.

Simply enter your name and email address into the box below and be sure to click on the links in the confirmation emails that will arrive in your e-mail shortly after to complete the registration.

If you run into any problems, just drop us a message on the forums.