Windows 7 and SSDs: just how fast are they?
Summary: Does a solid-state drive make a difference in the performance of Windows 7? In a word: Yes. I've been measuring startup times and disk reads on three Windows 7 PCs to see just how fast they really are. The results are impressive.
Does a solid-state drive make a difference in the performance of Windows 7?
In a word: Yes.
Conventional hard disks are typically the biggest bottleneck in any computing environment. If you can speed up disk activity, especially reads, the effects on system startup and application launch times can be breathtaking.
This technology is still new and expensive, and many of the kinks are still being worked out. I've been using SSD-equipped PCs with Windows 7 since October 2009, and I now have two laptops and one desktop PC that are fitted with these superfast drives. Over the holidays, I set out to fine-tune the storage configuration in all three systems and was able to increase overall system performance dramatically. In a follow-up post, I'll explain exactly what you need to know to squeeze maximum performance out of an SSD.
Don't miss the rest of this series.
Part 2: Windows 7 and SSDs: Setup secrets and tune-up tweaks
Part 3: Windows 7 and SSDs: Cutting your system drive down to size
But first, how much of a difference does an SSD make? I have an ideal platform to test: a new Dell XPS desktop system with an i7-920 CPU, 16GB of RAM, and two disks, a conventional 7200RPM Seagate 1TB hard disk drive (one of the fastest desktop models in its class) and a 60GB OCZ Vertex2 SSD. I’ve installed Windows 7 on each drive and configured a dual-boot menu.
I’ve been switching between the two systems for roughly a month. Today I went through the performance logs for both Windows installations and averaged the results for the last 15 starts for each setup. (If you want to see these results for your system, follow the instructions I published in this 2007 post—the event log format for Windows 7 is the same as it was for Vista.)
|
Measurement |
SSD |
HDD |
|
Main-path boot time (sec) |
9.1 |
24.1 |
|
Total boot time (sec) |
30.3 |
65.7 |
There’s also some interesting data in the Windows System Assessment Tool (WinSAT) logs, which contain the detailed benchmarks that make up the Windows Experience Index. On the Sequential Read test, the SSD wins going away, recording a throughput of 249.76 MB/sec, compared to 105.63 MB/sec for the conventional hard disk. The WinSAT benchmark also calculates a mysterious and undocumented Overall Responsiveness index, where the SSD in this system clocks a blistering score of 20.02, compared to 86.17 for the hard disk.
And my personal experience bears out those benchmarks. Startup times are startlingly fast, and I’m still practically giddy when I click an app and watch it spring to life in a second or less. The feeling of fast is practically visceral.
So, slap an SSD into a PC, fasten your seat bet, and prepare for the whoosh. Right?
Not so fast.
As I learned from more than a year’s hands-on experience, it takes cooperation from hardware manufacturers to get the most from an SSD. In the next part of this series, I explain where things can go wrong and how to set them right. See Windows 7 and SSDs: Setup secrets and tune-up tweaks, for the details.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
RE: Windows 7 and SSDs: just how fast are they?
Well, Ed's finding are probably "accurate" but, indicate terrible boot
You do realize...
...That's a cold boot, right?
Running Vista I haven't done a cold boot in nearly six months, I just use the sleep mode and let it wake up. Boot time is about 3 seconds... :)
Or did you just want to bash something?
wolf_z: Very good point. I very rarely cold boot my Ubuntu notebook either.
But, the slow boot times do indicate problems with bloat.
9 seconds for a cold boot is a terrible boot time?
And 30 seconds for a full boot including a handful of apps configured to run at startup.
That's "terrible"?
Geez.
Total boot time (sec) 65.7 (from HDD). Ed, the total boot time is what is
Compare this to Chrome, where the only big disadvantage is not being able to run Legacy Win32 applications.
Right DB. Or the ability to run the browser of your choice
If you can't run any apps in ChromeOS like iTunes, Office, ect, then what good is lightning fast boot times?
Its like a TV without a signal: what good is it that my TV boots in 5 seconds, if I can't watch anything?
Very embarrasing for you
Considering they have no control over what runs at startup. You can subtract a good 30 seconds from boot with no programs configured to run. My netbook can cold boot in 15 seconds flat.
Thank you for playing.
RE: Windows 7 and SSDs: just how fast are they?
RE: Windows 7 and SSDs: just how fast are they?
"Compare this to Chrome, where the only big disadvantage is not being able to run Legacy Win32 applications. "
Well, that's the problem, isn't it? People want to run legacy applications.
I'm pretty sure if Microsoft didn't support legacy apps and devices, Windows would boot much faster.
. . . and I'll agree with the others saying that I just let my computer sleep, I rarely go through a cold boot.
Windows is certainly stable enough these days to stay running for a long time. The days of needing to reboot every day are long gone.
RE: Windows 7 and SSDs: just how fast are they?
My Xbox boots in five seconds flat and shuts down even faster and look what you can do with that. Go! Microsoft! :)
RE: Windows 7 and SSDs: just how fast are they?
Oh, and my winphone is instant on and off and man can you go crazy doing things on that beast. Go! Microsoft! :)
No required services, win7 boots in under 10 seconds...
RE: Windows 7 and SSDs: just how fast are they?
RE: Windows 7 and SSDs: just how fast are they?
Message has been deleted.
RE: Windows 7 and SSDs: just how fast are they?
RE: Windows 7 and SSDs: just how fast are they?
RE: Windows 7 and SSDs: just how fast are they?
RE: Windows 7 and SSDs: just how fast are they?
It is terrible. I am running a bunch of servers (think LAMP, file and print servers) and I still get a better boot time on a regular HD than the 30sec you get. Oh, and your system has slightly better hardware than mine too. That being said, it is not the place for this sort of posts DonnieBoy.