About the Benchmarks
As I mentioned in Part 1, these benchmarks are not scientific. I didn't try and clone the drives, or assure that they all had the exact same services and apps running during testing. However, I did attempt to make the runtime scenarios as similar as possible. This time, we are comparing NTFS to NTFS to even the playing field. Both machines contained the following:
-Windows XP Professional SP3
-All Windows Updates
-BIOS 1808 (latest)
-"Super Performance" mode a.k.a. full CPU speed
-Latest device drivers
Results
I found these results very surprising. With the exception of Hibernate and Shutdown, The Phison holds its own. Of course, the RunCore still tops the Phison across the board, but it was a much closer race than the Phison 16GB (MLC). Based on these results, one might actually be able to tolerate Windows XP as a system parition on this SSD.
Now this is more along the lines of what I expected from the 4GB Phison. Again, I used PassMark PerformanceTest 6.1 on both drives to evaluate disk speed. All of the other tests in the benchmarking suite, i.e. 2D, 3D, RAM, CPU, etc., were statisically insignficant between the 2 drives. The RunCore, once again, makes the Phison look silly. Even though these are not "real-world" tasks that are running, these benchmarks do allow for the technical limitations of the Phison drive to be seen clearly. The Phison 4GB has a modest gain in Disk scores over the 16GB drive, but neither can touch the RunCore drive.
Conclusion
If you want speed, in both real-world and extreme scenarios, and capacity for your Asus EeePC 901, all at a very reasonable price, then RunCore SSD's are for you. They significantly outperform both of the stock Phison drives in every measurable way. RunCore SSD's are available from MyDigitalDiscount.
If there should be a Part 3 to this series, I'm open to suggestions for topics.
