SSD on laptop gives negligible performance gains.


Last Updated:

  1. MiltyMilt

    MiltyMilt Member

    Hello. I have an Acer Aspire 5517 laptop. The original hard drive was a 5400 rpm with a sata 1 connector. I recently bought a Kingston SNV425-S2 solid state drive, thinking it would perform at least somewhat better than the hdd. It didn't. I believe part of the problem may be that i'm using a sata 2 ssd in a sata 1 laptop, but i can't figure out why it isn't running the least bit faster. Any ideas?

    Advertisement
  2. mikedt

    mikedt 你好 Guide

    Most likely that is a bottleneck. But on the other hand, it all depends on what kind of performance increase you expect. The system may boot a bit faster and software should load a bit quicker in theory. A browser is only going to render a page as fast as your internet speed allows, and games are mostly dependant on CPU and GPU performance.

    The Acer Aspire 5517 is not a particularly high performance laptop and is getting on a bit now...2009....AMD Athlon at 1.6 GHz and budget AMD Mobility Radeon shared memory graphics.
    MiltyMilt likes this.
  3. MiltyMilt

    MiltyMilt Member

    Thanks dude! BTW, this thread can be closed now.
  4. Speed Daemon

    Speed Daemon Disabled

    As long as you remember that the only performance increase that a SSD drive can bring is to disk I/O, and you must actually do things that benefit from increased disk I/O to see the increase. You should see roughly a two-fold performance increase at minimum. Of course you're not going to see any increase after it's in RAM.

    With 7200 RPM SATA HDs I typically see no more than a 50MB/s sustained transfer rate, and a lot less than that when I'm copying to/from USB2 or network attached storage. On paper, the SSD should be able to saturate a 140MB/s SATA1 interface. But IME the real world transfer rates rarely come close to the published rates. Still, you should see some increase.
    MiltyMilt likes this.
  5. MiltyMilt

    MiltyMilt Member

    I figured it out. I was, for some reason, comparing ubuntu minimal with lxde on the hdd to lubuntu on the ssd, lubuntu being significantly slower anyway. Also, I suppose I was mainly comparing by boot times, with lubuntu having a lot more to load.

Share This Page