[phoenix.stu]

@ChrisUCF99 - Yes indeed. Thanks alot for your effort in helping the community out. You are a true hero.

I do have one more question please. Which type11 method did you use. Was it v5.2 or the latest that he made 6.1. Reason that I ask is that I hear his latest one is a little buggy for some.

[ChrisUCF99]

Originally Posted by phoenix.stu

Which type11 method did you use. Was it v5.2 or the latest that he made 6.1. Reason that I ask is that I hear his latest one is a little buggy for some.

I used iDeneb v1.3 10.5.5

[UnaClocker]

Nobody panic.. I split this topic.. Benchmarks in this thread in the Hardware and Upgrades section, Complaints about shipping delays in it's own thread, in the Hardware Issues section.. Please no more complaints in this thread, they will be deleted. There's another thread for complaints.

[phoenix.stu]

HAHAHA. Great title for the other thread.

[UnaClocker]

Same benchmark, on the 64gb RunCore..
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=3 ... oc2=326265
RunCore 64gb in red,
RunCore 32gb in blue.

[JekyllInside]

Why so big difference between 64 and 32 if both are RunCore?

JekyllInside
-----------------
Mini 9 Black (Webcam, Bluetooh, 8GB SSD) + 2GB Corsair RAM + 16GB SDHC Kingston + Samsung SE-S084B + Dell Bluetooh Mini Mouse

[UnaClocker]

The 64gb was always supposed to be faster. The way the controller on the RunCore works, it seems to read from/write to all available memory chips at the same time, kind of like a raid striping setup with normal HD's would do. Being that the 64gb drive has more chips, it's expected that it would be able to do things faster.

[LibbyLA]

Sorry for the repost, but I posted in the OS X section originally and I meant to post in the Mini 9 Hardware section.

-----------

I got my RunCore 32GB today. Made passes through the office park next door three different times this morning and afternoon before finding the UPS guy. (Since it's almost Christmas, he gets to my house very late in the day.)

Trying to image the drive with Norton Ghost was a complete bust for some reason, so I lost a bunch of time. When I used the Acronis True Image trial, that worked great.

I'm not running any official benchmarks, but I did boot with the original 16 GB STEC and timed from turning the thing on until a particular app loaded. 45 seconds. Same things is taking 56 seconds to a little over a minute with the new drive.

Then I ran a statistics program. On the original drive, 6 seconds the first time, 5 seconds the second. On the RunCore, 6 and 4.

I'll have to use the computer with the new drive to see whether the speed feels any different. As long as it's not noticeably slower (and I don't think it will be, except for boot time), I'll be happy because I need the storage space.

LibbyLA

[UnaClocker]

Yeah, I kind of expect boot time to increase a bit from the STEC speed, simply because the runcore read speed is 15% slower.. But on an NTFS drive, it might be faster because of the write after every read.. Write speed being 300% faster will be noticeable in a lot of places.

[LibbyLA]

So far, I'm not disappointed. There may be some speed freaks who won't be happy because the RunCore isn't faster for both reads and writes, but I think the drive will work fine for me. I'm just relieved to have some breathing room on the drive again, and I don't plan to put much more on it than I already have.

I'll be interested in reading the comments from others who get these drives. It was nice to be able to plug this new drive in via USB, clone the old drive, and replace the old one with the new one. I don't have an external DVD drive for backup so it would have been downright painful to try to finagle a drive image and I surely didn't want to start from scratch!

LibbyLA