Tom's Hardware rescinds SSD power test, finds them more efficient

Looks like Tom's Hardware fessed up and apologized for their slip-up in that recent controversial power test, which found SSDs consuming more juice than their spinning-platter counterparts (or, well, not exactly). We're giving 'em a pass, not just because we've always had a fond place in our heart for Tom's, but because they did another comprehensive SSD test (this time under more consistent conditions) which basically confirms that many newer SSDs are, in fact, power savers in most usage scenarios. Not all drives and scenarios, but many. Tom's also namechecks OCZ's Core SATA II SSD (a Samsung in disguise) as the clear winner by a longshot, having "unmatched" power efficiency. Sold.

[Thanks, Chuckles and SNP]

[andres @ Jul 15th 2008 12:59AM]

grow up

[Kizorblade @ Jul 15th 2008 1:02AM]

iPhone?

How about...
uFail

[Shinigami @ Jul 15th 2008 1:03AM]

SSDs save battery power? Thats great to hear, remind me of it when price per gigabyte and read/write speed will be almost as good as HDD :)

[Shinigami @ Jul 15th 2008 1:08AM]

Not really. Its read lag might be much better but it sucks with random write :P
http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/14/dells-latitude-xt-tablet-goes-multi-touch-with-a-free-upgrade/
Please wake me up when this "option" becomes doubled in size and halfed in price :)

[SNP @ Jul 15th 2008 1:15AM]

Ryan I think you only assume they use the new OCZ Core line but in fact they didn't, they use their standard SATA II line. See below:

http://www.directron.com/oczssd64gb.html
http://www.directron.com/oczssd21c64g.html

The new Core series is a lot cheaper and I hope carries the same or better spec as the old one Tom tested.

[Pochi @ Jul 15th 2008 1:49AM]

Best comment ever.

[loosely_coupled @ Jul 15th 2008 1:55AM]

Finally! Makes sense to me. It's been known that most SSDs DO NOT incorporate significant (or ANY) power-saving features. Only the newest models currently being produced offer excellent battery life savings vs HDD.

Remember guys, power-efficiency has been perfected for over two decades on modern HDDs, while SSDs are a comparatively new technology. Everyone needs to give them some time to work out all the issues and optimize the performance and power efficiency of these devices. I'm sure in time they will absolutely blow away spinning platters in speed, latency, and power usage.

[LondonConsultant @ Jul 15th 2008 4:34AM]

Most of the tested hard disks were 10 times the capacity of most of the tested SSDs. So, maybe the power consumption per GB for SSDs is 5 to 10 times higher than hard disks...

[boe @ Jul 15th 2008 9:23AM]

I was just noticing the same thing. Why don't we compare performance on 2 GB thumb drives as well?

[Bender @ Jul 15th 2008 5:37AM]

That's interesting stuff.

Does anyone know what the power consumption or performance specs are in the new Sony or Lenovo laptops?

As far as I can read, they don't actually specify the specs of the drives in the laptop detail pages... I wouldn't want to fork over all that extra cash and get a slow, last generation SSD.

Anyone steer me in the right direction here?

[Shinigami @ Jul 15th 2008 6:10AM]

Micron (I think) is the fastest - for $6,000 you can get around 128gb memory. Might be faster than HDD.
If you want SSD as an option, expect lower battery time and MUCH higher price.

[neofolklore @ Jul 15th 2008 9:21AM]

or wait for the $300 128gb ones to come out.

[ryan @ Jul 15th 2008 7:55AM]

Hitachi Dekstar

...sweet

[BigD145 @ Jul 15th 2008 9:42AM]

Thanks Tom. You've had HOW long to look over your test? Oh wait, lots of people did it for you the day you pushed out your first flawed test.

[Pingmeister @ Jul 15th 2008 11:09AM]

Great strategy for web traffic: Post ridiculous results and say how confident you are that they are true. 2 weeks later say "Oopsie!"

I stopped reading Tom's with their nVidia scandal way back when (I can't even remember what the scandal was).

Glad I didn't put them back on the bookmarks.

[The Dude @ Jul 15th 2008 1:36PM]

And they're STILL not worth it. Let's average the results, shall we?

SSD Average Watt Consumption: (2.5 + 3.0 + 1.0 + 2.0)/4 = 2.125W
HDD Average Watt Consumption: (2.3 + 2.4 + 1.8 + 2.8)/4 = 2.325W

A whole 2 tenths of a watt? Hmm...massive efficiency increase. A whole 10 minutes more like the other test claiming SSD was still more efficient?
Well fuck, give me the 320 GB Seagate Momentus anyday.

P.S.: I had to drop one of the SSD test results for the average as they had 5 tested drives and only 4 traditional HDDs were tested.

[Will @ Jul 16th 2008 6:06AM]

I'm doing a very basic review of the new OCZ Core SSD over at http://www.bluefi.co.uk with so far just an unboxing video and some HD Tune results.

I'm not a professional reviewer so it's not in-depth but I'm going to be putting up some power stats soon compared to my normal notebook drive, which is the reason I bought the SSD.

[AlphaTeam @ Jul 16th 2008 6:59AM]

Never believed the old test anyways.

Popped a Samsung SSD in my tablet and increased my battery by 20%.