Keep in mind that they test sequential. The issue with hard drives over solid state is the latency as it moves from one physical area, having to reposition the head, then wait for the data to come under the head, read it, then track to another if the sequential block doesn't contain the data it needs.
A solid-state drive on the other hand has lower latency as it doesn't have the physical impedence of having to find the track, wait for the data when it's all done in it's registers. Electrical is quicker than mechanical. ALWAYS.
That said, the SSD will excel at non-sequential and that's good. Most operations on a hard drive is non-sequential. with as much fragmentation that happens, the SSD will show very little slow down where the more files/fuller the hard drive gets, the slower it will get as it has to find places all over the platters and that can sometimes mean breaking up the files slowing down the operation to read/write.
The SSD will last fine, but on a machine that old, having better random read/write is going to be better than sequential since that will be the majority of the operations performed.
Hence one of the reasons SSDs (even slower-capped ones) on modern machines are perceptably more faster than hard drives.
I just got a newer SSD (SanDisk 120GB) SATA-II SSD for my ThinkPad (taking a second run, this time not with OCZ) and it just got crazy-insane faster than the 320GB 7200RPM, despite I know that the SSD is slower than most (It tops slower in benchmarks than the 60GB Vertex 2) but it is much faster on random I/O and it shows. Not only benchmarks better, but is significantly much faster and booting the system, launching apps and the like.
Enjoy the SSD, who cares if the HDD does faster sequential? Take out the RAM and run on most Virtual Memory and you will definitely see a difference between the HDD and the CF card.
A solid-state drive on the other hand has lower latency as it doesn't have the physical impedence of having to find the track, wait for the data when it's all done in it's registers. Electrical is quicker than mechanical. ALWAYS.
That said, the SSD will excel at non-sequential and that's good. Most operations on a hard drive is non-sequential. with as much fragmentation that happens, the SSD will show very little slow down where the more files/fuller the hard drive gets, the slower it will get as it has to find places all over the platters and that can sometimes mean breaking up the files slowing down the operation to read/write.
The SSD will last fine, but on a machine that old, having better random read/write is going to be better than sequential since that will be the majority of the operations performed.
Hence one of the reasons SSDs (even slower-capped ones) on modern machines are perceptably more faster than hard drives.
I just got a newer SSD (SanDisk 120GB) SATA-II SSD for my ThinkPad (taking a second run, this time not with OCZ) and it just got crazy-insane faster than the 320GB 7200RPM, despite I know that the SSD is slower than most (It tops slower in benchmarks than the 60GB Vertex 2) but it is much faster on random I/O and it shows. Not only benchmarks better, but is significantly much faster and booting the system, launching apps and the like.
Enjoy the SSD, who cares if the HDD does faster sequential? Take out the RAM and run on most Virtual Memory and you will definitely see a difference between the HDD and the CF card.