Effects On Wear Leveling of Volume Encryption with TrueCrypt 7 on Hynix C210 SSD

Question

I use a 500 GB SSD on my Dell Precision M6600, which is Hynix C210. On this drive I have 2 partitions. Almost all drive space is allocated to partitions (I didn't know this useful advice when partitioning initially http://www.anandtech.com/show/6489/playing-with-op).

On the system partition, I have installed Windows 8.1. On the non-system partition of this SSD, I created a file container of 20 GB, which I encrypted using TrueCrypt 7.1a, released in 2012. I selected a cascaded implementation of AES-Twofish-Serpent algorithms with a HTS Whirlpool implementation. When I mount it, of course, it is read as a different partition of 20 GB, but I never stack it up to this amount. I asked the customer service from Hynix what is the effect of using True Crypt on file containers on their SSD product and the answer that I received was "I am not sure that AES-Twofish-Serpent algorithm is FDE (Full Disk Encryption) type or Opal SSC (Security Sub-system Class) type. In general, FDE has more life time loss than Opal SSC." I haven't been able to find out if True Crypt uses FDE or Opal SSC and I'm not sure the response makes any sense, because how can it be that an algorithm would use FDE if it only encrypts a file container? Based on what I've googled, Hynix doesn't use SandForce controller for TRIM to SSD, so wear leveling shouldn't increase by such an order of magnitude as an effect of default compressing, as described here http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-520-sandforce-review-benchmark,3124-11.html So the author of the article"SSDs and TrueCrypt: durability and performance issues" on Media-addicted.de, when quoting the guys from AnandTech says here: " the assigned space on your SSD is encrypted or nearly completely filled with user data (which basically turns out to have the same effects).". Why would that be the same in terms of wear leveling? In my case of volume encryption, even if the space for the file container looks pre-allocated in Windows, it's not like the system sees all of the content of the file container as allocated and written, right? For example, in each session of installing the file container with TrueCrypt, when mounted, I can view the TrueCrypt Volume properties from the Volumes menu button and see, for example that in that session, there was X amount of "data read since mount" and Y amount of "data written since mount". What I want to know is: 1. how can I find out what is the factor level (1.1, 2.9, etc.?) by which this particular implementation increases the wear leveling of the SSD AND 2. what better implementation can I use (considering, of course, other freeware cryptographic programs) in order to optimize the wear leveling on this particular SSD 3. what is the amount of wear leveling happening at each mount if I don't do any writing within the file container in a mount session. So this isn't a question about the security of this particular kind of implementation, I am only concerned at the moment about the wear leveling impact on the SSD lifespan.