SSD using intel controllers?

[student_sol]

Hi, I've been doing a bit of research and I've heard that SSD using Intel controllers are the best.

I saw the following chart and thought there wasn't any significant difference between the SSDs, let alone hard drives: (i mean does ms really count when even 10ms is fast for humans?)

But then the following charts showed Intel SSDs obliterating the competition:

Which of these charts would better reflect an actual real-life performance?

And I've heard that the Kingston SNV125-S2BD/40GB uses an Intel controller... Does that mean it will perform exactly the same in random access time compared to Intel X25-M?

 

[apache_lives]

Its more that its a combo of Intel's controller, layout, firmware, design, memory and overall make that makes an Intel SSD the best OVERALL and Kingston does sell Intel SSD's but there just re-badged, otherwise 100% Intel design/make etc so.

 

[student_sol]

So do you mean that the Kingston is just a re-badge version of Intel X25-M with only 5/10 x 8Gb? Would there be any difference in their random access time from going 10/10 x8Gb -> 5/10 x 8Gb?

 

[wuzy]

What h2benchw shows is purely raw achievable performance which has no relevance to actual usage.

IOMeter runs pre-recorded read/write patterns. For database, file server and web server those three results still holds true in today's server usage. The workstation pattern however doesn't (read here).
Note that IOMeter set to run random 4K write is also used to test for stuttering e.g. SSD based on JMicron JMF602s controller

Traditional HDD usage pattern (i.e. single-threaded read/write activity) is best gauged by PCMark Vantage HDD suite and is used by Tom's Hardware. If SSD is used like a HDD (which most users do) then the above benchmark will be valid.

However, the single greatest advantage SSD has over any HDD is multi-threaded read/write (where HDD halts to dismal performance even with NCQ) and that's best tested by IOMeter with a custom recording of such activity. Xbitlabs currently has those results.

And I've heard that the Kingston SNV125-S2BD/40GB uses an Intel controller... Does that mean it will perform exactly the same in random access time compared to Intel X25-M?

Same controller yes, but half the channels (half the NAND chips) which leads to lower write performance (both random and sustained). Performance data

 

[student_sol]

Thanks wuzy So is the Kingston worth the money? Even a 32Gb is more than enough for ordinary budget users like me, so I might get one if their real-life performance comes anywhere as close to the Intel... Or should I bide my time until Intel releases lower capacity X25-M (I wonder if they ever will though)?

 

[wuzy]

The performance increase from the avg. HDD to using an Intel controller based SSD should be pretty astounding already, even if write performance is roughly half, especially if you do multiple concurrent read/write e.g. unRARing an archive to another drive and starting up Photoshop at the same time.

Anything below $2.5/GB for Indilinx and Intel based SSD is considered a good deal with the current market. Hunt around on slickdeals.com frequently and you might get lucky.

 

[student_sol]

Thanks for the reply wuzy!

I've just found out that Intel may be releasing X25-V 40Gb next year. (V for Value?)

http://www.techspot.com/news/37382-intels-budgetconscious-40gb-x25v-ssd-appears-online-.html

Does anyone know what performance we can expect from these V series compared to X25-M series?

 

[Pointertovoid]

Your benchmark is too old! At that time, Intel had no competitors, but meanwhile the Indilinx controller is a bit better than the Intel. Look at the benchmark from PC Games Hardware 2009/09.

The X25-E is better thanks to its SLC cells. The X25-M isn't the best MLC any more.

10ms is fast for humans but launching an OS or an applications needs many accesses.

 

[student_sol]

I know that intel isn't good in write speed... do you mean that the indilinx controllers are better in random read/write speeds as well?

 

[cjl]

Your benchmark is too old! At that time, Intel had no competitors, but meanwhile the Indilinx controller is a bit better than the Intel. Look at the benchmark from PC Games Hardware 2009/09.

The X25-E is better thanks to its SLC cells. The X25-M isn't the best MLC any more.

10ms is fast for humans but launching an OS or an applications needs many accesses.

Indilinx is still behind the Intel X25-M G2. They're a lot closer than Intel's competitors used to be, but Intel still holds the lead. As for the sequential write speed, it really isn't that significant.