Of the advances we've seen from solid-state storage over the years, perhaps the most under-appreciated is freedom to build SSDs in form factors that aren't married to mechanical rotational media. Obviously, 3.5” and 2.5” hard drives are well-established as standards. But in a world dominated by ever-shrinking devices, pushing conventional disks any smaller has been problematic. It's outright difficult to create a rocket-fast disk in a scant 50 mm.

The ability to store non-volatile data in any physical package you'd like means the mobile devices can keep information safe on microSD cards smaller than a postage stamp, and diminutive laptops enjoy storage options that slide right into a motherboard without a second thought to affecting Z-height. Even the largest servers benefit from higher storage density (not to mention obscenely favorable power-to-performance ratios) compared to spinning media.
After four decades, the hard drive market is almost entirely owned by two companies, and both physics and market forces work in tandem to make differentiation a headache.
That isn’t to say that the SSD landscape is so entirely different. A small cabal of fabricators crank out virtually every bit of NAND (pun intended) extant, while LSI SandForce and Marvell provide the lion’s share of controller shipments. Fortunately for us, there’s more than enough variety to keep things interesting. New controllers, new interfaces, and advanced flash manufacturing help push solid-state storage away from the considerations we make while evaluating legacy media. Smaller form factors are finally coming into their own.

SSD revenue is still a rounding error for Intel. Instead, the company's storage products are important for driving sales of its bread-and-butter offerings. Conceivably, they'd help take a bit of the sting out of sagging PC sales. A good example is Intel's 2.5” and mSATA-based SSD 311 drives, released alongside its Z68 Express platform to illustrate its caching features. Elsewhere, the SSD DC S3700 enterprise drives are shipping in 1.8” flavors to put more juice in dense blade servers (another market where Intel's high-margin server components shine a little brighter complemented by solid-state storage).
Now, Intel is dropping out of the motherboard business to focus on a future dominated by alternative form factors. And even though Ultrabooks haven't been as successful as the company hoped, a world of x86-powered tablets, NUCs, and all-in-ones necessitate NAND-driven storage. With that in mind, Intel recently introduced a new family of 6 Gb/s mSATA-based SSDs to address growing demand for pint-sized drives.
Meet The SSD 525

Today, we have a quintet of SSD 525 drives (code-named Lincoln Crest) that allow us to examine performance at the 30, 60, 120, 180, and 240 GB capacity points. Despite its new name, the SSD 525 is still mostly an SSD 520 in an mSATA form factor and Intel's LLKi firmware on top. Originally, that drive was the first fruit of a partnership between Intel and SandForce, which debuted a year ago, was driven by the SF-2281 controller, and featured specialized firmware. The SSD 520 included highly-binned synchronous 25 nm MLC flash from Intel's own fabs, and Lincoln Crest keeps the same tradition going.
The 30 GB model is particularly interesting to us, since it’s heavily outgunned, packing only four 64 Gb dies. With just half of the SF-2281’s channels populated, it looks to be the single-core Celeron of this family. Given how poorly 60/64 GB drives wielding eight 64 Gb die have performed in the past, we're definitely curious to see what the runt of the litter can do for its fairly hefty $53 MSRP.

Each member of the SSD 525 line-up wields Intel's 25 nm synchronous ONFi 2 flash from its private stash of highly-binned NAND. Due to mSATA's physical dimensions, four or less package emplacements are necessary, meaning capacity is restricted based on current die packaging. That still leaves all the most popular capacity points covered, leaving room for the interface to evolve as 128 Gb die become more popular.
As MLC (and TLC) NAND manufactured using the latest technology nudges endurance to new lows, it's increasingly difficult to get flash rated for 5,000 P/E cycles on the consumer side. Intel's SSD 525 might not be that adventurous, but it does have longevity going for it at least. And in a 50 mm travel size, too.
| Intel SSD 525 (mSATA) | Total Flash | Die Count | Channels/Interleaving | NAND Part No. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30 GB | 32 GB | 4 | 4x1 | 29F64G08LCME2 |
| 60 GB | 64 GB | 8 | 8x1 | 29F16B08MCME2 |
| 120 GB | 128 GB | 16 | 8x2 | 29F32B08NCME2 |
| 180 GB | 192 GB | 24 | 6x4 | 29F64B08PCME1 |
| 240 GB | 256 GB | 32 | 8x4 | 29F64B08PCME1 |
The SF-2281-VB1-SDC is an eight-channel controller. Simply populating each of the ASIC's channels doesn't mean all that much; die interleaving is more important. Interestingly, the 30 and 180 GB models don't utilize all eight channels. The 30 GB version populates just four with no interleaving, while the 180 GB varietal uses six channels. Each discrete channel needs a couple of die to spread operations across, lowering latency and increasing speed. In the -2281, four-way interleaving offers optimal performance. So, referencing the table above, the 240 GB drive should facilitate peak performance with all eight channels individually firing across four die.
In the case of the 30 GB SSD 525, we're expecting it to be severely hamstrung. The 180 GB model should nip at the largest 525's heels, though. For now, it's important to note that the 180 GB's 24 dice spread over six channels with 4x interleaving is practically identical to using all eight channels with 3x interleaving. The point? Just because each channel isn't being used doesn't mean speed is going to suffer. It all comes down to interleaving in modern controllers, especially the scalable SF-2281.
Testing mSATA drives alongside 2.5" models poses a few issues. There are plenty of desktop motherboards with mSATA slots, but for continuity of testing, we have to use the platform you've seen in our stories for months. To that end, Intel smartly armed us with its Dale Crest mSATA Adapter to facilitate our benchmarking endeavors.
mSATA-based drives are powered using 3.3 V DC. SATA drives are predominantly powered via 5 V DC (and sometimes 12 V). The adapter allows our samples to connect like any other SATA drive, but could result in slightly skewed power numbers in the conversion process. Intel's mSATA adapters aren't publicly available, though a cursory search turns up several Asian-sourced units of varying quality and price. If nothing else, Intel's Dale Crest mSATA adapter is a fetching shade of blue.

| Test Hardware | |
|---|---|
| Processor | Intel Core i5-2400 (Sandy Bridge), 32 nm, 3.1 GHz, LGA 1155, 6 MB Shared L3, Turbo Boost Enabled |
| Motherboard | Gigabyte G1.Sniper M3 |
| Memory | G.Skill Ripjaws 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) DDR3-1866 @ DDR3-1333, 1.5 V |
| System Drive | Kingston HyperX 3K 240 GB, Firmware 5.02 |
| Tested Drives | Intel SSD 525 30 GB mSATA 6Gb/s, Firmware LLKi |
| Intel SSD 525 60 GB mSATA 6Gb/s, Firmware LLKi | |
| Intel SSD 525 120 GB mSATA 6Gb/s, Firmware LLKi | |
| Intel SSD 525 180 GB mSATA 6Gb/s, Firmware LLKi | |
| Intel SSD 525 240 GB mSATA 6Gb/s, Firmware LLKi | |
| Intel SSD 320 300 GB SATA 3Gb/s, Firmware: 1.92 | |
| Intel SSD 320 80 GB SATA 3Gb/s, Firmware: 1.92 | |
| Intel SSD 330 180 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 300i | |
| Intel SSD 330 120 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 300i | |
| Samsung 830 256 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: CXMO | |
| Samsung 830 64 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: CXMO | |
| Crucial m4 256 GB SATA 6Gb/s Firmware: 0309 | |
| Crucial m4 64 GB SATA 6Gb/s Firmware: 0009 | |
| OCZ Vertex 3 240 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 2.15 | |
| OCZ Vertex 3 120 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 2.22 | |
| OCZ Vertex 3 60 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 2.15 | |
| OCZ Agility 3 240 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 2.22 | |
| OCZ Agility 3 120 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 2.22 | |
| OCZ Agility 3 60 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 2.22 | |
| OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 1.5 | |
| OCZ Agility 4 256 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 1.5 | |
| OCZ Agility 4 128 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 1.5 | |
| OCZ Vertex 4 64 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 1.5 | |
| Samsung 840 Pro 512 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: DMX02B0Q | |
| Corsair Neutron GTX 240 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: M206 | |
| Graphics | MSI Cyclone GTX 460 1024 MB |
| Power Supply | Seasonic X-650, 650 W 80 PLUS Gold |
| System Software and Drivers | |
| Operating System | Windows 7 x64 Ultimate |
| DirectX | DirectX 11 |
| Drivers | Graphics: Nvidia 314.07 RST: 10.6.1002 IMEI: 7.1.21.1124 |
| Benchmarks | |
|---|---|
| Tom's Hardware Storage Bench v1.0 | Trace-Based |
| IOmeter 1.1.0 | # Workers = 1, 4 KB Random: LBA=8 GB, varying QDs, 128 KB Sequential, 8 GB LBA Precondition, Exponential QD Scaling |
| PCMark 7 | Secondary Storage Suite |
Looking at the various SSD 525 capacities helps us predict what's going to happen as Intel adds more die. For reference, the configuration breaks down as follows:
| Intel SSD 525 mSATA | Total Flash | Packages | Die Count |
|---|---|---|---|
| 30 GB | 32 GB | 4 | 4 |
| 60 GB | 64 GB | 4 | 8 |
| 120 GB | 128 GB | 4 | 16 |
| 180 GB | 192 GB | 3 | 24 |
| 240 GB | 256 GB | 4 | 32 |
Each 25 nm IMFT die is 64 Gb, or 8 GB. SandForce's second-gen storage controllers enable up to eight channels, but simply populating each channel isn't enough to maximize performance. For that, you need to interleave four die per channel.
As we just discussed, the 240 GB SSD 525 is the only model boasting our ideal configuration. Although it's true that speed scales with capacity, that's only because larger drives require more die. If your drive happens to employ 32 Gb die, you can build a 120 GB model that's just as fast. This is why SSDs leveraging Toggle-mode memory used to be so fast compared to other interfaces at lower capacities. Shoot, a 120 GB SF-2281-based drive armed with Toggle-mode NAND was nearly as fast as a 240 GB ONFi-equipped SSD. Most LSI SandForce partners continue to use ONFi flash, though enterprise-oriented SF products tend to rely on Toggle-mode memory.
Sequential Read Performance

Intel's quintet of SSD 525s easily devour compressible data patterns. From the lowly 30 GB model up to the 240 GB flagship, each capacity turns in almost identical numbers. Really though, for the past two years, almost every new drive has managed to saturate the SATA 6Gb/s interface with sequential reads. With enough speedy NAND, many SSDs would exceed 700 MB/s if the interface allowed it.

Switch to nearly incompressible data, though, and the picture begins to change. The 120, 180, and 240 GB drives offer up to 500 MB/s, but the 30 and 60 GB models start to choke (relatively, of course). We see the 60 GB SSD 525 peak at 400 MB/s, which is still pretty good. However, the 30 GB drive doesn't scale at all. From queue depths one through 16, the little SSD 525 flatlines near the 200 MB/s mark. Clearly, the smaller models run out of juice.
Now is a good time to point out that SandForce-based SSDs equipped with slower asynchronous NAND demonstrate the same slow-down when they're presented with incompressible data, even at higher capacities. A 30 GB SSD 525 armed with asynchronous flash would be in a world of hurt. But mercifully, faster ONFi 2 NAND helps stop the bleeding. Newer 20 nm flash will eventually ship in 128 Gb die; a 30 GB using that memory would only populate two of eight channels, putting it somewhere in USB flash drive territory.
Sequential Write Performance

Similar results present themselves when we switch to writes. The 30 GB model continues to pull up the rear, though the other four SSDs top 500 MB/s committing easily-compressible writes to NAND. SandForce's controller is able to compress simple data patterns with surprising alacrity, but the SATA 6Gb/s limit keeps the four larger models dabbling around the 500 MB/s mark. It is true that much of the data touching a normal operating system is compressible to one degree or another. However, seldom is it as compressible as Iometer's repeating data buffer.

Writing 128 KB sequential blocks of incompressible data (that is, almost completely random information) is where the rubber meets the road as far as die count goes. The above chart speaks for itself. If the legend wasn't included, you'd still be able to figure out which line belongs to each drive. They're organized perfectly by capacity and die count.
Most consumer drives don't scale based on queue depth when they're hit with 128 KB sequential writes. Usually, the peak at a queue depth of one or thereabouts; stacking more commands doesn't accomplish much. That's unfortunate because the 30 GB could really use a boost. Consistently, the small drive can't break above 50 MB/s. The 60 GB model looks like a rock star in comparison, though 100 MB/s isn't stellar either.
The three larger drives perform much better, though. The 180 and 240 GB SSDs manage 260 and 320 MB/s, respectively. Increasing die count clearly corresponds to higher performance. But each time capacity goes up, performance jumps by a smaller percentage. Moving from 30 to 60 GB yields a 100% speed-up. From 180 to 240 GB, performance is only up by ~25%.
Random Read Performance

Random 4 KB read performance is mixed among Intel's new drives. There are lot of newer SSDs out there able to trounce even the 240 GB SSD 525. Not even compressible data helps put the SandForce-based mSATA drives in a special place. Fortunately for Intel, the reality of most client-oriented storage solutions is that they won't see a lot of constant high-queue depth random I/O.
Between the capacities, results at a queue depth of one are constant at around 24 MB/s. Why are they all going that fast? Performance at those settings is governed almost exclusively by the flash, and even drives with different controllers perform the same when they utilize the same NAND. As more requests stack up, the controller, memory, firmware, and flash translation layer all come into play.

Not much changes when we switch to random data. The advantage attributable to moving compressible information isn't as pronounced when the access pattern is random, so the consequences aren't as severe when that advantage is lost. As the queue depth depth increases, larger SSDs do benefit, though. The 60 and 30 GB models are once again left in an unenviable position: slow and slower.
Random Write Performance

The smallest SSD 525 can even reach 300 MB/s with 4 KB random writes using repeating data. The other four models bunch up under 350 MB/s, hitting an overhead-induced bottleneck.

Testing with random 4 KB data looks a lot like the sequential workload on the previous page. Aside from the two smallest capacities, the 120, 180, and 240 SSD 525s continue punching above their weight.
The 180 and 240 GB models are neck and neck, just over and below 250 MB/s. The 30 GB drive still can't get over the 50 MB/s hurdle, while the 60 GB versions stalls at the 100 MB/s mark.
While desktop hard drives tend to be faster than 2.5" disks, you aren't inherently penalized by mSATA compared to larger SSDs. The 240 GB SSD 525 is proof of that. Compared to some of the 2.5" competition, it does really well (this despite its older controller). Fast flash and the newer LLKi firmware help keep the SSD 525 out of the slow lane.
Random 4 KB Read Performance

Although we're helping it along with compressible data, the 240 GB SSD 525 ranks next-to-last, besting only Crucial's m4. The 4 KB random read potential of newer drives is staggering; the top contenders approach 100,000 IOPS. Intel's flagship approaches 250 MB/s at QD32, but performance at lower queue depths is definitely more important in client environments. The field is significantly closer together with fewer stacked commands.
Random 4 KB Write Performance

The newer Samsung drives and OCZ's Vector do some serious damage with 4 KB writes fresh out-of-the-box. Consumer drives tend to deliver great results when they're clean, but seldom hold up well over time under enterprise workloads. Thankfully, most desktop users are pretty gentle, so SSDs running under TRIM-enabled operating systems should stay closer to the manufacturer specifications.
Samsung's 840 120 GB doesn't make it past 140 MB/s, but the 250 GB version is locked in a dead heat with the SSD 525 when we use incompressible data. Hitting 250 MB/s isn't too shabby for a random data workload. However, when we swap over to compressible information, the SSD 525 matches the high-end 840 Pro and Vector.
128 KB Sequential Read Performance

All of the drives we're testing reach above 500 MB/s, and most peak with two outstanding commands. The SSD 525 and m4 scale more gradually up to their peak at a queue depth of 16. Samsung's 840 Pro is ninja-quick. But in everyday use, you're going to have a hard time telling between these drives in this particular workload.
128 KB Sequential Write Performance

The 240 GB SSD 525 is only able to hang with the heavy hitters when we test with easily compressible data to punch up above 500 MB/s. It isn't likely that most folks will encounter vast quantities of repeating data written sequentially, though. Unless you're writing from one SSD to another, these performance numbers become progressively less useful.
The SSD 525 does perform surprisingly well with random data, managing a swift 324 MB/s. By comparison, Crucial's m4 tops out near 280 MB/s. Samsung's 120 and 250 GB 840's TLC NAND yields a tepid 120 and 250 MB/s, respectively.
Storage Bench v1.0 (Background Info)
Our Storage Bench trace incorporates all of the I/O from a trace recorded over two weeks. The process of replaying this sequence to capture performance results in numbers that aren't really intuitive at first glance. Idle time gets expunged, leaving only the time that each benchmarked drive was actually busy working on host commands. So, by taking the ratio of that busy time and the the amount of data exchanged during the trace, we arrive at an average data rate (in MB/s) metric we can use to compare drives.
It's not quite a perfect system. The original trace captures the TRIM command in transit, but since the trace is played on a drive sans filesystem, TRIM wouldn't work even if it were sent during the trace replay (which, sadly, it isn't). Still, trace testing is a great way to capture periods of actual storage activity, a great companion to synthetic testing like Iometer.

The 240 GB SSD 525 packs an even bigger punch than the older SSD 520, busting out an excellent 20 MB/s improvement over its Cherryville cohort. This increase effectively comes down to the LLKi-revision firmware, since the two Intel SSDs are otherwise mostly identical. Revamping the garbage collection routines for better steady-state performance pays dividends, since the amount of data written by our trace is enough to put most solid-state solutions into a lower performance state.
The 120 and 180 GB SSD 525s almost manage top-tier performance, but fall just short of the most elite contenders. The only sub-200 GB drive able to beat the middle-capacity SSDs is Samsung's 128 GB 840 Pro. In all fairness, though, it's also faster than the 240 GB SSD 525.
The smallest members of Intel's Lincoln Crest family give us some good and some bad news.
First, the 60 GB model is about as fast in our trace as the 120/128 GB competition equipped with asynchronous NAND. We'd be happier about that news, except that you pay as much for Intel's solution as those larger drives. It's worth considering that Intel has a big price premium on its entry-level mSATA storage.
Not surprisingly, the 30 GB SSD 525 come in last place. Considering its capacity, that's where we'd expect it. However, the drive is absolutely hammered by this trace, which consists of too much data to be fair to a 30 GB repository. The miniature SSD 525 could be a decent cache drive, all things considered.
PCMark 7

PCMark 7 uses the same trace technology as our Storage Bench v1.0 for its storage suite testing. It employs a geometric mean scoring system to generate a composite, so we end up with PCMarks instead of a megabytes per second. One-thousand points separate the top and bottom, but that encompasses a far larger difference than the score alone indicates.
Overall, the rankings don't change all that much between our Storage Bench v1.0 and Futuremark's PCMark 7. The 120 and 180 GB SSD 525s continue to stick together, though they're closer to the top this time. The 60 GB model slides in next to the 60/64 GB competition, and the 30 GB model still lands in last. Intel's 240 GB flagship picks up three slots on the comparably-sized SSD 520, putting it in third place. The 840 Pro is just too brutally fast, overcoming SandForce's reliance on compression to take the top two spots.
Of course, we know that the delta is interesting from an academic perspective, though it'd be almost impossible to tell any of the top 15 drives apart in daily use.
Write Testing
Performing a real-world write test helps illustrate some of the advantages attributable to parallelism and real-time data compression. We're using a folder copy of World of Warcraft. The 26.2 GB collection of files and folders includes a mix of data entropy levels. Archiving the entire hierarchy results in a compression ratio of 63%, meaning that the resulting ZIP file is 63% as large as the original folder. The game data and internal media are already compressed in various ways, making those bits a challenge for SandForce-driven drives, but other parts are easier to shrink. It's a great example of something you might actually copy, or a reasonable enough facsimile.

The 30 GB SSD 525 struggles, requiring an achingly-long 4:52 to finish up. That's 92 seconds more than the second-to-last Intel SSD 310. The 60 GB model takes about half as long, and is three seconds off of the 64 GB m4. The 120 and 180 GB SSD 525s do really well, putting them between Adata's 256 GB SX300 and Crucial's 256 GB m4. Lastly, the flagship SSD 525 beats the big m4 by another 15%, putting it at the top of the class. The most spacious SSD 525 has the advantage of faster compressible write speed than the competition, bolstered by the fact that it doesn't have to write as much data to flash.
Idle Power Consumption
Idle consumption is the most important power metric for consumer and client SSDs. After all, solid-state drives complete host commands quickly, and then drop back down to idle. Aside from the occasional background garbage collection and house keeping, a modern SSD spends most of its life idling. Enterprise-oriented drives are more frequently used at full tilt, making their idle power numbers less important. But this just isn't the case on the desktop.

We previously established that Samsung's 840s are the king of idle power use, and that continues today. By comparison, Intel's SSD 525s fall to the middle of the pack. Take those numbers with a grain of salt, though: they're almost certainly affected by the mSATA adapter we're using to test.
The big mushy middle of this chart is dominated by SandForce-driven products. The controller company is working diligently on getting idle power down, but the fruits of its labor aren't going to be seen for some time.
It's also worth pointing out that capacity doesn't really affect idle numbers much. Instead, it's almost completely a function of the controller and firmware.
PCMark 7 Average Power
If we measure average power use through a run of PCMark 7, we're able to observe a more taxing workload. These measurements fall far lower than maximum power numbers, despite the benchmark's intensive nature. What does a log of consumption look like?

The peaks and valleys correspond to the individual sub-tests. An average consumer workload might look a lot like this, except the distance from peak to peak would be greater, representing more sporadic use throughout a day.
That helps us explain why the bar chart of average power consumption in PCMark 7 looks so much like the idle power use chart. Despite the myriad spikes during the test, average draw is far closer to idle. Even if a drive is power-hungry under load, the averages don't look so bad. Some of these SSDs might use up to 6 W. But even the worst-looking model we've benchmarked, OCZ's Vertex 4, consumes a reasonable 1.49 W during PCMark 7.
Four of the SSD 525s pull up equally here. Only the 240 GB model falls a bit lower in the finishing order.
Even at small capacities, the SSD 525 is fast. That much isn't in question. When you tack on extras like Intel's superb SSD Toolbox software and IMFT NAND rated at 5,000 P/E cycles, it's clear that the mSATA market is now being serviced by another higher-end option sure to attract fans of Intel's storage solutions.

Indeed, there are a lot of positives favoring the SSD 525. But prospective purchasers may very well be put off by comparatively higher pricing. Just how much is Intel asking for its Lincoln Crest family?
| Model | MSRP | Street | Approximate Usable GB | Street Price / Usable GB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SSD 525 30 GB | $54 | $60 | 28 GB | $2.14 |
| SSD 525 60 GB | $104 | $110 | 56 GB | $1.96 |
| SSD 525 120 GB | $149 | $170 | 111 GB | $1.53 |
| SSD 525 180 GB | $214 | $230 | 167 GB | $1.37 |
| SSD 525 240 GB | $279 | $290 | 223 GB | $1.30 |
Once you get up into higher capacities, the premium isn't huge. But the 30 GB model exceeds $2/GB, which seems a bit expensive. Perhaps if you plan to use it for a caching drive, $53 isn't so bad. If Intel was really worried about pricing, it might have launched an SSD 330-esque mSATA-based drive for its first foray into 6 Gb/s territory. The company seems to be quite content charging more for its 500-series performance-oriented client drives, and the SSD 525 keeps that trend going.
Just remember that this time last year, a 240 GB SSD 520 was pushing $600. Of course, Crucial's 256 GB mSATA-based m4 has been spotted around $.80/GB, which is why we've been so bullish on it. Deals like that make it hard to argue for spending more on the SSD 525. At least you still get the benefit of a five-year warranty for every model except the 30 GB version (it gets stuck with the highest price/GB and a two-year shorter warranty; not very attractive caveats).
The SSD 525 family does enjoy 128-bit AES encryption, though, along with enterprise-class 1016 uncorrectable bit error rates, end-to-end data protection, and revised LLKi firmware. Also featured on the drives is thermal monitoring and protection, set to trip at 70 degrees Celsius if things get too warm. Moreover, Intel forgoes SandForce's RAISE cross-die redundancy feature, preferring instead to rely on binned flash and extra over-provisioning for longevity. Rather than devoting an extra die worth of NAND to parity, that space is used for OP. The 30 GB model has 11% OP; the other models run closer to 14%.

All told, Lincoln Crest doesn't offer anything new in terms of innovation or performance. But the mSATA form factor has been an afterthought for most manufacturers, and until recently there were many who hadn't yet introduced compatible products. Any maybe for good reason. Looming over the discussion of shrinking form factors is Intel's Next Generation Form Factor (NGFF) standard, which promises to roll back the 6 Gb/s ceiling currently dogging newer drives. It's hard to say where things are heading, but mSATA will almost certainly continue to flourish in the near term.
Intel deserves much of the credit for getting solid-state storage into desktops and laptops. Without the company's push into storage five years ago, it's hard to say where things would stand. In hindsight, Intel probably did everyone a favor by establishing itself as a purveyor of fast, dependable SSDs, simultaneously driving prices down and increasing acceptance of what was considered a new technology. Before then, SSDs were not particularly awesome. In many cases, they were even inferior to conventional storage. But Intel did its part to push the industry past those early beginnings. With Lincoln Crest, Intel breaks new ground...just not much of it.
