Hardly a week goes by in which we don’t receive information or updates about solid state drives (SSDs). These flash-based storage alternatives were introduced in 2006 when Samsung released a 32GB prototype that used UltraATA/66. The first drives available at retail were easily capable of outperforming hard drives when it came to I/O performance, but not all delivered greater throughput. Overall, first- and second-generation flash SSDs simply weren’t as efficient as promised. In addition, processing power seems necessary to reach maximum SSD performance, and all SSDs have demonstrated negative performance impacts over time due to write amplification, wear leveling algorithms, and the fact that flash memory cannot just be overwritten. It has to be read, erased, and rewritten.
Older SSDs or those with older firmware are still susceptible to these problems. It wasn’t until late 2008, when drives arrived with built-in cache to sail around these issues, that we saw substantial progress. Today, key vendors are assidious about providing firmware updates every few weeks, so it was time for us to collect a dozen new drives and put them to the test. All have been added to our SSD Charts for easy comparison, as well.
Why SSDs?
Regular readers have probably visited this question several times already, but it’s important to point out that the future of fast storage solutions for your operating system does not lie with magnetic hard drives. System storage will increasingly be based on non-volatile silicon technology, such as flash memory, for speed and efficiency reasons. Hard drives will be around for many years to come, but they’ll increasingly be used for longer-term storage and archiving because they suffer from rather long latencies due to necessary head repositioning from one track to another (seek time) and rotational latency.
SSDs are capable of providing much quicker random access. While hard drives require between 4 and 20 ms for average access operations, SSDs run between 0.05 ms and 2 ms in worst-case write access scenarios. Depending on the SSD model and firmware focus (desktop versus enterprise workloads), the resulting I/O performance can be up to 50 times faster than on hard drives. Finally, SSDs deliver throughput of up to 240 MB/s, while even the fastest enterprise hard drives are still limited to a bit more than 200 MB/s (Seagate's Cheetah 15K.7). Yet, it has to be said that hard drives are still much more reliable in delivering consistent and reproducable performance.
Trends and Capacities
While Western Digital has already announced the first 2.5” mobile hard drives with a 1TB capacity (12.5 mm z-height), SSDs are still limited to a maximum of 256GB in the same form factor (although Intel is expected to start shipping 320GB versions of its X25 drives soon). In contrast, even regular 2.5” mobile hard drives (9.5 mm z-height) deliver twice the capacity of the largest SSDs. More significantly, 500GB notebook drives are affordable at prices between $80 and $120. You can get an SSD drive for about the same price, but then your capacity will most likely not exceed 32GB (for example, the OCZ Vertex 30GB) or you might be stuck with outdated technology (PQI, Transcend, Crucial 32GB). Ultimately, with SSD, you’re buying 5% to 15% of a hard drive’s capacity at the same price, or you’ll pay up to $800 if you want 256GB.
The Candidates
We received several new SSDs between July and mid-August: A-Data’s 128GB S592 drive (Indilinx controller, MLC flash); two models from a Chinese vendor called Asax (1.8” and 2.5”, MLC flash); Cavalry’s SSD 32GB Pelican (JMicron JMF602); Corsair’s P256 (based on the Samsung PB22-J); the new Crucial M225 series (Indilinx, MLC); Intel’s new 34nm X25-M at 160GB; the OCZ Summit, Vertex and Vertex Turbo (Samsung, Indilinx); and lastly the Super Talent's UltraDrive ME (Indilinx).
The A-Data SSD S592-series is available at 32GB, 64GB, 128GB, and 256GB capacities. We received the 128GB model for review.
The description on A-Data’s site mentions a lot of different performance enhancements compared to “regular SSDs.” The device is powered by Indilinx’s current controller together with 64MB cache memory, which, according to A-Data, leads to 250 MB/s maximum read (230 MB/s for 32GB and 64GB versions) and 170 MB/s maximum writes (150 MB/s for 32GB and 64GB capacities).
The drive almost delivered on these promises at 218 MB/s maximum read throughput on our X58-based test system and at least 170 MB/s write throughput—nice. However, our IOMeter-based streaming read/write testing resulted in a constant read maximum of 196 MB/s and sustained streaming write performance of 62 MB/s. This is still above-average I/O performance. We saw similar results under PCMark Vantage’s application benchmark, with its eight different test disciplines.
The 0.4W idle power also impresses, and we never measured more than 1.1W total power consumption during all of the power consumption tests. A-Data showed strong efficiency for streaming read operations and very good I/O operations. Keep in mind that our results only apply to the 128GB model, although the other capacity points shouldn’t differ too much.
Asax Leopard Hunt II T2 2.5” (256GB)
Asax was pretty much unknown to us when we received a review request from this Chinese vendor. The domain asaxssd.com forwards here, which is where we found product information. The firm focuses on mainstream 2.5” SSDs as well as various 1.8” options with different interfaces, such as ZIF for ultra-compact devices.
Leopard Hunt II is Asax’s performance series. We looked at the 256GB 2.5” model and a 64GB 1.8” drive. Both units utilize the Indilinx controller and feature 64MB cache memory. Asax doesn’t tell customers about the controller, but it does reveal Samsung as the source of its flash memory.
Thanks to the Indilinx device, the Leopard Hunt II is quite a predator. In fact, it’s the fastest SSD drive in this review according to our desktop performance index. This index weighs throughput at 50%, I/O at 25%, and PCMark performance at 25%. However, four other SSDs are extremely close. The Leopard Hunt II would also be fastest in our enterprise performance index—based on 60% I/O, 20% throughput, and 20% PCMark performance—if not for Intel’s new X25-E 34nm drive, which is miles ahead of all others.
Asax Leopard Hunt II T2 1.8” (64GB)
The second Asax SSD did similarly well, although it did not keep the pace of its bigger 2.5” 256GB brother.
The 1.8” drive is available in capacities up to 256GB, although our review sample was the 64GB model. This 1.8” device is suitable for ultra-portable, high-performance notebooks based on more compact form factors.
Still, the 1.8” device appears like a shrunk version of the 2.5” design, with performance differences owing more to specifications than physical dimensions.
The CASD Pelican Elite SSD by Cavalry storage is the only product in this roundup based on a JMicron JMF602, which is probably the main reason for the device’s 115 MB/s interface bandwidth limit. In terms of real throughput, it reached a maxiomum 84 MB/s read and less than 50 MB/s on writes with minimum throughput way below these numbers.
Official performance numbers on the Cavalry Web site are entirely different. The firm talks about 250 MB/s read and 200 MB/s sequential write throughput, and 130/95 MB/s random read/write. These are obviously two different worlds. The site mentions 64GB, 128GB, and 256GB capacities, but we received a 32GB drive, hence we can only say the results apply to our particular capacity. Since this unit isn’t mentioned on the Cavalry site, it seems likely that higher capacity versions might perform better than this one (at least we'd hope so).
Corsair’s P256 SSD is an excellent product that delivers high capacity and balanced performance. Corsair didn’t try anything tricky, but simply purchased Samsung’s PB22-J SSD and resold it under the Corsair brand. That's good news for enthusiasts, since Samsung's drives aren't usually available on their own at retail.
The P in the model name stands for the performance series. Drives are specified at 220 MB/s maximum read speed and up to 180 MB/s for writes. We measured up to 208 MB/s for reads and almost 180 MB/s for writes, which are great results even though the drive cannot match the performance of Idilinx-powered SSDs. Still, Corsair does well and provides huge capacity. The company also offers SSDs powered by Indilinx hardware in its Extreme Series.
The Performance Series P256 is avialable in 256GB, 128GB, and 64GB capacities. Pricing for the 256GB model starts around $650. If you can live with 128GB, then you’ll get away with a much more palatable $350. Corsair does a responsible and all-too-rare job of providing solid product information, detailing important specifications.
The P256’s I/O performance cannot keep pace with Intel or Indilinx-powered SSDs, as the Samsung drive was delevoped mainly for desktop users. As such, it’s optimized for applications and throughput. Application performance scores well and in the middle of our test bed.
With regard to power consumption, Corsair’s P256 is the real deal, topping out at a mere 0.8W. Other SSDs, such as the Cavalry, went up to 2.3W in certain tests. Corsair’s results are stellar in performance-per-watt for streaming reads (high throughput at low power consumption). It doesn’t shine as brightly in the I/O efficiency summary, but we consider this drive excellent for performance notebooks.
Crucial CT256M225
Crucial’s new, MLC-based M225 SSD family is available at 256GB, 128GB, and 64GB capacities ($599, $329, and $169, respectively). The 64MB cache memory and Indilinx controller sets the stage for our expectations: greater than 200 MB/s for reads and not much less for writes.
Crucial specs promise 250 MB/s read and 190 MB/s write throughput. As anticipated, we reached less than that, but throughput was still impressive at 222 MB/s read and 180 to 218 MB/s write. PCMark Vantage application performance also demonstrates solid I/O, although the drive doesn’t reach the performance level of Intel’s new 34nm X25-M.
Power draw under different workloads and at idle is only average, at 0.5W to 1.3W. While this result is good enough to confirm Crucial’s claim that this drive is “engineered for mobility,” some other SSDs require less power and offer even more power efficiency. Still, the drive did well and offers reasonable bang for today’s buck.
Crucial CT128M225
Crucial also sent us its 128GB version to evaluate. As expected, it performed a little behind the 256GB flagship, but the CT128M255 also happened to require a little less power. In the end, the 128GB model actually delivers higher performance per watt than the 256GB version in both the workstation and streaming read efficiency tests without actually beating the 256GB model in raw performance.
Consequently, the 128GB drive might be the better choice for mobile systems.
Intel’s latest X25-M drive is based on the same in-house controller with 32MB cache memory as the initial X25-M series, which is why you can keep grabbing firmware upgrades at the usual location. There have been several firmware updates that help prevent substantial performance drops after intensive use. The latest firmware, which we used for the review, does not deliver much higher performance than previous X25-M drives, but the performance impact under intensive use seems to have abated to the point of being almost unnoticeable. Even after significant use of the drive, we were still seeing 200 MB/s read throughput.
This latest Intel model carries a “G2” code in its model name, standing for 34nm MLC flash memory, while “G1” marks the older 50nm generation. Both perform equally, but the 34nm version is the basis for the upcoming 320GB model. We found that it required quite a bit of power to deliver workstation-type I/O (2.2W), which spoiled the efficiency results in the I/O performance per watt summary. Almost the same applies to power at maximum streaming (up to 1.8W). However, these results indicate maximum performance. Stay under these levels and you’ll find a 0.2W power requirement for HD video playback as well as 0.1W idle power draw. Only Corsair’s P256 and the OCZ Summit are close at 0.2W; all other SSDs require 0.4W to 1.0W at idle. One watt does make a difference in battery runtime over the long run.
However, we’re missing progress on the performance side, as the X25-M is no longer the best flash SSD for performance users. The exception is in enterprise scenarios, which Intel dominates thanks to incredible I/O results. Almost all Indilinx-powered SSDs now deliver higher throughput than Intel. Still, the difference is small once the SSDs are in the 200 MB/s range and up.
The OCZ Summit series weighs in at 60GB, 120GB, and 250GB capacities. We received the 120GB model, which is rated at 220 MB/s read and 200 MB/s write performance. Our benchmarks returned 167 to 208 MB/s read throughput and 189 to 43 MB/s for writes. The minimum result obviosuly is a bump, but is has to be considered should you require sustained performance.
This SSD comes with 128 MB cache memory and is based on a Samsung controller, which doesn’t deliver particularly great I/O or application performance. However, the drive is power efficient, requiring only 0.2W at idle and a maximum of 1.4W during intensive I/O operations. This is less than the 2W active power specified by OCZ, but results may vary from model to model.
The low I/O performance results prevent a good ranking in our I/O workstation performance per watt analysis, but the drive does well in performance per watt for sequential throughput. One differentiator is OCZ’s 1.5 million-hour MTBF (mean time between failure) spec. Most of the other SSDs are rated at 1 million hours or only slightly more.
The Vertex is OCZ’s Indilinx-based SSD. The drive comes with 64MB cache memory and is available at 60GB, 120GB, and 250GB capacities. We like that OCZ recommends which drivers you should use with the drive. The company also offers a garbage collection tool, which reorganizes stored data by executing deletes. This results in preventing the drive from going the full read/erase/write cycle on blocks that were previously used when new data has to be written.
Note that we kept using Intel’s storage drivers on our reference storage test system. This is the configuration we use for all other SSDs, and we don’t want to start adjusting drivers for individual drives. Most users wouldn’t know about this recommendation unless they take the time and accidentally read them on the OCZ Vertex product page.
OCZ’s specified performance numbers sound solid and honest: 250 MB/s read maximum, 180 MB/s write maximum, and 100 MB/s sustained writes for the 120GB drive we tested. Our benchmarks reported 214 MB/s for reads, but they go all the way down to a minimum of 52 MB/s. Using the garbage collection tool didn’t help much here. The Vertex delivers average I/O performance and average PCMark Vantage application benchmark results. Its power consumption stayed in the green zone between 0.5W and 1.1W, helping the drive pull in impressive performance per watt results. The drive didn’t dominate in any category, but it is a solid all-around desktop or mobile SSD.
PCB Details
The Vertex Turbo is an improved version of the Vertex, running with faster cache memory clocked at 180 MHz as opposed to Indilinx’s usual 166 MHz. Obviously, overclocking has arrived in the storage market. The result is improved throughput (224 versus 214 MB/s peak) and dramatically improved write performance (167 versus 52 MB/s minimum write throughput). The Vertex Turbo is also is the second-fastest SSD in terms of throughput after the Intel X25-M G2. However, the Vertex Turbo seems to be optimized for throughput instead if I/O, as the regular Vertex delivers faster I/O performance in most of the benchmarks.
The Turbo’s application performance in PCMark Vantage is very different, It dominates in some test runs but loses in others. Finally, the memory overclocking has an effect on power consumption, as the Vertex Turbo requires 1.3W instead of 1.1W at maximum streaming throughput. The result is improved performance per watt for streaming operations and decreased efficiency for workstation I/O.
The last drive in this roundup is Super Talent’s UltraDrive GX (MLC), based once more on the practically-ubiquitous Indilinx controller.
Obviously, this is the firm’s performance product. Super Talent offers both SLC and MLC flash models. We received the latter at 128GB capacity, although there also are 64GB and 256GB options. Higher capacity models are rated for higher performance. Our drive didn’t reach the specified 260 MB/s throughput, but it delivered strong throughput and PCMark Vantage application results. At the same time, power consumption numbers were better than average, making the GX strong on performance per watt both for streaming and I/O operations. Setting I/O performance aside, Super Talent manages to deliver slightly more than other SSDs based on the same Indilinx controller.
The vendor also offers a garbage collection tool, called Performance Refresh Tool, on its Web site. Super Talent’s long list of firmware updates demonstrates how much progress is going on in the SSD arena.
| Manufacturer | A-Data | Asax | Asax | Cavalry Storage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family | SSD S592 | Leopard-Hunt II | Leopard-Hunt II | SSD Pelican |
| Model Number | ASAX-SATA1.8 T2-SSD | ASAX-SATA2.5 T2-SSD | CASD00032MIS | |
| Tested Capacities | 128GB | 64GB | 256GB | 32GB |
| Other Capacities | 32, 64GB | 16, 32, 128, 256GB | 16, 32, 64, 128GB | 64, 128GB |
| Rotational Speed (RPM) | Flash MLC | Flash MLC | Flash MLC | Flash MLC |
| Controller | Indilinx | Indilinx | Indilinx | JMF602 |
| Form Factor | 2.5" | 1.8" | 2.5" | 2.5" |
| Interface | SATA/300 | SATA/300 | SATA/300 | SATA/300 |
| Cache | 64MB | 64MB | 64MB | n/a |
| NCQ | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| Height | 9.5 mm | n/a | 9.5 mm | 9.5 mm |
| Weight | 54 g | 26 g | ||
| MTBF | 1,000,000 h | n/a | n/a | 1,300,000 h |
| Operating Temperature | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0-70°C |
| Specified Idle Power (Low Power) | 0.44W | 0.57W | 0.62W | 1.04W |
| Measured Idle Power (Low Power) | 0.50W | 0.35W | 0.35W | 1.00W |
| Manufacturer | Corsair | Crucial | Crucial | Intel |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family | P256 | M225 | M225 | X25-M 34nm |
| Model Number | CMFSSD-256GBG2D | CT128M225 | CT256M225 | SSDSA2M160G2G2 |
| Tested Capacities | 256GB | 128GB | 256GB | 160GB |
| Other Capacities | 64, 128GB | 64, 256GB | 64, 256GB | 80GB |
| Rotational Speed (RPM) | Flash MLC | Flash MLC | Flash MLC | Flash MLC |
| Controller | Samsung | Indilinx | Indilinx | PC29AS21BA0 |
| Form Factor | 2.5" | 2.5" | 2.5" | 2.5" |
| Interface | SATA/300 | SATA/300 | SATA/300 | SATA/300 |
| Cache (MB) | 128MB | 64MB | 64MB | 32MB |
| NCQ | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| Height | 9.5 mm | 9.5 mm | 9.5 mm | 9.5 mm |
| Weight | 88 g | 70 g | 94 g | 80 g |
| MTBF | 1,000,000 h | 1,000,000 h | 1,000,000 h | 1,200,000 h |
| Operating Temperature | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0-70°C |
| Specified Idle Power (Low Power) | 0.19W | 0.44W | 0.48W | 0.06W |
| Measured Idle Power (Low Power) | 0.50W | 0.4W | 0.5W | 0.08W |
| Manufacturer | OCZ | OCZ | OCZ | Super Talent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family | Summit | Vertex | Vertex Turbo | UltraDrive ME |
| Model Number | OCZSSD2-1SUM120G | OCZSSD2-1VTX120G | OCZSSD2-1VTXT120G | FTM28GX25H |
| Tested Capacities | 120GB | 120GB | 120GB | 128GB |
| Other Capacities | 60, 250GB | 30, 60, 250GB | 30, 60, 250GB | 32, 64, 256GB |
| Rotational Speed (RPM) | Flash MLC | Flash MLC | Flash MLC | Flash MLC |
| Controller | Samsung | Indilinx | Indilinx | Indilinx |
| Form Factor | 2.5" | 2.5" | 2.5" | 2.5" |
| Interface | SATA/300 | SATA/300 | SATA/300 | SATA/300 |
| Cache (MB) | 128MB | 64MB | 64MB (180 MHz) | 64MB |
| NCQ | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| Height | 9.5 mm | 9.5 mm | 9.5 mm | 9.5 mm |
| Weight | 98 g | 92 g | 94 g | 68 g |
| MTBF | 1,500,000 h | 1,500,000 h | 1,500,000 h | 1,000,000 h |
| Operating Temperature | 0-70°C | 0-70°C | 0-70°C | 0-70°C |
| Specified Idle Power (Low Power) | 0.17W | 0.47W | 0.45W | 0.44W |
| Measured Idle Power (Low Power) | 0.50W | 0.50W | 0.50W | 0.40W |
Test Setup
| System Hardware | |
|---|---|
| Hardware | Details |
| CPU | Intel Core i7-920 (45nm, 2.66 GHz, 8 MB L2 Cache) |
| Motherboard (Socket 1366) | Supermicro X8SAX Revision: 1.0, Chipset Intel X58 + ICH10R, BIOS: 1.0B |
| RAM | 3 x 1GB DDR3-1333 Corsair CM3X1024-1333C9DHX |
| HDD | Seagate NL35 400GB ST3400832NS, 7,200 RPM, SATA/150, 8 MB Cache |
| Power Supply | OCZ EliteXstream 800W OCZ800EXS-EU |
| Benchmarks | |
| Performance Measurements | h2benchw 3.12 PCMark Vantage 1.0 |
| I/O Performance | IOMeter 2006.07.27 Fileserver-Benchmark Webserver-benchmark Database-Benchmark Workstation-Benchmark Streaming Reads Streaming Writes |
| System Software and Drivers | |
| Driver | Details |
| Operating System | Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 |
| Intel Chipset | 9.1.0.1007 |
| AMD Graphics | Radeon 8.12 |
| Intel Matrix Storage | 8.7.0.1007 |


I/O Performance






Streaming


Interface Performance








Overall PCMark Vantage Score





Efficiency Results: Performance per Watt


The good news is that none of the 12 SSDs we reviewed left a bad impression. Only one product, the Cavalry Pelican SSD, failed to reach the performance level we’d expect from modern drives (200+ MB/s reads for desktop/mobile type SSDs). Every other drive delivered more than 200 MB/s maximum read throughput and write throughput superior to many 2.5” hard drives. At the same time, power consumption tops out at 2.3W and typically stays well below that. For the first time, all SSDs truly deliver on what the marketing departments have been promising all along: much increased storage performance at low power consumption. If you want SSD, we’re happy to say that your purchase will finally be worth it.
However, there still are differences between drives, despite many vendors building with the same blocks (namely Indilinx controllers). OCZ went extreme with the Vertex Turbo and overclocked the cache memory in an effort to increase throughput. The company succeeded, but at the expense of I/O performance. Asax, Crucial, and Super Talent were also very strong on throughput. Corsair, Intel, and OCZ’s Summit proved extremely efficient at idle and moderate loads, making them great for ultra-mobile notebooks.
Even six months ago, it was easy to identify winners and brand the losers. But most of these SSDs will do great in your PC or notebook. Intel’s new 34nm X25-M isn’t very different from preceding drives. It still offers the same performance and hence falls behind in terms of writes, but the X25-M still stomps the yard on delivering high performance in I/Os, despite relatively high I/O power consumption.
We recommend you examine the individual benchmark results and find the perfect drive for your application. To help, we created two performance indices: one for desktop users putting more emphasis on throughput and application benchmarks, and a second for enterprise users looking for a decent drive in entry-level servers or workstations. Keep in mind that most of these drives weren’t designed for servers, so the second index doesn’t reflect support, reliability, compatibility, and so on.
Performance Summaries: Desktop

Performance Summaries: Enterprise

























