Ten new products and a total of 17 drives make this the most comprehensive SSD roundup in Tom’s Hardware history. We provide a check list of what you need to know for your SSD purchase and look at all the test candidates before making recommendations. Despite the fact that Intel's recently-leaked roadmap indicates 25 nm MLC flash drives as large as 600 GB arriving in Q4, now is still as good a time as any for an SSD upgrade, given the strong offerings currently available.
Pros and Cons
An SSD is a storage product that serves the function of a hard drive, but it doesn't use magnetized rotating platters to store data. Instead, SSDs utilize NAND flash memory, which introduces a plethora of advantages, together with a few potential caveats.
SSDs have no moving parts. Dropping an SSD shouldn't harm any stored data as long as the solder points survive the impact and the drive doesn’t suffer other physical damage. Additionally, SSDs are less susceptible to extreme temperatures, and recent product generations are much lower on power consumption than conventional hard drives. However, performance is still the top reason to pick an SSD device, and we’re glad to say that all SSDs in this review are considerably faster than hard drives.
Due to the nature of flash memory, it's not possible to erase individual bits. Flash cannot write in the same way as DRAM. Instead, only larger blocks are erased and programmed, which takes much more time than read operations. Also, flash memory cells have a limited number of write cycles, and this requires intelligent wear-leveling algorithms in the controller to prevent premature failure. Modern flash SSD products take advantage of several tweaks in order to avoid write performance bottlenecks and the performance-depleting effect known as write amplification, which causes the drive to write more bits than the data requires. All current SSDs use intelligent controllers that access multiple flash memory channels and work with a cache buffer to optimize writes. If you pick one of the latest drives and use a modern operating system, such as Windows 7, you’ll enjoy all the SSD benefits with no risks of running into real issues.
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
|
|
The market is now flooded with SSDs, and although this type of storage still isn't mainstream, SSD technology is now vastly popular, readily available, and considered the premier choice for enthusiasts and anyone else looking to eliminate performance bottlenecks. All SSDs presented in this review provide read performance between 150 MB/s and 320 MB/s. They substantially change your experience during boot-up and heavy multi-tasking. In fact, utilizing a decent SSD has a more subjective performance impact than a faster processor or more RAM. Is this worth a few hundred dollars? You bet.
Although only few companies design and manufacture solid state drives, there are roughly 30 vendors selling the drives, everyone from A-Data to Western Digital. Keep in mind that most of them utilize flash memory and controllers provided by only a few key companies.
Intel
With its X18- and X25-series SSDs shipping for almost two years, Intel is one of the few companies that designs and manufactures all components, from the controller to the flash memory. I/O performance and throughput are state-of-the-art thanks to a 10-channel flash design, but write speeds are somewhat limited. This isn’t an issue for most consumer environments, though. Several other vendors sell Intel hardware under their own labels. You can recognize these both by the performance discrepancy between reads and writes, and by the exterior. The second-generation X25 drives based on 34 nm flash memory are considered excellent client SSDs.
Samsung, Toshiba
The Korean and Japanese memory specialists have been very active in the SSD space, but neither has been aggressive in retail markets—yet. Products from both companies are rebranded and sold by multiple memory vendors and used by system builders. Samsung and Toshiba design SSD controllers, and they both utilize their own NAND flash memory. We found that Samsung and Toshiba SSDs tend to be more focused on overall balance than breaking performance records. Toshiba’s T6UG1XBG controller and Samsung's S3C29RBB01 both utilize a SATA 3Gb/s interface, but Toshiba does not support NCQ.
Indilinx, JMicron, SandForce
These three companies offer SATA 3Gb/s SSD controllers. Each meets performance expectations, but effective performance can vary due to different firmware optimizations and the number of flash channels used by SSD vendors. The latest models are Indilinx’s Barefoot controller, with up to 64 MB of cache and four-channel, 16-bit flash, and Indilinx's Amigos controller. Modified versions with more channels should follow soon, as the 6 Gb/s successor (Jet Stream) won’t be available before 2011.
JMicron’s JMF612 supports up to 256 MB of DDR2 cache and eight 8-bit flash channels. This controller also supports USB 2.0.
SandForce’s SF-1200 series is another eight-channel device with built-in, 256-bit AES encryption. SandForce provisions some of the NAND flash for transaction buffering, hence these solutions don’t have an external cache memory.
Marvell/Crucial
The RealSSD C300 by Crucial, based on Marvell’s 88SS9174, is the first SSD to utilize the faster SATA 6Gb/s interface. So far, this drive is by far the fastest when it comes to read performance. I/O performance is average, and application performance varies from good to excellent. You need a SATA 6Gb/s controller and Windows 7 with TRIM support to take full advantage of these drives.
While the RealSSD did not fully convince when we first tested it, Crucial made a few significant changes to its firmware. The version we tried first was 001; consequently the update is named 002. In a nutshell, Crucial tweaked the TRIM feature to be more aggressive, along with a few more details. Here is the change log:
- Improved Power Consumption
- Improved TRIM performance
- Enabled the Drive Activity Pin (Pin 11)
- Improved Robustness due to unexpected power loss
- Improved data management to reduce maximum write latency
- Improved Performance of SSD as it fills up with data
- Improved Data Integrity
Many of the changes are hard to trace, but the performance features that are based on efficient TRIM support require Windows 7 or another operating system that supports it. We’d expect significant performance impacts without TRIM.
You can check out little-known Asax's products on its Web site. The firm is a self-declared SSD specialist based in Shenzhen, China, but unfortunately, its products are not widely available. For that reason, this product isn't included in our price/performance index because you simply can't buy it in North America. However, we received two of Asax's SSDs for review, so we're including their performance for reference.
The Leopard Hunt II we reviewed features a 128 GB capacity and uses the Indilinx Barefoot controller with 64 MB of SDRAM cache memory. Asax also offers 32, 64, and 256 GB capacities. All run on SATA 3Gb/s interfaces and offer 220 to 230 MB/s read throughput and 173 to 200 MB/s writes. Less than 0.5 W idle power draw is decent; only Intel and Marvell solutions deliver lower idle power. Overall, the drive performs within the expected range, without any surprises.
The Server One 120 belongs to Asax's professional line, available in 50, 100, 200 and 400 GB capacities with SATA 3Gb/s interfaces. This is a SandForce SF-1200-based device and delivers higher peak throughput than the Leopard Hunt II, but also slightly lower minimum transfer rates. The Server One 120 uses more expensive SLC flash memory. This is typically a big advantage compared to mainstream MLC memory, but Asax surprisingly fails to beat other MLC products based on SandForce controllers.
In particular, 4K random reads are faster on the other SandForce SSDs, namely the Intel X25 devices and Crucial’s RealSSD. 4K random writes are even significantly faster on the MLC SandForce-based devices and, once again, the RealSSD. Asax's application performance remains above the average in this roundup. However, considering the higher price of the Server One's SLC flash memory, we’d recommend picking a different drive for a client SSD (Ed.: due to Asax's lack of availability, it looks like you won't have a choice anyway, unless you can get your hands on one of these drives).
The RealSSD C300 is the fastest SSD when it comes to throughput and data transfer. We looked at the 256 GB model a few months ago, and Crucial has made notable progress since then. The drives use Marvell’s 6Gb/s 88SS9174-BJP2.
However, the 64 GB model reviewed here is a far cry from the performance we saw with the 256 GB drive. Although read throughput and total bandwidth are similar and clealy pass the 300 MB/s line, the 64 GB version is limited to just under 80 MB/s on sequential writes. Fortunately, there's hardly any performance drop over time due to wear leveling and write amplification. The 80 MB/s line is dependable, ensuring that the drive will remain much faster than any 2.5” hard drive and superior to most 3.5” drives in many circumstances. Be careful if you require high performance on 4K random writes, though, as most other drives in this review are between 2x and 4x faster.
Crucial's I/O performance is no match for the SandForce SSDs when it comes to file server, database, and workstation workloads. The only exception is the Web server test, which doesn't require writes, and hence really rocks on the RealSSD C300 64 GB.
We received two standard versions of G.Skill’s Phoenix SSD, along with a Pro version. The regular model is based on SandForce’s SF-1200 controller and comes in 100 or 120 GB capacities. G.Skill specifies an impressive 2 million hours MTBF. It typically maintains read speeds of around 230 MB/s, but may drop to 170 to 180 MB/s for sequential reads with varying workloads due to write amplification and data reshuffling. The Pro drive, discussed on the next page, has higher maximum numbers, but lower minimums.
This drive is one of the fastest when it comes to I/O performance. Intel’s X25-M drives and the Crucial RealSSD C300 are better in the Web server test, but file server, database, and workstation operations are quicker on the Phoenix SSD. If you depend on 4K random writes, then you should go for the Phoenix Pro, which is optimized to this type of workload through block alignment.
Overall, this is a great SandForce-powered SSD at a mainstream 100 GB capacity point. Looking at our price/performance chart reveals impressive results. As the Phoenix delivers above-average performance at a below-average price, it yields great performance for the buck. The two higher-performing SSDs only offer 40 or 64 GB capacities, which might not satisfy enthusiasts.
The Phoenix Pro is very similar to the regular Phoenix. Both are based on the SandForce SF-1200 controller. However, the Pro drive was optimized to be a a little faster here and there, and to maintain maximum performance on 4K random writes. As a matter of fact, its 31 500 I/O operations per second are close to what Crucial delivers with its 256 GB RealSSD C300, but 3x to 5x faster than the performance delivered by Indilinx-powered SSDs or Intel’s X25-M drives.
The Phoenix Pro is a fair bit faster on PCMark Vantage application tests than the non-Pro edition, and we measured marginally lower power consumption in most workload scenarios, as well. As a result, the Phoenix Pro not only beats the standard Phoenix when it comes to performance per watt, but it's also second-best in this overall rating, right after OCZ’s Vertex 2 drives, which are also based on the SF-1200 controller.
However, Intel and Toshiba are better at read performance per watt. Both are much lower on power consumption even though they don't deliver the same write performance, especially on 4K random writes.
This is probably one of the hottest SSDs available today, not because of its capacity and not because it’s based on Intel’s successful X25 line, but due to its reasonable price point. The X25-V at 40 GB is the entry-level value model of the product family and only costs just over $100. That’s quite an intriguing price point for a fully-featured SSD.
However, the X25-V does have its drawbacks. A 40 GB capacity is pretty puny when a full Windows installation alone consumes 10+ GB. The more RAM you’re using, the more SSD space you’ll also require to hold your hibernation file. You should count on burning at least 20 GB for your OS and the most important applications, along with a few personal files.
Good news first: read performance of this entry-level SSD is on par with the X25-M, which means up to 235 MB/s for sequential transfers. Unfortunately, minimum transfer rates may drop to 180+ MB/s, which does not happen on the X25-M. That’s not deal-breaker for consumers, but it needs to be mentioned. The real limitation of the X25-V is its write performance, which maxes out at 45 MB/s and may drop to 19 MB/s in a worst-case scenario. Given that modern 2.5” hard drives don’t drop that low, and write at almost double the X25-V's transfer rate, this needs to be considered before purchasing. For example, moving 4 GB of RAM into the hibernation file takes significantly less time on rival SSDs.
In the end, Intel's price and price/performance are unbeatable right now, but the cost per gigabyte is only average, and price/performance per gigabyte is behind the X25-M. The X25-V is cool as a pure system drive that doesn’t have to write frequent data changes.
The regular Vertex 2 is a performance SSD, and there's also a Vertex 2 "E" type (see next page) that is optimized for slightly higher performance, just like G.Skill's Phoenix and Phoenix Pro. However, the differences between the Vertex 2 and the Vertex 2 "E" are much smaller and hardly worth mentioning.
G.Skill offers 50, 100, and 200 GB models. We received the 100 GB drive as a fair price/capacity compromise. The drives are based on SandForce's SF-1200 controller and perform as expected. The Asax ServerOne, G.Skill Phoenix, OWC Mercury Extreme, and RunCore Kylin II drives are all in the same performance range.
The drive comes at a relatively high cost per gigabyte, but all performance results are more than acceptable. Idle power is average at 0.5 W, but peak power consumption for HD video playback, sequential reads, and workstation I/O is excellent, making the Vertex 2 a solid choice if you care about performance per watt.
There's not a lot we can add for the Vertex 2 "E" if you already read the previous Vertex 2 discussion. "E" models are slightly faster, but both are already as fast as they can be in all workloads, including 4K random writes. In the end, the main difference remains capacity and cost. We found that overall results don’t vary much.
OWC’s Mercury Extreme is another drive built with the SandForce SF-1200 controller. Clearly, SandForce's cache-less architecture delivers some hot performance benefits, and the Mercury Extreme follows suit. As explained before, SandForce controllers over-provision storage capacity to ensure sufficient room for managing data intelligently in order to avoid write amplification performance degradation.
Performance mirrors the OCZ Vertex 2 100 GB and G.Skill Phoenix 100 GB. However, the OWC drive is more expensive than its competitors, spoiling its ranking in our cost per gigabyte and price/performance charts. However, the price at the time we performed the tests was corrected from $399 to $314.99, which you should keep in mind when comparing SSDs.
Since the drive, or at least our sample, wasn’t optimized to tackle 4K random writes efficiently, you’d be getting a potentially slower product at a higher price. Power consumption is also a bit higher than on the other SandForce drives. Clearly, there's potential here, but a price correction seems necessary.
RunCore divides its SSDs into prosumer and professional products. This makes sense, since relatively few solid state drives fit well in the consumer category, owing to high cost or insufficient capacity. RunCore offers PCI Express-based drives, 1.8” models, and many 2.5” products, such as the Kylin we received.
Strangely, we received a 100 GB drive that isn't noted on RunCore's Web site as of this writing. Only 64, 128, and 256 GB models are currently listed. However, the ingredients for the 100 and 120 GB models seem to be identical, very much like the differences between the Phoenix and Phoenix Pro drives.
The Kylin II is also based on the SandForce SF-1200 controller, and the drive performs accordingly. Read performance hovers between 196 and 234 MB/s, but may drop to 161 MB/s when used aggressively. However, we found that write performance stays above this level at all times. Our performance results show the Kylin II as one of the fastest SSDs tested. Unfortunately, the drive is not available in North America, so it is being excluded from all price-related indexes.
In this roundup, we look at the 10 new SSDs discussed in the previous pages, but we also add some competing, important products for a more rounded comparison. Please note that we didn't have a Samsung SSD for this roundup, owing to the company preparing for its next product generation.
All drives are tested for performance, power consumption, and efficiency. We cycle our performance testing to stress the drives with varying workloads. The results of the last test run can be found in the charts marked as "used." In this case, you’re looking at the performance level with write amplification and wear leveling algorithms having kicked in.
| System Hardware | |
|---|---|
| Hardware | Details |
| CPU | Intel Core i7-920 (45 nm, 2.66 GHz, 8 MB Shared L3 Cache) |
| Motherboard (LGA 1366) | Supermicro X8SAX, Revision: 1.0, Chipset Intel X58 + ICH10R, BIOS: 1.0B |
| RAM | 3 x 1 GB DDR3-1333 Corsair CM3X1024-1333C9DHX |
| HDD | Seagate NL35 400 GB, ST3400832NS, 7200 RPM, SATA 1.5Gb/s, 8 MB Cache |
| Power Supply | OCZ EliteXstream 800W, OCZ800EXS-EU |
| Benchmarks | |
| Performance Measurements | h2benchw 3.13 PCMark Vantage 1.0.2.0 |
| I/O Performance | IOMeter 2008.08.18 File server-Benchmark Web server-Benchmark Database-Benchmark Workstation-Benchmark Streaming Reads Streaming Writes 4k Random Reads 4k Random Writes |
| System Software & Drivers | |
| Operating System | Windows 7 Ultimate 6.1.7600 |
All flash-based products show very short access times, but read access times are slightly longer on SandForce-powered SSDs because they lack a DRAM cache memory that could help accellerate data access. However, the differences are hardly notable in everyday operation, even on write performance. Keep in mind that the charts show microseconds, and 1000 microseconds equal one millisecond (ms). Typical hard drives have between 5 and 20 ms read access time and require about 10x to 500x longer access times than SSDs.


I/O performance results are most relevant for server and similar applications. Think of apps that trigger many small read or write operations, such as checking for viruses or P2P downloads. Heavy multitaskers should also look at these results. Western Digital and Toshiba flunk I/O-heavy workload tests. Indilinx drives perform well, but you’ll get the best results on SSDs with SandForce controllers.



The Web server test is different from the three other workloads in that it doesn’t require any write operation. Therefore, the results and ranking are different.
The workstation profile is most relevant for enthusiasts and heavy multitaskers.

Read throughput is the most popular performance number, since it has the most direct influence on subjective performance. The faster the SSD can provide data to the system, the less you’ll have to wait.
Keep in mind that low I/O performance may prevent drives from delivering maximum throughput, and you should look at the minimum transfer speed under used SSD conditions if you need a certain minimum performance level.

The clear winner in this discipline is Crucial's RealSSD C300 drive—but only the 256 GB model. Although the 64 GB drive delivers the same maximum read performance north of 300 MB/s, the 64 GB drive writes at less than 80 MB/s compared to the 256 GB’s 200 MB/s. The Intel X25-M SSDs aren’t as strong in sequential writes either, and Western Digital trails the Indilinx/SandForce lineup. All of these typically maintain 200 MB/s write throughput, but drop to somewhat slower levels when heavily used.



4K random reads are a piece of cake for most SSDs, as reading happens very quickly and flexibly across the flash memory matrix.

Writes, however, can only happen at block size and involve the full read-modify-erase-write cycle. 4 KB writes are very important, as the majority of files on your drive are below 4 KB and file systems are often based on 4 KB blocks. Since SSD block size is way larger than 4 KB, managing lots of 4 KB writes is a worst-case scenario for SSDs. They then have to read-modify-erase-write their full block size, which is a multiple of 4 KB.

PCMark Vantage offers insight into the everyday application performance of a drive, although it's important to know that SSD performance depends on CPU performance. As long as you’re using a robust processor with two or more cores, you’ll see similar performance, but running an SSD in an older system will not yield the results we got on our Core i7-920 storage test system.









Power consumption is very relevant for laptop users who intend to get an SSD as a replacement for their hard drive. As a general rule, SSDs are lower on power when it comes to idle power (active idle) with a few extreme examples from Crucial, Intel, and Toshiba. The other power consumption results were tracked at specific workloads, which makes more sense than trying to hunt down one peak power consumption number you'd never encounter in real life.

The undisputed lowest-power drives, at idle, are the Intel X25-M models and Toshiba’s HG2. Crucial’s RealSSD C300 is great as well, but only when discussing the low-capacity 64 GB model. The 256 GB flagship requires much more power in active idle.

Streaming read power consumption reflects the power the drive needs to deliver data at peak throughput. Once again, Toshiba operates at an amazing 0.5 W, followed by the SandForce-driven SSDs. Western Digital’s Silicon Edge Blue and Crucial's RealSSD C300 require the most power here. The Crucial drive delivers bone-crushing throughput, while WD is just one many drives in the 200 MB/s realm.

Enthusiasts need to know how much power an SSD requires when delivering a 1080p video stream, as this is a popular workload. Once again, Intel and Toshiba are unbeaten, requiring half the power of Indilinx drives or the WD SSD.

The workstation test involves heavy I/O activity and stresses SSDs in a much different way. Toshiba's drive, which is the lowest power consumer at idle or when delivering massive amounts of sequential data, is a real loser at high I/O activity. The Indilinx drives are lowest on power consumption under intensive I/O, but they also don’t deliver the same level of performance as the SandForce SSDs. Let’s look at how this translates into power efficiency.

The first chart shows an SSD’s true efficiency when delivering lots of data (streaming reads). We relate streaming read performance to the power required to execute this type of workload. Although Toshiba isn’t fastest, it is the most efficient because it requires so little power to operate. Many of the SandForce SSDs, together with Intel’s X25-M, are also great. Neither Crucial's fast RealSSD C300 nor the Intel X25-V rank particularly well on power consumption.

Let’s also look at I/O efficiency. This summary is based on workstation I/O performance results and power consumption. Again, the SandForce SF-1200-based SSDs dominate, and Intel shows well here, too. Toshiba and WD don't deliver stunning power efficiency at high I/Os.

This chart lists our SSDs' average online prices. If the drive isn’t listed, it's because we couldn’t find any merchant with availability or even prices. As you can see, 256 GB SSDs remain way out of range for mainstream consumers, costing as much as a mainstream laptop. The 100 to 160 GB zone is more palatable in the roughly $300 price range. The 40 and 64 GB SSDs are more affordable still, but they have performance disadvantages on top of their lower capacities.
Recently, some prices were lowered. Since this is a static chart we cannot update it on a regular basis, so we recommend to check prices of your favorite SSDs before making a purchase. The following cost per gigabyte and performance evaluations are based on prices dated end of August 2010.

Cost per gigabyte isn’t a key metric when purchasing an SSD, but it’s interesting to compare the candidates. The 64 GB RealSSD C300 looks like a bargain, but keep in mind that it doesn’t perform well in all benchmarks. SandForce-powered SSDs are typically more expensive per gigabyte, but they also deliver balanced performance. WD is too expensive considering its performance limits, and OWC needs to get a grip.

You might remember our performance index from previous articles. We weighted 50% for throughput, 25% on I/O performance, and 25% for PCMark Vantage. This should reflect everyday performance. The fastest drive is the 256 GB RealSSD C300. Overall performance winners are the SandForce SF-1200 drives. They deliver better performance than Indilinx drives without utilizing any cache memory. Unfortunately, they’re also more expensive.

Many users will be more interested in performance per dollar than pure performance. In this light, the two entry-level SSDs by Crucial and Intel do exceptionally well, providing twice the performance per dollar than all other drives. As performance here doesn't vary as much as cost, the differences in this index are significant. Interestingly, SandForce SF-1200 SSDs rule here once again.

Lastly, we decided to look at performance per dollar and per gigabyte, because ultimately this is what has the highest relevance. You want maximum performance at a reasonable price, and you probably also want reasonable storage capacity. In this overall summary, Crucial shines, followed by the SandForce SSDs and Intel. Even the low-cost SSDs are serious alternatives.
Let's sum up the key facts discovered in this review.
- The Crucial RealSSD C300 offers the best performance and the best performance per dollar per gigabyte. Be advised that the 64 GB unit is significantly slower than the 256 GB flagship when it comes to writing data. Clearly, the 256 GB Crucial drive is the very best choice for enthusiasts that can fork out $700 for a 6Gb/s SATA product and don’t care about average power consumption results. Be advised that you should be using an operating system that supports the TRIM feature to maintain high performance.
- All SSDs based on the SandForce SF-1200 controller deliver great throughput, stellar I/O performance, and low power consumption. Right now, these seem to be the best mainstream options at 100 to 128 GB and $300 to $400.
- Intel’s X25-M has been a great option for many months—and still is. Despite some write performance limitations, you’ll get a low-power, high-peformance client SSD that still does well against modern competition.
- Toshiba’s HG2 requires the least power to operate. Unfortunately, it’s painfully slow at I/Os and 4K random writes. Don’t choose it unless you specifically want low power and quick read operation.
- Western Digital’s Silicon Edge Blue 256 GB is way too expensive, poor on 4K random writes, below average on PCMark Vantage, and inefficient. We expect more from WD.
- Budget-sensitive users should consider the 64 GB Crucial RealSSD C300 and the Intel X25-V. Both lack write performance and have sporadic weaknesses, but they're still better client drives than the Toshiba or WD options. Be sure that you can live with the low storage capacity. These are designed as boot drives, after all.
At this time, it makes sense to purchase an SSD if you’ve been waiting for balanced and affordable products to become available. Drives like the OCZ Vertex 2 or the G.Skill don’t outperform the other drives, but they do well in all benchmarks and even deliver good bang for the buck.
We therefore grant our Recommended Buy Award to these two 100 to 120 GB products.
Crucial’s RealSSD C300 remains the very best choice these days after a slow start and with firmware version 002. But the other options are definitely all worth considering.
| Manufacturer | Asax | Asax | Crucial |
|---|---|---|---|
| Family | Leopard Hunt II | Server One 120 | RealSSD C300 |
| Model Number | TS25M64 SSD | CTFDDAC064MAG-1G1 | |
| Capacity | 128 GB | 200 GB | 64 GB |
| Other Capacities | 16, 32, 64, 256 GB | 50, 100, 400 GB | 128, 256 GB |
| Flash Type | MLC | MLC | MLC |
| Controller | Indilinx | SandForce | Marvell 88SS9174-BJP2 |
| Form Factor | 2.5" | 2.5" | 2.5" |
| Interface | SATA 3Gb/s | SATA 3Gb/s | SATA 6Gb/s |
| Cache (MB) | 64 MB | N/A | 128 MB |
| NCQ | yes | yes | yes |
| Height | 9.5 mm | 9.5 mm | 9.5 mm |
| MTBF | N/A | N/A | 1 200 000 h |
| Operating Temperature | 0-85°C | 0-85°C | 0-70°C |
| Specified Idle Power (low-power) | 0.50 W | N/A | 0.09 W |
| Measured Idle Power (low-power) | 0.48 W | 0.99 W | 0.13 W |
| Manufacturer | Crucial | Crucial | G.Skill |
|---|---|---|---|
| Family | M225 | RealSSD C300 | Phoenix |
| Model number | CT256M225 | MTFDDAC256MAG-1GAES | FM-25S2S-100GBP1 |
| Capacity | 256 GB | 256 GB | 100 GB |
| Other Capacities | 64, 256 GB | 128 GB | 120 GB |
| Flash Type | MLC | MLC | MLC |
| Controller | Indilinx | Marvell 88SS9174-BJP2 | SandForce SF-1200 |
| Form Factor | 2.5" | 2.5" | 2.5" |
| Interface | SATA 3Gb/s | SATA 6Gb/s | SATA 3Gb/s |
| Cache (MB) | 64 MB | 128 MB | N/A |
| NCQ | yes | yes | yes |
| Height | 9.5 mm | 9.5 mm | 9.5 mm |
| MTBF | 1 000 000 h | N/A | 2 000 000 h |
| Operating Temperature | na | 0-70°C | 0-70°C |
| Specified Idle Power (low-power) | 0.48 W | 0.09 W | N/A |
| Measured Idle Power (low-power) | 0.39 W | 0.60 W | 0.74 W |
| Manufacturer | G.Skill | Intel | Intel |
|---|---|---|---|
| Family | Phoenix Pro | X25 | X25-M 34 nm |
| Model Number | FM-25S2S-120GBP2 | X25-V | SSDSA2M160G2G2 |
| Capacity | 120 GB | 40 GB | 160 GB |
| Other Capacities | 60, 240 GB | 80, 160 GB | 80 GB |
| Flash Type | MLC | MLC | MLC |
| Controller | SandForce SF-1200 | PC29AS21BA0 | PC29AS21BA0 |
| Form Factor | 2.5" | 2.5" | 2.5" |
| Interface | SATA 3Gb/s | SATA 3Gb/s | SATA 3Gb/s |
| Cache (MB) | N/A | 32 MB | 32 MB |
| NCQ | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Height | 9.5 mm | 9.5 mm | 9.5 mm |
| MTBF | 2 000 000 h | 1 200 000 h | 1 200 000 h |
| Operating Temperature | 0-70°C | 0-70°C | 0-70°C |
| Specified Idle Power (low-power) | N/A | 0.08 W | 0.06 W |
| Measured Idle Power (low-power) | 0.71 W | 0.19 W | 0.06 W |
| Manufacturer | Kingston | OCZ | OCZ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Family | SSDNow-V | Vertex 2 | Vertex 2 |
| Model Number | SNV-425 | 100GB - OCZSSD2-2VTX100G | 120GB - OCZSSD2-2VTXE120G |
| Capacity | 128 GB | 100 GB | 120 GB |
| Other Capacities | 30, 64 GB | 50, 200, 400 GB | 60, 240, 480 GB |
| Flash Type | MLC | MLC | MLC |
| Controller | JMicron JMF618 | SandForce SF-1200 | SandForce SF-1200 |
| Form Factor | 2.5" | 2.5" | 2.5" |
| Interface | SATA 3 Gb/s | SATA 3 Gb/s | SATA 3 Gb/s |
| Cache | 64 MB | N/A | N/A |
| NCQ | yes | yes | yes |
| Height | 9.5 mm | 9.5 mm | 9.5 mm |
| MTBF | 1 000 000 h | 2 000 000 h | 2 000 000 h |
| Operating Temperature | 0-70°C | 0-70°C | 0-70°C |
| Specified Idle Power (low-power) | 0.70 W | 0.50 W | 0.50 W |
| Measured Idle Power (low-power) | 1.40 W | 0.55 W | 0.52 W |
| Manufacturer | OCZ | OWC | RunCore |
|---|---|---|---|
| Family | Vertex | Mercury Extreme SSD | Kylin II |
| Model Number | OCZSSD2-1VTX120G | OWCSSDMXE100 | |
| Capacity | 120 GB | 100 GB | 100 GB |
| Other Capacities | 30, 60, 250 GB | 50, 200,400 GB | N/A |
| Flash Type | MLC | MLC | MLC |
| Controller | Indilinx | SandForce SF-1200 | SandForce SF-1200 |
| Form Factor | 2.5" | 2.5" | 2.5" |
| Interface | SATA 3Gb/s | SATA 3Gb/s | SATA 3Gb/s |
| Cache (MB) | 64 MB | N/A | N/A |
| NCQ | yes | yes | yes |
| Height | 9.5 mm | 9.5 mm | 9.5 mm |
| MTBF | 1 500 000 h | 1 000 000 h | 1 000 000 h |
| Operating Temperature | 0-70°C | 0-70°C | N/A |
| Specified Idle Power (low-power) | 0.47 W | 0.55 W | N/A |
| Measured Idle Power (low-power) | 0.47 W | 0.60 W | 0.64 W |
| Manufacturer | Toshiba | Western Digital | Solidata |
|---|---|---|---|
| Family | HG2 | WD SiliconEdge Blue | K5 |
| Model Number | THNS256GG8BBAA | SSC-D0256SC-2100 | K5 SLC Flash SSD |
| Capacity | 256 GB | 256 GB | 64 GB |
| Other Capacities | 64, 128, 512 GB | 64, 128 GB | 16, 32, 128 GB |
| Flash Type | MLC | MLC | MLC |
| Controller | Toshiba T6UG1XBG | JMicron JMF618 | Indilinx |
| Form Factor | 2.5" | 2.5" | 2.5" |
| Interface | SATA 3 Gb/s | SATA 3 Gb/s | SATA 3 Gb/s |
| Cache (MB) | 128 MB | 64 MB | 64 MB |
| NCQ | yes | yes | yes |
| Height | 9.5 mm | 9.5 mm | 9.5 mm |
| MTBF | 1 000 000 h | 1 400 000 h | 2 000 000 h |
| Operating Temperature | 0-70°C | 0-70°C | 0-70°C |
| Specified Idle Power (low-power) | 0.07 W | 0.60 W | 0.50 W |
| Measured Idle Power (low-power) | 0.06 W | 1.00 W | 0.44 W |



































