

When it comes to sequential read and write performance, the 600 Pro wins at 200 GB. It beats the SSD DC S3700 by 60 MB/s and the P400m by twice that.
Seagate extracts its maximum sequential performance at the 200 GB capacity point, whereas Intel requires that you buy the 400 GB version to match the 600 Pro. This is a pain for enterprise customers, since the larger (more expensive) models are often the only way to get peak numbers. What we're seeing here is Seagate allowing its customers to get great performance at more affordable capacity points.
Previous
Next
Summary
- Seagate's 600 Pro SSD: Enterprise On A Budget
- Inside Seagate's 600 Pro SSD
- Test Setup, Benchmarks, And Methodology
- Results: Write Endurance
- Results: 4 KB Random Performance And Latency
- Results: Performance Consistency
- Results: Enterprise Workload Performance
- Results: Sequential Performance
- Results: Enterprise Video Streaming Performance
- Can An Old-World Storage Vendor Compete In The SSD Space?
Ask a Category Expert
2. On the first page, the fourth paragraph :"Today, Seagate ........... bench today."
You completely went over my head. It appears you are just throwing names around. Maybe reword that para again ? or explain here ?
1) With the DRAM-to-NAND ratio already being 1MB->1GB it is already fairly aggressive, it may have helped with performance consistency, but I don't think you would see much improvement.
2) Basically, Seagate announced 4 products today
a) Seagate 600 Pro - Entry level, read-focused, enterprise SSD
b) Seagate 600 - Consumer SSD, which we will have reviewed tomorrow
c) Seagate 1200 - High-end, dual-port, 12Gbps SAS SSD
d) X8 Accelerator - High-end plug-in PCIe SSD
Hope this helps.
Drew
You're the one that bought that drive :-) You are right on point with WD/Silicon Systems. They were primarily an embedded flash vendor prior to acquisition. If you look at their webpage, you will see that they only offer SLC-based drives.
Thanks, Drew. This made the paragraph clearer.