Spring 2010 Solid State Drive Roundup, Part 2
Table of contents
- 1. SSD Roundup, Part 2: Crucial's SATA 6Gb/s, WD's First SSD
- 2. Crucial RealSSD C300 (256GB, SATA 6Gb/s)
- 3. Kingston SSDNow V-Series (128GB)
- 4. Western Digital SiliconEdge Blue (256GB)
- 5. Test Setup And Comparison Table
In part one of our SSD roundup, we looked at drives from Crucial, OCZ, Intel, Solidata, and Toshiba. To those results, we're adding Crucial's first 6 Gb/s SSD, WD's first SSD, and Kingston's 128GB SSDNow V-series, along with 'fresh' and 'used' scores.
The SSD market is clearly heating up. For the first time, we’ve received a drive that supports the faster SATA 6Gb/s standard. Unfortunately, it happens to deliver unreliable performance. Moreover, one of the traditional hard drive makers finally decided to enter the SSD market with a brand new product.
This is the second part of our 2010 spring SSD roundup. In part one, we compared offerings from Crucial, Intel, OCZ, Solidata, and Toshiba. Now it’s time to add some newcomers to our revamped testing suite. With Windows 7 and a SATA 6Gb/s add-in card from Highpoint (utilizing a Marvell controller), we’re ready for drives able to deliver 300 MB/s and more of throughput.
One of the new drives, Crucial's RealSSD C300, already reaches this impressive performance number. However, interface and high read numbers alone won’t make it the best SSD product.
We’re also happy to present two other new products: Kingston’s SSDNow V-series upgrade kit and a brand new SSD by Western Digital, the SiliconEdge Blue. If you're already familiar with WD's hard drive portfolio, then you'll remember that a Blue edition represents mainstream products, and this holds true for WD’s first-generation flash SSD.
Let’s look at the new drives and find out who emerges on top.
- Western Digital,
- Kingston,
- Crucial,
- Storage,
- SSD Storage,
- 6gb/s ,
- ssd ,
- hdd
- 1 / 3
- Next
-
Latest Internal Storage News
Latest Internal Storage reviews
- 05/16 – Intel SSD 330 Review: 60, 120, And 180 GB Models Benchmarked
- 05/11 – Do-It-Yourself: Upgrading Apple's 27" iMac With An SSD
- 05/01 – Marvell-Based SSDs From Corsair, Crucial, OCZ, And Plextor:...
- 04/26 – Best SSDs For The Money: April 2012
- 04/25 – Hitachi's 4 TB Hard Drives Take On The 3 TB Competition
YES First one! Finally. but yes anyway the fact being that you should always look at already existing drives pick the best then go ahead and pit all then new ones against it to sustain a knowledge of whats out there.
Hmm...
12 core processor, new computer or an SSD...
Hmm...12 core processor, new computer or an SSD...
Tough choice so I got all 3, minus 8 cores. I purchased the Kingston in 64GB size. I personally think it is a great value, once you've accepted that there is big price premium for this technology. Power consumption comparison? Really? Is the 2 or 3 watts difference really worth splitting hairs over when it comes to systems that typically need to be feed hundreds and hundreds of watts? Also, another reason for getting one of these is that they are totally silent. Sometimes you have to look past pure benchmarking numbers and look at the overall experience that these drives give you.
Great article, but no RAID tests?
haven’t made buying decisions any easier. In fact, buying the right drive just got more complex.
"The new JMicron drives vary, despite TRIM support, which might be due to the Highpoint/Marvell SATA 6Gb/s controller we’re using."
Ouch...
Also, access time graphs seem very inconsistent (WD/JM). Ever tried to discard anomalous data?
Intel's still best all-rounder.
You should also look at value in terms of $ per GB as well. A 256GB drive lets you do a lot more.
I am not convinced that performance per watt is a good indicator for SSD's. The worst power hog in your review consumes a whopping 3 Watts at full load. Even a power-sipping desktop system consumes more than 100 Watts at load. Undervolting your CPU (or GPU) without reducing its frequency will yield more convincing power saving returns than switching from a 3W SSD to a 1W SSD.
How about adding a Performance per dollar indicator instead?
I agree with sstym. Those low power levels dont really matter, undervolting your CPU like I did on my older laptop, 1.35Vcore to 1.30. like a 7-10Watt savings lol.
Performance per dollar would be a great graph to add.
the ocz vertex looks good
Kingston also has V+ series (e.g. SNVP325-S2/128GB), I wonder how it compares to the tested model since at least on paper the specifications seem to be higher that with the tested model...
Seems it would be worth waiting for more development and fine tuning.
Confirms as other have said... Intel is still one of the best overall options.
Also.... no OCZ Vertex LE (Limited Edition) tested or listed on the charts? These seem to beat out all the other current SSD's based on reviews at other "not named" websites.
Thanks for the informative article Toms.
It seems Intel really knows how to make a fab.
congrats on trying to make a comprehnsive review on various ssds as waters are quite murky.
i also do not see the point on making comparisons between different drives as they are so tiny. a perfromance per dollar seems a better measurement than performance per dollar.
seems that indilix is the best when you factor in all and that is the reason that i'll get that into my workstation.
i guess right now it really does not make much sense to go for more than 60-80gb as prices skyrocket beyond that. performance is much more important than size on these drives. anyway in 2 years you will look at these 60gig drives as you look now at 128mb penflash drives. so my conclusion is that it's best to get a good performer in 40-80gig space that is not more expensive than 300$.
* power usage comparison
the only reason i choose intel
Kingston also has V+ series (e.g. SNVP325-S2/128GB), I wonder how it compares to the tested model since at least on paper the specifications seem to be higher that with the tested model...
Check out the review of a Kingston 128GB V+ drive here: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/
As another poster pointed out on SSD Roundup, Part 1... it is odd that the Intel G2 Used drive out performs Fresh on several benches. Any explanation TH?
I am not convinced that performance per watt is a good indicator for SSD's. The worst power hog in your review consumes a whopping 3 Watts at full load. Even a power-sipping desktop system consumes more than 100 Watts at load. Undervolting your CPU (or GPU) without reducing its frequency will yield more convincing power saving returns than switching from a 3W SSD to a 1W SSD. How about adding a Performance per dollar indicator instead?
When talking about desktops, I agree with you, but laptops are a different story altogether, where 3W is probably worse than mechanical drives. Still, I like the performance/$ idea.
Thanks to Patrick and Achim for including the power info for SSDs, this has been an excellent roundup article series! Keep up the good work.