Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Performance per Watt: Streaming Reads

Intel's X25-M Solid State Drive Reviewed
By

The streaming read throughput benchmark reflects what we found in the low-level throughput tests : Intel’s X25-M is extremely quick, while the Samsung SSD takes second place. It is obvious that the Intel 10-channel design has its impact in this test, as the performance results show a larger advantage for the Intel solution than in the throughput tests. Clearly, the controller is doing its job well.

Again, the power consumption of both SSDs is attractively low, especially looking at the level of performance. Let’s see what the performance per watt ratio looks like :

Intel’s drive is faster, while being more efficient.

The I/O streaming read efficiency tests were performed on our storage reference test system. Please refer to the test setup page for details.

Display all 47 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    timaahhh , September 8, 2008 3:33 PM
    Very nice Intel, I couldn't drop that much cash into a harddrive, otherwise I'm sold :p .
  • 0 Hide
    customisbetter , September 8, 2008 3:49 PM
    200 Mb read solid. sweeeeeeet. i want one.
  • 1 Hide
    DXRick , September 8, 2008 3:53 PM
    Yummy! They greatly improved the write performance for a MLC drive.
    I would like to see it in a desktop compared to a VelociRaptor.
  • 5 Hide
    modtech , September 8, 2008 4:01 PM
    I look forward to the distant day storage devices are silent, last for a lifetime, contain no moving parts and perform like champs. We're nowhere near that day but it's coming closer one step at a time. :) 
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , September 8, 2008 4:03 PM
    It'd kill the velociraptor. SSD's are that much faster than regular magnetic HD's.
  • 4 Hide
    Anonymous , September 8, 2008 4:09 PM
    Yeah I'm surprised this review didn't include Velociraptor.
  • 0 Hide
    helopilot , September 8, 2008 4:38 PM
    Great review - Thanks! Request for future SSD reviews: please include the warranty period. SSDs are new technology and the length of the warranty is very important factor in my buying decisions.

    Agree with your conclusions: Intel has a killer product here. I *need* two of these - to go! :) 
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , September 8, 2008 4:38 PM
    Check out hothardware's review of these SSD's they did include the velociraptor.
  • -1 Hide
    Lavacon , September 8, 2008 4:46 PM
    modtechI look forward to the distant day storage devices are silent, last for a lifetime, contain no moving parts and perform like champs. We're nowhere near that day but it's coming closer one step at a time.


    Nontech?
  • 1 Hide
    DXRick , September 8, 2008 5:19 PM
    Quote:
    Yeah I'm surprised this review didn't include Velociraptor.


    They tested it in a laptop and thus only compared it to laptop HDs. However, given the latest articles about SSD for gamers and 14 SSDs compared (neither of which compared it to a VelociRaptor), I would think they would want to address those interested in using a SSD in a desktop.
  • 0 Hide
    NightLight , September 8, 2008 5:38 PM
    man this look sweet! i'm getting one! go intel!
  • 0 Hide
    4655434b20594f55 , September 8, 2008 6:48 PM
    Quantum Leap In Performance? in short yes.
    It is a small leap in performance. Maybe not as small a leap as the word quantum should describe.
    (Quantum Physics - a science of incredibly small things)
  • -2 Hide
    Area51 , September 8, 2008 7:00 PM
    Isn't Intel releasing SLC drives Also.. I thought this was the low-end MLC SSD Drive. If the Samsung part is a SLC then shouldn't we compare it to Intel's SLC also?
  • -1 Hide
    anon_reader , September 8, 2008 7:44 PM
    Ok...you guys just completed a "roundup" test of the fastest notebook drives on August 28. Why did you compare the X25-M to the SLOWEST of all the 7,200 RPM drives (the Seagate) you tested?

    My bet is that the WD Scorpio Black would have equalled or outperformed the X25-M in several of the applications benchmarks -- which would be the same result that IDC got in their benchmarks.

    And what's up with this "simulated startup" workload? Why on earth not test the actual startup (which, unlike your simulation, accurately tests synchronous IO capabilities). Again, in ACTUAL rather than simulated workload tests, these SSD's generally underperform the manufacturer's overblown claims. IDC's benchmark tests showed 7,200RPM HDD startup times faster than SSD. So...why "simulate" a startup workload?

    Finally -- why do the actual application benchmarks continue to show only marginal (and often -- MINISCULE) performance advantages for SSD?

    Based on the results of your 8/28 tests, if the X25-M had been compared to the WD Scorpio Black, the SSD probably would not have even come out on top in the applications tests.

    Looking at the application benchmarks, these flash-in-the-pan SSDs clearly have a long way to go before they can even reach across-the-board speedup of 2x over a fast HDD, much less meet the SSD hypesters ridiculous performance claims.

  • 0 Hide
    Master Exon , September 8, 2008 7:45 PM
    Yeah so how much?
  • 1 Hide
    anon_reader , September 8, 2008 7:55 PM
    Master ExonYeah so how much?


    Well, the X25-M scored 119 on SYSmark 2007 (overall) and the 'slowpoke' Momentus HDD scored 111. I think I want more than a measley 7% improvement before I'd (a) spend $700 and (b) give up 200GBytes of capacity.

    Don't you think?

  • -1 Hide
    anon_reader , September 8, 2008 8:00 PM
    anon_readerWell, the X25-M scored 119 on SYSmark 2007 (overall) and the 'slowpoke' Momentus HDD scored 111. I think I want more than a measley 7% improvement before I'd (a) spend $700 and (b) give up 200GBytes of capacity.Don't you think?


    Fyi...in case you missed it...it's at the bottom of the page:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-x25-m-SSD,2012-11.html
  • -2 Hide
    Anonymous , September 8, 2008 8:23 PM
    Sorry, not impressed. Performance only slightly better then conventional HDD? WTF are these guys doing.

    It seems like the SSD industry is looking to ONLY match the performance of the HDD where the technology should really shine well above it. Your telling me that whipping a read/write head over a disk spinning at 7200 RPM's performs comparable to reading and writing electrons directly out of a transistor? WTF? I am supposed to be impressed by this?

    If you can't read data off an SSD drive AT LEAST 4x faster then an HDD, don't bother me with it. The technology is not ready for prime time and the minor savings in power do not justify the tremendous cost per GB premium.

    Intel should be ashamed of even admitting making this drive. The whole SSD industry is a wash IMHO, this technology has been over promised and under delivered for such a long time I don't think the SSD industry knows what they are doing anymore. SSD should be cheaper, faster, and offer far greater storage capacities and near ubiquitous by this point in time after the promises made in the 90's.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , September 8, 2008 10:04 PM
    Am I the only one that thinks what Intel is doing is merely providing a template for other companies to copy and sell them that template at a modest profit?

    And there is no contest that SSDs are a wash, right now. But this is an emerging technology that is going to be continually refined.

    Add to the mix Fusion IO's entry into the storage market (a flash pci express card) and SAS plugs being included on standard motherboards (some of the new x58s) we see a battle for the future of storage/hard drives and the removal of the bottle neck that has plagued computers for far too long.

    In my mind it's about time there was a serious push to remove the bottle neck of storage. Only the bleeding edge people are gonna be out a buck but how is that different from any other emerging technology?

    Go Intel for refining MLC tech and adding a controller.
  • 0 Hide
    asdasd123123 , September 8, 2008 10:59 PM
    1000 years mtbf? Did they use a time machine or what?
Display more comments