Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Mobilemark 2007, Low-Power Idle Power, DVD Playback

Intel's X25-M Solid State Drive Reviewed
By

Finally, we want to look at the effective battery run time on the Dell Latitude D630 notebook. Since we ran some of the tests in parallel, we used two different machines. The following tests with Mobilemark were performed on a Latitude D630 using a Core 2 Duo T9300 (2.5 GHz). This is a device that Samsung Europe provides to reviewers, and we decided to select it for this comparison. It utilizes the 6-cell, 56 Wh battery. The other two tests, low power idle and DVD playback, were conducted on our Dell Latitude D630, which is basically the same notebook but utilizes a Core 2 Duo T9500 CPU (2.6 GHz).

Mobilemark is one of several tools that can be used to measure battery run time under controlled workloads. We found the difference to be marginal, since this is one of the most efficient business notebooks on the market, but the difference is still noticeable. The Samsung 64 GB SSD SATA-2 will give you the best battery run time and excellent application performance (see SYSmark 2007 results), while Intel is close behind, providing much better low-level performance but not quite the same low power level. The fastest hard drive, spinning at 7,200 RPM, caused the battery run time to be the shortest.

We measured low power idle on our 2.6 GHz Dell Latitude D630, as our storage test system isn’t a good choice for this type of test: modern SATA drives require a modern controller to be able to switch to low-power idle states. Intel manages to finish this test with a bang: 0.07 W idle power is negligible. Samsung still is very efficient, but the hard drives all require clearly more power.

Finally, we wanted to know the average power requirement when a defined stream of data is requested, so playing DVD video off the drives looked like a good option. Again, Samsung was most efficient, but Intel takes an excellent second position, as both conventional drives require at least double the power to provide this amount of data.

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