Best offers
|
My Passport Essential 500GB Portable... | $99.99 Newegg.com More info |
|
Caviar Black 1TB Hard Drive (Serial... | $99.99 Dell Small Business More info |
|
My Book Essential Edition External... | $148.00 ServerSupply.com More info |
|
X25-M Gen2 160GB 2.5" Solid State... | $509.95 PC Connection More info |
|
My Passport Essential Portable 320GB... | $134.00 ServerSupply.com More info |
- write amplification
- ssd wear leveling
- intel x25 block size
- ssd life expectancy
- ssd block size
- wear leveling factor
- ssd drive life expectancy
- intel® x25 m
- intel ssd block size
- intel x25 m comparison
- 20 gb flash drive
- intel’s x25 m flash ssd
- x25 m write amplification
- intel x25 m controller
- x25m dram controller intel
Partners
The Games selection
crazy :
Interactive Boogy
Pick one of the 3 songs, hit on the correct keys matching this boy's dance moves.
|
crazy :
Xiao Xiao 7
A great fight scene from the animation movies Xiao Xiao.
|
Sponsored links
- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (46) |
- Share
Intel’s X25 product presentations talk a lot about how to estimate the life expectancy of flash memory by calculating so-called NAND cycles: fewer cycles performed for a specific workload means a longer life expectancy. It is desirable to have the flash controller manage write operations efficiently, applying wear leveling algorithms and considering the NAND block size to optimize write operations, which can further reduce the number of actual writes. It is important to consider the usage model (mainstream desktop) as well as the data written (how, how often and how much a system writes to the system drive) to find an ideal way of handling writes.
Write Amplification
NAND flash write operations mainly depend on the given block size of the flash memory. This explains why writes wear down NAND flash over time. As a simple example, writing 4 KB of data to a conventional flash drive results in the controller triggering a write at the minimum block size, which can be as much as 128 KB today. This means that all cells storing the 128 KB data block are written, even though only 4 KB of them are actual data. This is called write amplification, and in this example it is 32 for 128 KB written for an effective 4 KB of data.
Cache Needed for Write Amplification Control
This is why Intel’s controller needs the DRAM buffer. It is used as a short term memory to store data, so it can execute write operations more efficiently than a conventional Flash controller, which typically triggers writes one by one, writing huge cells even if the smallest data chunks need to be stored. That’s why MLC-based NAND flash typically has poor random write performance.
Better By Design
Intel uses factors for write amplification and wear leveling to calculate NAND flash cycles in a simple equation. The factor for wear leveling tells you the usage difference between average wear and maximum wear, which Intel specifies as 3 (3x) for other products and only 1.1x for the X25-M as a result of the controller operating with command queuing being aware of the flash memory’s block size. This means that almost all cells are almost evenly utilized, which is great for long life expectancy of the drive.
We already explained two paragraphs above how the factor for write amplification can be calculated. In the example it’s 32, but Intel uses a factor of 20 for its comparison with competitors (check out the image), and as little as 1.1 for its own X25-M drive. The capacity used in the equation equals the typical data written per day (20 GB of data in this example) over five years. Intel rounded up the 36.5 TB result to 40. If you look at the results, you’ll understand Intel’s statement about drastically improved wear, while these features certainly also help to avoid random writes and to maximize performance.
- Intel x25m ssd: raid 0 vs solo boot up times [Storage]
- Intel X25-M SSD 80GB RAID-0 or NOT? [Storage]
- Installing Vista Home 64 on Intel X25-M SSD getting Error 0x8007000d [Windows Vista]
- Open SSD High Performance Territory–Intel X25-M 80GB PC&NB Platform [Storage]
- X25-M seeker seeking help with 23 hardware ?s + new build advice [Storage]
Questions? Ask Tom's community!
- 1 / 3
- Next
-
Very nice Intel, I couldn't drop that much cash into a harddrive, otherwise I'm sold
.
200 Mb read solid. sweeeeeeet. i want one.
Yummy! They greatly improved the write performance for a MLC drive.
I would like to see it in a desktop compared to a VelociRaptor.
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.
It'd kill the velociraptor. SSD's are that much faster than regular magnetic HD's.
Yeah I'm surprised this review didn't include Velociraptor.
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!
Check out hothardware's review of these SSD's they did include the velociraptor.
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.
Nontech?
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.
man this look sweet! i'm getting one! go intel!
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)
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?
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.
Yeah so how much?
Yeah 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?
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?
Fyi...in case you missed it...it's at the bottom of the page:
http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 12-11.html
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.
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.
1000 years mtbf? Did they use a time machine or what?