Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Samsung 2.5” 64 GB SSD SATA-2: The Reference

14-Way SSD Hard Drive Roundup
By

Samsung was one of the first manufacturers that contacted us once we wrote about the flash SSD Hoax. While well-designed flash-based solid state drives are both faster and more efficient than conventional hard drives, the majority of drives available are not (yet). Samsung, in fact, had good reason to submit its latest 64 GB flash SSD to us for review, as it is the only drive that truly combines high performance with amazing efficiency.

We first wrote about OCZ’s 64 GB SATAII SSD in our flash SSD Update instead of the Samsung drive, but mainly because the OCZ product, which is a Samsung white label, arrived at our test lab before the Samsung sample. At the same time, Samsung does not officially sell its Flash SSD at retail, preferring to provide the drives to system builders.

The performance results of the 2.5” 64 GB SSD SATA-2 are very much in line with what we measured for the OCZ 64 GB SATAII SSD, as both are based on the latest Samsung hardware. There is 90 MB/s read and write throughput as well as idle and peak power of 0.2 W and 0.8 W, respectively. I/O performance is acceptable, and application performance is at great levels as well. If you want to get the best flash SSD solution available, this is it.

Samsung’s 64 GB SSD SATA-2 drive provides high performance at superior energy efficiency and, as a result, receives the Best of Tom’s award, along with OCZ’s 64 GB SATAII SSD, which is also based on Samsung hardware.

Display all 30 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 11 Hide
    DXRick , August 18, 2008 6:46 AM
    Why wasn't the VelociRaptor shown also for comparison????
Other Comments
  • 2 Hide
    Lord_Devlin , August 18, 2008 5:36 AM
    So why wasn't OCZ's new Core Series SSD included in the testing? That's the SSD I want to see the benchmarks and power requirements on.
  • -4 Hide
    lutel , August 18, 2008 5:56 AM
    Sorry, but this review is worthless withous OCZ Core SSD.
  • 0 Hide
    Lord_Devlin , August 18, 2008 6:02 AM
    lutelSorry, but this review is worthless withous OCZ Core SSD.


    You've got that right.
  • 11 Hide
    DXRick , August 18, 2008 6:46 AM
    Why wasn't the VelociRaptor shown also for comparison????
  • -1 Hide
    cjl , August 18, 2008 8:45 AM
    I would be stunned if the Core could match the Samsung and other high performers in this test. All indications I've seen are that it is MLC, which is significantly slower than the SLC used in the Samsung and all higher end SSDs. That's why the core is so cheap.

    Of course, I haven't seen any tests, so I could be proven wrong, but I doubt it.
  • 5 Hide
    Anonymous , August 18, 2008 10:47 AM
    Well, nothing new here.

    A comparison of random write access time would have been very nice

    since this a major disadvantage of SSD (as far as I know).



    Some flash drives reach less than 10 IOPS when writing small random files,

    which means >100ms access time!
  • 7 Hide
    Anonymous , August 18, 2008 12:22 PM
    Harddrive charts, like the CPU and GPU charts will be very helpful. Start compiling all the data now Toms and keep them up-to-date.
  • 0 Hide
    pbrigido , August 18, 2008 12:38 PM
    I will completely agree with THG's findings. I purchased the Samsung’s 64 GB SSD SATA-2 from Newegg many months ago (in the $800 price range). I gave the drive a top-notch review at Newegg back then and would do so again in a heartbeat. It is truly amazing how much the HD can bottleneck a system until you get a drive like this. Anyone who has a need for uncompromised speed with the appropriate budget has to look no further than these two products recommended by THG.
  • 2 Hide
    Anonymous , August 18, 2008 2:05 PM
    the core is already outdated... please include the OCZ core v2 SSD guys.
  • -3 Hide
    Anonymous , August 18, 2008 3:47 PM
    ...throughput. Silicon Power actually ships capacities of up to 128 MB, but its performance disappointed. The... should be 128 GB
  • 5 Hide
    dangerous_23 , August 18, 2008 5:00 PM
    what about the fusionIO drive? does it live up to its incredible claims? 600MB/s write and read?? http://www.fusionio.com/
  • -2 Hide
    dangerous_23 , August 18, 2008 5:00 PM
    please please have a look and this drive!!
  • -3 Hide
    Anonymous , August 18, 2008 5:07 PM
    @ fredsky...

    Agreed!

    WTF, I just bought the new OCZ Core v2 from neweeg for under 250 with tax (hate NY!) and shipping after a 40 dollar rebate. It's MLC but shows huge speeds for read and write. Like 153/93 !!! I was really hoping to read about it here, but alas there is nothing.

    Also no prices??? Thats stupid.

    Also ridata has a new SSD thats right up there with the new OCZ which I would also like to see reviewed, however because it had no warranty listed, (the OCZ has 2 Years!) it didn't get any $$ from me.

    Dumba$$es.
  • 2 Hide
    gxavier , August 18, 2008 6:02 PM
    Knightmare777I just bought the new OCZ Core v2 from neweeg


    Newegg is only selling the OCZ core version 1's. They don't have version 2s... Are you sure you bought a version2?

    This is a version 2 model number -> OCZSSD2-2C30G
    This is a version 1 model number -> OCZSSD2-1C32G

  • -2 Hide
    spludge , August 19, 2008 8:07 AM
    I have one of the Silicon Power 32Gb MLC units - they get about double the speed of the 128mb version Toms has tested and in our market, they cost about 1/2 the price of the OCZ-branded.

    PCM05
    Startup 27.09 vs 3 here
    Write 66.80 vs 38 here

    and the HD Tune results:
    Transfer Rate Minimum : 86.4 MB/sec
    Transfer Rate Maximum : 117.4 MB/sec
    Transfer Rate Average : 106.8 MB/sec
    Access Time : 0.4 ms
    Burst Rate : 51.0 MB/sec
    CPU Usage : 4.4%

    Makes me wonder if there's something else here, maybe they had an old version or something.
  • 0 Hide
    Erdrick , August 19, 2008 11:26 AM
    If they can produce a 128GB unit for around $200, I would take the plunge.
  • 0 Hide
    pschmid , August 19, 2008 5:06 PM
    We didn't get the initial Core drive for review. V2 will be included next time.

    Regards,
    Patrick
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , August 19, 2008 6:03 PM
    I don't know about the pricing of the drives,
    but for a replacement drive I'd go with the HAMA Highspeed flash 3,5", due to it's reasonable fast speeds, and reasonable powerconsumption.

    The only reason I'd suggest staying away from OCZ for a while is their drives high defect rate. To allready have a complaint the day the drive gets released, and have several complaints about broken drives the first 4 weeks of production leaves me no good impression. I probably not go for OCS the first year or so; despite their low pricing.

    I yet have to see the HAMA price before I decide to buy any. A price chart would be nice indeed.

    Also, looking from notebook perspective would be more interesting, since the majority of SSD's are bought for powersaving, shock resistance, and data reliability; not speed as what most people would think.

    Ups for including a boot time simulation chart! That 'd replace the random read table other users have been asking for.

    A minor remark: SSD's and laptop HD's are most of the time idle. I would put more stress on the idle powerconsumption, then on peak power; except for MLC drives used for data storage/read.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , August 19, 2008 6:13 PM
    edit on prev. post:
    Companies wanting speed (meaning the higher performance range like Memoright) probably would rather go for raid SCSI HD drives or similar.

    From notebook point of view:
    MLC is too slow for OS, and preferrably is used for extending data storage.
    Allthough anyone running 2 SSD drives (1xSSD SLC, 1xSSD MLC) might consider if running 1 HDD wouldn't use less power.

    The perfect solution fornotebookusers wanting to replace their HD would be a 24GB SSD SLC for the OS with additional MLC flash for data storage in one drive, with good powersaving options the OSC drives deliver.
  • 0 Hide
    alfred95014 , August 21, 2008 5:08 PM
    There is one dirty secret that SSD vendors do not mention. I have not seen anyone do this experiment:
    1) Take an SSD drive, say labeled as 32 G. Format it under OS, check its reported capacity -- does it really say 32 G or close enough?
    2) Measuring its performance.
    3) Perform a write transfer that covers at least 1.5x of reported capacity (i.e. trasnfer total number of bytes that are 1.5x of capacity).
    Shut down immediately after this is done.
    4) Power up and measure its performance again.

    The key here is that as an SSD exhausts its unwritten flash memory, it needs to erase previously written locations to be able to use them to store new data. This introduces overhead. As an SSD ages in the field, its performance would, most likely, drop.

    For a conventional HDD, this is not a concern at all. Running it for 1 hour or 20 hours, the performance would still be the same.
Display more comments