Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Benchmark Results: 4 KB And 512 KB Random Writes

Crucial m4 And Intel SSD 320: The Other SSD Competitors
By

Remember that our benchmark tends to give more weight to burst performance. By default, the Vertex 3s push IOPS above 50 000 thanks to its compression technology. In comparison, the m4 performs slightly above 60 000 IOPS, a marked improvement from the C300.

Interestingly, the X25-M again chokes at queue depths in excess of eight. Intel corrects this problem in the SSD 320. We no longer see a performance penalty at higher queue depths.

Low queue depths are not necessarily ideal for SSDs, which depend on many pending requests in order to saturate their parallelized architectures. In this scenario, the m4 starts off more competitive. At a queue depth of one, it already outperforms the earlier C300. Once we reach a queue depth of 32, Crucial's newest drive even outperforms OCZ's Vertex 3 Pro. 

Intel's SSD 320 performs close to the X25-M at lower queue depths. As we scale up to 32, we see close to a 10% improvement in throughput.

This is a major turnaround for the SSD 510. Intel's only SATA 6Gb/s drive is clearly optimized for moving larger files. Though it struggles with 4 KB transfers, 512 KB transfers excel, and the SSD 510 turns a last-place finish into a first-place finish, even trumping the Vertex 3 drives.

Crucial's m4 takes a more even-handed approach. It performs well in 4 KB and 512 KB transfers. More impressive, it consistently outperforms the beta sample of OCZ's Vertex 3 Pro. The SSD 320 also turns in much better performance. This time, it shows a 50% improvement over the X25-M.

If you own an older SSD, notice how far behind the first-generation of OCZ's SandForce drives fall.

Display all 33 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    rainwilds , March 28, 2011 2:23 PM
    Oooo, Crucial or Vertex? Decisions, decisions!
  • 2 Hide
    Anonymous , March 28, 2011 3:28 PM
    Could you expand on the Full Disk Encryption capabilities of the Intel 320?
    If you can actually use hardware FDE on that drive (rather than just secure erase), that's a winner for me.
  • 0 Hide
    bto , March 28, 2011 3:31 PM
    Why does the Intel 510 250GB appear to have two scores in crystalmark? (469.4 and 259.7) on the top benchmark on page: "Benchmark Results: CrystalDiskMark Streaming Performance" the specs are identical for both.
  • 2 Hide
    poppasmurf , March 28, 2011 3:42 PM
    Great lil tidbit, wonder what the difference will be between other SSD's with different interface connections other than physical appearance and the interface connection. More on the lines of pro's and con's between the SSD interface connections I'm referring to the OCZ PCI-e drives vs. SATA 6GB just a thought to stir up the hoop la of ssd's :p 
  • 1 Hide
    JohnnyLucky , March 28, 2011 4:13 PM
    I am beginning to wonder if we haven't reached the point where the human eye and brain are finding it harder to differentiate performance among ssd's. Some mainstream benchmarks seem to suggest that. Some of the benchmarks in this review seem to indicate the same. There are some very tight groupings.
  • 2 Hide
    henryvalz , March 28, 2011 4:49 PM
    At the speed points that SSDs are functioning, I'm beginning to think that durability and reliability might be the best basis for decision. I would also really like to see some boot times from Windows 7, or loading time for games.
  • 1 Hide
    kev_stev , March 28, 2011 5:13 PM
    Does anyone know when the vertex 3 and M4 are going to actually be available? I have heard rumors that the vertex 3 will be released "any day now" since mid march...
  • -1 Hide
    iamtheking123 , March 28, 2011 7:35 PM
    I'll go SSD in my next build, probably in a year and a half. Right now I'm satisfied with Raid 0-ed 1TB Caviar Blacks.
  • 0 Hide
    foscooter , March 28, 2011 8:19 PM
    No mention of a release date. When will they be "in stores?" Q2 isn't exact enough.
  • -1 Hide
    zerapio , March 28, 2011 8:20 PM
    Alert! Spelling police is coming and their PISSED

    (yes, it was intentional)
  • 0 Hide
    microking4u , March 28, 2011 8:23 PM
    Why are the I/O's for this drive way off on your review compared to others such as Anand and PCPer?
  • 0 Hide
    groberts101 , March 28, 2011 9:00 PM
    Would have been interesting to see those Vantage marks on a Vertex 3 that hadn't already been hammered into a throttled state by all the previous tests. While it obviously shows the stamina and expected performance of the V3 after extremely heavy usage, the test doesn't take into consideration what many will see on newly installed drives that are used moderately. From that standpoint, the testing protocol is flawed, IMO.

    IOW, the testing protocol in reverse would have been more interesting to see typical Vantage scores from an unthrottled controller. I know for fact through personal beta-testing of the V3 that they would have been much higher.

    Or even better yet would be too take into account the special Durawrite throttling which the Sandforce drives STILL have built into the firmware(though not nearly as aggressive as the V2). Would surely give a nice little boost to SF through secure erase cleansing. If done at the 50% point it would show the potential in certain portions of the test suite that most WOULD see when not hitting thier drives with benchmark after benchmark in some sort of "hammer em' till the dust settles" protocol.

    Decent enough writeup though and all the review sites will eventually get it figured out, I guess.
  • 0 Hide
    PraxGTI , March 28, 2011 9:39 PM
    Our SQL server has done more than 5*10^25 I/O Write Bytes in its 3 years lifespan. I really doubt the reliability of SSDs in a corporate server, although the IOs would be nice since our server can be crippled to 500% disk usage with disk queue sizes up to 8 at times.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , March 29, 2011 12:27 AM
    praxgtiOur SQL server has done more than 5*10^25 I/O Write Bytes in its 3 years lifespan. I really doubt the reliability of SSDs in a corporate server, although the IOs would be nice since our server can be crippled to 500% disk usage with disk queue sizes up to 8 at times.


    How did you work that one out,

    10^24 bytes is a 1 yobibyte = 2^80 bytes = 1208925819614629174706176 bytes = 1,024 zebibytes

    1 zebibyte = 270 bytes = 1180591620717411303424 bytes = 1,024 exbibytes

    1 exbibyte = 260 bytes = 1152921504606846976 bytes = 1,024 pebibytes

    All of the data in the world on every hard drive is estimated at around 500 exbibytes.

    even in bits you are in order of several magnitude off
  • 1 Hide
    acku , March 29, 2011 12:28 AM
    Quote:
    Would have been interesting to see those Vantage marks on a Vertex 3 that hadn't already been hammered into a throttled state by all the previous tests. While it obviously shows the stamina and expected performance of the V3 after extremely heavy usage, the test doesn't take into consideration what many will see on newly installed drives that are used moderately. From that standpoint, the testing protocol is flawed, IMO.

    IOW, the testing protocol in reverse would have been more interesting to see typical Vantage scores from an unthrottled controller. I know for fact through personal beta-testing of the V3 that they would have been much higher.

    Or even better yet would be too take into account the special Durawrite throttling which the Sandforce drives STILL have built into the firmware(though not nearly as aggressive as the V2). Would surely give a nice little boost to SF through secure erase cleansing. If done at the 50% point it would show the potential in certain portions of the test suite that most WOULD see when not hitting thier drives with benchmark after benchmark in some sort of "hammer em' till the dust settles" protocol.

    Decent enough writeup though and all the review sites will eventually get it figured out, I guess.


    Hi groberts101,

    The test are actually run backwards. We just have help in a different order in the review. :) 

    Cheers,
    Andrew
    TomsHardware
  • 0 Hide
    acku , March 29, 2011 12:29 AM
    Quote:
    Why does the Intel 510 250GB appear to have two scores in crystalmark? (469.4 and 259.7) on the top benchmark on page: "Benchmark Results: CrystalDiskMark Streaming Performance" the specs are identical for both.


    I think there is a legend in the lower right hand corner. One is using the 6Gb/s port and one is using the 3Gb/s port.
  • 0 Hide
    acku , March 29, 2011 3:46 AM
    Quote:
    Why are the I/O's for this drive way off on your review compared to others such as Anand and PCPer?

    Which ones are you referencing?
  • 0 Hide
    ww2003 , March 29, 2011 4:35 AM
    From what i have been hearing the new vortec 3 is going to be the best SSD on the market with faster speeds the any other one has right now.
  • 0 Hide
    zodiacfml , March 29, 2011 5:13 AM
    I like the part in the conclusion that one not need the fastest SSDs out there especially for desktop uses.
    In my opinion, Intel has a point with their new products and pricing, enable bigger capacities at lower capacities.
  • 0 Hide
    zodiacfml , March 29, 2011 5:16 AM
    I meant prices. :p 

    zodiacfmlI like the part in the conclusion that one not need the fastest SSDs out there especially for desktop uses. In my opinion, Intel has a point with their new products and pricing, enable bigger capacities at lower capacities.

Display more comments