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 |
- 2.5 hard drive power consumption
- hard drive power consumption
- x25 ssd
- intel x25e
- seagate cheetah 15k.6
- windows xp ssd performance
- which hard drive is the best for server
- windows xp on ssd
- intel ssd format
- intel x25 m benchmark
- sas hard drives fast
- format intel ssd
- intel x25 m test
- ssd not show in windows
- seagate cheetah 15k.6 review
Partners
The Games selection
action :
Yoyo the Star
Yoyo is a young girl who recently graduated and dreams to become a movie star (don't we all). You'll have to guide her on the path to stardom,...
|
crazy :
Xiao Xiao 7
A great fight scene from the animation movies Xiao Xiao.
|
Sponsored links
- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (29) |
- Share
The PCMark05 benchmarks certainly aren’t the best tool to evaluate business SSDs such as the X25-E, but they show how this drive would do in a high-end desktop PC.
When it comes to writing files sequentially onto a formatted drive, the X25-E does very well, but it doesn’t beat Seagate’s Cheetah 15K.6. As already mentioned, hard drives are still a great choice if you need high performance streaming performance for audio/video editing and similar applications.
The Windows XP startup benchmark requires both high throughput and quick access time, as it simulates the data that is accessed by Windows XP when booting up. The Intel SSDs clearly dominate here, and the difference between the X25-E and the X25-M is small enough to make the X25-M the better choice for desktops (since it offers 80 GB instead of 32 GB, at a lower price).
Power Consumption
We test power consumption by running specific workloads, as this is typically more relevant than the usual idle and peak power consumption numbers. The first test is DVD playback, which requires a constant and limited stream of data. Our second test checks the lowest idle power requirement. Finally, we check efficiency for workstation use and streaming read workloads.
We don’t have results for all of the drives we used for comparison, as the test system is a notebook that wouldn’t allow us to attach the SAS hard drives. However, pretty much every 2.5” hard drive is above 1 W for this test, which tests the drives’ power consumption when delivering a rather small, but constant stream of data. Both 15,000 RPM hard drives by Hitachi and Seagate require more than 10 W idle power, as they were never designed to be efficient at such a workload. Intel’s X25 SSDs do well, but the power-optimized Samsung 64 GB Flash SSD is the most efficient.
We had the test system running idle for 10 minutes before we tracked idle power, as we wanted to see if the drives switched to a low-power idle mode. The results for the Intel SSDs are exciting: if they idle, they effectively don’t consume any power at all: 0.04 W for the X25-E and 0.07 W for the X25-M at extended idle pretty much speak for themselves.
- Need help with intel X25-E SSD in sony sz 120 laptop [Storage]
- X25-e / adaptec 5805 /raid0 throughput problem [Storage]
- Another i7-920 gaming build, please critique [Homebuilt Systems]
- WHO HAS THE BEST SCORE ON WIN7!!! YOU?? [Windows 7]
- Open SSD High Performance Territory–Intel X25-M 80GB PC&NB Platform [Storage]
Questions? Ask Tom's community!
- 1 / 2
- Next
-
Recently, I've seen an article about performance degradation in the X25-M due to internal fragmentation, have you looked into if this also applies to the X25-E?
hard drive makers will be scratching their heads on this one. i've read some social networking and dating sites that uses around 200 to 600GB only of data.
Your previous review was of another flash-based product, the ioDrive from Fusion-io. If only you had included it's benchmarks in this article's figures, it would have been a most interesting shootoff. Any chance of updating the charts? Or do I just have to flip back and forth between the two articles?
Your previous review was of another flash-based product, the ioDrive from Fusion-io. If only you had included it's benchmarks in this article's figures, it would have been a most interesting shootoff. Any chance of updating the charts? Or do I just have to flip back and forth between the two articles?
I agree right after I clicked on this article the first thing I thought is I wonder how this compairs to the IODrive form IOFusion.
.... and a costs/performance chart with maybe total yearly costs with drive price, watt etc.. maybe even say something about the raid hardware you'll be able to save.
nice article though, good to see that for (rich) consumers the X25-M is the right choice.
So when can we expect Tom's to upgrade their servers with Intel X-25E's so that we can truly experience this amazing drive in real time???
I have one of these going into my new server I'm building actually. We'll eventually raid 4 of them. Should be a nice addition to the 4x Quad-core Shanghai's.
Your previous review was of another flash-based product, the ioDrive from Fusion-io. If only you had included it's benchmarks in this article's figures, it would have been a most interesting shootoff. Any chance of updating the charts? Or do I just have to flip back and forth between the two articles?
That's coming, probably next week, in a head-to-head between the two!
omg walks over the competition?
fusion-IO has over 100000 IO operations in the same benchmark as where this intel reaches ~6000...
don't believe me? read the IOdrive review. it utterly crushes the intel, the Mtron and all other SSD's, not to mention normal hard drives
I think you may have another bottleneck in your configuration. I have been able to get 250MB sustain read from both my MLC and SLC drives.
Could it be that the Nocona platform's chipset is limited on bandwith with its SATA connections? By the way I was refering to the Intel MLC and SLC.
That's coming, probably next week, in a head-to-head between the two!
Can you please include cost compassion? I am trying to figure out that for the same $$ which gives me a better value. So if I had $10,000 which would be a better buy.
Besides theoretical numbers, I haven't read anything about the real-world life-expectancy of these drives in workstations and/or high-volumn servers.
Can you please include cost compassion? I am trying to figure out that for the same $$ which gives me a better value. So if I had $10,000 which would be a better buy.
Area, the piece is already written, but I'll check to see if there's a discussion on cost.
Usually I'd say who cares about power consumption, but it actually makes sense in this article! An extra couple watts for a desktop becomes much much more in a server full of drives.
One thing I'd like to see is some sort of mainstream desktop hard drive in there purely for sake of comparison. Throw a Caviar blue in the mix or something - with just these benchmarks, I find it difficult to get a sense of the performance gap between these drives and the one in my desktop.
But good article guys, lots of data.
TEST THE PERFORMANCE OF THE DRIVES AT CERTAIN % POINTS - EMPTY, 20% 50% 70% AND 99% - the performance changes from what i hear - would love to know the results
Intel SSD's - making your porn load quicker!
When looking at power efficiency one should compare equal setups and I see power usage of storage of 32GB compared against up to 450GB here. One will need 14 of the smaller SSDs to hold the same data as one HD. Where does this comparo account for this?
When looking at power efficiency one should compare equal setups and I see power usage of storage of 32GB compared against up to 450GB here. One will need 14 of the smaller SSDs to hold the same data as one HD. Where does this comparo account for this?
When looking at power efficiency one should compare equal setups and I see power usage of storage of 32GB compared against up to 450GB here. One will need 14 of the smaller SSDs to hold the same data as one HD. Where does this comparo account for this?
The article looses a lot when the OCZ Vertex is not taken into account!
or, is it only available in EU?