Benchmark Results: Access Time And I/O Performance
Access times are hardly relevant on SSDs, but they are important on hard drives. Repositioning the read/write head consumes precious time, which you can clearly see in the results. This latency is effectively removed on the SSDs.
Although neither of the two SSD products was designed for server workloads, they show off just how much faster SSDs can be. Getting 20x more I/O operations per seconds is not unusual. We can also see very clearly that the mSATA design by Samsung suffers from the fact that only four of its eight available channels are populated with NAND flash chips.
15
Comments
Related Stories :
- Intel SSD 525 Review: Five mSATA Drives, From 30 To 240 GB
- Intel Pushing 550 MB/s mSATA Speeds with SSD 525 Series
- Mushkin's 480GB mSATA SSD Now Available
- Mushkin Intros "World's First" mSATA 480GB SSD
- Micron Intros mSATA SSD for Ultrabook/Ultrathin Sector
- OCZ's Deneva 2 mSATA SSD Approved for Intel Ultrabooks
- OCZ joins the mSATA SSD Battlefield
- Hands-On: A Second mSATA-Based SSD Emerges
- Smart Storage Systems Debuts First 2 TB SAS SSD With 19 nm MLC Flash
- OCZ Releases Vertex 3 SSD With 20nm Flash
I for one am a fan of Gigabytes mSATA Z series caching solution -- more so than Z68 caching itself if that makes any sense. As I start looking around, I start to see more and more possible uses for mSATA SSDs.
I'm still a little confused about compatibility though with current miniPCIe notebook slots.
Thanks for shining some light on a murky subject area.
Nice, but I'm still not ready to jump on the SSD bandwagon yet until 1TB SSDs become affordable and mainstream.
I don't get why they don't make 3.5 SSDs. I understand that 2.5 is nice because it can go into desktops and laptops, but why not make a cheaper 3.5 form factor SSD? There are plenty of folks that just want an SSD for their PC and cheaper per/GB solution would probably sell very well.
Why is the samsung m7e listed as $129 on the cost, cost/gb page? Its 45-50 on reputable sites like newegg and microcenter.
I don't get why they don't make 3.5 SSDs. I understand that 2.5 is nice because it can go into desktops and laptops, but why not make a cheaper 3.5 form factor SSD? There are plenty of folks that just want an SSD for their PC and cheaper per/GB solution would probably sell very well.
Larger form factor wont drop prices. Prices are high because the cost of flash memory. The reason 2.5'' are made because there's plenty of room to squeeze in 256gb of memory, and so laptops can join in on the fun too.
Why not review this against the sandisk mSata devices that are in the Asus EP121 and Acer W500 as they are the likely candidates for upgrade?
Please fix the units for the volumes in the table. they should be in cm^3 not cm^2
I don't get why they don't make 3.5 SSDs. I understand that 2.5 is nice because it can go into desktops and laptops, but why not make a cheaper 3.5 form factor SSD? There are plenty of folks that just want an SSD for their PC and cheaper per/GB solution would probably sell very well.
Chips don't get infinitely cheaper as it gets older. It become more expensive to produce lower density chips using older chip making process compared with current process after a certain point. So if you put more older chip to make up for the density for the same storage space, you will end up with a physically larger disk which use more electricity and makes more heat that costs more and no one wants that.
Chips don't get infinitely cheaper as it gets older. It become more expensive to produce lower density chips using older chip making process compared with current process after a certain point. So if you put more older chip to make up for the density for the same storage space, you will end up with a physically larger disk which use more electricity and makes more heat that costs more and no one wants that.
Desktop users might... And more heat compared to other SSD's, but less compared to 15,000 RPM/10,000 RPM and even some 7200 RPM drives... That is what drive-bay fans are for anyhoo...
Imagine using these with an adapter in a raid. get an adapter that fits in a 3.5" bay, holds 4 mSATA drives, and has external connectors for a SFF-8087 (used either with a SFF-8087 cable to a raid controller or a breakout cable to connect up the Intel ICHR from the motherboard) hook in 4 of these and run in raid 0. Super fast! Imagine the performance!
Imagine using these with an adapter in a raid. get an adapter that fits in a 3.5" bay, holds 4 mSATA drives, and has external connectors for a SFF-8087 (used either with a SFF-8087 cable to a raid controller or a breakout cable to connect up the Intel ICHR from the motherboard) hook in 4 of these and run in raid 0. Super fast! Imagine the performance!
That is basically one of these: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/R [...] 13079.html
I just installed a 120GB Renice K3vlar mSATA as the primary (OS) drive into my Lenovo T420s and it is night and day difference from the 320GB 7200 which is now on data duty only. The Renice is very nice and built with the Sandforce 1200 controller. I would love to see Tom's test one.
That is basically one of these: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/R [...] 13079.html
yes, for half the price.
lol Volume is in cubic centimeter, those 2's has to be 3's in the Form Factor Comparison chart.
Even crippled (and very small) those SSDs are fast!