Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Benchmark Results: 4 KB Random Performance

Marvell-Based SSDs From Corsair, Crucial, OCZ, And Plextor: Tested
By

Random Read Performance (background info)

Examples include antivirus scans and typing in Word

SandForce-based SSDs continue to lead the pack at lower queue depths, explaining why OCZ's 120 GB Vertex 3 excels in situations with fewer than eight I/O access. However, this does not mean that Marvell-based SSDs should be avoided; their performance is quite respectable especially at higher queue depths. With the exception of OCZ's Octane, every SSD is quite capable of punching through the 300 MB/s barrier at a queue depth higher than eight.

Corsair's 128 GB Performance Pro and Plextor's 128 GB M3 Pro both exhibit the same performance characteristics in 4 KB random reads, perhaps a result of their Toggle-mode NAND. In comparison, Crucial's mainstream-focused m4s actually lead the pack of Marvell-based SSDs. Plextor's M3 series is also a mainstream-oriented SSD product. Yet, surprisingly it outperforms the Performance Pro and the M3 Pro.

These performance differences only become apparent at higher queue depths. Scaling down, the 120 GB Vertex 3 and m4s share the spotlight, achieving ~60 MB/s with only one I/O access. Meanwhile, the other SSDs all offer performance varying between 40-50 MB/s.

Random Write Performance, Compressible

Examples include email, file compression, and Web browsing

SandForce's compression technology provides chart-topping performance benefits for the 120 GB OCZ Vertex 3—until you throw incompressible data in the mix, causing performance to drop drastically. In that context, the 128 GB Performance Pro and M3 Pro both lead the pack at queue depths higher than eight.

At the lower end of the scale, the 128 GB M4 delivers ~70 MB/s in 4 KB random writes, matching the 120 GB Vertex 3. Meanwhile, the rest of the pack falls slightly behind with speeds between 50 and 60 MB/s with only a single outstanding I/O operation. Interestingly, OCZ's 128 GB Octane falls behind the 64 GB m4, an exception to the general rule that higher capacity corresponds to better performance.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 40 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
Other Comments
  • 10 Hide
    hellfire24 , May 1, 2012 6:39 AM
    crucial FTW!
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , May 1, 2012 7:49 AM
    Shoulda tossed in a V4 128gb for entertainment value...ah well. :p 
  • -7 Hide
    uruquiora , May 1, 2012 9:14 AM
    hellfire24crucial FTW!

    hmm , my M4 has 10x more BSOD than my vertex 3... Each i boot my pc and work with it i prepare myself for a BSOD with my M4...
  • 3 Hide
    joytech22 , May 1, 2012 11:27 AM
    uruquiorahmm , my M4 has 10x more BSOD than my vertex 3... Each i boot my pc and work with it i prepare myself for a BSOD with my M4...


    That is what we in the I.T industry like to call: "Faulty Hardware".
    If you considered that normal all this time, I have some bad news for you..
  • 6 Hide
    chesteracorgi , May 1, 2012 1:00 PM
    With the price of SSDs coming down, Toms should start introducing 256 GB + drives into its reviews. It's nice to have the 64 & 128 GB reviews, but for power builders the 256 GB is becoming mainstream.
  • 2 Hide
    Cyclops21 , May 1, 2012 1:23 PM
    Any tests planned on the Sandisk Extreme models. They were a Tom's recommend buy but I still haven't seen any benchmarks on Tom's.
  • -2 Hide
    cknobman , May 1, 2012 1:51 PM
    I'd still say for most boot and program drives SandForce is the way to go as it has a significant performance edge.
  • 4 Hide
    Onus , May 1, 2012 1:54 PM
    I've only installed 6-7 SSDs, with mixed results. Two with Sadforce controllers died within months or weeks (the RMA of one is yet to be tested). Given that the slowest SSD beats the pants off the fastest magnetic HDD, I have quickly reached the conclusion that reliability has to be the #1 criterion for SSDs, and I'm not sure Sandforce is there yet.
  • 0 Hide
    zodiacfml , May 1, 2012 2:13 PM
    Awesome. SSDs time is now!
  • 7 Hide
    ramon zarat , May 1, 2012 2:34 PM
    uruquiorahmm , my M4 has 10x more BSOD than my vertex 3... Each i boot my pc and work with it i prepare myself for a BSOD with my M4...


    You must be joking... The list of forum thread complaining about SF controller instability is endless. The M4 actually has a very solid reputation. I've been running 2 128GB M4 in 2 different PC for the last 8 months. Not a single BSOD. They still both benchmark the same speed as day 1. Actually, the M4 was and might very well still be the best choice for balance between price, performance and reliability in the whole SSD market. In my book, there are only 3 manufacturers really worth mentioning when it comes to SSD: Crucial, Intel and Samsung.

    Your unit is simply defective. That can happen to any manufacturer. RMA it and be happy.
  • 6 Hide
    daysyang , May 1, 2012 3:54 PM
    ^ agree... my M4 has been nothing but awesome.
  • 1 Hide
    Pawessum16 , May 1, 2012 4:50 PM
    When are you going to update your SSD charts? Some of the SSD's on the 2011 chart don't even exist anymore, and it's missing all the cool new drives released in the past couple of months.
  • 4 Hide
    americanherosandwich , May 1, 2012 4:55 PM
    Hah, I just got done reading this, too: http://computerhardwareupgrades.blogspot.com/2012/05/comparing-different-nand-types-and.html

    Crucial M4's still kicking butt.
  • 2 Hide
    g-unit1111 , May 1, 2012 5:04 PM
    daysyang^ agree... my M4 has been nothing but awesome.


    So has mine, but at $70 I am thinking I might ditch my Intel 320 for a Plextor M3. I've always been a fan of Plextor drives and it's good to know that the move to SSD hasn't changed their quality at all. Tempting, tempting...
  • 2 Hide
    eddieroolz , May 1, 2012 5:14 PM
    Godo to see my choice of SSD be proven in tests. I have high hopes for my Crucial m4.
  • 1 Hide
    inflexion , May 1, 2012 6:07 PM
    Nice review. I just picked up another Crucial M4 today on Buy.com for $110 USD to my door.

    Thanks for the great content!
  • 2 Hide
    Anonymous , May 1, 2012 6:33 PM
    Where the heck can you get the M3 64gb for $70?
  • 0 Hide
    rohitbaran , May 1, 2012 11:31 PM
    I wonder if there are any reliability stats on SSDs available. They are fast for sure, but how about reliability scores, based off drive performance over a year or so?
  • 0 Hide
    slomo4sho , May 2, 2012 1:11 AM
    rohitbaranI wonder if there are any reliability stats on SSDs available. They are fast for sure, but how about reliability scores, based off drive performance over a year or so?


    I couldn't agree more. Having a fast drive means nothing if it dies or corrupts your data.
  • 0 Hide
    10tacle , May 2, 2012 3:36 AM
    Where are you guys seeing the 64GB M3 for $70? I have yet to find it anywhere for under $100. In fact, the best price I can find from reputable E-tailer is $120. I'd snap one up in a second as dedicated Intel SRT cache drive.
Display more comments