There are access time differences, but they’re typically too small to matter in everyday operation.
The performance differences using our database workload pattern are quite significant. The SandForce SSDs by G-Skill, RunCore, OWC, OCZ, Corsair, and Asax, as well as the Crucial’s RealSSD C300, present the best options for reading and writing many small data chunks. The Intel and Samsung SSDs are right in the middle, and some other products are obviously unsuitable, mostly because of latencies at write operations.
Differences in the file server test pattern are similar, but a bit less dramatic.
The Web server test does not include writes, which turns some of our results upside-down. The RealSSD C300 can play its throughput card, while Intel, Samsung, and all the SandForce devices come out shining, as well.
The workstation test involves lots of writes, again skewing toward the SandForce SSDs. Samsung and Intel don’t seem to be as strong, but look at the CrystalDiskMark results on the following pages for another angle of the performance evaluation.
- Can Samsung’s 470-Series Shake Up the SSD Market?
- Benchmarking Issues And Trends
- A-Data Nobility N002 (Indilinx, 128 GB)
- Corsair Force F160 (160 GB, SandForce)
- Kingston SSDNow V (128 GB, Toshiba)
- Kingston SSDNow V+ (128 GB, Toshiba)
- Patriot Inferno (120 GB, SandForce)
- Samsung 470-Series (Also Known As PM810 [256 GB])
- Comparison Table And Test Setup
- Benchmark Results: Access Time And I/O Performance
- Benchmark Results: h2benchw Throughput And Iometer Streaming
- Benchmark Results: CrystalDiskMark Sequential Reads/Writes
- Benchmark Results: 4 KB Random Reads/Writes
- Benchmark Results: 512 KB Random Reads/Writes
- Benchmark Results: PCMark Vantage Storage
- Benchmark Results: Power Consumption
- Benchmark Results: Power Efficiency
- Conclusion And Recommendations