Idle Power Consumption
Idle consumption is the most important power metric for consumer and client SSDs. After all, solid-state drives complete host commands quickly, and then drop back down to idle. Aside from the occasional background garbage collection and house keeping, a modern SSD spends most of its life doing very little.
Enterprise-oriented drives are more frequently used at full tilt, making their idle power numbers far less important. But this just isn't the case on the desktop, where the demands of client and consumer computing leave most SSDs sitting on their hands for long stretches of time.

It might turn out that the only issue with SanDisk's Extreme II we stumble across is higher power demands. The idle numbers are a little above average, but still within a reasonable range.
PCMark 7 Average Power Consumption

A log of our PCMark 7 run shows higher-than-average power spikes, both in intensity and frequency. Still, we're not calling this a big deal yet.

The Extreme IIs fall to the back of the pack in average PCMark 7 power consumption. Only Corsair's Neutron GTX fares worse on average. The 120 GB Extreme II surprisingly finishes second-to-last, suggesting that the smallest family member has to work harder in this benchmark, despite the higher peak power consumption seen from the 240 and 480 GB models.
Maximum Observed Power Consumption
These results just aren't as important for consumer SSDs. It's rare you see drives pulling down this much power for anything more than a few seconds per hour.

- Extreme II, The Sequel From SanDisk
- A Guided Tour Of SanDisk's Extreme II
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Results: Sequential Performance
- Results: Random Performance
- Results: Tom's Storage Bench
- Results: PCMark Vantage And PCMark 7
- Results: Power Consumption
- Not Extreme To The Second Power, But Close Enough
Also, you appear to have put one of the labels back on the wrong way round.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/vertex-450-256gb-review,3517.html
See here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7006/sandisk-extreme-ii-review-480gb
It's Anand's new favorite SSD, and based on the results, I'm inclined to agree.
It's peak performance is right up there with the 840 Pro, but what's really extreme is the drive's consistency. It's performance when the drive is close to full is unmatched.
There are no high peaks accompanied by low valleys in performance when it comes to the Extreme II. It's pretty much smooth and fast sailing all the time, which in my book, places the Extreme II a step above the 840 Pro. The 840 Pro would have to be at least $30 cheaper than the Extreme II for me to even consider it over the Extreme II.
The "Heavy hitters" for modern SSDs include the fastest SSDs on the market right now, which are The Plextor M5 pro Xtreme, the OCZ Vector and Samsung 840 pro. Of these, you have only included the OCZ, and the slower version of the Plextor. Also, you have also included the old Crucial m4, which is a good drive, but old, and not one of the heavyweights now. At least include the improved "M500" version. I also find it confusing why you include the older Samsung 830.
These are minor points though. Thank you for the great comparison. I look forward to more storage comparisons
that single omission itself made this review critically flawed.
Thanks,
Chris
What we are seeing is stagnation. We have a great Marvell controller, Indilinx Barefoot 2 controllwer and a solide Sandforce 2000 series controllered SSDs.
I'm waiting for the next generation, maybe for the Sandforce/LSI 3000 series controllers that can do 200,000 IOPS! Google it. Though that drive was using a PCIe 4x interface rather than SATA but it was in the 2.5" drive form factor.
Maybe increase queue depth of 1 4KB random reads and write speeds too. So far I've only seen as high as about 30MB/s 4K random read with a queue depth of 1 on Crystaldisk Mark.