Upgrade Advice: Does Your Fast SSD Really Need SATA 6Gb/s?
-
Page 1:Should You Feel Bad That Your Board Only Supports SATA 3Gb/s?
-
Page 2:Test Setup And Benchmarks
-
Page 3:Benchmark Results: Storage Bench v1.0 And PCMark 7
-
Page 4:Benchmark Results: 4 KB Random Performance
-
Page 5:Benchmark Results: 128 KB Sequential Performance
-
Page 6:SandForce: Performance With Incompressible Data
-
Page 7:Real-World Tests
-
Page 8:Buy The SSD You Can Afford, Not The Fastest One
-
Page 9:Storage Bench v1.0, In More Detail
-
Page 10:More Background On Our Benchmarks
Buy The SSD You Can Afford, Not The Fastest One
If you spend all of your time looking at predominantly synthetic storage benchmarks, which tend to frame storage workloads in the most taxing light possible, then you end up missing a huge piece of the storage performance picture.
Yes, those metrics are critically important in comparing SSDs. As you see in the real-world tests, it'd be almost impossible to determine a winner between OCZ's Vertex 3, Crucial's m4, or Samsung's 830 using mainstream workloads. Drilling down into specific profiles like 4 KB random writes or 128 KB sequential reads makes it much easier to draw conclusions about the idiosyncrasies of each drive's architecture.
But a relative strength in all of those benchmarks doesn't necessarily translate into a positive gain in user experience. Does an extra 25% jump in testable data throughput cut your Windows boot time or make backing up a game on Steam faster by a corresponding percentage? Does it even directly translate into file copies that finish that much faster? Not at all.
So, here's the thing. Yes, there are clear cases, particularly if you're a power user, where owning a motherboard with 6 Gb/s is going to allow your 6 Gb/s-capable SSD to shine. However, if a friend were to ask us if he should hold off on an SSD purchase until he could upgrade his old Core 2 machine to something newer with 6 Gb/s connectivity, we'd say no. For someone using a hard drive today, a fast SSD (even one artificially hobbled by a 3 Gb/s port) will yield massive and immediate gains in nearly every aspect of computing.
Snagging one that does work with 6 Gb/s link rates ensures you get the most out of it after an upgrade, sure. However even Intel's SSD 320, based on an older proprietary controller constrained to 3 Gb/s remains an admirable piece of hardware.
We've used this chart before, but it tells a compelling story. There's a huge gap between the cluster of SSDs, the high-end hard drive in the middle of the graph, and the low-end hard drive in the upper right-hand corner. You have to zoom in quite a bit, though, to distinguish between high- and low-end SSDs. At the end of the day, even if you're a fairly hardcore enthusiast, there's fairly little sense in agonizing over which SATA 6Gb/s SSD is the fastest. As we mentioned, even Intel's 320 still stacks up remarkably well.
So banish any thought that you must save for the newest, most expensive, and highest-rated SSD. If you have the money for a platform upgrade, there are certainly measurable gains to be had from upgrading to a SATA 6Gb/s-capable motherboard and the best solid-state drive. On a tighter budget, however, buying the SSD that everyone says is the fastest isn't as important as buying an SSD you can afford, particularly if it means replacing a hard disk as your system drive.
The subtle differences between high-end storage products remain important to us and our enthusiast audience, and we'll continue dissecting them. But it's just as important to us to consider the greater scope of things. In that context, you shouldn't let a 3 Gb/s storage controller stand in the way of an upgrade.
- Should You Feel Bad That Your Board Only Supports SATA 3Gb/s?
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: Storage Bench v1.0 And PCMark 7
- Benchmark Results: 4 KB Random Performance
- Benchmark Results: 128 KB Sequential Performance
- SandForce: Performance With Incompressible Data
- Real-World Tests
- Buy The SSD You Can Afford, Not The Fastest One
- Storage Bench v1.0, In More Detail
- More Background On Our Benchmarks
I asked before but no one answered. Anyway here goes... If SSD's are supposed to be more reliable than spinning drives, why are most warranties for 3 years instead of the usual 5 years on high end conventional spinning drives? It seems like the companies are not to confident in their products to me, and that's why I ask this question and the one that preceded it. It would be nice to get some honest answers......
I find it interesting that SATA 3 doesn't make a difference in file copy. Most SATA 3 drives cost the same as a SATA 2 so no need to save a few dollars.
I asked before but no one answered. Anyway here goes... If SSD's are supposed to be more reliable than spinning drives, why are most warranties for 3 years instead of the usual 5 years on high end conventional spinning drives? It seems like the companies are not to confident in their products to me, and that's why I ask this question and the one that preceded it. It would be nice to get some honest answers......
Well, the warranties are mostly 3 years, but some drives like Intel's 320s and Plextor's M3S drives do have 5 years of coverage.
As for stress testing... well... some have taken this matter in their own hands to answer that very question. So far, it's far more than anyone could imagine. And for complex reasons, a drive only writing 10GB might not wear out it's NAND in over a century. A drive's endurance is typically way underestimated. No one is going to wear out any 3xnm or 2xnm NAND in 5 years, except in the most extreme cases. Most drives die from firmware problems, or physical damage to the PCB or components, or some other unknown phenomenon. Only the factory could do a proper autopsy, and since the FW, FTL, controller, etc. are usually trade secrets or covered under NDA, no one in the know is going to volunteer.
There is an SSD endurance thread on the XtremeSystems forum:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?271063-SSD-Write-Endurance-25nm-Vs-34nm/page1
I know when I first got my 1st gen OCZ Vertex nearly when it first came out, I was always the first person on the map for Counter Strike. While other players were still loading the level, I would rush in from the side and lob a grenade and take a few people out because they didn't think anyone could get there so fast (now with more people with SSD's, it's not quite so funny anymore).
I do appreciate being able to open PS CS5 in less than 2 seconds (for quick photo re-edits) and opening Premiere a lot faster too. Transferring large RAW photo folders (think 50+GBs total) to and from backup HDD's, I could use the extra MB's from these new 6Gb/s versions.
you obviously didn't read the article as there were plenty of references to the 60/64 GB SSD round from a couple months ago.
YOU MUST GET A 5 YEAR WARRANTY if you want to be happy. They really do determine their hard drive warranty based on average time to fail results from quality control tests.
Intel 320 80GB looks like a nice intro SSD drive.
I wish it were simple to choose a consumer SSD, but it's not and Reviewers often choose different SSD's typically based upon their need aka preferences.
I thought the following might help (note the operative words 'Up to'):
Samsung 830 MZ-7PC256D/AM
MTBF 1,500,000 hours
Warranty 3 Years
Max Sequential Read Up to 520 MB/s
Max Sequential Write Up to 400 MB/s
4KB Random Read: Up to 80,000 IOPS
4KB Random Write: Up to 36,000 IOPS
Crucial M4 CT256M4SSD2 ; 5 models which was tested?
MTBF 1,200,000 hours
Warranty 3 Years
Max Sequential Read Up to 550 MB/s ; 415~550 MB/s
Max Sequential Write Up to 260 MB/s
4KB Random Read: Up to 45,000 IOPS
4KB Random Write: Up to 50,000 IOPS
OCZ Vertex 3 VTX3-25SAT3-240G ; 3 models which was tested?
MTBF 2,000,000 hours
Warranty 3 Years
Max Sequential Read Up to 550 MB/s ; 415~550 MB/s
Max Sequential Write Up to 520 MB/s ; 500~520 MB/s
4KB Random Read: Up to 40,000 IOPS 36,000~55,000 IOPS
4KB Random Write: Up to 60,000 IOPS 55,000~60.000 IOPS
Intel 320 Series SSDSA2CW300G310 ; 5 models which was tested?
MTBF 1,200,000 hours
Warranty 1 Year (most) ; SSDSA2CW300G3B5 5 years
Max Sequential Read Up to 270 MB/s
Max Sequential Write Up to 205 MB/s
4KB Random Read: Up to 39,500 IOPS some models unlisted
4KB Random Write: Up to 23,000 IOPS some models unlisted
/only SATA2 interface/
And you obviously didn't bother understanding my post. This isn't something that only Tom's does, most if not all sites when it comes to SSD testing, go for higher capacity drives while the low end kind of gets the short end of the stick. And since performance for SSD is even capacity related, then the majority of ssd sold (those under 128GB) should get more lime light.
I do hope now my point gets across, if not, I'm sorry but there's nothing I can do to fix it.
Well, that seemed to be the case initially - users were wondering why these ssds were covered for 30TB or less when they could write more than 10x that reliably. But it turns out that once nand cells go over the rated write cycles, the ability to retain data in long term decreases significantly. It's something the folks at xtremesystems didn't notice at first because they were running the test 24/7 - the cells were getting flashed with new data before the data had a chance to degrade.
In more realistic usage scenarios where the pcs may be turned off for more than a day (or when nothing is being written to ssd and cells are not continuously flashed with new data), the manufacturer's endurance claims are pretty realistic.