Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

4 KB Random Performance

Intel SSD 335 240 GB Review: Driving Down Prices With 20 nm NAND
By

Random Read Performance (background info)

Examples include antivirus scans and typing in Word

The SSD 330 was Intel's answer to SSDs from competing brands with asynchronous NAND, such as OCZ and its Agility 3 or Corsair and its Force 3. We have Monster's 240 GB Daytona to stand in for that comparison.

But Intel didn't use asynchronous memory. It instead armed the SSD 330 synchronous flash and deliberately de-tuned performance via firmware. The SSD 335 being introduced today is largely similar. Meanwhile, Intel's SSD 520 represents performance-oriented SandForce-based SSDs equipped with synchronous NAND and not purposely slowed-down.

At a queue depth of one, all of the SSDs start out by moving between 25-30 MB/s. The picture is quite a bit different once we scale up to 32 outstanding I/O requests. Between those two extremes, Samsung's 840 Pro proves itself the fastest drive, while OCZ's Vertex 4 trails slightly. None of the drives based on SandForce's controller hardware fare as well, though Intel does manage to score a win over the Daytona using its SSD 335.

Random Write Performance

Examples include email, file compression, and Web browsing

The most glaring data point is Monster's 240 GB Daytona, which doesn't break 100 MB/s all the way through a queue depth of 32. We have an email out to the company asking if this is something they've seen. We know from testing OCZ's 180 GB Agility 3 that performance should end up somewhere close to 300 MB/s. 

Between the starting and ending points, Intel's SSD 335 generally outmaneuvers its 240 GB predecessor, even if they appear identical at a queue depth of one and 32. As it should, Intel's SSD 520 maintains an advantage over both 300-series drives.

But of course, Samsung's 840 Pro steals the show, albeit at a price point far higher than the SSD 335.

Ask a Category Expert

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

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 14 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 13 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , October 29, 2012 4:07 PM
    Read only the conclusion. Most of these SSD's are "me-too" clones using SF2281 controller. Most have similar performance wins and pitfalls.

    I was super excited about Samsung 840. But these are meh.
Other Comments
  • 13 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , October 29, 2012 4:07 PM
    Read only the conclusion. Most of these SSD's are "me-too" clones using SF2281 controller. Most have similar performance wins and pitfalls.

    I was super excited about Samsung 840. But these are meh.
  • 3 Hide
    christophermarti , October 29, 2012 5:12 PM
    I would say that your estimates about P/E cycles are incorrect. You also do not mention (on purpose) two modes SSD's (99%) operate in: performance mode (not filled to 90%) and storage mode (filled 90% and more). You also lack to mention that in "middle of" P/E cycle exhaustion SSD's will slow down their speed due to preserve P/E cycles and "survive" to meet warranty agreements.

    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?271063-SSD-Write-Endurance-25nm-Vs-34nm/page211

    From test exposed in this forum You can draw conclusion how good MLC used in X-25v 40GB SSD were (more than 35000 P/E). Also that longest "standing" SSD is Samsung 830 256GB, which also do not (as an exception) slow down considerably when it passes 1PB Host Writes mark.

    Although I strongly do agree that seing writes above 10GB per day is rather rare. I'm myself using 80GB X25-M for 4 years and only 4,09 TB and i is possible that it will hold up to 1400 - 3400 TB of writes! That's amazing. What's more, I have it in Dell E6400 on Vista (no Trim, just Intel toolbox).
  • -3 Hide
    christophermarti , October 29, 2012 5:19 PM
    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?271063-SSD-Write-Endurance-25nm-Vs-34nm&p=5148307&viewfull=1#post5148307 - 1000 P/E cycles (not even close to 35100 of 50nm old V40 GB).
  • 0 Hide
    alidan , October 29, 2012 5:59 PM
    christophermartihttp://www.xtremesystems.org/forum [...] ost5148307 - 1000 P/E cycles (not even close to 35100 of 50nm old V40 GB).


    keep in mind that is still 240000 gb of data at minimum
  • 2 Hide
    abbadon_34 , October 29, 2012 8:35 PM
    so if it's firmware crippled, can we just flash a the firmware and get a better drive? someone needs to do some testing....
  • 1 Hide
    acku , October 29, 2012 11:42 PM
    christophermartiI would say that your estimates about P/E cycles are incorrect. You also do not mention (on purpose) two modes SSD's (99%) operate in: performance mode (not filled to 90%) and storage mode (filled 90% and more). You also lack to mention that in "middle of" P/E cycle exhaustion SSD's will slow down their speed due to preserve P/E cycles and "survive" to meet warranty agreements. http://www.xtremesystems.org/forum [...] nm/page211From test exposed in this forum You can draw conclusion how good MLC used in X-25v 40GB SSD were (more than 35000 P/E). Also that longest "standing" SSD is Samsung 830 256GB, which also do not (as an exception) slow down considerably when it passes 1PB Host Writes mark.Although I strongly do agree that seing writes above 10GB per day is rather rare. I'm myself using 80GB X25-M for 4 years and only 4,09 TB and i is possible that it will hold up to 1400 - 3400 TB of writes! That's amazing. What's more, I have it in Dell E6400 on Vista (no Trim, just Intel toolbox).


    Our calculations and endurance protocol are not effected by any speed slow down, and in every test, we've confirmed our methodology applies a WA~1%. Thus, are estimates are correct and apply to the NAND itself.

    Second, the speed of a drive has no inherent bearing on endurance. It only affects how fast you can get there. Second, you're referring to a throttling effect, which is a different topic completely. Our analysis was specific to the NAND itself.

    As further verification, another one of my peers (at another site) independently came to results for the SSD 335 similar to ours.
  • 0 Hide
    cumi2k4 , October 30, 2012 2:01 AM
    how come vertex 4 did not get tested? didn't ocz offer 5 years for their vertex 4, and i believe they're offering them at cut-throat pricing?
  • 0 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , October 30, 2012 2:20 AM
    One thing i notice is that with an Antivirus program(Kaspersky Internet security) running in the background, which 95% of Toms readers would have, the AV program reads and writes data almost continuously. In a typical day, the AV program can write 5-6GB of data.
  • 1 Hide
    jabliese , October 30, 2012 1:28 PM
    Power consumption made me laugh. 1 watt difference between the best and worst. Time for another 1 line standard SSD review comment, "Power usage on SSD's matters little between the best and worst."

    And please keep reiterating the most important thing about an SSD is getting one. Ran into SSD resistance on another forum just a couple weeks back, which, at today's price points, blew me away.
  • 0 Hide
    acku , October 30, 2012 4:05 PM
    cumi2k4how come vertex 4 did not get tested? didn't ocz offer 5 years for their vertex 4, and i believe they're offering them at cut-throat pricing?


    Look again. It is included in our benchmarks.
  • 0 Hide
    acku , October 30, 2012 4:06 PM
    mayankleoboy1One thing i notice is that with an Antivirus program(Kaspersky Internet security) running in the background, which 95% of Toms readers would have, the AV program reads and writes data almost continuously. In a typical day, the AV program can write 5-6GB of data.


    By default, Anti-virus programs (like norton) now implement "smart scanning." One something is scanned, it's not scanned again unless the file signature has changed. Dramatically speeds up a scan and reduces the amount of IO traffic over the course of a day.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , November 1, 2012 5:02 PM
    please provide a link with the OCZ drives that you used casue they are having multiple products with the same name but the speed vary.
  • 0 Hide
    mynith , November 13, 2012 8:16 PM
    I reckon 10 GB per day is perfectly possible. Possibly much more. You fail to take into account things like having swap drives, which may or may not see high throughput. Also, if a laptop is setup to not only suspend to RAM but also to disk upon hibernation (Macbooks suspend to both at the same time by default, and my Kubuntu-installation does as well if the battery runs a bit low), which happens many a time per day, you'd get there quite quickly, I presume. 7 GB per day is a very conservative estimate in my view.
  • 0 Hide
    myardor , December 15, 2012 8:24 PM
    Got one for $139.99 with no taxes and free shipping at egg head. So about 58.4 cents/gb