Test Setup And Benchmarks
by
Andrew Ku
| Test Hardware | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| System | Desktop | MacBook Pro 7,1 | MacBook Pro 8,1 |
| Testing | RAW, Windows SATA 3Gb/s & SATA 6Gb/s | Mac OS X, SATA 3Gb/s | Mac OS X, SATA 6Gb/s |
| Processor | Intel Core i5-2400 (Sandy Bridge), 32 nm, 3.1 GHz, LGA 1155, 6 MB Shared L3, Turbo Boost Enabled | Intel Core 2 Duo (Penryn), 45 nm, 2.4 GHz, 3 MB L2 | Intel Core i5-2430M (Sandy Bridge), 32 nm, 2.4 GHz, 3 MB Shared L3, Turbo Boost Enabled |
| Motherboard | Gigabyte GA-Z68X-UD7-B3 | - | - |
| Memory | Kingston Hyper-X 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) DDR3-1333 @ DDR3-1333, 1.5 V | Crucial 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) DDR3-1066 | Crucial 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) DDR3-1333 |
| System Drive | OCZ Vertex 3 240 GB SATA 6Gb/s | ||
| Tested Drives | Intel SSD 320 300 GB SATA 3Gb/s, Firmware: 1.92 | ||
| Intel SSD 320 80 GB SATA 3Gb/s, Firmware: 1.92 | |||
| Samsung 830 256 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: CXMO | |||
| Crucial m4 256 GB SATA 6Gb/s Firmware: 0009 | |||
| OCZ Vertex 3 240 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 2.15 | |||
| OCZ Vertex 3 60 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 2.15 | |||
| Intel SSD 510 250 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 1.92 | |||
| Intel SSD 520 240 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: - | |||
| Intel SSD 520 60 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: - | |||
| Graphics | Palit GeForce GTX 460 1 GB | Nvidia GeForce 9400M | Intel HD Graphics 3000 |
| Power Supply | Seasonic 760 W, 80 PLUS Gold | - | - |
| System Software and Drivers | |||
| Operating System | Windows 7 x64 Ultimate | Mac OS X 10.7.2 | |
| DirectX | DirectX 11 | - | - |
| Driver | Graphics: Nvidia 270.61 RST: 10.6.0.1002 Virtu: 1.1.101 | - | - |
| Benchmarks | |
|---|---|
| Tom's Hardware Storage Bench v1.0 | Trace-Based |
| Iometer 1.1.0 | # Workers = 1, 4 KB Random: LBA=8 GB, varying QDs, 128 KB Sequential |
| PCMark 7 | Storage Suite |
Firmware notes:
Due to time constraints, we were not able to test the Crucial m4 with 0309 firmware. This patch primarily resolves a BSOD error related to a power-on SMART counter. According to Crucial's change log, there should be no effect on performance.
41
Comments
Related Stories :
- Intel SSD 520 Review: Taking Back The High-End With SandForce
- Intel 520 Series SSD to Utilize SandForce Controller
- Intel SSD DC S3700 Review: Benchmarking Consistency
- 60/64 GB SSD Shootout: Crucial, Samsung, And SandForce
- SandForce Intros SSD Processor Optimized for Cloud
- Intel SSD 330 Review: 60, 120, And 180 GB Models Benchmarked
- Kingston Reveals its First SandForce-based SSD
- SandForce Announces 2nd Gen SSD Processors
- Next-Gen SandForce Controller Seen on OCZ SSD
- OWC Debuts First SandForce-Based IDE/ATA SSD
Yes, I'm with you on that one. I've had an Intel 320 128Gb SSD for quite some time now and have nothing but the greatest things to say about my particular experience with it. I purposely held off from buying the Marvell controller 510 in hopes that the next refresh would have a new Intel made 6Gb controller. One thing I am curious about, does the new 520 still have the Intel Toolbox software with it? I have gotten alot of use out of it with my current drive and would really hate to not have it on a new one.
You can use the Toolbox software with the SSD 520. It will however not work with other SF drives.
Cheers,
Andrew Ku
TomsHardware.com
Hmmm, maybe I missed a good excuse, but I'd like to see the Octane in these tests.
I love Intel SSD. 128GB for about $210 isn't bad. It is just hard to not chose something like a Corsair GT 120GB that cost $150 with rebate over this. I would always put a Intel SSD in a computer for novice since it is reliable.
Nice Review!
Nice article
Just need more SSD's to compare, I'd like to see similar tests done with 120GB...180GB...256GB and several more brands. Further, as I mentioned before in the other article please list the exact model numbers and OEM specs including their 4KB IOPS; otherwise folks don't understand the results and if relying on this a purchasing will have in many cases a 4 in 5 chance of selecting the wrong SSD.
Prior article - http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,3110.html
costly but i think reliability comes at a price. These ssds are best for enterprises . If the price will be little lower then the common user can afford these and get a good reliable ssd.
"Measuring boot time is one of the best illustrations of how an SSD benefits your computing experience." Be that as it may I find it almost irrelevant seeing as I hardly ever boot my computer, perhaps 2-3 times a month if that. Getting out of standby on my HDD is a matter of seconds.
These prices are lower than I thought. $20-$40 extra (depending on the comparison) for peace-of-mind is not outrageous.
Hmmm, maybe I missed a good excuse, but I'd like to see the Octane in these tests.
We didn't have the Octane on hand in the 256 GB capacity, but we'll be sure to make that side by side comparison down the road.
I love Intel SSD. 128GB for about $210 isn't bad. It is just hard to not chose something like a Corsair GT 120GB that cost $150 with rebate over this. I would always put a Intel SSD in a computer for novice since it is reliable.
Excellent point. Price is always a fickle thing.
Nice Review!
Thanks Les.
Nice article Just need more SSD's to compare, I'd like to see similar tests done with 120GB...180GB...256GB and several more brands. Further, as I mentioned before in the other article please list the exact model numbers and OEM specs including their 4KB IOPS; otherwise folks don't understand the results and if relying on this a purchasing will have in many cases a 4 in 5 chance of selecting the wrong SSD. Prior article - http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,3110.html
We'll keep that mind for future reviews. However, we already list model and firmware on the test page.
Cheers,
Andrew Ku
TomsHardware.com
Getting out of standby on my HDD is a matter of seconds.
And with an SSD, your computer comes out of standby faster than your monitors do. Not kidding.
Anyone else disappointed Intel isn't producing their own high end chipset? Been waiting to upgrade my X25-M for a while now (Intel 320 isn't a big upgrade) but might just go with Samsung.
Good to see Intel throw its hat into the ring for the prosumer market. We should be able to expect performance and out-of-the-box functionality (as opposed to theoretical endurance) for the amount of money these devices cost. As the article repeatedly infers, this has not always been the case to date (although the last year has seen some major kinks worked out). Competition at the mid to upper end of the market will lead to higher expectations.
Yes, I'm with you on that one. I've had an Intel 320 128Gb SSD for quite some time now and have nothing but the greatest things to say about my particular experience with it. I purposely held off from buying the Marvell controller 510 in hopes that the next refresh would have a new Intel made 6Gb controller. One thing I am curious about, does the new 520 still have the Intel Toolbox software with it? I have gotten alot of use out of it with my current drive and would really hate to not have it on a new one.
Andrew, could you please comment on the encryption capabilities of the new drive. Does it support AES encryption like the Intel 320? Is there an option for pre-boot? Thanks in advance!
Andrew,
Your SSD investigations/reviews/history lessons are Tier 1.
But I always get curious when Intel starts on and on about how it has the best NAND around. It's not that I even doubt them when they say this, but AFAIK Intel/Micron/IMFT are made and binned in the same place.
IMFT is supposed to be 49% Intel and 51% Micron-owned. Now both companies' own drives are stocked with what I presume is the best available NAND at that price point, but how did Intel get the reputation of having better NAND? (and if I'm honest, there is at least some evidence that it does). Micron doesn't run around talking up their NAND as much as they should, and this makes me think that the details of the IMFT arrangement are probably pretty strange. In a blind taste test, they taste pretty similar.
But not all Micron NAND is created equal, nor is Intel's (for example, does Kingston really get Intel's top shelf shtuff?). The IMFT NAND used in so many drives today runs the gamut from fantastic down to mediocre, only one step above Hynix's too-dirty-for-television flash. I'm probably the one person on this planet that wants to know more about Intel, Micron, and their bastard love child, IMFT.
So, does this SandForce's SF-2281 controller has the bug as well?
Or it is already fixed?
Or they have replaced it with a new version?
So, does this SandForce's SF-2281 controller has the bug as well?
As far as Anand can tell... no.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5508 [...] -sandforce
Intel's SF2281 implementation seems to be stable, and BSOD free.
... my OCZ Vertex 3 is still strong...
I have a crucial 128 my next will be Samsung