128 KB Sequential Read
On our PC, the 256 GB Samsung 830 has, at most, a 100 MB/s lead over the 240 GB Intel SSD 520 and OCZ Vertex 3. That performance delta is mirrored in our power use results. So, Samsung's offering gives you roughly 20% more performance, but consumes 20% more power in the process.
Power consumption in 128 KB sequential reads scales similarly on our Mac. More performance incurs higher power costs.
The only outlier is Intel's 240 GB SSD 520. It's a little slower than OCZ's Vertex 3, but it uses about 25% more power.
128 KB Sequential Write
Not only do the SandForce-based drives smoke the competition, but they do it using a lot less power. Just look at Intel's 240 GB SSD 520. It's able to process, compress, and write data using only 2 W. Compare that to the 256 GB Crucial m4, which requires 3.5 W and achieves 50% of the performance. Samsung's 830 is even more inefficient. It draws 5 W while topping out at 75% of the SSD 520's speed.
- Intel’s SSD 520: Enthusiast Storage By SandForce?
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Breaking Out New Benchmarks
- 4 KB Random Performance: Raw, Windows, And Mac
- 128 KB Sequential Performance: Raw, Windows, And Mac
- Incompressible Performance: SandForce's Weakness
- Tom's Hardware Storage Bench And PCMark 7
- Power Consumption: Idle And 4 KB Random (Windows 7/Mac OS X)
- Power Consumption: 128 KB Sequential (Windows 7/Mac OS X)
- Power Consumption: Incompressible Sequential (Windows 7/Mac OS X)
- Endurance Testing: Write Amplification And Estimated Lifespan
- Steady State Performance (Worst Case) And TRIM
- Real World Performance: File Copy And Backup
- Real-World Performance: Windows And Mac Boot Times
- Not Just Another SandForce SSD