Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Results: Tom's Hardware Storage Bench

Intel SSD 530 Review: A Revised Controller And 20 nm Flash
By

Storage Bench v1.0 (Background Info)

Our Storage Bench incorporates all of the I/O from a trace recorded over two weeks. The process of replaying this sequence to capture performance gives us a bunch of numbers that aren't really intuitive at first glance. Most idle time gets expunged, leaving only the time that each benchmarked drive was actually busy working on host commands. So, by taking the ratio of that busy time and the the amount of data exchanged during the trace, we arrive at an average data rate (in MB/s) metric we can use to compare drives.

It's not quite a perfect system. The original trace captures the TRIM command in transit, but since the trace is played on a drive without a file system, TRIM wouldn't work even if it were sent during the trace replay (which, sadly, it isn't). Still, trace testing is a great way to capture periods of actual storage activity, a great companion to synthetic testing like Iometer.

Incompressible Data and Storage Bench v1.0

Also worth noting is the fact that our trace testing pushes incompressible data through the system's buffers to the drive getting benchmarked. So, when the trace replay plays back write activity, it's writing largely incompressible data. If we run our storage bench on a SandForce-based SSD, we can monitor the SMART attributes for a bit more insight.

Mushkin Chronos Deluxe 120 GB
SMART Attributes
RAW Value Increase
#242 Host Reads (in GB)
84 GB
#241 Host Writes (in GB)
142 GB
#233 Compressed NAND Writes (in GB)
149 GB

Host reads are greatly outstripped by host writes to be sure. That's all baked into the trace. But with SandForce's inline deduplication/compression, you'd expect that the amount of information written to flash would be less than the host writes (unless the data is mostly incompressible, of course). For every 1 GB the host asked to be written, Mushkin's drive is forced to write 1.05 GB.

If our trace replay was just writing easy-to-compress zeros out of the buffer, we'd see writes to NAND as a fraction of host writes. This puts the tested drives on a more equal footing, regardless of the controller's ability to compress data on the fly.

Average Data Rate

The Storage Bench trace generates more than 140 GB worth of writes during testing. Obviously, this tends to penalize drives smaller than 180 GB and reward those with more than 256 GB of capacity.

It's a good thing that telling the difference between two SSDs in a desktop machine is so difficult. Intel's SSD 530 ponies up a 140 MB/s result, while the mSATA-based SSD 525 and previous-gen 520 fall within 1% of each other. Where do those roughly 60 MB/s of performance go? We'll do our best to explain on the next page.

Display all 17 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 2 Hide
    rolli59 , October 31, 2013 10:26 PM
    Good drive with nice idle power consumption numbers.
  • 0 Hide
    jimmysmitty , October 31, 2013 11:09 PM
    I went with a 520 for the fact that Intel has some of the best reliability along with Samsung.

    As well we wont see much of a difference in performance until SATA Express (8Gb/16Gb) and even then we might not notice it.

    The main benefit is lowering the price. If it sells for $170 that's a bit lower than $1/GB which is good since Intel is always a bit pricier than others.
  • 4 Hide
    cryan , November 1, 2013 12:15 AM
    Quote:
    I went with a 520 for the fact that Intel has some of the best reliability along with Samsung.

    As well we wont see much of a difference in performance until SATA Express (8Gb/16Gb) and even then we might not notice it.

    The main benefit is lowering the price. If it sells for $170 that's a bit lower than $1/GB which is good since Intel is always a bit pricier than others.


    I can't, in good conscience, recommend anyone actually buy the 180 GB 530 -- not when the retail boxed 240 GB is only $198.

    Jay Crest (the 335) is a few bucks less, and its 240 GB edition is hovering near $180. Nice, but for just $20 more, grab the 530 240 GB box and call it a day... if for no other reason than the extra warranty coverage.


    Regards,
    Christopher Ryan

  • 0 Hide
    RealBeast , November 1, 2013 2:03 AM
    I got a 480GB 520 a year ago on a great sale with the typical Intel rebate. Great drive. I'm hoping to see a nice rebate again this year as I need a number of drives.
  • 1 Hide
    diazalon , November 1, 2013 2:59 AM
    Where i am the 840 pro is cheaper so i think i will just get that, seems to perform pretty well too
  • 0 Hide
    ssdpro , November 1, 2013 5:27 AM
    The compressed vs incompressible data issue is still a problem for me with LSI/SandForce controllers. I need consistent data transfer and get that with my 840 Pro and Vector drives. With so many options I boil it down to 3 considerations: 1) Is data transfer consistent across data types and as fast as possible, 2) are there reasonable tools available from the manufacturer for examining drive condition, 3) how is the warranty and support in the event of the failure. The Intel 520/530 offering fails point 1 where Samsung 840 Pro and OCZ Vector excel. Intel, Samsung, and OCZ pass point 2. OCZ wins point 3 easily. They have active support forums and mostly reasonable support staff. Intel has decent process, OCZ has decent process. Samsung has horrid and lengthy support procedures. If you visit Samsung.com to initiate a support request I bet you can't even find your Evo or Pro on the drop down menu you MUST use. You have to call and wait on hold endlessly.
  • 0 Hide
    vertexx , November 1, 2013 5:47 AM
    Thanks for the informative article - would have liked to see a couple different capacities tested.

    If you look at the number of models and form-factors available for the 530, I'd say this product line is primarily about one thing: Distribution.

    The price points for the 240-256GB capacity drives have come down enough where they're probably ready for the mainstream. You see this with Samsung's aggressive (and cheesy) marketing of it's EVO line to the mass consumer market, and this is Intel's attempt to achieve maximum penetration into that market.

    About two months ago, I refreshed my 2-year-old primary work laptop with the Intel 335 240GB. It was on a special at Newegg for $50 off at $170. Now that same drive lists for $180. For a work PC, I was waiting for SSD affordability in the 240-256GB range before pulling the trigger, as anything less would lead to too much hassle moving files around between drives. So, I upgraded from a single 500GB HDD that was getting slower by the day to a 240GB SSD for my primary and a new 750GB secondary HDD running in a caddy in the ODD bay. With this upgrade, I believe I'm set for the next couple of years with this laptop, given the lower pace of development for core CPU tech.

    Overall I'd say that the 530 performance numbers in this article are disappointing, although low power consumption certainly is valuable for the laptop market. Still, I think the market expects performance improvement along with power efficiency improvement, even though reality is you probably wouldn't notice the difference in everyday use.

    It would have been good to see the performance numbers for the 240GB drive, as that really is the minimum point where you could reasonably get away with running a SSD as your sole system drive. With the prices coming down at that capacity, there certainly is a point in marketing SSD affordability in the mainstream segment.

    The other main selling point for me was reliability. Samsung leads the pack here with Intel not far behind. I passed over the Sandisk Ultra Plus 256GB recommended in Tom's "Best SSD's for the $$" due to a high percentage of 1-star ratings on Newegg and only 2-year warranty. It came down to the 335 and the 840 Evo, with the Evo having slightly better performance and the 335 at that point being about $30 cheaper with the Newegg Promo. I went with the lower price and the rest is history.

    For those contemplating upgrading to a consumer grade SSD, don't sweat the minor performance differences. Go with a good brand and a line with good reliability ratings. Do the hard work of re-installing a fresh copy of Windows (instead of using a migration utility), and your system will be flying. I couldn't be happier with this upgrade.
  • 0 Hide
    npyrhone , November 1, 2013 8:41 AM
    I think this is the least exciting SSD release this year. I really challenge you to find a major SSD release this year that showed less. 530 is relatively expensive and on the slow side. It excels in nothing.

    Intel's post x-25 SSDs' only claim for fame is "reliability" which is nothing but a mantra. Intel's SSD are no more or less reliable than any other manufacturer's. They do give a five-year warranty, true, but it means nothing. They break down just as often as others do, and because of this, Intel pays a bit more by sending replacement drives. This is small potatoes, a minute cost to pay to be considered "more reliable" by those less informed. Especially since the warranty does not cover all the hassle and expenses that come from actually replacing the broken drive (you must stop working, start waiting, install the new drive, move all the data, etc). Of course its nice to live in the beautiful illusion that by buying an Intel SSD I am more safe from all this.

    I would never buy this over a Samsung-product that is less expensive, has greater performance and equal reliability. I can't understand why this article concludes like it does. It should say: "There is nothing wrong with 530, but you can get better for cheaper, so stay away from 530."
  • 0 Hide
    cryan , November 1, 2013 11:27 AM
    The 530 and the newly announced 1500 Pro are both about filling out the gaps in client computing. Both are nearly identical, with wide varieties of form factors and capacity points.

    Regards,
    Christopher Ryan
  • 0 Hide
    npyrhone , November 1, 2013 1:16 PM
    Cristopher: Is there a single metric that would support the decision for anyone to fill that gap with an Intel 530 product, rather than with a Sandisk Ultra Plus product, or Samsung 830 840 (EVO) product?
  • 0 Hide
    toolmaker_03 , November 1, 2013 1:40 PM
    Wow that is hard core I have two Intel 520 SSD's in a array so if one fails I lose everything and as you stated the same goes for any consumer SSD they tend to fail consistently after 3 years. With got me to thinking how do I prolong the life of my drives, so with a little research I found the Intel DC-s3700 200Gig SSD, no they do not seem to be any faster, but in my opinion they are, and I think that under normal operation, internet/gamming, this type of drive could last for 10 years in a home based system, but only time will tell, and I have two in my system now, so in ten years I will let you know if they still work. 10 years ago I bought four 36.4Gig raptors and water cooled them to get them to last as long as they did. I do not think that that water cooling will work on a SSD to prolong its life, but I do think that getting an industrial grade SSD will.
  • 0 Hide
    RealBeast , November 1, 2013 1:47 PM
    Quote:
    Where i am the 840 pro is cheaper so i think i will just get that, seems to perform pretty well too


    Quote:
    Wow that is hard core I have two Intel 520 SSD's in a array so if one fails I lose everything and as you stated the same goes for any consumer SSD they tend to fail consistently after 3 years. With got me to thinking how do I prolong the life of my drives, so with a little research I found the Intel DC-s3700 200Gig SSD, no they do not seem to be any faster, but in my opinion they are, and I think that under normal operation, internet/gamming, this type of drive could last for 10 years in a home based system, but only time will tell, and I have two in my system now, so in ten years I will let you know if they still work. 10 years ago I bought four 36.4Gig raptors and water cooled them to get them to last as long as they did. I do not think that that water cooling will work on a SSD to prolong its life, but I do think that getting an industrial grade SSD will.
    My oldest high use SSD is an early X-25M that is now an Adobe scratch disk with hundreds of TBs of writes that is still going strong, the Intel Toolbox still gives it 80% life. I worry little about how long they will last. :) 

  • -1 Hide
    toolmaker_03 , November 1, 2013 3:29 PM
    Yes, and I hope that in another ten years we will have a new interface to play with like going from IDE to SATA.
  • 1 Hide
    laststop311 , November 1, 2013 5:24 PM
    Samsung is really doing something right. The 840 pro has blistering fast performance and incredibly low power consumption. Still king of the hill but there are some other drives close to it.
  • 3 Hide
    tripleX , November 2, 2013 1:28 PM
    How can this be considered a 'fair' review with an Intel-sponsored video produced by Toms Hardware embedded into the article. It is clear that this SSD does not excel at anything, and falls well behind cheaper SSDs with much better performance. The conclusion ends awkwardly, without the writer giving any real opinion as to whether the SSD is worth it in comparison to other SSDs, which from the results it obviously is not.
  • 0 Hide
    emv , November 7, 2013 7:25 AM
    This is a nice SSD, average in performance with a relatively low capacity. Intel has a brand identity and while they have had some issues, they are above average but not outstanding in reliability. 20nm NAND means that it is slower and less mature than 25nm.... and cheaper for Intel.

    So like others said, what is new here? shouldn't the conclusion be "buy it only if it is cheaper than all the other drives" or "buy it... the sticker looks cool"
  • 0 Hide
    steave_01 , November 7, 2013 9:34 PM
    SF SSDs are good enough to rely on & am happy with the response times on both kinds of data - compressed/incompressed. Keeping the firmwares up to date, thats the key.