Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Inside Intel's SSD DC S3500

The SSD DC S3500 Review: Intel's 6 Gb/s Controller And 20 nm NAND
By

If you've already read Intel SSD DC S3700 Review: Benchmarking Consistency, then you might want to skip ahead. The SSD DC S3500 and S3700 don't just share a few similarities; they share almost every single component. Starting on the exterior, they employ the same aluminum enclosure, right down to the part number.  Can you tell which is which?

Intel SSD DC S3700 (left), Intel SSD DC S3500 (right)Intel SSD DC S3700 (left), Intel SSD DC S3500 (right)

As with the S3700, we see two through-hole 35 V 47 uF capacitors notched into the edges of the PCB.

On the inside, we see three black, plastic stand-offs covering each of the screw holes. It's easy to observe that the PCB is identical to the one found on Intel's SSD DC S3700. Even the reference designators on the silk screen match. Both SSD DC S3000 families utilize the same PC29AS21CA0 controller, too. This Intel-developed, eight-channel, 6 Gb/s processors performed well in our S3700 review, exhibiting excellent consistency.

Next, we take note of two DDR3-1600 DRAM packages from Micron (MT41K512M8RA-125). Each FBGA module hosts 512 MB of memory, totaling 1 GB of cache on the SSD.

Up until now, the only difference between both drive families was the DRAM they use for cache. But with the SSD DC S3500, Intel is replacing the 25 nm HET-MLC found in the S3700 with 20 nm MLC. This is what gives Intel the ability to hit lower price points with its SSD DC S3500. And as we'll see shortly, it's also the reason why write endurance is so much lower.

As with the SSD DC S3700, some capacities of the S3500 have an odd assortment of NAND packages. The 480 GB version we have in the lab leverages fourteen 32 GB modules, one 64 GB module, and one 16 GB module. That adds up to 528 GB, yielding 9% over-provisioning. And that's substantially less than the SSD DC S3700 at ~22%.

Ask a Category Expert

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

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 13 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 2 Hide
    Mastle , June 11, 2013 8:29 AM
    Hi, Think there's an error on page 1, $579 for 80GB drive......Surely won't be getting it at that price for my home build!
  • -1 Hide
    drewriley , June 11, 2013 8:52 AM
    -Mastle - You are correct, that should read $579 for the 480GB version.
  • 0 Hide
    busuan , June 11, 2013 10:41 AM
    Found myself suddenly losing interests in SATA SSDs after seeing the specs of PCIe SSD in the latest MBA refresh.
  • 2 Hide
    PapaCrazy , June 11, 2013 1:05 PM
    An Intel 320 series SSD I put in my dad's computer just encountered the 8mb bug even though the firmware was updated with the "fixed" version. He uses the computer for business and I got him an Intel SSD thinking it'd be reliable. I think I'm gonna try Samsung next time around.
  • 1 Hide
    Evolution2001 , June 11, 2013 1:09 PM
    Nitpicking here... but the article text is still wrong...or the math is. :p 
    ''...we do know that the 800 GB model we're reviewing should run around $579. At ~$1.20/GB, ...''

    800GB @ $1.20 = $960.
  • -1 Hide
    drewriley , June 11, 2013 2:00 PM
    Quote:
    Nitpicking here... but the article text is still wrong...or the math is. :p 
    ''...we do know that the 800 GB model we're reviewing should run around $579. At ~$1.20/GB, ...''

    800GB @ $1.20 = $960.


    Thanks, just can't seem to get the right combination of 4, 8 and 0. The 480GB version is $579
  • 3 Hide
    drewriley , June 11, 2013 2:06 PM
    Quote:
    An Intel 320 series SSD I put in my dad's computer just encountered the 8mb bug even though the firmware was updated with the "fixed" version. He uses the computer for business and I got him an Intel SSD thinking it'd be reliable. I think I'm gonna try Samsung next time around.


    With the BAD_CTX_13X (8MB) failure, the fixed firmware fixed 'most' of them. The failure rates are quite low, especially after the FW 'fix', but if that one failure happens on the only drive you bought, it can really suck. As a consumer, I could care less if a million other people got a good SSD, if mine fails, I am upset. As an enterprise buyer, if one fails out a million, my company is throwing a party!


  • 0 Hide
    flong777 , June 12, 2013 1:41 AM
    Why does Intel continue to release mediocre SSDs? Granted this performs middle of the pack but I just don't understand why a company with Intel's resources doesn't put out a top performer like the 840 Pro.
  • 0 Hide
    leonfeldman89 , June 12, 2013 9:31 AM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    An Intel 320 series SSD I put in my dad's computer just encountered the 8mb bug even though the firmware was updated with the "fixed" version. He uses the computer for business and I got him an Intel SSD thinking it'd be reliable. I think I'm gonna try Samsung next time around.


    With the BAD_CTX_13X (8MB) failure, the fixed firmware fixed 'most' of them. The failure rates are quite low, especially after the FW 'fix', but if that one failure happens on the only drive you bought, it can really suck. As a consumer, I could care less if a million other people got a good SSD, if mine fails, I am upset. As an enterprise buyer, if one fails out a million, my company is throwing a party!




    I'm sorry Drew, but that's flat out wrong.
    BAD_CTX_00000013X is lierally just a single error code that is related to the 8MB bricking issues of the 320.
    Intel didn't fix "most" of anything. There are many other instances of the BAD_CTX and NO_CONTEXT errors.
    Intel literally fixed only the most common version of the BAD_CTX bug and did NOTHING about the underlying issue plagueing the 320.

    Frankly, there's not much more they could have done than because the 320 was a bad design based on porting the X-25 controller and slapping on 32nm memory that it wasn't robust enough to handle.

    It looks like Intel has done the same thing here by slapping 20nm NAND onto the 3700 and renaming it.

    Maybe they think adding "Data Center" to it's name will somehow cause it to brick less?

    Anyway, continuing to endorse the 320 as a reliable drive is just bad journalism. It's certainly not the worst out there, but the 320 is still significantly over-represented in failure rates vs micron/crucial and samsung.
  • 0 Hide
    Grizely1 , June 12, 2013 3:35 PM
    Quote:
    Why does Intel continue to release mediocre SSDs? Granted this performs middle of the pack but I just don't understand why a company with Intel's resources doesn't put out a top performer like the 840 Pro.


    Go back and read the article.

    Or, learn the difference between consumer vs commercial. It's a DT (Data Center).
  • 0 Hide
    flong777 , June 16, 2013 4:06 AM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Why does Intel continue to release mediocre SSDs? Granted this performs middle of the pack but I just don't understand why a company with Intel's resources doesn't put out a top performer like the 840 Pro.


    Go back and read the article.

    Or, learn the difference between consumer vs commercial. It's a DT (Data Center).


    Fair enough, I guess I should have been more clear. I don't understand why Intel is involved with so many mediocre SSDs - whether enterprise or consumer.
    While I am not an enterprise user, I think I understand the basics. Enterprise SSDs are geared to handle heavy cues and write loads.

    You have a point that it is not fair to compare enterprise with consumer - they are two different animals.
  • 0 Hide
    DaveSuth , October 28, 2013 11:49 AM
    How does the Seagate Pro 600 compare to the Intel DC 3700?
  • 0 Hide
    echolane , November 29, 2013 4:41 PM
    This review pretty much condemns Intel's S3500 drive for write intensive environments. Windows 7 is considered a write-intensive OS. Does that mean the Intel SSD S3500 would be an unsuitable choice for a boot drive?

    It would be really helpful to have a review focused on answering the question of which SSD is most suitable for a Windows 7 boot drive.