
We expect an SSD that exists for the sole purpose of serving up reads to do this job well in a random 4 KB read test. Intel's SSD DC S3500 does not disappoint. It matches the S3700 at every queue depth, eventually hitting 77,000 IOPS. That's not enough to knock Seagate's 600 Pro off its perch at queue depths above 16. Peaking at 84,000 IOPS, the 600 Pro still dominates this test.

Random 4 KB writes are much harder to interpret. The 600 Pro we recently reviewed was of the 200 GB variety, and its extra factory over-provisioning boosts random write performance by 3x. That also pushes price per gigabyte up to ~$1.60/GB, which is 33% higher than Intel's SSD DC S3500. We still don't have any of the non-over-provisioned 600 Pros to review, but those drives are more in line with the S 3500's pricing and are rated at 11,000 IOPS. At the end of the day, you get what you pay for. The 600 Pro family has an advantage in that you have an option to pay a little more per gigabyte and get a big boost in random write performance.
This made us wonder what would happen if we over-provisioned the SSD DC S3500 by an additional 20%? Would we see the additional gains that the 600 Pro achieves? The short answer is no. No matter what we did, we couldn't get much above 11,000 IOPS.


The average response time lines up perfectly with what we recorded for random 4 KB IOPS. And as with our IOPS measurement, the SSD DC S3500 trails the field by a fairly wide margin. A little more troubling was a maximum response time almost double that of the 600 Pro. Before we get too concerned, lets take a look at performance consistency and see if we have something to worry about.
- Intel SSD DC S3500: Focusing On Read Performance
- Inside Intel's SSD DC S3500
- Test Setup, Benchmarks, And Methodology
- Results: Write Endurance
- Results: 4 KB Random Performance And Latency
- Results: Performance Consistency
- Results: Enterprise Workload Performance
- Results: Sequential Performance
- Results: Enterprise Video Streaming Performance
- SSD DC S3500: Not Quite An S3700 Or 600 Pro
''...we do know that the 800 GB model we're reviewing should run around $579. At ~$1.20/GB, ...''
800GB @ $1.20 = $960.
''...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
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!
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.
Go back and read the article.
Or, learn the difference between consumer vs commercial. It's a DT (Data Center).
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.
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.