Increasingly, we pay close attention to the performance consistency of enterprise-class SSDs. This is what separates a good drive from a great one when all of the corner case testing seems equal. Over the past year, we measured this in terms of large-block transfers in our Enterprise Video Streaming section. Armed with that data and our exclusive analysis, the peaks, valleys, and frequency of each became clear. If you look at the information for long enough, you start to see fingerprints for each drive.
We started with large-block transfers because, in enterprise video applications, if you don't buffer or write data fast enough, you can lose it completely. Random 4 KB transfers are slightly more academic, but they also emulate database transfers pretty well. With this sort of workload, you might not actually lose anything, but your system will certainly slow down.
In the following tests, we subjected our enterprise SSDs to 25 hours of continuous random 4 KB writes across each drive. We recorded the IOPS every second, giving us 90,000 data points. We then zoomed in to the last 60 minutes to more coherently visualize the results.

As the graph clearly shows, Intel and Seagate take completely different approaches to latency. At one end, you have the SSD DC S3700, which delivers rock-solid performance with very little variation. On the other end, you have the S3500 that has higher latency and variance. When you zoom in on the data, though, the those "fingerprints" I mentioned earlier look almost identical. Even the histograms look similar. This comes as no surprise, since both Intel SSDs use the same controller.
Then there is Seagate's 600 Pro. Even though its average latency and IOPS are closer to the SSD DC S3700, the variance is so large that it approaches the maximum observed from Intel's SSD DC S3500.

A look at the histogram makes it easy to notice the two-level distribution of latency. Two peaks around 2.7 ms correlate to ~12,000 IOPS, while the peaks around 3.25 ms represent slightly less than 10,000 IOPS.
Intel makes it a point to specify the performance consistency of its enterprise SSDs. With the 480 GB SSD DC S3500, IOPS in the 99.9th slowest one-second interval should be within 75% of the overall average. In our testing, we recorded results closer to 80%.
- 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.