

As with our random read numbers, the SSD DC S3500 and S3700 demonstrate almost identical sequential read performance. And perhaps that's the point; an SSD DC S3500 gives you comparable read performance at a lower price. The thing is, neither Intel SSD matches Seagate's 600 Pro, especially at low transfer sizes.
The performance curves come much closer to each other on sequential writes, though the 600 Pro is still roughly 10% better at larger transfer sizes.
The real problem Intel is going to have with its SSD DC S3500 won't be the 480, 600, or 800 GB capacity points. Rather, it'll be the smaller drives. Even though Intel offers a comprehensive line-up, the performance of lower-capacity models trails off fast. Let's compare the 128 GB Seagate 600 Pro with the 120 GB Intel SSD DC S3500.
| Intel SSD DC S3500 120 GB | Seagate 600 Pro 128 GB | |
|---|---|---|
| Sequential Read | 445 MB/s | 520 MB/s |
| Sequential Write | 135 MB/s | 300 MB/s |
That's a hard sell when the 600 Pro is only slightly more expensive. Seagate does a great job of enabling outstanding sequential performance at the bottom of its 600 Pro family.
- 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.