Video streaming is a demanding workload within the enterprise space. Companies want more HD streams with higher bit-rates and no stuttering. A storage solution well-suited for enterprise-class video delivery has completely different capabilities than something designed for databases. At the end of the day, you're basically looking for exceptional large-block sequential write performance. You also need a high level of consistency that traditionally isn't seen from consumer SSDs. For a more in-depth analysis, take a look at page 10 of Intel SSD 910 Review: PCI Express-Based Enterprise Storage.
Once the drive is in a steady state, we write its entire capacity 100 times. We use 8 MB transfer sizes and a queue depth of four, recording timestamps for each individual write. The graph below reflects 100-point averaging, so that you can better visualize the results.

When we first saw the results of our streaming performance tests, we were shocked. In fact, we performed this test on multiple machines, behind HBAs, on different drives, and with different test software. No matter what we did, we always saw this oscillation.
Even though our overall average was ~430 MB/s, we had some wild swings between 400 and 475 MB/s. The problem with this behavior is that a good portion of the writes are at or below the rated speed of 410 MB/s. How does this translate to sustained performance?
| Threshold | Best-Case Buffer Size | Worst-Case Buffer Size |
|---|---|---|
| 375 MB/s | 11 MB | 17 MB |
| 400 MB/s | 23 MB | 31 MB |
| 410 MB/s | 162 MB | 172 MB |
| 420 MB/s | 492 MB | 771 MB |
| 430 MB/s | 1239 MB | 1614 MB |
Even though there are prolonged periods of performance well above this drive's specification, the dips below gate the SSD DC S3500's performance. But, even minimal amounts of software buffering should allow you achieve its stated performance. Just don't go much above, or you will pay the price very quickly.
- 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.