Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Results: Enterprise Workload Performance

Intel SSD DC S3700 Review: Benchmarking Consistency
By

Our next set of tests simulates different enterprise-oriented workloads, including database, file server, Web server, and workstation configurations.

Notice that the results are pretty similar, regardless of whether you're looking at the 200 or 800 GB model. This is the case largely because high-end workloads are generally biased to read operations. Both capacities offer the same read performance, so it's no surprise to see them so close to each other.

At lower queue depths, the 800 GB SSD DC S3700 is consistently faster in each workload. It also exhibits an advantage in the file server workload. However, if your application mostly involves read operations, any of Intel's available capacities should be suitable. Our only warning would be that the 100 GB drive, which we don't have in-house, is rated for significantly lower write performance.

Our database workload (also categorized as transaction processing) involves purely random I/O. Its profile consists of 67% reads and 33% writes using 8 KB transfers.

The file server workload consists of 80% random reads of varying transfer sizes.

The Web server (100% read, varying transfer size) and workstation (80% reads, 80% random) workloads show the same basic trend.

Ask a Category Expert

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

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 7 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 5 Hide
    merikafyeah , January 31, 2013 6:57 AM
    Consistency and reliability are always more important to me than speed and capacity,
    but it's wonderful when you can have all four.

    Kudos to Intel for raising the bar yet again on SSD quality. Eagerly awaiting trickle-down effect.
  • 0 Hide
    adgjlsfhk , January 31, 2013 10:15 AM
    how does ssd power consumption compare to an hhd's in watts per gigabyte?
  • 1 Hide
    InvalidError , January 31, 2013 11:56 AM
    adgjlsfhkhow does ssd power consumption compare to an hhd's in watts per gigabyte?

    For conventional 3.5" HDDs, you have 5-8W idle, 10-15W seek and 15-25W spin-up.
    For 2.5" HDDs, you have ~1W idle and 2-2.5W seek/spin-up.

    I'm a little surprised at how much power Intel's enterprise SSDs are using. I'm guessing a good chunk of the reason comes from having extra circuitry to do the double-conversion from 5/12V to ~30V and then back down to whatever the SSD needs.
  • 1 Hide
    drewriley , January 31, 2013 12:32 PM
    InvalidErrorFor conventional 3.5" HDDs, you have 5-8W idle, 10-15W seek and 15-25W spin-up.For 2.5" HDDs, you have ~1W idle and 2-2.5W seek/spin-up.I'm a little surprised at how much power Intel's enterprise SSDs are using. I'm guessing a good chunk of the reason comes from having extra circuitry to do the double-conversion from 5/12V to ~30V and then back down to whatever the SSD needs.


    You nailed it. If you look at 2.5" 15K and 10K RPM drive, the Intel is better on W/GB, but it is pretty high when compared to other SSDs.
  • -1 Hide
    master9716 , January 31, 2013 1:13 PM
    Samsung aint gona mess around , they are going to bring this type of performance to Desktops watch .
  • 1 Hide
    sanilmahambre , January 31, 2013 5:53 PM
    So this is why they gave up on motherboards and concentrated more on SSD's! Believe me that trick worked wonders and a lot more money.. LOL
  • 0 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , February 2, 2013 4:55 AM
    adgjlsfhkhow does ssd power consumption compare to an hhd's in watts per gigabyte?


    i am not sure if watt/GB is important for storage.
    Reason : the new philosophy is to "hurry up, finish the work, and relax".