All about Internal Storage
 Latest Internal Storage articles
All Internal Storage articles

Newsletters


  • Ask your question about IT issues
  • Post

Partners

The Games selection

crazy : Xiao Xiao 7 A great fight scene from the animation movies Xiao Xiao.
crazy : Interactive Boogy Pick one of the 3 songs, hit on the correct keys matching this boy's dance moves.
Ads

Sponsored links

Conclusion

Previous Next
1:40 AM - 07/14/2008 by Patrick Schmid and Achim Roos

There is one conclusion we would like to make right away: OCZ’s new SATA II 2.5“ SSD, which is based on a Samsung drive, is the best Flash SSD in our small benchmark lineup. The OCZ Flash SSD provides performance that beats even the quick Mtron drive in many sections, and its power efficiency is unmatched. This is the type of result a Flash SSD should provide, and such a drive wasn’t available at the time we analyzed the other Flash SSDs.

A look at the rest of the test bed reveals two results, one of which supports the conclusion we made in the initial article: mainly, Flash SSDs are not there yet and some may even contribute to emptying your notebook’s battery more quickly. This applies to scenarios in which the requirements are limited, e.g. DVD video playback, or when the drive idles for a long time. The other result makes clear that Flash SSDs, even some poor ones, are more efficient as they have to do work. This applies to the benchmarks testing random I/O and sequential reads. As always, the final picture is somewhere in between, and a decision for or against a Flash SSD can only be made for a particular product, and having analyzed the intended operating conditions and applications.

Flash SSDs Win Under Load

Most of the Flash SSDs tested provide better random I/O performance and better sequential throughput than mechanical hard drives. Performing random I/O, the Flash SSDs show a similar power requirement than the 2.5“ hard drives, while these require more power for sequential read operations. Since sequential read throughput oftentimes is higher on a Flash SSD, the performance-per-watt ratio is better for the Flash SSDs, as they deliver better performance while requiring less power. This also applies to random I/O, but with smaller advantages for the Flash SSDs. So much for the section where SSDs win.

Hard Drives Efficient In Idle And Low Load

The two other benchmarks reveal advantages for conventional hard drives when they remain idle, or when they have to play a constant data stream, e.g. DVD video playback from the drive. Many of you requested the video playback test, which is dominated by OCZ’s new Flash SSD. Clearly, for future SSDs, the hard drive is beaten. But the Hitachi Travelstar 7K200 drive manages to best most of the other drives by requiring less power for DVD video playback thanks to a low-power idle mode that throttles the drive, while maintaining the performance it has to deliver (no, it does not spin down). If it weren’t for the slow (but efficient) SanDisk SSD and the new winner by OCZ, this section would be dominated by a mechanical drive.

The results are almost alike for our drive idle test, for which we measured drive idle power after an idle period of 10 minutes, which allows all drives to enter their power saving states if there are any. All Windows power saving features for the hard drive were disabled to watch what the drives do if they are bored. Again, if it weren’t for the new SSD from OCZ, many Flash SSDs would have to surrender to old fashioned hard drives, as their idle power is simply too high.

Consequences

As already pointed out, the power disadvantages originate from old Flash SSD designs using inefficient SATA bridges, and even though the Flash SSD Hoax article was saddled by a mistake in the battery runtime test procedure, for which we apologize, the conclusions were not far off.

We recommend against purchasing any Flash SSD without knowing details about performance and power requirements. Flash SSDs do not inherently contribute to increasing battery life and better efficiency comes with the appropriate Flash SSD used for a specific application. "Flash SSD" is not a qualifier for efficiency or performance.

Huge differences do not only exist between various Flash SSDs, but also between mechanical hard drives. We learned that a 7,200-RPM drive can be much more efficient under specific applications, while a 5,400-RPM hard drive may very well outperform the theoretically faster 7,200-RPM drive in certain benchmarks. At the same time, power requirements and efficiency highly depend on the particular model, so again, we recommend paying close attention to relevant test results before you spend your money.

Another consequence of the varying benchmark results has to be an adjustment of the testing methodology used to evaluate hard drives and solid state drives. While reviewers have been looking at performance from various angles — mostly tracking power requirements in idle and peak power — it will be increasingly important to analyze storage device efficiency based on popular applications scenarios. Expect to find this information on all upcoming reviews of hard drives or solid state drives.

Talkback
Xeus32 07/14/2008 9:41 AM
Show
Xeus32 07/14/2008 9:43 AM
Hide
-1+

Flash SSDs do not inherently contribute to increasing battery life and better efficiency comes with the appropriate Flash SSD used for a specific application. "Flash SSD" is not a qualifier for efficiency or performance.

swiftpulse 07/14/2008 12:02 PM
Hide
-1+

This is much better than the first article now. Specially the DVD playback is interesting.

swiftpulse 07/14/2008 12:06 PM
Hide
-0+

The 64GB OCZ seems to be an amazingly exceptional drive.

bloodymaze 07/14/2008 1:37 PM
Hide
--3+

Hahaha. Once again contradicting yourself as Xeus pointed out.

JPForums 07/14/2008 3:13 PM
Hide
-10+

Kudos to Tom's for having the decency to admit their mistakes and revise the article. The results, while not extraordinarily different than the previous article (discounting newcomers) provided a much more complete picture of the advantages and disadvantages of SSDs.

Articles like this one are a necessary step to regaining some of the lost credibility from previous articles like in this scenario. (Though it would be better if the articles didn't need revision) In short, it is encouraging to see that Tom's is listening to the readers. IMHO the real enthusiasts are more concerned with well thought out procedures, and accuracy/completeness/comprehensiveness of results than reading the "We posted first" articles that are all to easy to find on the internet.

dragunover 07/14/2008 3:23 PM
Hide
--3+

iLOL
I like when people talk about the power inefficiency of hard-drives,yet don't blame things like CPU's,or discrete GPU's in their laptops.

However,I would like to see this as a high power part in desktops sooner or later,but with of course more power and(hopefully) stellar reliability.
And I mean for under 300 dollars.

dragunover 07/14/2008 3:25 PM
Show
Anonymous 07/14/2008 4:34 PM
Show
Anonymous 07/14/2008 4:39 PM
Hide
--1+

Dragunover - no one is refuting the fact that the CPU/GPU will be power hungry... that's not what is under discussion here. i'm interested by the fact you seem to be asking for SSDs that consume more power...?

Igot1forya 07/14/2008 4:51 PM
Hide
-7+

Ziria, Wattage (P) is calculated by multiplying Voltage (V) by Amps (A).

Hence, the only important number is Wattage.

MDillenbeck 07/14/2008 5:10 PM
Hide
-3+

This article demonstrates that too often people generalize from specific test data.

Whether SDD or HDD, how you use your electronics device will influence how it much power it consumes. To conclude that one drive uses less power because a specific test does is an inaccurate conclusion - the testor can only state that it uses less power under those given circumstances and that is most likely will hold true under similar circumstances. (For example: this test is for random read/write operations, so the results most likely will be true for most applications that follow that pattern of disk usage.)

My point? Many times reviewers do not have the time to evaluate a product in depth, and thus they should not make broad generalizations or exaggerated claims.

Hopefully Tom's will keep up with in-depth reviews for a variety of users - road warriors (office apps/web/email), multimedia entertainment (DVD/video streaming apps/music playing), gamers, and "typical home users" - and creating good summary tables of their findings.

Myself, I find the IOs/Watt information especially valuable. I'll use that to find the IOs/Watt/$ when evaluating my future purchases. I'm kinda curious how the SSDs stack up against each other in that category (and I'm sure the HDDs are still waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy ahead of the SSDs right now).

demonhorde665 07/14/2008 7:45 PM
Hide
--3+

to me teh argument isnt so much a "efficency" issue , to mee flash SSd's represent a future in computing where we don't have to replace , storage devices every 5-6 years (this is assuming you are getting agood high quality hard drive ) old mechanical hard drives (the current standard) fail after about 5-6 years to date the longest livinf hard drive i have is at 6 and i'll be amazed it it last half another year./ Also note you can cut this hard drive life expectancy in half if you smoke around your computer or you ahve a dusty home like many peopel in more rural areas. This hard drive death is soemthign that can't be stoped as the metal paltes require mechanical parts to spin them , and like any motor the parts will wear outa nd eventually stop working all together. Now fast forward to when they have SDD's that range in a better size (like at elast 250 gb) i can see these drive replacing even desk top hard drives , simpply for teh reason ... They HAVE NO MECHANICAL PARTS THAT WEAR OUT ! what this means is essientially many of use computer geeks taht are hard put to lose a comp jsut because it is old , will not have to replace these parts , recently i gave my mom my old alienware (that is now 6 years old) and i know before the year is out i will be replacing her hard drive on it , but with an SSD's i wouldnt ahve to , the only issue with SSD's is their extremely High price for drives thet come remotely close to desk top hard drive sizes (last time i looked a good 128 gb one , goes for around 4,000-5,000 dollars) the alienware has a 200 gig , to just fill that capacity you are looking at any where from 8,000 to 10,000 dollars. yes i think these drives are the future of long term storage devices in ALL computers , but for the time that future is expensive at the moment. i say give it 10-15 years before you see SSD's at the same cost as old magnetic HD's

Fadamor 07/14/2008 8:50 PM
Hide
-3+

demonhorde665 :
to me teh argument isnt so much a "efficency" issue , to mee flash SSd's represent a future in computing where we don't have to replace , storage devices every 5-6 years (this is assuming you are getting agood high quality hard drive ) old mechanical hard drives (the current standard) fail after about 5-6 years to date the longest livinf hard drive i have is at 6 and i'll be amazed it it last half another year./ Also note you can cut this hard drive life expectancy in half if you smoke around your computer or you ahve a dusty home like many peopel in more rural areas. This hard drive death is soemthign that can't be stoped as the metal paltes require mechanical parts to spin them , and like any motor the parts will wear outa nd eventually stop working all together. Now fast forward to when they have SDD's that range in a better size (like at elast 250 gb) i can see these drive replacing even desk top hard drives , simpply for teh reason ... They HAVE NO MECHANICAL PARTS THAT WEAR OUT !


Not true. Flash SSD's suffer the same flaw as your typical Flash "thumb drive"... The recording medium fails after X number of writes. They've added technology in the controllers to extend the drive's life by spreading the writes around the drive's landscape, but the drive WILL fail eventually... even if you treat it with kid gloves.

gxsolace 07/14/2008 8:55 PM
Hide
-2+

Wow. Pretty rare these days to see a big publication go out and admit a mistake and even make a big public apology. kudos to you guys.

uday_ananth 07/14/2008 9:03 PM
Hide
-2+

hard disks have been here for ages.. give ssds some more time and only then we can actually evaluatethe differences..

hergieburbur 07/14/2008 9:29 PM
Hide
-3+

Wow, I have to admit, I did not expect Tom's to admit their errors in the last article. I am glad they did though, and this one looks to be much more along the lines of what we would expect to see. Props for having the gut to admit your mistake Patrick and Aaron.

Anonymous 07/14/2008 10:10 PM
Hide
-2+

All that really matters to me in regards to these articles, is that i'm not going to notice any difference in battery life while using my lapop. I could however expect to enjoy the speed if i got a good SSD.

gwolfman 07/14/2008 11:06 PM
Hide
-1+

Nice job Tom's. I thoroughly enjoyed this article a lot more than the previous one. It seems like the last one way maybe rushed. Either way, thanks for keeping things legit and up to (at least my idea of) Tom's quality standards. Thanks again!

shadowmaster625 07/14/2008 11:15 PM
Hide
-0+

so where are the benchmarks for OCZ Core Raid-0?


Comments are closed on this page.

Sponsored links