Trending

Intel SSD 310 80 GB: Little Notebooks Get Big Storage Flexibility

By

Test Setup

Test Hardware
ProcessorIntel Core i5-2500K (Sandy Bridge), 3.3 GHz, LGA 1155, 8 MB Shared L3, Power-savings enabled
MotherboardGigabyte GA-H67MA-UD2H
MemoryKingston Hyper-X 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) DDR3-1333 @ DDR3-1333/1066, 1.5 V
Hard DriveIntel X25-M 160 GB SSDSA2M160G2GC, SATA 3Gb/s (System Drive)
Kingston SSDNow 100 V+ 120 GB SVP100S2/128G, SATA 3Gb/s
OCZ Agility 2 120 GB OCZSSD2-2AGTE120G, SATA 3Gb/s
Seagate Momentus 5400.6 500 GB ST9500325AS, SATA 3Gb/s
OCZ Vertex 2 120 GB OCZSSD2-2VTXE120G, SATA 3Gb/s
Intel SSD 310 80 GB SSDMAEMC080G2, SATA 3Gb/s
GraphicsIntel HD Graphics 3000
Power SupplySparkle 1250 W, 80 PLUS
System Software And Drivers
Operating SystemWindows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
DirectXDirectX 11
Graphics DriverIntel Display Driver 8.15.10.2266

Benchmarks
Performance MeasurementsCrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64, set to read and write random data to drivePCMark Vantage 1.0.2.0
I/O PerformanceIOMeter 2008.08.18, default configuration, not reading/writing random dataFile server Benchmark, Web server Benchmark, Database Benchmark, Workstation BenchmarkStreaming Reads, Streaming Writes4 KB Random Reads, 4 KB Random Writes

While the mSATA can't be natively plugged into a SATA port, we have a interposer card that converts the mSATA interface to the standard seven-pin SATA connector. This does not create any sort of bottleneck, as mSATA still utilizes native SATA signaling.

Update: If you have been paying attention to the news, you already know about the SATA degradation problem in the H67 and P67 chipsets. We want to remind everyone that the problem only affects the 3 Gb/s ports. We're only testing on the 6 Gb/s ports here, so our results are unaffected.

30 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Annisman 14 February 2011 12:37
    Great article!

    Been rocking an SSD for about a year now, and there is no going back to mechanical drives, SSD for the laptop segment makes even more sense. I think most of us however would like to see price drops a bit faster though, my 120GB OCZ Vertex Turbo cost me over 500 dollars.
    Reply
  • acku 14 February 2011 12:53
    9509117 said:
    Great article!

    Been rocking an SSD for about a year now, and there is no going back to mechanical drives, SSD for the laptop segment makes even more sense. I think most of us however would like to see price drops a bit faster though, my 120GB OCZ Vertex Turbo cost me over 500 dollars.

    I believe the last report I read mentioned close to 60% of all SSD purchases are mobile related. SSDs can really mark up a notebook's price, so I'm right there with you on prices. We need price drops, more of them, and in quicker succession.

    Cheers,
    Andrew Ku
    TomsHardware.com
    Reply
  • alyoshka 14 February 2011 13:43
    It's high time they came up with the ROM or CMOS chip that has the capacity to just store the OS on it and a few other programs, that itself will make the system really very fast..... then they could go over for a change to the 6GBps SATA drives and make them work at that speed..... Really, we already have ample RAM and expandable slots for them, why not get a little more creative and just get the job done instead of going all the way round and trying this approach.
    We have fast, extremely fast drives but at prices that touch the sky, wouldn't it be better to just have loaded or embedded the OS straight onto the mobo.... cheaper until it's capable of handling the high data flow rates offered by SSD... yet not being able to saturate the SATA flow rates or capacities.....
    Reply
  • Archimag 14 February 2011 13:44
    How about its life cycle compairing with regular hard drives?
    Reply
  • amk09 14 February 2011 15:00
    Newegg Daily Shell Shocker has a 128GB Kingston SSD on sale for $119.99!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    History has been made. SSD's are finally starting to hit a dollar/GB. Keep those prices dropping!
    Reply
  • druids84 14 February 2011 15:09
    Although I of course would enjoy having 120+GB SSD on my laptop or home desktop, only true photo/video professionals or gamers with ample games need that much fast storage! I am able to squeeze Win7 and several Valve games within my old 30GB OCZ Vertex SSD, and I would feel quite comfortably with having 64GB SSD just to have more breathing space. You do NOT need more than that unless you're processing a lot of photos/videos. 120+GB is only if you include movies and music. You don't need 20,000 IOPs or 250MB/s seq.reads for your movies and other sitting junk! ;) Just buy a cheap external 2.5" HDD and store all your movies/music/photos on that, and this solution is quite mobile if you drag your laptop everywhere!
    Reply
  • Travis Beane 14 February 2011 18:22
    druids84Although I of course would enjoy having 120+GB SSD on my laptop or home desktop, only true photo/video professionals or gamers with ample games need that much fast storage! I am able to squeeze Win7 and several Valve games within my old 30GB OCZ Vertex SSD, and I would feel quite comfortably with having 64GB SSD just to have more breathing space. You do NOT need more than that unless you're processing a lot of photos/videos. 120+GB is only if you include movies and music. You don't need 20,000 IOPs or 250MB/s seq.reads for your movies and other sitting junk! Just buy a cheap external 2.5" HDD and store all your movies/music/photos on that, and this solution is quite mobile if you drag your laptop everywhere!My Steam folder alone is 437GB. I have another 100GB+ on non steam games also. Then add my OS and etc.
    I currently enjoy the faster speeds of 4x500 RAID 0 with the OS on a 1TB. I would actually be running 8x500GB RAID 0 if my case was large enough, and my graphics card weren't so large (blocks 2 slots).

    How does Toms feel about doing a showdown between $500 of modern HDD vs $500 of modern SSD? With and without a dedicated controller.
    I know for my next build I don't know whether I want 4x 3TB or a 3TB with 2-3x SSD or 3x 3TB with a single small SSD, or is it better to go with, say, 8x 1TB or 4x 3TB in either RAID 0, 10, 5, 6, 50, 60 etc. :)
    Reply
  • druids84 14 February 2011 18:41
    Well, just as I mentioned earlier, my point still holds: you DON'T need more than 120+GB unless you're serious gamer or professional working in multimedia business. And your setup sounds a bit like "gamer with ample games" case from my argument. ;) I really can't see a way I could squeeze 4x RAID in ordinary non-gaming laptop, which is what many if not most of people use for actually doing their work.
    So, if I would have to choose between old-school 500GB HDD, overkill 256GB SSD, or just simple 60-128GB SSD + external 2.5" HDD for a laptop, I'd go with the last one.
    Reply
  • romulous75 14 February 2011 21:09
    meh, when I added an SSD drive I did not notice much improvement. I have a raid 5 array of WD2003FYYS drives which use to be the boot drive ;)
    Reply
  • romulous75 14 February 2011 21:12
    oh, and also I seem to be the first one loaded in COD black ops when it changes levels :)
    Reply