Page 1:The Other 2011 Competitors
Page 2:Meet Intel's SSD 320, The Postville Refresh
Page 3:Meet Crucial's m4, Micron's RealSSD C400
Page 4:Cost Of More Space, m4's Over-Provisioning
Page 5:Test Setup And Benchmarks
Page 6:Benchmark Results: I/O Performance
Page 7:Benchmark Results: Iometer Streaming
Page 8:Benchmark Results: CrystalDiskMark Streaming Performance
Page 9:Benchmark Results: 4 KB And 512 KB Random Reads
Page 10:Benchmark Results: 4 KB And 512 KB Random Writes
Page 11:Benchmark Results: PCMark Vantage Storage Test
Page 12:Final Words
Benchmark Results: PCMark Vantage Storage Test
The application loading workload is predominantly read-based. However, given the SSD 320’s performance here, we’d surmise that we’re dealing with small file transfers. This is why we see the X25-M (G2) outpace the SSD 320. In comparison, Crucial's m4 continues to perform fairly well, falling just shy of the Vertex 3s.
The gaming test is more than 99% reads, and measures streaming performance from the tested drives. Despite the fact that Intel’s SSD 510 performed really well in our synthetic streaming benchmarks, it nearly pulls a last-place finish here. In comparison, Crucial's m4 performs somewhere between the two Vertex 3s in synthetic streaming benchmarks, but it jumps to the top of this chart with a strong lead. This looks to be a strong contender if your aim is quick level loading.
Intel's SSD 320 shows very similar performance to the X25-M. If you're a gamer, don't expect much change.
Reading and writing to Windows Movie Maker results in an almost 50/50 split between reads and writes. We’re counting on this test using large transfers, though. And perhaps that’s why the SSD 510 outperforms OCZ’s last-gen SandForce-based drives and Intel’s X25-M. It still succumbs, however, to the m4, both Vertex 3 drives, and the RealSSD C300.
In contrast, the SSD 320 performs close to the last-gen of OCZ's SandForce-based drives.
Windows Defender is almost entirely read-based, but the fact that we’re scanning a lot of small files causes the m4 to jump to the front of the line. Intel's SSD 320 continues to show some weakness with smaller sized reads in comparison to the X25-M, but the difference is very subtle.
The Media Center workload is split between reads and writes. It involves concurrent video playback, streaming video, and video recording, all usage cases employing large chunks of data. Again, Crucial's m4 tops the list. Notice though that the Intel 510 starts to jump from the bottom to a fourth place finish. This is why the size of the read is can be an important factor. In contrast, the SSD 320 has a better balanced performance profile. There is a 25% improvement over the X25-M, but notice how all the scores from our 3Gb/s port testing clusters toward the center. This shows that the SSD 320 is fully saturating the bandwidth of SATA 3Gb/s.
- The Other 2011 Competitors
- Meet Intel's SSD 320, The Postville Refresh
- Meet Crucial's m4, Micron's RealSSD C400
- Cost Of More Space, m4's Over-Provisioning
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: I/O Performance
- Benchmark Results: Iometer Streaming
- Benchmark Results: CrystalDiskMark Streaming Performance
- Benchmark Results: 4 KB And 512 KB Random Reads
- Benchmark Results: 4 KB And 512 KB Random Writes
- Benchmark Results: PCMark Vantage Storage Test
- Final Words