Crucial m4 And Intel SSD 320: The Other SSD Competitors

Name: Benchmark Results: 4 KB And 512 KB Random Reads - Crucial m4 And Intel SSD 320: The Other SSD Competitors
Author: Andrew Ku

by Andrew Ku March 28, 2011 at 9:00 AM

33 Comments

Benchmark Results: 4 KB And 512 KB Random Reads

This benchmark may seem completely at odds with our earlier Iometer results (especially Crucial's m4), but it's important to understand how Iometer calculates IOPS. Most manufacturers list a mixture of burst and sustained performance, because neither is a good indication of performance on its own. Our benchmark runs for a short duration, which is why our results give more weight to burst performance. We also run Iometer with four threads, and the program totals the IOPS at every queue depth. Normally, the total IOPS at every queue depth is a good approximation of how close actual performance is to what we see listed on the spec sheet. But the m4 scores abnormally high because the IOPS performance of each thread is nearly identical at each queue depth. Usually, each thread's performance differs because they are all competing for a share of total throughput. This is similar to what occurs when multi-threaded applications simultaneously demand CPU resources. As a result, the score we get from Crucial's m4 seems to be in error. We are working with Crucial to find an explanation, and we'll update this section accordingly when we get one.

Intel's SSD 320 shows much more consistent throughput. At higher queue depths, it matches the 50 000 IOPS performance we see with the X25-M. At queue depths lower than four, we see the SSD 320 falls short of its predecessor.

Because CDM gives more weight to sustained performance, we get to see a different aspect of how a drive performs. Bumping queue depth all the way to 32 helps push the Crucial m4 above the Vertex 3s. However, the m4 still falls almost 50% behind the older C300. This is a situation where Crucial's C300 really shines. In comparison, the SSD 320 come close to the X25-M at lower queue depths, but at higher queue depths, the SSD 320 falls short by about 20%.

Larger files give Crucial's m4 room to benefit from its 6 Gb/s interface, and we see the Crucial's newest drive pull slightly ahead of Intel's SSD 510.

Meanwhile, the SSD 320 nearly falls to the bottom of the list. It only outperforms the older JMicron-based G.Skill SSD and Seagate's Barracuda XT.

Previous Next

Summary

About the author

Andrew Ku

Ask a Category Expert

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

Title
Title
Subject

This thread is closed for comments

33 comments

Comment from the forums

Your comment

rainwilds

Oooo, Crucial or Vertex? Decisions, decisions!
Anonymous

Could you expand on the Full Disk Encryption capabilities of the Intel 320?
If you can actually use hardware FDE on that drive (rather than just secure erase), that's a winner for me.
bto

Why does the Intel 510 250GB appear to have two scores in crystalmark? (469.4 and 259.7) on the top benchmark on page: "Benchmark Results: CrystalDiskMark Streaming Performance" the specs are identical for both.
poppasmurf

Great lil tidbit, wonder what the difference will be between other SSD's with different interface connections other than physical appearance and the interface connection. More on the lines of pro's and con's between the SSD interface connections I'm referring to the OCZ PCI-e drives vs. SATA 6GB just a thought to stir up the hoop la of ssd's :P
JohnnyLucky

I am beginning to wonder if we haven't reached the point where the human eye and brain are finding it harder to differentiate performance among ssd's. Some mainstream benchmarks seem to suggest that. Some of the benchmarks in this review seem to indicate the same. There are some very tight groupings.
henryvalz

At the speed points that SSDs are functioning, I'm beginning to think that durability and reliability might be the best basis for decision. I would also really like to see some boot times from Windows 7, or loading time for games.
kev_stev

Does anyone know when the vertex 3 and M4 are going to actually be available? I have heard rumors that the vertex 3 will be released "any day now" since mid march...
iamtheking123

I'll go SSD in my next build, probably in a year and a half. Right now I'm satisfied with Raid 0-ed 1TB Caviar Blacks.
foscooter

No mention of a release date. When will they be "in stores?" Q2 isn't exact enough.
zerapio

Alert! Spelling police is coming and their PISSED

(yes, it was intentional)
microking4u

Why are the I/O's for this drive way off on your review compared to others such as Anand and PCPer?
groberts101

Would have been interesting to see those Vantage marks on a Vertex 3 that hadn't already been hammered into a throttled state by all the previous tests. While it obviously shows the stamina and expected performance of the V3 after extremely heavy usage, the test doesn't take into consideration what many will see on newly installed drives that are used moderately. From that standpoint, the testing protocol is flawed, IMO.

IOW, the testing protocol in reverse would have been more interesting to see typical Vantage scores from an unthrottled controller. I know for fact through personal beta-testing of the V3 that they would have been much higher.

Or even better yet would be too take into account the special Durawrite throttling which the Sandforce drives STILL have built into the firmware(though not nearly as aggressive as the V2). Would surely give a nice little boost to SF through secure erase cleansing. If done at the 50% point it would show the potential in certain portions of the test suite that most WOULD see when not hitting thier drives with benchmark after benchmark in some sort of "hammer em' till the dust settles" protocol.

Decent enough writeup though and all the review sites will eventually get it figured out, I guess.
PraxGTI

Our SQL server has done more than 5*10^25 I/O Write Bytes in its 3 years lifespan. I really doubt the reliability of SSDs in a corporate server, although the IOs would be nice since our server can be crippled to 500% disk usage with disk queue sizes up to 8 at times.
Anonymous

praxgtiOur SQL server has done more than 5*10^25 I/O Write Bytes in its 3 years lifespan. I really doubt the reliability of SSDs in a corporate server, although the IOs would be nice since our server can be crippled to 500% disk usage with disk queue sizes up to 8 at times.

How did you work that one out,

10^24 bytes is a 1 yobibyte = 2^80 bytes = 1208925819614629174706176 bytes = 1,024 zebibytes

1 zebibyte = 270 bytes = 1180591620717411303424 bytes = 1,024 exbibytes

1 exbibyte = 260 bytes = 1152921504606846976 bytes = 1,024 pebibytes

All of the data in the world on every hard drive is estimated at around 500 exbibytes.

even in bits you are in order of several magnitude off
acku

342145 said:

Would have been interesting to see those Vantage marks on a Vertex 3 that hadn't already been hammered into a throttled state by all the previous tests. While it obviously shows the stamina and expected performance of the V3 after extremely heavy usage, the test doesn't take into consideration what many will see on newly installed drives that are used moderately. From that standpoint, the testing protocol is flawed, IMO. IOW, the testing protocol in reverse would have been more interesting to see typical Vantage scores from an unthrottled controller. I know for fact through personal beta-testing of the V3 that they would have been much higher. Or even better yet would be too take into account the special Durawrite throttling which the Sandforce drives STILL have built into the firmware(though not nearly as aggressive as the V2). Would surely give a nice little boost to SF through secure erase cleansing. If done at the 50% point it would show the potential in certain portions of the test suite that most WOULD see when not hitting thier drives with benchmark after benchmark in some sort of "hammer em' till the dust settles" protocol. Decent enough writeup though and all the review sites will eventually get it figured out, I guess.

Hi groberts101,

The test are actually run backwards. We just have help in a different order in the review.

Cheers,
Andrew
TomsHardware
acku

433483 said:

Why does the Intel 510 250GB appear to have two scores in crystalmark? (469.4 and 259.7) on the top benchmark on page: "Benchmark Results: CrystalDiskMark Streaming Performance" the specs are identical for both.

I think there is a legend in the lower right hand corner. One is using the 6Gb/s port and one is using the 3Gb/s port.
acku

254934 said:

Why are the I/O's for this drive way off on your review compared to others such as Anand and PCPer?

Which ones are you referencing?
ww2003

From what i have been hearing the new vortec 3 is going to be the best SSD on the market with faster speeds the any other one has right now.
zodiacfml

I like the part in the conclusion that one not need the fastest SSDs out there especially for desktop uses.
In my opinion, Intel has a point with their new products and pricing, enable bigger capacities at lower capacities.
zodiacfml

I meant prices.

zodiacfmlI like the part in the conclusion that one not need the fastest SSDs out there especially for desktop uses. In my opinion, Intel has a point with their new products and pricing, enable bigger capacities at lower capacities.