Seagate 600 SSD 240 GB Review: LAMD And Toshiba, Together Again

Results: Power Consumption

Idle Power Consumption

Idle consumption is the most important power metric for consumer and client SSDs. After all, solid-state drives complete host commands quickly, and then drop back down to idle. Aside from the occasional background garbage collection and house keeping, a modern SSD spends most of its life doing very little. Enterprise-oriented drives are more frequently used at full tilt, making their idle power numbers far less important. But this just isn't the case on the desktop, where the demands of client and consumer computing leave most SSDs sitting on their hands for long stretches of time.

If there is one knock against the LAMD-equipped SSDs from Seagate and Corsair, it's here. Of all the drives benchmarked, none consume more power in an idle state than the two with LAMD controllers. The 600 and Neutron get reamed by the ever-so-frugal SSD510s and Samsung 830s of the world. As long as you're tossing the 600 in a desktop or a chunky notebook that doesn't stray too fall from a power outlet, then no problem. And if the high power consumption wasn't insult enough, the thermal demands placed upon an SSD in a super-slim laptop quickly get out of hand, too.

For a drive that'll ship in both 7 and 5 mm form factors for mobile computing, idle power use should be a bigger priority for Seagate. SandForce and Samsung have made this a rallying cry, while OCZ's Vector (which is far from terrible at idle anyway) is really more for hardcore desktop users. The Neutron GTX could be forgiven for this transgression given its enthusiast positioning and early release. But we have a harder time letting it slide from a product apparently tailored to mobile applications, you know, like Seagate's 600. These aren't the numbers we wanted to see.

PCMark 7 Average Power Consumption

If we log power consumption through a workload, even a relatively heavy one, we see that average use is still pretty close to the idle numbers. Max power may spike fiercely, but, on average, the usage seen during a PCMark 7 run is pretty light.

A more demanding application like PCMark 7 helps Seagate's (and Corsair's) plight slightly. The SSDs in the middle hand in averages around 1 W. The LAMD/Toshiba twins are just a couple of tenths higher than that.

This thread is closed for comments
21 comments
    Your comment
  • mayankleoboy1
    1. Where is the Samsung 840 and 840 Pro ? Samsung 830 is quite old now.
    2. I dont get why you use QD greater than 4 in the synthetics. All of thses drives are for PC users, who will rarely get QD even equal to 4.

    3.I would have liked more real world tests like : Copying to and from drive, restoring backups, decompressing large ISO files , doing all of the above and then noting the time it takes to open Photoshop,

    4. Can you do a pre and post defragment test, just for lolz ?
    5. Can you do a test where the windows system is paging on the SSD ? basically a measure of the read/write disc speed when the OS is low on RAM and is using the SSD for pagefile.
    6. IMHO, if you use completely incompressible data to check the perf of SSD, you are deliberately biasing against the Sandforce based SSD's. Could you use a better mix of compressible and incompressible data ? The dynamic compression will definitely improve the perf of Sandforce SSD's in real world desktop usage.
  • mayankleoboy1
    And two more :

    1. The time it takes to do a full drive complete error checking (check file errors+recovery of bad sectors).
    2. The time it takes for a deleted file to be recovered ,using a third party data recovery freeware.
  • kyuuketsuki
    Not a bad drive at all. However, that warranty nonsense Seagate is trying to pull is enough to make this a definite pass. Not going to support that.
  • ryomitomo
    There's a typo in the chart in the first page. The Max Warranty TBW for 120GB version should read 36.5TB instead of 36.5GB. Otherwise, it is not much of a lifetime write endurance.
  • Twoboxer
    I have no problem with their warranty statement. They are telling you exactly how long its going to last. As long as the device reports where it is along the way, I'll know exactly when to replace it - no surprises.
  • Soda-88
    I don't see the problem with dual condition warranty. They're just protecting themselves from people who would abuse their SSD with heavy video capturing or something of the sort.
  • velosteraptor
    Soda-88I don't see the problem with dual condition warranty. They're just protecting themselves from people who would abuse their SSD with heavy video capturing or something of the sort.


    I dont have a problem with the dual condition warranty either, its a lot like a car; (10 year, 100,000 miles) I think the problem is that they are only giving a 3 year warranty, where almost everyone else in the ssd market has 5 year warrantys, and unconditioned at that. Even if the drive is faster than some of the other models tested here, id feel much safer buying a drive with a longer warranty, knowing its going to be protected for an extra 2 years.
  • raidtarded
    Almost every SSD manufacturer ties warranties to the amount of writes to the drive, you just have to read the fine print in the warranty. At least Seagate is upfront, most are hiding it until RMA time.
  • will1220
    raidtardedAlmost every SSD manufacturer ties warranties to the amount of writes to the drive, you just have to read the fine print in the warranty. At least Seagate is upfront, most are hiding it until RMA time.


    False. Neither Ocz or samsung have limits on how much data is written on the drive. And their the only two ssd brands worth buying.
  • mapesdhs
    Please stop using graphs that have non-zero origins! They are incredibly visually misleading.
    Such charts are the domain of dodgy advertisers, not tech sites that seek to convey useful
    information, etc.

    Ian.
  • mapesdhs
    Oh, fully agree with the OP about the Samsung 840/840-Pro, these should have been
    in the mix, not the 830. At least in the UK, one cannot buy the 830 anymore, it may
    aswell never have existed - even the old product pages for it have gone from most
    seller sites (rather unusual IMO). If possible, please replace the 830 data with 840 and
    840 Pro, then the Samsung info would be much more relevant.

    Ian.
  • cryan
    mapesdhsOh, fully agree with the OP about the Samsung 840/840-Pro, these should have beenin the mix, not the 830. At least in the UK, one cannot buy the 830 anymore, it mayaswell never have existed - even the old product pages for it have gone from mostseller sites (rather unusual IMO). If possible, please replace the 830 data with 840 and840 Pro, then the Samsung info would be much more relevant.Ian.


    True enough. We've been in the middle of a transition, retesting every drive and trying some different tests. That means that to review this one drive, I had to retest some fourteen other drives. Tedious, and time consuming, I couldn't have wrangled every one in under the gun.

    Regards,
    C. Ryan
  • cryan
    mapesdhsPlease stop using graphs that have non-zero origins! They are incredibly visually misleading.Such charts are the domain of dodgy advertisers, not tech sites that seek to convey usefulinformation, etc.Ian.


    Are you upset that I didn't test at QD 0, or are you concerned because I changed the scaling for the 128 KB Sequential Line graphs? No data is lost, but it does certainly make them easier to read. It's not intended to trick the reader, but rather to impart the information with more clarity and less confusion. This way, the differences are easier to detect. I can always drop in the charts without the scaling as well.

    Regards,
    C. Ryan
  • gondor
    will1220False. Neither Ocz or samsung have limits on how much data is written on the drive. And their the only two ssd brands worth buying.


    Are you sure ? Samsung drives (my 830 for example) have lifetime counter (counting down from 100%), I believe it's there to protect them from having to honor warranty on drives that have exceeded projected number of writes in their lifespan.

    (note that this doesn't mean the drive will fail immediately when counter reaches 0%)
  • Sakkura
    The X-axes on the page 3 graphs are simply marked "Title". That should probably be Queue Depth.
  • jesot
    I feel like every SSD benchmark should include the 840 Pro since it's supposed to be the best at the moment. Even so...we can tell that this particular drive is a nice first try for Seagate, but ultimately a "pass" since it's at the same pricepoint as the 840 Pro and Vector which outperform it by a wide margin.
  • flong777
    Dude - the Samsung 830???? Why? Nobody cares about the 830. Where is the 840 Pro the fastest SSD on the planet right now?
  • mapesdhs
    cryan writes:
    > ...That means that to review this one drive, I had to retest some fourteen
    > other drives. Tedious, and time consuming, ...

    I can definitely empathise with you there. :D

    I have though commented several times in the past three months
    that the 830 is effectively null & void now. I really wanted to
    get another for my 3930K build because I was amazed at the way
    it maintains steady state performance, but they'd just vanished
    from all the usual sellers ("It's *gone* McCready!"), so I bought
    a standard 840 250GB which I have to say is quite good overall.
    Irony is, not long after, I won two new Vector 256s on eBay... :D

    Anyway, definitely a more relevant product than the 830 now is
    the Vertex4 256GB which is still 'current' (continues to be for
    sale in the normal way from the usual dealers). It's a little
    more expensive than the 840 Pro, but it's a lot cheaper than the
    Vector (why is the Vector now so costly? Scan lists it for 236 UKP).

    Btw, have you heard anything about an updated Vertex3, called the
    Vertex3.20? It's on Scan's site (code LN50566, have a look) with
    a slightly higher IOPS rating than the normal Vertex3, though
    bizarrely it's priced higher than the 840 Pro. Can't imagine why
    OCZ would bother doing an update.


    > ... or are you concerned because I changed the scaling for the 128 KB
    > Sequential Line graphs? ...

    Correct, the 128KB sequential graphs should have a Y-axis origin
    of 0. I assume the X-axes are queue depth - as Sakkura says, both
    just say 'Title' atm.


    > No data is lost, but it does certainly make them easier to read. ...

    I think it makes them harder to read, because one cannot use the
    instant overall visual look of the graph to gain some idea of
    relative performance. It makes the performance differences seem
    wider than they really are. I know that zooming in on a narrow
    range allows one to move the lines apart to make them clearer, but
    the result allows one to infer incorrect relative performances (eg.
    it makes the Intel units look terrible).


    > ... I can always drop in the charts without the scaling as well.

    Better idea: how about having both? eg. just click on the image
    and it switches back and forth between the whole graph with 1,0
    origin vs. the zoomed in graphs as they are atm? ie. I would
    suggest the default should be the whole graph, then click to zoom
    in to the way it looks just now, click again to zoom out. Is
    that possible?

    Ian.
  • nieur
    I have no experience with SSD but I'm wondering
    How does conditioned warranty works exactly?
    How do they know how much many times the data has been written?
    is there any counter/register or anything like that for each block?
  • Sakkura
    476708 said:
    I have no experience with SSD but I'm wondering How does conditioned warranty works exactly? How do they know how much many times the data has been written? is there any counter/register or anything like that for each block?

    Yeah, the SMART attributes register information like that.
  • raidtarded
    will1220False. Neither Ocz or samsung have limits on how much data is written on the drive. And their the only two ssd brands worth buying.


    WRONG. there are warranty limitations on Samsung SSDs, read again. they all have warranty limitations, period.
    (i) a period of five (5) years for the 840 PRO Series and three (3) years for the 840 Series, (ii) the period ending on the date when the SSD has exceeded its TBW (Total Bytes Written) threshold as may be indicated by Samsung's Magician Software (

    http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/samsungssd/warranty.html