Endurance Testing: Write Amplification And Estimated Lifespan
SandForce's Technology: Very Low Write Amplification
According to SandForce, SSD manufacturers can tweak firmware in a number of different ways. Naturally, then, we were curious to see whether Intel altered the way SandForce's compression technology worked.
Gauging this requires us to calculate write amplification. Usually, we'd need to endure days of testing in order to generate the numbers used for this calculation. Fortunately, all SandForce-based SSDs come with SMART counters for host writes (E9) and NAND writes (F1). Intel's SSD 520 features the same counters, so it's really only a matter of setting up Iometer to write a compressible sequential workload. Once you look them up, it's pretty easy to calculate write amplification: just divide host writes by NAND writes.
|128 KB 100% Compressible Sequential Write1 Hour, QD=1
|Intel SSD 52060 GB
|OCZ Vertex 360 GB
Intel doesn't appear to be changing the behavior of DuraWrite, which is perfectly fine. Though the company says the SSD 520's firmware is completely its own, this particular aspect of the controller is supplied by SandForce in perfect working order, necessitating nothing in the way of tuning.
Now, at a queue depth of one, an SSD with a non-SandForce controller in it always incurs write amplification greater than or equal to one, meaning flash cells wear faster than on a SandForce-based drive. By compressing data, the SSD 520 and its contemporaries are able to write less data and extend overall endurance.
Endurance: Even Better With SandForce's Compression Technology
By minimizing write amplification, endurance is positively impacted. We can't really understate this effect. Don't believe us? Fortunately, you don't have to take our word alone. All of Intel's latest SSDs come with workload counts that allow you to estimate the life-span of your SSD.
|Intel S.M.A.R.T. Workload Counters
|Percentage of Media Wear-out Indicator (MWI) used
|Percentage of workload that is read operations
|Time counter in minutes
Think of Intel's workload counters similar to a car's trip counter. Instead of distance, they measure endurance over time. We apply a three-hour workload to the drive in order to generate enough data to be meaningful.
Before we dive in, we want to clarify a few things so that you don't misinterpret what we're saying here.
First, the media wear indicator on an SSD counts down from 100 to 1. Because the number of program-erase cycles a NAND cell can withstand is limited, the MWI is designed to facilitate a rough estimate of endurance. In theory, once you reach the end of the counter, the memory's rated P/E cycles have been exhausted, though that's not to say anything bad will happen immediately after.
Second, using workload counters to estimate endurance is still a tenuous measurement (and without running any of our drives down, we're presenting this information academically, rather than practically). Iometer runs so fast and writes so much that we're essentially condensing months worth of activity into hours. Both Micron and Intel estimate that the average desktop user writes between 7-10 GB worth of information per day. So, we're basing our real-world estimates on at least 7 GB of writes by the host.
Finally, P/E-cycle ratings apply to each flash cell. But because larger SSDs employ more NAND, it takes longer to write across all cells. So, they consequently enjoy a higher endurance rating. The numbers below apply to Intel's 60 GB SSD 520, specifically.
Now, we're able to look at the following data without freaking out about SSD longevity. This is really about SandForce's technology and its effect on write amplification, and, in turn, endurance.
|Workload Ratio: 35% 128 KB Sequential, 65% 4 KB Random128 KB Sequential: 66% Reads, 34% Writes4 KB Random: 66% Reads, 34% WritesFull Span, QD=1, ~3 Hours
|Intel SSD 520 60 GBIncompressible
|Intel SSD 520 60 GBCompressible
|Total Host Writes
|Percent MWI used (E2)
|Endurance Rating For Workload
|Real-World Endurance Rating Estimate(7 GB Written Per Day)
Presented with completely compressible data, Intel's 60 GB SSD 520 is told to write 583 GB of data, and actually writes 100 GB to flash. This translates into a write amplification of 0.17x. That's downright incredible considering non-SandForce will generally end up with write amplification that looks more like our incompressible workload, where 211 GB of data is written as 616 GB of to the NAND (yielding amplification of 2.9x).
In reality, you'll probably never see either of the extremes presented here. We're taxing the heck out of these SSDs, allowing no idle time for background garbage collection to affect the drive. That's an important process, responsible for further minimizing write amplification. As a result, in normal use, endurance really isn't your indicator of reliability. Again, we're really just trying to illustrate how SandForce's compression technology, which is sometimes maligned for its variable impact on performance, might also help extend endurance for SSD vendors who use lower-binned NAND.
Current page: Endurance Testing: Write Amplification And Estimated LifespanPrev Page Power Consumption: Incompressible Sequential (Windows 7/Mac OS X) Next Page Steady State Performance (Worst Case) And TRIM
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
Hmmm, maybe I missed a good excuse, but I'd like to see the Octane in these tests.Reply
I love Intel SSD. 128GB for about $210 isn't bad. It is just hard to not chose something like a Corsair GT 120GB that cost $150 with rebate over this. I would always put a Intel SSD in a computer for novice since it is reliable.Reply
Nice article :)Reply
Just need more SSD's to compare, I'd like to see similar tests done with 120GB...180GB...256GB and several more brands. Further, as I mentioned before in the other article please list the exact model numbers and OEM specs including their 4KB IOPS; otherwise folks don't understand the results and if relying on this a purchasing will have in many cases a 4 in 5 chance of selecting the wrong SSD.
Prior article - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sata-6gbps-performance-sata-3gbps,3110.html
costly but i think reliability comes at a price. These ssds are best for enterprises . If the price will be little lower then the common user can afford these and get a good reliable ssd.Reply
"Measuring boot time is one of the best illustrations of how an SSD benefits your computing experience." Be that as it may I find it almost irrelevant seeing as I hardly ever boot my computer, perhaps 2-3 times a month if that. Getting out of standby on my HDD is a matter of seconds.Reply
These prices are lower than I thought. $20-$40 extra (depending on the comparison) for peace-of-mind is not outrageous.Reply
carn1xHmmm, maybe I missed a good excuse, but I'd like to see the Octane in these tests.Reply
We didn't have the Octane on hand in the 256 GB capacity, but we'll be sure to make that side by side comparison down the road.
phamhlamI love Intel SSD. 128GB for about $210 isn't bad. It is just hard to not chose something like a Corsair GT 120GB that cost $150 with rebate over this. I would always put a Intel SSD in a computer for novice since it is reliable.
Excellent point. Price is always a fickle thing.
thessdreviewNice Review!Thanks Les. :)
jaquithNice article Just need more SSD's to compare, I'd like to see similar tests done with 120GB...180GB...256GB and several more brands. Further, as I mentioned before in the other article please list the exact model numbers and OEM specs including their 4KB IOPS; otherwise folks don't understand the results and if relying on this a purchasing will have in many cases a 4 in 5 chance of selecting the wrong SSD. Prior article - http://www.tomshardware.com/review ,3110.html
We'll keep that mind for future reviews. However, we already list model and firmware on the test page.
bildo123Getting out of standby on my HDD is a matter of seconds.And with an SSD, your computer comes out of standby faster than your monitors do. Not kidding.Reply
Anyone else disappointed Intel isn't producing their own high end chipset? Been waiting to upgrade my X25-M for a while now (Intel 320 isn't a big upgrade) but might just go with Samsung.Reply