128 KB Sequential Performance
Sequential Read Performance
The Vertex 3's advantage over the SSD 520 that we noticed previously goes away when we switch to sequential read testing. Again, regardless of NAND interface, we see most of these drives fall within a very tight range.
Interestingly, Crucial’s 64 GB m4 keeps up with the pack at every queue depth. Meanwhile, Samsung’s 64 GB 830 shows some weakness at a queue depth of two after leading significantly with only one outstanding command. When you consider that most sequential operations occur at a queue depth of one, Samsung actually is the favorite in this test with a sequential read speed of 450 MB/s.
Sequential Write Performance
Examples include Application Installation, Document Backup
When it comes to writing compressible data sequentially, all of the SandForce-based drives throw up the exact same benchmark results, regardless of NAND interface or price.
Current page: 128 KB Sequential PerformancePrev Page 4 KB Random Performance Next Page Incompressible Sequential Write Performance: SandForce's Weakness
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.
As these drives are basically boot drives, i would have liked a test where you measure the total time taken to install a fresh wi7-sp1 on it and install updates and install a few softwares likeReply
Adobe pdf reader
a web browser, a photo manipulating program
a music/video player.
Install a game from a ISO.
And all these apps should be installed from the SSD itself (meaning their setups should be on the SSD).Then you should test the startup and shutdown times.
All these synthetic benchies dont make much sense, IMHO.
I have found that when working with SSD's, single core CPU performance becomes a big bottleneck in some tasks.Reply
A lot of operations use only a single core and the SSD cant use its true potential. That is, the CPU cant process data as fast as the SSD can provide.
This is just reverse of what happens in case of mechanical HDD's.
You're not going to see a major difference.
mayankleoboy1I have found that when working with SSD's, single core CPU performance becomes a big bottleneck in some tasks.A lot of operations use only a single core and the SSD cant use its true potential. That is, the CPU cant process data as fast as the SSD can provide.This is just reverse of what happens in case of mechanical HDD's.Reply
Well, it is pointless though since everything you are doing is so fast that it doesn't matter anymore. I however see your point since I can be loading a program and my SSD is not even at max speed my CPU frequency is maxed out. The only way to get more speed is to just overclock as much as you can.
ackuhttp://www.tomshardware.com/review 24-14.htmlYou're not going to see a major difference.Reply
that is the point of buying a cheaper SSD based on a chepaer NAND.
Considering the conclusion that performance is defined by flash, I find it interesting that the one SF2281 with Toggle NAND at 60GB is not in the roundup (in North America anyway). The Mushkin Chronos Deluxe 60 is substantially cheaper now at $99. It's performance characteristics are much more profound than the 25nm ONFI sync/async models. They're often out of stock at Newegg, and for good reason.Reply
Is there a benchmark to compare virtual memory performance? My current workstation has 24gb of memory, which means Windows eats up 36gb of my boot drive for virtual memory. (yes, I know I can change/disable it, but some programs act wonky when it's screwed with). A dedicated virtual memory drive would free up space on my primary ssd, as well as keep the writes down.Reply
I'd also like to see small drives benchmarked as swap drives in video editing machines. Currently I'm using a raid 0 array of 1tb samsung drives that keeps up well enough, but I'd be interested to see if there are tangible productivity differences.
fwiw...intel uses its own premium binned 25nm sych...that why 4k read were so good.Reply
With a final page heading "Performance Is Defined By Flash" I would have like to see that difference looked at more closely. For example, the Mushkin Chronos Deluxe uses premium 3Xnm Toshiba Toggle Mode Flash (as does Patriot Wildfire, Vertex 3 Max IOPS and OWC Mercury Extreme Pro) and I would love to see for example how just changing the Flashin in an SSD from the same manufacturer and line (i.e Chronos standard versus Deluxe, Vertex 3 versus Vertex 3 Max IOPS). With that info, a user can decide whether it's makes sense to invest in say the premium Toshiba stuff as compared to the "same SSD w/o the premium Flash. That was what I expected to see when I read the referenced page heading.Reply
I'm wondering why Toms' own trace-based benchmark didn't make it into this round-up? Does it take much longer to run than the other tests? While comparing synthetics is important to determine why a certain drive behaves a certain way, trace-based benchmarks (PCMark 7 could be considered trace-based) is what makes the final purchasing decision. In this case, PCMark was the one with the most clear-cut differences, ones that would likely be mirrored in a trace-based benchmark.Reply
For a future SSD review/roundup could you take, for example, 10 real-life traces from 10 different editor's machines (the more variation in workload, the better), and then compare the %change in execution time vs. a reference drive?