Power is always a major concern when it comes to working in large enterprise environments. Intel states that its product uses 2.5x less power than eight 10 000 RPM SAS drives connected to a PCIe-based HBA, while providing better performance. The graph below shows the power draw of the card itself.
Our sample's performance lines up very well with its official specifications. In its default configuration, the card draws a maximum of 25 W, while Maximum Performance mode pushes it right up to 28 W. We did measure a slightly higher idle draw than the 12 W we were expecting.
Sequential operations stress the device to a larger degree than 4 KB random I/O, which makes sense considering the more demanding Maximum Performance mode only affects sequential operations.
As a reminder, our review sample is an 800 GB SSD 910 that we also tested as the 400 GB version. Even though we're not stressing two of its 200 GB modules, the NAND and controllers are still present and drawing power. The actual 400 GB version should draw less power than what we observed during testing.
Current page: Power ConsumptionPrev Page Enterprise Video Streaming Performance Next Page Temperature
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.
that is one fast Sequential read speed. It to bad that they will be $1000+ market and out of reach of all but the server/ workstation crowdReply
The OCZ is tested with compressible data? talk about best case scenario. what were the incompressible results like?Reply
PCI-E Solid State Storage is great but I can't help but wonder; where is the Memristor? The true performance gains to be had are with massive RAM-disks that aren't volatile.Reply
The most important and un-comparable factor here is 5 years later those Intel SSD's will still be functional, any other brand im surprised they last 5 months in normal machines with the failure rates i have seen first hand - OCZ, GSkill etc there all horrible i bought an Intel SSD for this reason - THEY WORK.Reply
Review sites never cover real world use - that is to live with it day in day out (reliability), its not all about raw speed and performance.
Yeah, consumer SSD reliability is a bit of disappointment. At best they seem to be as reliable as hard drives.Reply
This is a note to address several articles I have come across lately that state intel's reputation for quality and reliability in the SSD market as if it is a given. These comments are from my personal experience with intel's drives. I have owned 3 intel solid state drives, one X25-M G1, and two X25-M G2's. The X25-M G1 failed after 2 years while one of the G2 drives failed after 2.5 years. Now, I am not an expert on MTBF and reliability, but in my opinion this is a pretty poor track record. It is entirely possible that this is a coinicidence, however both drives failed in the same manner, from the same problem (determined by a third party data recovery specialist): Bad NAND flash.Reply
As best I understand it as it was descibed by the company that analyzed these failed drives, a block of NAND flash either went bad or became inaccessible by the controller rendering the drives useless and unable to be accessed by normal means of hooking it up to a SATA or USB port. Two drives, different NAND (50 nm for the G1 and 34 nm for the G2), same failure mode.
Once again, this is not definitive, just my observations but to me, I think review sites need to be a little more cautious about how they qualify intel's reputation for quality and reliability because from my perspective, intel has neither and I have since began using crucial SSD's. Hopefully, I will see much longer life from these new drives.
I would like to see something like this stacked in our EMC, Could this drive with a rack of othere just like it, run 24/7 for 3 + years, Sure we replace a drive here and there in our EMC, but the unit as a whole has never went down in its 5 year life.Reply
Intel, you should test these drive in that real world application. EMC, VM-ware and several data bases carve out some LUN's and Push the envelope. In this situation, should the device prove worthy, the 4000 price tag will come down very fast, and the data center will put it trust in product, So for those reading this for your personal home workstation and gaming ridge, you need not apply in this arena.
Intel is just about 18-months 2 years of owning the data center, Even EMC is powered by intel.
Enterprise e.g. SQL you need SLC otherwise you'd be making a career replacing drives. The cost is down time and replacement. I can write more 'stuff' but it's that simple. For our IDX and similar read data it about reliability and capacity.Reply
razor7104that is one fast Sequential read speed. It to bad that they will be $1000+ market and out of reach of all but the server/ workstation crowdThat's because this was not designed for consumers. It's not like they're marking the price up 1000% for shits and giggles. Enterprise hardware costs more to make because it must be much faster and much more reliable.Reply
This drive, and every other piece of enterprise hardware out there, was never meant to be used by consumers.
jimbob rubaeThe OCZ is tested with compressible data? talk about best case scenario. what were the incompressible results like?Reply
Check out the Sequential Performance page, lists both compressible and incompressible. For all the other tests, random (incompressible) data was used.