Intel X25 Good SSD?

Notice, though, that with average read performance on the light workload (and almost on the heavy workload), that the 510 on a SATA II interface actually falls behind the X25-M G2. For the average user, that uses mostly reads, this makes the 510 largely pointless compared to an X25-M G2. Well, on a SATA II interface, anyway.

 

What about those first benchmarks of random read/write where the vertex 3 and other drives were like 200+ and the Intels were ~48? Is that not a good indicator of real world applications? Btw, could you go more in depth of why the benchmarks you chose are an indicator of real world use? I didn't really get "Because they are traces of real live computing time periods that are played back on each system and therefore make them comparable." You sound very convincing though to be honest, so now I'm back to considering the 510 instead of the x25 (both looking at 120 GB)

 

I believe the AW is SATA III. Is it something I have to select, or is it once a SATA III SSD is put into a SATA III notebook it uses the SATA III interface automatically?

 

If it's one of the new Sandy Bridge AW, then yes, it should have SATA III (6 Gbps), otherwise it will probably have SATA II (3 Gbps). Yes, a SATA III SSD will automatically use a SATA III interface if available, and would otherwise "convert down" to a lower interface like SATA II if that's all that is available.

Tilleroftheearth tends not to look at random read/write benchmarks because his workflow doesn't use them as much as the rest of us (apart from the fact that they're "just benchmarks"). His work is heavily oriented towards large sequential reads and writes (photoediting), and thus, for him, an Intel 510 is an excellent choice (and Sandforce a horrible one, as Sandforce is the absolute pits when it comes to compressed data like graphical files). As for his use of those 2 tests, it's because Anand doesn't use an actual benchmarking program, what's done is that he takes regular commercial programs and does a set routine with them, and then compares the results gotten while doing all of those things. It's partially described at the top of the page linked, and he says he'll give a full detail of how it works sometime in the future.

 

It's not only that my workflow doesn't use them as much... 4K R r/w's are simply another attempt to place a single number to indicate relative performance.

If my vRaptor's (4x not RAID...) can outperform a SandForce based SSD, that should tell you that 4K R r/w's are not all they're cracked up to be.

When we consider that a vRaptor is around 1.5 MB/s and a V3 is over 300 MB/s with a queue depth of 32, this more than shows (at least to me) that 4K R r/w is being mis-used as a guide to how an SSD will perform.

Anand's own benchmarks validate my conclusions.

I'm not saying that they're not important - just that they're not as important as they're made out to be in normal workstation single user usage scenarios.

 

Well, I do suppose it's how you use said benchmarks (and isn't that the way with everything?). I tend to think of 4K random reads/writes as just a measure of the "snap" or responsiveness of a drive, and pretty much only that. Maybe also as a measure of how the drive will typically respond in "very light" usage (web browsing, instant messaging, maybe light office work like word processing, that sort of thing).

 

The 'snap' of a drive is not defined by 4K R r/w's - it is a function of the r/w latency (minimums and maximums).

 

For real world performance compare the numbers here:
Intel 510 Series 250GB SSD Review - Introduction
OCZ Vertex 3 240GB SSD Review - Introduction

 

Thanks Phil,

Considering just the real world tests, the Intel 510 comes out ahead of the V3 just as I suspected, yet the Intel is only awarded a 9/10 score for performance at the end.

Biased?

 

thats with the 9 cell which adds weight and a bit of thickness at the back. i went for the 6 cell which seems to be the best compromise.

now that this intel 510 series everyone is talking about is appearing, will the other intels become cheaper soon? is trying to find a reliable 128gb drive for under 150 dollars impossible?

also, other than intel, what other brands should i consider. i've heard good things about intel and samsung, and bad things about OCZ. (OCZ seems to be the cheapest thought...)

 

I had a quick look, as far as I could see the V3 comes out faster in more cases...

 

I'm not one of the experts here, but reading all the posts in this and other SSD-related threads, it seems to me that SSDs follow the usual rule for technology:

Faster, More Reliable, Cheaper: Pick any two at the exclusion of the third.

Sales are popping on last year's models, and I've seen prices on drives in the 128GB area at nearly a dollar/GB, or at least under the $2/GB+ that most of the new ones seem to be priced at. Check places like NewEgg and Fry's regularly.

As for which combination of controller and NAND work best for you, it seems it is entirely up to your "typical use". There are a lot of points made in different places, but it seems to be universally accepted that Sand Force controllers don't do as well on large graphics or video work as Marvell controllers. Then there is the whole NAND die-size argument concerning drive life span.

Knowing nothing about SSDs until I started lurking here in late December, I feel I know just enough to know how arbitrary most "best" labels seem to be.... I think it may come down to Ford-Chevy-Toyota kinds of choices, where each one will have people that will only buy that brand, and others that wouldn't touch it if it were free (well, maybe if it were free....). The real bottom line is that they are all cars, and use gasoline, and get you where you are going. The only differences that matter are those of economics: Can you afford to replace a drive more often? Then don't fret so much about "life span". Are you on a strict budget now, but might have more free cash in the future? Then buy the least expensive solution you can today, and know that you will replace it once your money comes in.

 

I think I have a slightly different definition of "snap" than you do (and mine's probably wrong! :wink , but that's not really an issue overall. For me, "snap" is more about how quickly simple things get done.

 

it dosent have to be the top-of-the-line blazing fast. the prices are much cheaper in the US, and my friend is currently visiting, so i need to buy one now so its delivered before he leaves.

im not up to speed on SSD's yet, not too sure what the pros and cons are of MLC and SLC etc, but like i said, having the absolute fastest is not important as it seems like even the slowest SSD's still blow away spinning platters.

i guess reliability and price are my key concerns.

any advice? intel or otherwise?

cheers, +rep

 

Well, I originally went with a C300 (Crucial) for my new system, but then started reading about a glut of random system freezes. The Intel 510 became available, and I switched to that, partly due to the advice I got (Intel is tried and true, and have been in the chip game since the beginning). I do think you pay a bit more for that Intel label, but in the long run all the prices even out as time-in-service goes on.

I would stay away from OCZ, based on some very bad moves they have made lately. Not least of those was changing the guts of their best offering to something seen by many as inferior without changing the model name or even version number. Not very customer friendly, at the least.

I'm seeing the astronomical performance benchmark numbers for the new Crucial (Micron) M4 (which is likely to be the C400 when the marketing wraps come off). It smokes anything I've seen in performance (as long as you have a SATA 6GB/s port available). Of course, there is a lag between the early reviews and actual availability, and numbers could change, or everyone could be wrong about the estimated pricing... The pricing as guessed right now would make this a no-brainer, from the cost/performance standpoint.

I do think, in the final summation, that your are spot on in your guess that any SSD will seem like greased lightning compared to traditional spinners. So, really, I would simply advise to go with your budget, and like all things computer, buy as much as you can afford. Warranty and such should be looked at, too, since they do vary.

I am one of those guys that spends a crapload of time reading and researching a purchase, finally making a choice, then chewing my own liver wondering if I picked right. I think, with SSDs, any SSD is better than no SSD, however.

 

"So, really, I would simply advise to go with your budget, and like all things computer, buy as much as you can afford."

well i was eyeing the C300, but if people are experiencing random freezes with it maybe not.....

seems a lot more complex than just budget, since the tech hasnt matured yet...

 

hows this one vs the intel?
Newegg.com - SAMSUNG 470 Series MZ-5PA128/US 2.5" 128GB SATA II Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

 

Samsung 470 is a great all around drive. It's sequential is much better than Intel, but Intel wins with 4k. Power draw, not sure, but I'm sure it's much better than any HDD.

 

It's a very good drive that beats Intel in most situations including battery life.

Samsung's 470 Series solid-state drive - The Tech Report - Page 1

 

hi phil, yes i read your review. it made me feel like it wasnt worth going all the way to an SSD since the momentus XT seems to do really well. it seems like its halfway between a normal 7200rpm drive and an SSD.

im just wondering if a replacement for the XT is due soon, as the XT is getting rather old now?

oh, and what are all these firmware problems i hear going on with the XT? how come it took so long for ppl to start complaining?

 

I haven't heard anything about a new XT. I never had a problem with the current XT, I was running the latest firmware. I believe that fixed everything.

 

I have the 64GB version of the Samsung 470 series in my X120e now, and as far as I can tell, it's just as snappy as my X25-M in my T500. Most benchmarks show the X25-M and 470 neck-in-neck in most categories, with the 470 having a notably lower idle power draw.

 

im planning on getting the XT for my precision as i need the space, but i dont need much space for the X201, do you think the price difference between the XT and the samsung SSD is worth it?

 

If you have a very predictable workflow, then yes, the XT will work well for you. If, however, you do a lot of different things with your system, then the XT is more likely to "miss" caching the right files, and will be reduced to "just" a regular 7200 RPM drive.

 

well i suppose its the usual, windows media, chrome, msn, skype, word, excel, powerpoint.dont play games much, so its mostly your usual productivity and internet stuff

what do you reckon?

 

I can't be completely sure, since I don't own an XT myself, but it sounds like it should work pretty well for you. Most regular office productivity and internet browsing programs don't take up a huge amount of space (comparatively), so it'll probably do a fine job.

 

The XT will do fine with that usage scenario.

 

Hey Guys,

Since the Intel G3 seems to be a disappointment to everyone, I went ahead and bought a 160GB Intel X-25 for $349.95 ( $ 275 after Intel mail in rebate) from Buy.com.

Do you guys think this is a good deal?

 

It doesn't disappoint me as it really is just a refresh of G2, anyone expecting drastic improvement is unrealistic, IMO.

The key advantage of G3(other than the minor performance improvement) is big capacitor and AES. Both are more like 'nice to have' but not critical features. The big capacitor is for improved reliability and the AES encryption is for security.

275 for a 160G G2 is very good deal if you need that size. I would try to see if the G3 can push the 120G price down to the 150 level and get that.

 

Regarding the xt, I'm using one and if capacity and performance at a low cost is what ur looking for then it does it's job quite well..I'm planning to switch to ssd now though, long story short, I no longer need the large capacity and I recently got some extra cash to throw in for an ssd..Intel seems to be the best according to the people here in the forums is this correct? The only thing that's not quite clear to me is how the benchmarks can sometimes point in one direction but then actual, real world testing (counting seconds of boot etc) can point to another, which is kinda confusing..I read that OCZ vertex 2 used to be king with their 34nm versions, in benchmarks and such on SATA 2, but then I read real world benchies on x25 which tell a different story..My priority is loading speed..Games, applications, startup/shutdown..

 

BeastRider,

the difference is that certain companies optimize their drives for high benchmark 'scores' and others simply give a drive which is much more balanced for the typical workflow it will most likely be used in.

In otherwords: Lies, damned lies, and statistics - in addition to marketing spin that in my mind crosses the border in effectively giving the consumer the proper information they need to make an informed decision.

Also, keep in mind that a single user is mostly at a queue depth of 3 or less; the astronomically high 4K R r/w's will never be achieved on a workstation by any of the SSD's in normal use. Yes, 4K R r/w's is todays marketing answer (because it is so easy to confuse people with) to yesterdays sequential speeds that have leveled off and manufacturers/marketing depts. need to make themselves stand out.

If 4K R r/w's really were the be all and end all of a drives performance; then any SSD would give 100x the performance of 10x mechanical HDD's. We're not quite there yet.

When all the above are fully understood and are taken together, you can see how a two+ year old SSD is still considered as viable today when more current incarnations seem to leave them in the dust.

Don't choose an SSD based on any online review. Buy with a 100% money back refund, test in your system under your normal usage as long as you can (within the return period) and decide for yourself if the model you happened to chose performs up to your expectations.

The only 'benchmark' worth considering/worrying about is the one in which you'll see a clear and unmistakeable gain for the exact and specific uses you'll put it through.

Good luck.

 

Thanks, that is the best answer I've had yet.. the thing is, I know the OCZs have great support and rma but where I'm from, the cost of shipping (if ever it gives way, which I think it will eventually) outweighs the "good rma support" as it'll set me back quite a bit..and so the safest bet for me, I guess, would be the intel given that they are the only tried and tested ssd that works for more than 3+ years..I guess what I'm trying to say is, the mentality of spending the same, if not more, money on an "older" ssd than I could spend for a newer (sandforce) ssd is subconsciously difficult..cause ur mind kinda wants to get a newer model..But I probably will go for the intel..Since it sounds like it's still king of the hill..Cause even the fastest ssd can't be king if it dies lol

 

Or wait for a "new" Intel, since those should be out in a few weeks.

 

the G3's? theyre out tomorrow apparently.

 

Supposed to be announced/released tomorrow, yes. I'm allowing for little things like shipping times and availability.

 

What's with the G3? Is this a SATA 2 drive? Does it perform better than the G2 with real world performance? 4k read/write? =)

 

The G3 is a SATA II drive, and we don't have any "real" reviews of it yet. Listed technical specs are fairly impressive, but the few "reviews" of it we've found so far seem to be about at G2 levels.

 

The G3 seems to be a G2 with improved seq. write performance.

And as said before, real life differences between G3, G2, Sandforce and Samsung 470 will be hard (impossible) to notice during average usage.

 

By average usage you mean including startup/shutdown, running apps, and game loading time?

 

Yes. Some benchmarks will find Samsung 470 faster, then the next benchmark says Intel of Sandforce is faster.

In reality the differences are usually very small, as you can see in the review in my signature.

 

Yes I've read the reviews on your sig..They are quite close..forgive me as I am not entirely sure what each and every benchmark means with regard to real world performance..There are just some benchmarks indicating that a drive is double the speed of the other..I'm not entirely sure what those particular benchmarks mean but if it's 2x faster then that must mean something..I know the difference between 240 and 243 won't mean alot but 100 and 230 is a different story..So I'm not sure what benchmarks would matter most for my needs, but if the real world performance differences can't really be noticed then we go to reliability and price..In which intel seems to be the best choice..

 

Yes the performance differences are small (except for the people that do a lot of large file copies).

Choosing on price and perceived reliability seems a good way to do it.