Hardware Secrets Forums


Go Back   Hardware Secrets Forums > Miscellaneous > Content Comments



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-21-2011, 09:41 AM   #1
Hardware Secrets Team
Administrator
 
Join Date Nov 2004
Posts: 5,598
Hardware Secrets Team is on a distinguished road

Default 240 GB SATA-600 Solid State Drive Round-Up

There has been a new article posted.

Title: 240 GB SATA-600 Solid State Drive Round-Up
URL: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/artic...-Round-Up/1343

Here is a snippet:
"Even though there is a plethora of mechanical hard drives on the market that support the SATA-600 interface, we really need a solid state drive to make use of the bandwidth available. Today we are goi..."

Comments on this article are welcome.

Best regards,
Hardware Secrets Team
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com
Hardware Secrets Team is offline   Reply With Quote
new Sponsored Links

Old 07-23-2011, 09:29 PM   #2
parsec
Senior Member
 
Join Date Jul 2010
Posts: 50
parsec is on a distinguished road

Default Excellent Choice...

... of SSDs for this review, all the same capacity, SATA 6Gb/s capable, latest models from the manufactures, and models many want to see compared. The relatively small group maintains the focus on them, IMO. Thanks for the specific chip information, as well as the internal pictures.

SSD aficionado's will nitpick some details (allow me) such as what SATA AHCI driver was used? I can't find it specified, so msahci? I would imagine you would state that you used IRST if you did. Also, the operational state of the SSDs, empty, untouched out of the box, formatted and partitioned in Windows, secure erased, written to and then erased? What is HS' protocol or philosophy about this?

BTW, the last paragraph on page 5 was a bit ambiguous to me at first, since Access Time was not mentioned, just read test and write test. On page 7, in the HD Tune Transfer Rates graph, given the figures for the maximum, minimum, and burst, some of the average rates seem high, but the complete graphs would likely explain that.

I was surprised the Intel 510 did as well as it did in the sequential read and write tests against the SSDs with the new Sandforce controller, which do not seem to live up to their specifications. In other tests, we see the Sandforce chips IOPs performance take those drives to higher performance than the Intel, which is known to have seemingly deliberately lower IOPs performance.

The HD Tune results are significant IMO, although the minimum rates must be of very short duration, given the averages are barely affected. For example, the Intel 510 minimum, 336, is well over twice that of the OWC Mercury, 141.9, yet the Mercury's average is above the Intel's, whose maximums are 22 MB apart.

I was also pleased to see that my Intel 510 120GB model, has slightly better AS SSD scores in some areas than the model you tested. The differences in performance between these and all SSDs is fascinating. Nice work, thanks.
parsec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2011, 04:24 PM   #3
dlb
Senior Member
 
dlb's Avatar
 
Join Date May 2010
Posts: 16
dlb is on a distinguished road

Default

I've just started investigating SSDs recently, and the various results and reviews can get a bit confusing. Drive "A" is faster than drive "B" in test #1, but slower than drive "C"; in test #2, drive "C" is the fastest, but drive "B" is faster than drive "A". It's a bit much to really comprehend, especially when looking at graphs. Personally, when I'm looking at a graph for an SSD test, it is EXTREMELY helpful if I know the 'rules' of that particular graph. For example: in graph "A", the rule would be "higher is better"; in graph "B", it would be "lower is better"; in graph "C", it would be "blue: higher is better; red: lower is better". I have read NUMEROUS reviews of SSDs, and when the "rule" for a particular graph is defined, it makes it MUCH easier to understand the results of a test/bench.

All this aside, this was a very informative review. However, it could be easier for the general PC user to understand if we knew the "rules" applied to each test/benchmark/graph.
__________________
Asus M4N72-E; AMD PhenomII X4 955BE @ 3.20ghz w/ Spire ThermaxII Eclipse cooler; 6gb DDR2; 750gb+320gb+250gb HDD; 2xDVDRW; Nvidia Zotac GTX570; PowerBird900 PSU; Win7 X64
dlb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2011, 08:42 AM   #4
Henry Butt
Senior Member
 
Join Date Jun 2011
Posts: 5
Henry Butt is on a distinguished road

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by parsec View Post
... of SSDs for this review, all the same capacity, SATA 6Gb/s capable, latest models from the manufactures, and models many want to see compared. The relatively small group maintains the focus on them, IMO. Thanks for the specific chip information, as well as the internal pictures.

SSD aficionado's will nitpick some details (allow me) such as what SATA AHCI driver was used? I can't find it specified, so msahci? I would imagine you would state that you used IRST if you did. Also, the operational state of the SSDs, empty, untouched out of the box, formatted and partitioned in Windows, secure erased, written to and then erased? What is HS' protocol or philosophy about this?
Yes, you're correct the MSAHCI driver was used for our testing. All of the SSDs tested were untouched out of the box and formatted and partitioned in windows etc.

Quote:
BTW, the last paragraph on page 5 was a bit ambiguous to me at first, since Access Time was not mentioned, just read test and write test. On page 7, in the HD Tune Transfer Rates graph, given the figures for the maximum, minimum, and burst, some of the average rates seem high, but the complete graphs would likely explain that.
If you look at the graph on page 5, there are separate access times for read and write. This is what is meant by read and write tests.

With HD Tune, all of the Sandforce SF-2281 based drives, the transfer rate started at the minimum value when the test started but increased sharply directly afterwards and didn't drop back down to the minimum level for the duration of the tests. Screenshots for all the drives are available if you would like?

Quote:
I was surprised the Intel 510 did as well as it did in the sequential read and write tests against the SSDs with the new Sandforce controller, which do not seem to live up to their specifications. In other tests, we see the Sandforce chips IOPs performance take those drives to higher performance than the Intel, which is known to have seemingly deliberately lower IOPs performance.
The reason the Intel 510 Series drive performs almost as well as the Sandforce drives in the sequential read and write tests is because of the flash memory used in the Sandforce drives. The sequential read and write speeds are affected because the benchmarks used use incompressible data. This reflects the real world requirements of most users.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlb View Post
I've just started investigating SSDs recently, and the various results and reviews can get a bit confusing. Drive "A" is faster than drive "B" in test #1, but slower than drive "C"; in test #2, drive "C" is the fastest, but drive "B" is faster than drive "A". It's a bit much to really comprehend, especially when looking at graphs. Personally, when I'm looking at a graph for an SSD test, it is EXTREMELY helpful if I know the 'rules' of that particular graph. For example: in graph "A", the rule would be "higher is better"; in graph "B", it would be "lower is better"; in graph "C", it would be "blue: higher is better; red: lower is better". I have read NUMEROUS reviews of SSDs, and when the "rule" for a particular graph is defined, it makes it MUCH easier to understand the results of a test/bench.

All this aside, this was a very informative review. However, it could be easier for the general PC user to understand if we knew the "rules" applied to each test/benchmark/graph.
Thanks for your feedback - we will definitely take this on board and see what we can do for the next SSD review
Henry Butt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2012, 06:42 AM   #5
pravlok
Junior Member
 
Join Date Feb 2012
Posts: 1
pravlok is on a distinguished road

Default

The comparison is not apples to apples at all. You are comparing Mushkin Chronos Deluxe, OCZ Vertex 3 and Intel 510 which are using synchronous memory chips with crucial and owc which are using the asynchronous memory chips.
pravlok is offline   Reply With Quote
new Sponsored Links

Reply

Share This Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:57 AM.


vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. ()
2004-12, Hardware Secrets, LLC. All rights reserved.