SSD Aging: Read Speed is Largely Unaffected

Given the nature of the SSD performance-over-time “problem” you’d expect to only pay the performance penalty when writing files, not reading. And for once, I don’t have any weird exceptions to talk about - this is generally the case.

The table below shows sequential read performance for 2MB blocks on new vs. “used” SSDs. I even included data for a couple of the hard drives in the "Used" column; for those numbers I'm simply measuring transfer rates from the slowest parts of the platter:

2MB Sequential Read Speed New "Used"
Intel X25-E   240.1 MB/s
Intel X25-M 264.1 MB/s 230.2 MB/s
JMicron JMF602B MLC 134.7 MB/s 134.7 MB/s
JMicron JMF602Bx2 MLC 164.1 MB/s 164.1 MB/s
OCZ Summit 248.6 MB/s 208.6 MB/s
OCZ Vertex 257.8 MB/s 250.1 MB/s
Samsung SLC   101.4 MB/s
Seagate Momentus 5400.6 77.9 MB/s -
Western Digital Caviar SE16 104.6 MB/s 54.3 MB/s
Western Digital VelociRaptor 118.0 MB/s 79.2 MB/s

 

The best SSDs still transfer data at over 2x the rate of the VelociRaptor.

Read latency is also extremely good on these worn SSDs:

I left the conventional hard drives out of the chart simply because they completely screw up the scale. The VelociRaptor has a latency of 7.2ms in this iometer test with a queue depth of 3 IOs; that's an order of magnitude slower than the slowest SSD here.

Since you only pay the overhead penalty when you go to write to a previously-written block, the performance degradation only really occurs when you’re writing - not when you’re reading.

Now your OS is always writing to your drive, and that’s why we see a performance impact even if you’re just launching applications and opening files and such, but the penalty is much less tangible when it comes to read performance.

New vs Used SSD Performance The Verdict
POST A COMMENT

235 Comments

View All Comments

  • Natfly - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link

    Reply
  • DangerMouse4269 - Tuesday, April 13, 2010 - link

    Nicely written. Even a very out of practice Comp Eng understood that. Reply
  • geekforhire - Monday, June 14, 2010 - link

    I have just replaced the hard drive in this 3 year old Dell Inspiron 9400 notebook computer with a new and very quick OCZ SSD, manually configured the partition with a 1024 offset, freshly installed the OS, freshly downloaded all of the latest and greatest drivers from Dell, and applied all currently available OS updates from Msft.

    The problem is that when the machine resumes from Standby, it will /reliably/ (4 out of 4 attempts) produce a BSOD 0xF4 after the power button is pressed to resume the machine from standby.

    Here's the sequence to recreate the problem:

    0) Machine is booted normally into Windows, and log in to an account which has administrative privs.
    1) Click on Start -> Shut Down -> Standby.
    2) See display turn black, disk I/O light flashes then stops, then the power indicator light begins to flash on and off slowly.
    3) Wait until the power light has made 2 slow flashes.
    4) Press the power button.
    5) See the Dell Bios splash screen, then disappear
    6) Boom: See the BSOD 0xF4

    The values reported after the STOP are:
    (0x00000003, 0x865b3020, 0x865b3194, 0x805d2954)

    Note that I've been in contact with OCZ before about this SSD+computer, because the previous BSOD that was produced was 0x77. Their recommendation was to create the partition with an offset with a 64 interval, and to reflash the SSD with their modern firmware. This was done, the OS was reinstalled as described, and now I'm getting a different BSOD code. Another mention was a question whether the notebook computer uses a SATA2 controller (definitely compatible) or SATA1 (which may have troubles).

    I've run Spinrite on the SSD, and there are lots of ECC errors being reported. I've been in contact with Spinrite, and they chalk this up to the SSD being chatty (which they like), but since SSD's are new and magnetic disks are common, they want to stay focussed on magnetic disks.

    When the machine boots back up, the OS reports that a serious error has occurred, and asks that a problem report be submitted, which I do. Then an attractive but somewhat generic page is displayed with common causes (Aging or failing hard disks, large file transfers from secondary media to local hd, loss of power to a hard drive, hard disk intensive processes (eg: antivirus scanners), recently installed hardware that might have compatibility and performance problems)

    Has anyone else encountered this kind of problem, and do you have any suggestions?
    Reply
  • angavar - Thursday, September 09, 2010 - link

    As a medical student I can appreciate a well researched and analytical article when I see it. This is by far the best computer hardware review I have ever read! Thank-you for your time and effort in producing what is clearly a thoroughly researched and detailed analysis. Reply
  • mac021 - Wednesday, October 17, 2012 - link

    Thank you for the lesson and helping me understand SSD drives. May I just ask for your advice...

    For everyday use designing and generating prototypes for websites and running typical office s/w like word and excel for long documentations while listening to music or just having some video play in the background, then the occasional gaming of, say Star Craft 2 and Dead Space 3, and lets assume I do this on a 5 hours a day average for 365 days in a year, how long before I need to replace an OCZ Vertex/Summit SSD? And does format/reinstall help in prolonging the life of an SSD just as it does for my old hard drives (from a computer that's 6 years old and counting)? Or there's no stopping the SSD's death after reaching 10,000 times of being erased and rewritten on? I'm not one who keeps upgrading or buying new computer systems for every new thing that comes out, i'm more of a keeper and maintainer for as long as the system servers my needs... but when I make a purchase, I make sure it will be enough to last me another 6-12 years IF possible! Which is why I'm still considering SATA for my next purchase late this year or early next year (and I'm only buying a new PC just because I made a mistake buying a foxconn motherboard that can't support anything higher than XP, not even Vista... weird, anyway I found that out too late).

    Also, would you know of a motherboard that supports SSD, Windows 8, Nvidea, third gen i5/i7, and up to 64GB ram?

    Thanks so much!
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now