The Intel SSD 510 Review
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 2, 2011 1:23 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
- Storage
- SSDs
- Intel
- Intel SSD 510
Final Words
The first time Intel told me it would be using a 3rd party controller in one of its upcoming SSDs I bit my tongue. Intel tried to justify the decision but all I heard in my head was that Intel was bowing out of the high end race, that Elmcrest was a copout. I have to admit I was wrong. I assumed that Elmcrest wouldn't be even remotely competitive. In reality, the Intel SSD 510 may not be the fastest SATA SSD we've ever tested, but it comes very close. Overall performance is within striking distance of the Vertex 3 and depending on the test, performance can actually be a little higher than the clever competitor. Note that I've only tested the 250GB drive. Intel's 120GB SSD 510 should be measurably slower.
The 510 is most interesting over a 6Gbps interface. Connected to a 3Gbps interface the drive is quick, but fails to distance itself from the high end drives of last year. This is the same conclusion I came to when I previewed the Vertex 3. These next-generation SSDs not only use 6Gbps SATA, they really need it.
My biggest complaints about the 510 actually aren't about Intel's use of a 3rd party controller, instead they are about the drive's lackluster random read performance. In a horrible bout of irony Intel fixed its sequential performance and moved backwards in the random department. Random read performance, as it turns out, has a pretty major impact in the real world.
Random write performance is also pretty low by today's standards, however the impact on most of our real world performance tests is minimal. It looks like we may have hit the upper limit of what we need from 4KB random write performance (at least given current workloads).
Sequential performance is easily competitive with the Vertex 3, and when presented with incompressible data the Intel SSD 510 is easily faster.
Overall OCZ's Vertex 3 is faster, however the margin of victory isn't always significant. Intel would argue that its drive is better tested and less likely to fail. Whether this is true remains to be seen, but history does count for something.
As always, it'll be months before we have a good idea of compatibility, reliability and any long term issues. In typical AnandTech fashion I've already deployed the Intel SSD 510 in a primary use system. The big advantage Intel has today is that its drive is currently available and it seems to work. The performance is good and close enough to the Vertex 3 that if the drive does end up being more reliable Intel could have a winner on its hands.
At the same time, OCZ has been investing tremendously in improving manufacturing quality and validation testing. If the Vertex 3 can launch without any major firmware bugs, reliability or manufacturing issues, Intel's SSD 510 may not have a leg to stand on.
Then we have the other Marvell based designs from Corsair and Crucial/Micron. The 2011 SSD market is just starting to heat up...
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
128 Comments
View All Comments
aarste - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
Those graphs on the TRIM test look nothing remotely close to ATTO, which I use. I checked HDTach as well and it wasn't that, but close.What app was it?
mino - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
Please, be so king and include a fast HDD (say a WD Velociraptor) in EVERY SSD benchmark.While most readers here understand the difference between SSD and HDD, including a single fast HDD would make the article useful also as a reference/datapoint when talking to not-so-techy people.
strikeback03 - Thursday, March 3, 2011 - link
Then people would complain because the numbers are so small as to be unreadablenerex - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
Maybe I missed it, but i didn't see any discussion of the power usage of the new drives- according the intel press releases, the new drives use 380mW/100mW active/idle and the G2 drives only use 150mW/75mW active/idle.This means the new drives would actually be worse on laptop battery life, correct?
DigitlDrug - Saturday, March 5, 2011 - link
Hi Anand,+1
Power consumption figures would be great for us laptop users!
I find it interesting that a number of these drives report consumption of up to 3watts and others are in the mw range when browsing the Egg.
Some clarity on power consumption would be a great addition.
As always, great review!
ClagMaster - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
The Intel SSD 510 is not a bad drive but it cost more than a Vertex 2 or 3.The Intel Toolbox, and extensive compatablity and reliability testing are major pluses.
The SSD is still an extravagance for desktops though I can see its a no-brainer for laptops because of power conservation. Unless the cost per gigabyte is less than $0.80/gigabyte, the performance gain does not offset the mechanical harddrive.
neotiger - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
I.e., an epic FAIL product priced at a premium to competing products that are far superior.What misguided priorities from Intel. People shell out the big bucks for SSD's for their RANDOM IO performance, NOT sequential IO. So the geniuses at Intel decided to release a "next gen" product that actually has WORSE performance than the last gen product. Really?
I'm speechless. The really sad part about this fiasco is that most people will still buy this piece of crap over far superior competing products just because it's Intel.
Just like NetBurst all over again.
strikeback03 - Thursday, March 3, 2011 - link
Did you actually look at the real-world results? the 510 is almost twice as fast as the G2 160GB in some tests.poohbear - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
nice review, but you're talking & comparing the Vertex 3 and this new drive, but where's the vertex 3 on the market? its not even released, its months away from release if im not mistaken? the C400 will be released before it, so what's the point of comparing tech today with tech months away from release (and in the SSD world months is a very long time!)sor - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
FWIW, we've deployed literally hundreds of X25-E drives, and our failure rate is well over 1%, closer to 2%. Usually they drop link, try to renegotiate at 1.5Gbps, and fail, so it's more likely the controller than a wear-out issue.