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
Squuiid - Friday, March 4, 2011 - link
+1They were the 1st of this next gen to be available, yet NOBODY has reviewed them.
Based on the 2nd Gen Marvel controller I believe, a' la C400.
Luke212 - Friday, March 4, 2011 - link
Anand,I am looking to implement SSDs in Application servers and I need to know how they go in Raid 1 over time. Noone seems to test this! So I am stuck with magnetic drives!!
sean.crees - Friday, March 11, 2011 - link
Anyone else notice the Samsung 470 near or at the top of most benchmarks on a 3gb controller? Is this the SSD in current Macbook Pro's? I havn't seen a review posted to Anandtech about this specific device.daidaloss - Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - link
I'm curious as to how does this SSD drive stacks up when compared to this unit SATA2 DDR2 HyperDrive5 from http://www.hyperossystems.co.uk/.Maybe sometime in the future, Anand will consider this RAM drive.
tygrus - Wednesday, May 11, 2011 - link
Not specific to Intel 510 SSD:Sequential performance after several full disk GB rewrites ?
The LBA remapping for wear levelling must make more of the disk look random (not sequential) after every block has been re-written several times. It's a torture test to see how it can handle reading large files that have been spread over several non-sequential NAND blocks. Or does it not matter as much because the controller can optimise access to several NAND dies at once? Does it only remap 512KB at a time or does the 512KB blocks have non-sequential 4KB LBA's written to them?
Does SSD performance approach random R/W performance after long term heavy use ?
gaffe - Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - link
Just an anonymous tip. I happen to know this data is wildly inaccurate because my friend is a reliability engineer at a major company.WHY DON'T YOU DO A SMALL RELIABILITY TEST OF YOUR OWN TO SEE FOR YOURSELF HOW UNLIKELY IT IS THAT THIS DATA IS ACCURATE.
It seems you have tested probably 20 SSDs for your reviews. So, how many of them have failed on you during testing? How many during the course of the past 3 years? What's the failure rate average across all manufacturers?
Even though manufacturers probably send you their best tested units for review, and your sample size is small, etc. I am willing to bet you REAL MONEY that the failure rate will be more than 3% even in a sample size of just 20.
How about we buy 20 SSDs today and in 3 years see who is right, loser buys em all, winner gets em (you can keep the failed ones)?
Any takers?
gaffe - Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - link
Oh and P.S.You forgot to mention above that failure rates are generally PER YEAR. So that's a 3% chance it fails EACH YEAR. And it's still wrong by double or triple (it's closer to 9%).
gaffe - Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - link
Sorry to keep piling on, but it bothers me so much that this inaccurate data is out there and people are believing this that I also want to mention this data does not even say which models were tested. This is probably all enterprise grade drives that does not even apply to consumers that are reading this article, and, as I said above, it's STILL INACCURATE!