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
Sequential Read/Write Speed
To measure sequential performance I ran a 1 minute long 128KB sequential test over the entire span of the drive at a queue depth of 1. The results reported are in average MB/s over the entire test length.
Sequential performance is another story entirely. When paired with a good 6Gbps SATA controller (in this case the H67's 6Gbps Port 1), the 510 is only 11% slower than the best case performance of the Vertex 3. Compared to the worst case performance for the Vertex 3, Intel's SSD 510 is 22% faster.
The comparison isn't as strong over a 3Gbps interface. Bound by the SATA interface, OCZ's Vertex 3's worst case performance is actually no different than its best case performance in 3Gbps mode. As a result, the Vertex 3 is consistently 13% faster than the Intel SSD 510.
While the 510 isn't remotely competitive in random read performance, sequential read speed is within 5% of the OCZ Vertex 3 - without any real time compression/dedupe trickery. And over a 3Gbps interface the Intel SSD 510 equals OCZ's Vertex 3.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
128 Comments
View All Comments
masterkritiker - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
When will we be able to buy $100+ SSDs @ 1TB capacity?gammaray - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
nevertno - Thursday, March 3, 2011 - link
+1Nihility - Thursday, March 3, 2011 - link
At least 4 years.ionis - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
It would be nice if some HDDs were also included in workload benches. They were in the random read/write benches so I don't get why they were left out of the other ones.dagamer34 - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
HDDs aren't included because they'd throw off the scale pretty horribly. The number labeling the performance would be larger than the bar itself compared to all the other SSDs out there.ionis - Thursday, March 3, 2011 - link
I find that hard to believe, considering they were included in the random read/write graphs at 1/100 or less of the performance of some of the SSDs and the charts weren't scaled horribly.In the sequential reads/writes, they performed at 25%-80% which doesn't through the scale off much at all.
The heavy workload looked to involve a lot of sequential access (installs and downloads). So again, I don't see why they weren't included.
There are also other comments asking for more HDDs in the benches. For people like myself, who didn't start following storage benchmarks until SSDs came out, it's hard to tell what the performance gain is.
ionis - Thursday, March 3, 2011 - link
I find that hard to believe, considering they were included in the random read/write graphs at 1/100 or less of the performance of some of the SSDs and the charts weren't scaled horribly.In the sequential reads/writes, they performed at 25%-80% which doesn't throw the scale off much at all.
The heavy workload looked to involve a lot of sequential access (installs and downloads). So again, I don't see why they weren't included.
There are also other comments asking for more HDDs in the benches. For people like myself, who didn't start following storage benchmarks until SSDs came out, it's hard to tell what the performance gain is.
(sorry if double post, comment didn't seem to show up 1st time)
mateus1987 - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
now you know.http://nzealander.blog.com/files/2011/03/6661.jpg
mateus1987 - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
the satanic Apple logo.http://nzealander.blog.com/files/2011/03/6661.jpg