The Intel SSD 320 Review: 25nm G3 is Finally Here
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 28, 2011 11:08 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
- Storage
- SSDs
- Intel
- Intel SSD 320
Final Words
Intel's SSD 320 would've been a great drive to have a year ago. Its performance is comparable to Micron's C300 or anything based on the SandForce SF-1200 controller, which last year was just awesome. If you've got a 3Gbps controller and need a drive today the 320 still isn't a bad option, particularly if Intel is promising even better reliability than the previous generation. The inclusion of full disk encryption is nice and it's something I hope all controller makers will embrace going forward as well. My biggest issue with the 320 is that it's not very forward looking.
Throw 2011 controllers into the mix, particularly the SF-2200 in the upcoming Vertex 3 and the 320 doesn't look all that great. The only way the 320 will make sense is if these next-generation drives ship at significantly higher price points. We also don't have a good idea of how much slower the smaller capacity drives perform in our benchmarks at this point.
I am curious to see how well a redesigned Postville controller would do against these newer drives. For an architecture that debuted in 2008, Intel's controller certainly has legs but it's time for something new - particularly if Intel isn't going to aggressively discount these mainstream drives.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
194 Comments
View All Comments
NandFlashGuy - Monday, March 28, 2011 - link
Actual data shows that Intel's G2 SSD Reliability is already ahead of mechanical drives:Here's a paper at the 1997 FAST conference discussing actual hard drive failure rates:
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~bianca/papers/fast07.pd...
A link to the French e-tailer return rate data showing Intel SSDs better than mechanical drives:
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/810-6/taux-pannes-...
A good talk discussing SSD failure rates and mechanisms:
http://intelstudios.edgesuite.net/idf/2010/sf/aep/...
Have any real data to support your claim?
NandFlashGuy - Monday, March 28, 2011 - link
Correcxtion. The FAST paper was from 2007.nonzenze - Monday, March 28, 2011 - link
We were promised Vertex 3 end of March. Didn't happen. At least the Intel 510s are on Newegg ... This review has no mention at all of availability, which I take to be a terrible sign that we won't actually see these in time.Meanwhile it's utterly impossible to plan a build for a new machine with a next-gen SSD because I have no idea when I'll actually be able to order and receive one!
Soft launches suck!
turbodreams - Monday, March 28, 2011 - link
You write "The AS-SSD sequential benchmark takes place at a very high queue depth of 32". This is not correct, as it takes place at QD 1. I asked the author of the benchmark about this, *only* the 4K-64 test uses a higher QD of 64.Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, March 28, 2011 - link
That's very odd. Perfmon reports a queue depth of 1 however one of our internal monitoring tools indicates a queue depth of 32. I will remove the reference but I'm curious to see what's going on here.Take care,
Anand
WintersEdge - Monday, March 28, 2011 - link
I'm confused. The benchmarks show results for the Crucial M4. Where is the full review for that drive? Did I miss something? Thanks.Shadowmaster625 - Monday, March 28, 2011 - link
$160 for a 74GB SSD? And it is just as slow as the last generation? They are absolutely out of their freakin minds. They're gouging the hell out of their trusting victims. I wont even comment on how awful the 40GB version is, for $90. LOL I just bought an Agility 2 for $90.Chloiber - Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - link
And how happy are you with 35MB/s seq. Write and less than 200 seq. Read?erple2 - Monday, March 28, 2011 - link
What? So you did a hack that Apple doesn't fully support, and expect that if it implodes, you get to complain about it?Really?
I'm disappointed in you, Brian.
overzealot - Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - link
It was a joke. Lighten up.