Inside the Intel SSD 335

Similar to the SSD 330, the SSD 335 has a single thermal pad covering the controller. The whole case is made out of metal, so heat dissipation in general should not be an issue. There doesn't seem to be any visible differences between the PCBs of SSD 335 and 330, other than the fact that the SSD 335 loses the "BIN 2" sticker and is manufactured in fab 4 instead of fab 3 (although it's completely possible that SSD 335s are manufactured in fab 3 as well). 

The SF-2281

As usual, there are a total of sixteen NAND packages, eight on each side of the PCB. Each NAND package consists of two 8GB 20nm MLC NAND dies, making each NAND package 16GB in capacity. The new 20nm process node is indicated by the 12th character, which is an F. Process nodes follow the alphabet, meaning that F is 20nm, E is 25nm, D is 34nm and so on. 

Test System

CPU

Intel Core i5-2500K running at 3.3GHz (Turbo and EIST enabled)

Motherboard

AsRock Z68 Pro3

Chipset

Intel Z68

Chipset Drivers

Intel 9.1.1.1015 + Intel RST 10.2

Memory G.Skill RipjawsX DDR3-1600 2 x 4GB (9-9-9-24)
Video Card XFX AMD Radeon HD 6850 XXX
(800MHz core clock; 4.2GHz GDDR5 effective)
Video Drivers AMD Catalyst 10.1
Desktop Resolution 1920 x 1080
OS Windows 7 x64

 

Testing Endurance Random & Sequential Read/Write Speed
POST A COMMENT

69 Comments

View All Comments

  • sheh - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - link

    Thanks for the clarification. Reply
  • jwilliams4200 - Thursday, November 01, 2012 - link

    I think the most accurate figure is the write amplification during the 4KiB QD32 test.

    In your first table, E1 = 1.51 TiB (Intel seems to have the same bug as Windows, labeling TB when they mean TiB)

    And F9 = 1208 GiB (I am assuming it is GiB not GB, since Intel usually seems to use the binary power units)

    Then in the last table, E1 = 3.90 TiB and F9 = 37791 GiB.

    Then WA = (37791 - 1208) / (3.90 - 1.51) / 1024 = 14.95

    So WA is about 15 for the QD32 4KiB random writes.
    Reply
  • jwilliams4200 - Monday, October 29, 2012 - link

    What is the exact wording from Intel for the $184 price?

    The article says MSRP, but in the past, Intel has often quoted their distributor price for 1000 units. In other words, how much newegg would pay Intel if they ordered 1000 units.

    So I am wondering whether $184 is really the MSRP, or whether it is the 1000 unit price (in which case the street price would be higher than $184)
    Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Monday, October 29, 2012 - link

    Intel said the $184 is the RCP/MSRP (Recommended Customer Price/Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price). Reply
  • jwilliams4200 - Monday, October 29, 2012 - link

    Thank you for the clarification. So apparently newegg is selling for significantly more than the RCP (currently $210). Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Monday, October 29, 2012 - link

    Thanks for the heads up, I updated the article with the NewEgg pricing info. I guess this once again proves that MSRPs are totally meaningless. Reply
  • MadMan007 - Monday, October 29, 2012 - link

    Or it proves that Newegg prices a bit high on newly launched tech. Maybe Newegg shouldn't be used as the sole basis for pricing any more. Reply
  • jwilliams4200 - Monday, October 29, 2012 - link

    No, it is not just newegg. The cheapest price (from a major retailer) that I see for the 335 now is $195 from buy.com. Most of the others want more than $200 including shipping. Reply
  • meloz - Monday, October 29, 2012 - link

    SSDs continue to be a minefield for consumers. It is pathetic that this SSD wore out as quickly as it did. Such a fundamental issue should have been caught in Intel's internal testing before the drive was dispatched for reviewing, specially when the drive started with MWI of 92. No one at Intel thought this was odd?

    Looks like we will have to wait another 18 months for SSDs to become truly reliable. But I thought the same 18 months ago. Ugh. Only the Samsung 840 inspires some sort of confidence.

    I shudder to think how these manufacturers will cope with newer NAND in future which will have even lesser write-erase cycle life.

    Reading about all these laughable "oops" by SSD manufacturers makes you *really* appreciate the job Segate, WD and Samsung do with their platter drives.
    Reply
  • jeffrey - Monday, October 29, 2012 - link

    After Anandtech's 840 Pro review sample died, I'm not super inspired with confidence about the plain 840. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now