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
Marlin1975 - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
How about throwing in a AMD SB850 to see how they handle SSD's.AMD has had native SATA6gb longer than intel so like to see how that matchs up. Most only look at CPU and ignore the chipset.
DarkKnight_Y2K - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
+1tech6 - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
So nothing has really changed. There still isn't one "perfect" SSD that does everything well and is proven to be reliable. I guess the disappointment stems from many that were hoping that the new Intel SSDs would tick all those boxes - speed, reliability and price. As usual YMMV - Samsung and Intel is the conservative choice and SF based drives are for those who want maximum performance in random I/O situations.tno - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
This, as always in the tech world, is a numbers and marketing game. Somewhere there is a user who is encoding video and really needs the bleeding edge for that. There is an artist working on large incompressible canvasses in Photoshop. These guys need this drive. They have a small Sandforce doing OS duties but they need a fast non -Sandforce drive for data. All those numbers mean squat without perspective and that's what's the text of Anandtech articles bring.So maybe for the consumer that is tech savvy enough to know they want an SSD but not enough to have read all that has been published with regards SSD drives they need a simple primer. Maybe a web app. Do you use you computer with VMs? Do you use it with games? Is your computer a netbook? I'm certain there is a way to ask a few questions and come up with a sensible suggestion for what drive is right for which user.
That would only work with a more comprehensive field of tested drives. Other posters are right, there is little to no way of knowing which is the best 40GB drive. So I volunteer myself to help. Anand, I am a soon to be new father that would love to work from home if for no other reason than daycare costs nearly as much as what I get paid as a paramedic. Send me a system, every SSD on the market and a small stipend and I will test anything and everything solid state.
Gigantopithecus - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
...with poor product differentiation. With Intel's adoption of the same controller others are using, SSDs become that much less interesting. I realize firmware and QC differences still exist, but without hard numbers (aside from the French site's), and given that major snafus can hit any maker at any time, it seems like the only real consideration is ye ole customer service. I've dealt with OCZ's 'support' department twice and that was enough for me. Intel and Crucial have always treated me right, so considering real world performance differences more or less don't exist anymore, they'll be getting my SSD $s.LeeKay - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
have had 100% Faliure and i have had 5 drives all failed.iwod - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
I have been asking the question for a long time. Why an Toshiba SSD manage to beat Sandforce in some real world usage. And finally we got an answer.Given all SSD latency are roughly equal or the same.
Seq Read Write is EXTREMELY Important in Everyday usage. IT IS THE SINGLE MOST Important factor that gives you most improvement in SSD Real World usage benchmarks.
Random Write reaches the top with 50 MB/s. And while we would want further reduction in Write latency, but with the increase of Ram / Cache onbroad with SSD. This should not be an issue.
Random Read results shows we have still some head room to grow.
With further tweaking Intel may be able to squeeze out even more performance our of it.
tno - Thursday, March 3, 2011 - link
I think I missed something, while Seq Read Write is obviously the big number that makes the marketing materials, in terms of user experience (ooh, buzzword) the Random Reads are where lies the money, and as Anand said in the article, no modern OS stresses this enough to make the lower numbers a significant limitation.High sequential reading and writing is only going to be felt by those that are moving large files around within an already fast environment where a mechanical disk drive would be a bottle neck (encoding files locally for instance). And while for those users Seq Read Write might be considered "THE SINGLE MOST important factor" it wouldn't be for, say, the person that wants to add some oopmh to a dual-core laptop of otherwise mediocre specifications.
Certainly, aside from playing around with transferring files, my drives have probably never approached their max seq speed. As OS drives, they mainly spend their time hunting out small files for the OS to use.
Beenthere - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
These SSDs aren't ready for prime time just yet IMO. Maybe in another 2-3 years?tno - Thursday, March 3, 2011 - link
What's the hold up? Reliability? Speed?