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
Performance vs. Transfer Size
All of our Iometer sequential tests happen at a queue depth of 1, which is indicative of a light desktop workload. It isn't too far fetched to see much higher queue depths on the desktop. The performance of these SSDs also greatly varies based on the size of the transfer. For this next test we turn to ATTO and run a sequential write over a 2GB span of LBAs at a queue depth of 4 and varying the size of the transfers.
I've created a second set of graphs that just looks at 3Gbps performance of a few drives to make things easier to read:
3Gbps sequential read/write performance at low queue depths is competitive with other 3Gbps drives as we've already seen. Intel's controller scales simlarly with transfer size as the Marvell controller used in the 510.
If you've got an AMD or Intel 6Gbps controller however you'll be let down by the performance of the 320:
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.