AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 - Light Workload

The 320 doesn't do bad for a 3Gbps drive, it's a bit faster than the SF-1200 based Corsair Force F120 but it's slower than Intel's SSD 510 and definitely slower than the upcoming Vertex 3.

AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 - Light Workload

AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 - Light Workload

AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 - Light Workload

AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 - Light Workload

AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 - Light Workload

AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 - Light Workload

AnandTech Storage Bench 2011: Much Heavier Performance vs. Transfer Size
POST A COMMENT

194 Comments

View All Comments

  • semo - Monday, March 28, 2011 - link

    Anand, it has been a long time now. People are still confused about what is happening with the OCZ V2 drives. OCZ are still not issuing a recall of drives that are smaller and slower than what the packaging claims.

    OCZ will only react when the customer finds out through their own research what has happened and then confronts OCZ.

    For those wanting to know more, see my thread below or research the OCZ Vertex 2 25nm transition fiasco.
    http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=21433...

    The issue will not be resolved until OCZ recalls all affected products.
    Reply
  • GeorgeH - Monday, March 28, 2011 - link

    It looks like the crucial parts are physically identical to G2 drives. Intel may not offer updated firmware for G2 drives, but it looks like it might not be impossibly difficult to modify G3 firmware to work on G2 drives.

    Did Intel give any indication if the G2 controllers were physically different from the G3s? In other words did Intel take the laser scalpel to the G2 controllers or is it just a software restriction?
    Reply
  • Chloiber - Monday, March 28, 2011 - link

    Anand explained why the write performance is higher (4kB -> 8kB). Reply
  • GeorgeH - Monday, March 28, 2011 - link

    Sure, but full disk encryption might be nice. Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, March 28, 2011 - link

    The G2 controller had the same features as the 320's controller. It's unclear whether they were tested/functional in the G2 era but they were there. The 320's controller is apparently the same physical die, just with these new features enabled/tested/validated.

    G1 owners didn't get TRIM, and I wouldn't expect G2 owners to get AES-128 via firmware. Sorry :(
    Reply
  • bbbcase - Monday, March 28, 2011 - link

    The Intel G1/G2 drives would eventually throttle write performance if you consistently wrote over 20GB/day on them to ensure warranty lifetime. This really limited their usefulness in certain server applications.
    Does the G3 have a similar throttling mechanism?
    Reply
  • Chloiber - Monday, March 28, 2011 - link

    ?? They didn't. The block fragmentation will, in spite of TRIM increase (that's the case with pretty much every SSD). Write 0s sequentially on the empty space every 2 months and the performance will always be as it was on the first day.
    You can also do this by doing a Full Diagnostics Scan using the Intel SSD Toolbox (writes sequentially on the empty space).
    Reply
  • toyotabedzrock - Monday, March 28, 2011 - link

    I'm curious if a 8KB random R/W test would show a bump in speed beyond what other drives would see.

    Intel really needs to get serious about allocating people to the SSD and Chipset teams. They always make a quick leap with a great new chip then it languishes for years with minor updates.

    Pentium 4 flashbacks!
    Reply
  • cdbob - Monday, March 28, 2011 - link

    I heard rumors that pricing was going to be on the steep side. It's too bad this turned out to be true, Intel better lower the price of their drives quick or they're going to start eating some serious dust when the next crop of Crucial Drives come out. Reply
  • Beenthere - Monday, March 28, 2011 - link

    That's why I won't buy any SSD for at least five more years. Poor reliability and data loss don't work for me. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now