AS-SSD Incompressible Sequential Performance

The AS-SSD sequential benchmark uses incompressible data for all of its transfers. The result is a pretty big reduction in sequential write speed on SandForce based controllers.

AS-SSD Incompressible Sequential Write Speed

Even Iometer's incompressible data isn't able to completely defeat SandForce's algorithms, but AS-SSD seems to do a better job. Here the Agility 3's performance really suffers, particularly in the sequential read test:

AS-SSD Incompressible Sequential Read Speed

The Agility 3 is about the speed of the old Vertex 2/Corsair Force F120 here.

Performance vs. Transfer Size Overall System Performance using PCMark Vantage
POST A COMMENT

59 Comments

View All Comments

  • swaaye - Tuesday, May 24, 2011 - link

    Well I guess we're in for a few year wait yet before SSDs get cheaper. Yikes. :) Come on brilliant process engineers!!! Reply
  • jb510 - Tuesday, May 24, 2011 - link

    If I write 100 MB of compressible data to a SF drive does it use 100MB of space? Ie is it stored compressed or is that just for when it's going through the controller.

    If I compress or encrypt my entire drive on the fly (several utilities exist to do this) how does that affect performance?
    Reply
  • tecsi - Tuesday, May 24, 2011 - link

    We need to include the $135 60GB and $230 120GB Agility 3s to review. The $500 240GB is clearly a great performing product. But expensive. We need to understand what performance hits, other than capacity, we would take by going with the lower cost devices.

    Presumably the 60GB and 120GB Agility 3s will ship in much higher volume, so it important to include them in the performance charts.
    Reply
  • JasonInofuentes - Tuesday, May 24, 2011 - link

    It is logical to expect that the difference in speeds between the 240 GB Agility 3 and the 120 GB Agility 3 will mirror that of the respective Vertex 3 drives, since the structural changes are the same (two die per device vs one die per device). In real world usage, this is likely to be noticeable in some instances but not groundbreaking. Reply
  • seapeople - Tuesday, May 24, 2011 - link

    You really must not have been very confident in your AnandTech 2011 Storage Bench if you didn't think you'd have to debut it by MAY.

    Seriously...
    Reply
  • MilwaukeeMike - Wednesday, May 25, 2011 - link

    That block of text describing the Storage Bench has been pasted into a bunch of reviews. Read some others and you'll see it. I don't know when it first showed up, but it was a few months ago, maybe even last year. Reply
  • ssd123 - Tuesday, May 24, 2011 - link

    Too bad that OCZ is more interested in time-to-market than making reliable products.

    Check out their forums; there is no end of problems with their drives. I've personally experienced it with their Vertex 2 that would blow away my boot partition every 2 weeks or so. The replacement V2 drive they provided had the same problem.

    The solutions they propose to unlucky customers range from updating BIOS, changing registry settings and updating drivers. Often, none of these fixes end up making a difference.

    I love the performance of the OCZ drives, when they are working.

    Unfortunately they do not deliver on the basic requirements of storage devices: they need to read and write data reliably.

    I'm no Intel fanboy but I have to admit their SSDs are rock solid: they install like a regular drive and just work. No registry tuning, no driver issues, no bios problems.

    OCZ has a great forums and a very engaged online community that's more than willing to help; it's a shame that they are so busy...
    Reply
  • sanguy - Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - link

    We're in the same boat - we want to use Vertex 3 (and prior Vertex 2) for one of our applications that really benefits from SSD performance but the reliability and support OCZ provides is dismal.

    We're using Intel G2 and G3 drives and while not as fast as the Vertex 2/3 they have been 100% reliable with ZERO issues with several hundred of them deployed.

    So I love it when I see people bashing Intel - but I'd gladly give up a bit of performance for my storage to be non-volatile ;)

    SG
    Reply
  • tecsi - Wednesday, May 25, 2011 - link

    We need to see performance numbers of not only $500 240GB Agility 3, but also $135 60GB and $230 120GB.

    These are clearly economically options for boot/app drives in desktops.
    Reply
  • tecsi - Wednesday, May 25, 2011 - link

    We need to know how the $135 60GB and $230 120GB Agility 3s fare vis-a-vis their larger, but much more expensive, $500 240GB brother.

    Both the 60GB and 120GB should provide ample capacity for a boot/app SSD.

    This would really complete the picture.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now