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.

Incompressible Sequential Write Performance - AS-SSD

Peak read speed is obviously something the Vertex 3 does very well, while the P3 and 510 fall in second and third places, OCZ has a substantial lead. Now look at what happens when AS-SSD runs a pass of incompressible writes:

Incompressible Sequential Read Performance - AS-SSD

Corsair's P3 is now our leader. What's important to notice here is that Corsair's firmware allows for much higher sequential performance than what Intel outfitted the 510 with, however Intel's drive generally delivers better real world performance as we've seen from our 2011 Storage Bench tests.

AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 - Light Workload Overall System Performance using PCMark Vantage
Comments Locked

68 Comments

View All Comments

  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, June 9, 2011 - link

    And so the 240 GB Vertex 2 would be nice to see in a review -- for perspective.
  • jjj - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - link

    without the M4 and the MAX IOPS the comparisson is pointelss since those 2 models are the most interesting on the market atm at 120GB.
  • dcuccia1 - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - link

    This is fantastic, thanks for the roundup. I'd love to see the same analysis at the low-end. When I build my or mom a PC with a 64GB SSD drive, I have no firm grasp on which generation of drives have the best value for a mom-style workload (word processing, music, videos, etc).
  • SmCaudata - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - link

    Anything you can find.

    I have a first gen vertex 60gb that I got for $89 or something on sale before the Vertex2 drives came out. Even coming from a 1gb samsung F3 it was night and day. Outlook opens instantly and that is by far the most data intensive of the general use/productivity programs. I'm guessing music and videos will be on a separate drive anyway due to size and they play back at a fixed speed regardless so a spindle drive is just as fast for them.

    So again, in summary... anything from a reputable vendor is likely going to be night and day. If you can pick up an Intel for reliability that would be a good way to go. There are some firmware issues with the c300 drives that have the potential to make them really slow, but I'm not familiar with them so I cannot speak to the specifics.
  • dcuccia - Wednesday, June 8, 2011 - link

    Thanks, good points all around. Still, would be cool to see which drives gave a good bang for the buck for light workload systems. But you're right, at the right price it would be hard to go wrong with an old Vertex or Intel.
  • Mr Perfect - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - link

    I'm also interested in how 64GB drives would scale, but only because they are the largest drives Intel will let you use for SSD caching. That would be completely different benchmark runs though...
  • tecsi - Friday, July 8, 2011 - link

    Yes, I have exactly the same question. What about boot/app desktop SSDs in the 40-100GB range (<$100)?
  • Quizzical - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - link

    Are you sure that the Crucial RealSSD C300 only has 111.8 GB of usable capacity? Last July, you said that exactly the same SSD had 119.2 GB. I have the "64 GB" version of the same drive, and Windows reads it as 59.5 GB of usable capacity, so I'd expect the "128 GB" version to be around 119 GB.

    I don't have one, but Legit Reviews also shows the Corsair Performance 3 as having 119 GB of usable capacity, not 111.8 GB. In the past, Corsair has been inclined to do the usual hard drive manufacturer shenanigans of claiming 1 billion bytes as 1 GB, but not going beyond that and listing the total NAND flash. See the F115, which gives you about 115 billion bytes of capacity, but isn't marketed as a 128 GB drive, in spite of 128 GB of NAND flash.
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - link

    You're very correct, fixed :)
  • Tommyv2 - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - link

    Should've waiting until you had the 120GB m4 and the 120GB Max IOPs units for review, especially with some other sites showing that the 120GB m4 actually beats out the 240GB unit in some benchmarks! Those are the two I'm most interested in, and yet there are too few reviews out there for them...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now