Corsair Neutron & Neutron GTX: All Capacities Tested
by Kristian Vättö on December 19, 2012 1:10 PM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench 2011—Light Workload
Our new light workload actually has more write operations than read operations. The split is as follows: 372,630 reads and 459,709 writes. The relatively close read/write ratio does better mimic a typical light workload (although even lighter workloads would be far more read centric).
The I/O breakdown is similar to the heavy workload at small IOs, however you'll notice that there are far fewer large IO transfers:
| AnandTech Storage Bench 2011—Light Workload IO Breakdown | ||||
| IO Size | % of Total | |||
| 4KB | 27% | |||
| 16KB | 8% | |||
| 32KB | 6% | |||
| 64KB | 5% | |||
As our Light suite is more read centric, the benefit of more and faster NAND is smaller. All except the 120GB Neutron perform almost equally and even the 120GB Neutron is only ~16% behind whereas in our Heavy suite it was as much as 30% slower than the larger capacities.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
View All Comments
nedjinski - Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - link
I wish you could somehow get Mushkin SSD's into the mix :)Kristian Vättö - Thursday, December 20, 2012 - link
I've asked Mushkin for review samples several times but for some unknown reason, they have never sent us any. And yes, I've tried emailing them again and again but I haven't gotten any replies...Mumrik - Thursday, December 20, 2012 - link
That's weirdly worrying.AT isn't exactly a small hardware-grabbing site.
ICBM - Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - link
It was mentioned that the LAMD controller isn't in the same class as Vector/840Pro, however it seems like it only loses a couple of benchmarks. The others it is winning or just slightly behind. So is it really not up to par with OCZ and Samsung? Would the average user, heck scratch that. Would the most avid enthusiast know the difference between an 840 Pro and a Neutron GTX running in their system?Beenthere - Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - link
In actual use no one is likely to be able to tell the difference in performance between a SATA 2 drive compared to a SATA 3, let alone between the recent crop of SATA 3 SSDs.People should do their homework before jumping in to an SSD. If you chose to go forward at least you'll know which drives to definitely avoid and which ones are the cheapest. Don't assume because an SSD is a familair brand name that it is either reliable nor fully compatible because you may be in for quite a rude awakening. It's foolish to pay more based on some perceived benefit in benchmarks when it means nothing in actual use.
Denithor - Thursday, December 20, 2012 - link
This is very true.I switched from a 120GB Intel 320 (SATA 2) to a 180GB Intel 330 (SATA 3) and the only difference I could see/feel was the increased capacity of the new drive. Boot times were nearly identical, apps open at the same speeds, no discernible improvement from the upgrade.
hammer256 - Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - link
Those consistency results are pretty remarkable. From newegg reviews, however, it appears to have a bimodal distribution of 5's and 1's, but the sample size is pretty small. Still, I wonder how good their QC is...skytrench - Thursday, December 20, 2012 - link
Not really, the consistency tests on a 100% full and 100% fragmented drive with nonstop 4k random writes, doesn't reflect reality. You wouldn't even allow your ZFS filesystem to reach that state! Some better test should be devised.nushydude - Thursday, December 20, 2012 - link
which SSD to get strictly for OS, applications and games? i think Neutron GTX is too much because i won't be writing much data. a Samsung 840 should suffice? i want better performance than a 120GB Kingston HyperX (original one) btw.nathanddrews - Thursday, December 20, 2012 - link
Simple, use the light workload storage benchmarks and select any drive that performs better than your current SSD.I'll even be really nice and provide you with a link. :-)
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/SSD/269