Random Read/Write Speed

The four corners of SSD performance are as follows: random read, random write, sequential read and sequential write speed. Random accesses are generally small in size, while sequential accesses tend to be larger and thus we have the four Iometer tests we use in all of our reviews.

Our first test writes 4KB in a completely random pattern over an 8GB space of the drive to simulate the sort of random access that you'd see on an OS drive (even this is more stressful than a normal desktop user would see). We perform three concurrent IOs and run the test for 3 minutes. The results reported are in average MB/s over the entire time.

Desktop Iometer - 4KB Random Read

Desktop Iometer - 4KB Random Write

Desktop Iometer - 4KB Random Write (QD=32)

Random performance is quite typical (and unsurprising) for SandForce. Once again the performance drops when switching to incompressible data, although at low queue depths the write performance is still relatively good despite the drop.

Sequential Read/Write Speed

To measure sequential performance we run a 1 minute long 128KB sequential test over the entire span of the drive at a queue depth of 1. The results reported are in average MB/s over the entire test length.

Desktop Iometer - 128KB Sequential Read

No surprises in sequential peformance either. 

Desktop Iometer - 128KB Sequential Write

AS-SSD Incompressible Sequential Read/Write 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 Read Performance

Incompressible Sequential Write Performance

AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 Performance vs. Transfer Size
Comments Locked

42 Comments

View All Comments

  • hahmed330 - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link

    This SSD doesn't deserve the prefix pro...
  • JellyRoll - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link

    "the Pro 2500 is another example of Intel's lack of interest and innovation in the client space."
    That is an interesting comment, based upon that fact that this drive isn't intended to address that space, period. I think there might be a bit of a lack of understanding between the two markets.
    The business-class SSD market is growing very fast right now, and Intel is wise to address it. Who wouldn't? Haven't you noticed every other SSD player is entering this very same space? Perhaps there is a reason for that. Businesses are looking for different metrics than an obviously consumer-slanted writer understands. Reliability above performance, extended and proven track record (SF) makes it much easier to get through qual cycles. There are so many aspects of this market that the Pro addresses, but were ignored.
    ...and there's more, "The problem is that TCG Opal 2.0 and eDrive will never become consumer friendly features if manufacturers do not include them in their client drives, which is what happens if there is a separate business lineup."
    Again, the focus on consumer market, where no other SSD manufacturer is developing these for the consumer market for a reason. These features often add export restrictions, which are totally unneeded for the consumer segment, where maybe 1% will utilize those features, even with broad acceptance.
  • stickmansam - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link

    Just saying but Samsung has those features, Crucial, Adata, Corsair and maybe PNY and Transcend, maybe OCZ?
  • Kristian Vättö - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link

    "Haven't you noticed every other SSD player is entering this very same space?"

    Not everyone is. Out of the big players, only SanDisk's and Intel's strategy is to separate the client and business SSDs. Samsung and Crucial are going with an all-in-one approach by implementing the security features to their client SSDs.

    Reliability is always a moot point because there is no sufficient data to back it up. Sure Intel has always been reliable but the days of Intel being the only reliable OEM are far behind. Crucial, Samsung and SanDisk can certainly match Intel in terms of reliability.

    It's true that I'm not an IT admin but the points Intel are using to sell the drive (security features and reliability) aren't unique.
  • Michael REMY - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link

    I have to say I have never been a fan of business SSDs. They tend to be just consumer SSDs with a couple of software features to justify the higher price tag and this is the case with the Pro 2500.


    you forget to think as a IT/pro manager : what it matters the more is the price in time. And this "pro" version have a longer warranty than usual public version. In firms, Money always counts more than performances, specially on long time term.
  • Kristian Vättö - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link

    The SSD 530 carries the same 5-year warranty and if warranty really counts, then the 850 Pro is the king with its 10-year warranty (Extreme Pro has 10 years too but no security features).
  • FunBunny2 - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link

    go to Zolt's site, http://www.storagesearch.com/ and take a look at who's really making real Enterprise SSD. If you recognize even 1% of the names, I'll eat my hat. It's a pork pie, so I suppose it'll taste good, if need be.
  • stickmansam - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link

    that site's top SSD companies is ranked by search volume...
  • gospadin - Friday, August 1, 2014 - link

    Exactly. Search volume on that site, and not ranked by sales or profit.
  • FunBunny2 - Friday, August 1, 2014 - link

    The "rankings" he publishes are the least, by far and away, interesting thing. How Enterprise SSD companies go about their business is what's important. That, and the technical bits about how DRAM/SSD and NAND/SSD work.

    At one time, Timex sold the most watches. Not very good ones, of course. Drek SATA SSDs are in the same class. They aren't Enterprise Storage.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now