Intel SSD Pro 2500 (240GB) Review
by Kristian Vättö on July 30, 2014 5:00 AM ESTPerformance Consistency
Performance consistency tells us a lot about the architecture of these SSDs and how they handle internal defragmentation. The reason we don’t have consistent IO latency with SSD is because inevitably all controllers have to do some amount of defragmentation or garbage collection in order to continue operating at high speeds. When and how an SSD decides to run its defrag or cleanup routines directly impacts the user experience as inconsistent performance results in application slowdowns.
To test IO consistency, we fill a secure erased SSD with sequential data to ensure that all user accessible LBAs have data associated with them. Next we kick off a 4KB random write workload across all LBAs at a queue depth of 32 using incompressible data. The test is run for just over half an hour and we record instantaneous IOPS every second.
We are also testing drives with added over-provisioning by limiting the LBA range. This gives us a look into the drive’s behavior with varying levels of empty space, which is frankly a more realistic approach for client workloads.
Each of the three graphs has its own purpose. The first one is of the whole duration of the test in log scale. The second and third one zoom into the beginning of steady-state operation (t=1400s) but on different scales: the second one uses log scale for easy comparison whereas the third one uses linear scale for better visualization of differences between drives. Click the buttons below each graph to switch the source data.
For more detailed description of the test and why performance consistency matters, read our original Intel SSD DC S3700 article.
 |
|||||||||
| Intel SSD Pro 2500 | Intel SSD 530 | Intel SSD 335 | Samsung SSD 840 EVO | Crucial MX100 | |||||
| Default | |||||||||
| 25% OP | - | ||||||||
The SF-2281 continues to offer excellent IO consistency. It takes over 20 minutes of 4KB random writes before the Pro 2500 begins the transition to steady-state, which is slightly better compared to the SSD 530.
 |
|||||||||
| Intel SSD Pro 2500 | Intel SSD 530 | Intel SSD 335 | Samsung SSD 840 EVO | Crucial MX100 | |||||
| Default | |||||||||
| 25% OP | - | ||||||||
 |
|||||||||
| Intel SSD Pro 2500 | Intel SSD 530 | Intel SSD 335 | Samsung SSD 840 EVO | Crucial MX100 | |||||
| Default | |||||||||
| 25% OP | - | ||||||||
TRIM Validation
To test TRIM, I filled the drive with incompressible sequential data and proceeded with 60 minutes of incompressible 4KB random writes at queue depth of 32. I measured performance after the torture as well as after a single TRIM pass with Iometer by running a 60-second 128KB incompressible sequential write pass.
| Intel SSD Pro 2500 Resiliency - Iometer Incompressible Sequential Write | |||
| Clean | After Torture (60 min) | After TRIM | |
| Intel SSD Pro 2500 240GB | 274.9MB/s | 42.2MB/s | 132.0MB/s |
The TRIM issue has not changed. Again it is not a problem unless you use software encryption because otherwise there will always be compressible data, but given the Opal and eDrive support in the Pro 2500, I do not see why anyone would opt for the Pro 2500 if the plan is to utilize software encryption.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
42 Comments
View All Comments
Samus - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link
Ian, you couldn't be more wrong. Although Sandisk makes solid products and is a large OEM partner, they can't come close to competing with crucial\micron manufacturing capacity which inevitably makes Sandisk more expensive. When you consider crucial\micron drives have more features and better reliability than everyone else, the writing is on the wall. Sandisk (and Samsung, Toshiba\OCZ, and perhaps Intel) will continue to be relevant form their product segments but crucial\micron will always be king of ssd volume and reliability.Everyone else will be irrelevant. Kingston, ADATA, PNY, OWC, and so on, will all fail in the consumer space because they are doing what Intel is doing with this very drive, relying on outsourced components. The problem for them is they can't charge what Intel can. They'll be lucky to even break even in the future.
hojnikb - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link
I don't know where you're from, but here in EU MX100 is almost 110€ cheaper than X210 (YES, 110€ cheaper) for 512GB capacity. So you would have to be insane to fork that much more for only a marginally better performing drive.Burner.Tom - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link
In Slovakia is the price of Crucial MX100 512GB cca 183€ with tax compared to 235€ of SanDisk X210 512GB. For me is the X210 right choice because of better warranty (3y vs 5y) and much better performance.GammaLaser - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link
"a study performed by the Ponemon Institute"At first I read that as Pokemon Institute :P
texasti89 - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link
Why on earth would someone (client or business) choose this sub-bar product over Samsung new V-NAND drives given they are priced on the same range? This product doesn't even have an Intel chip inside!galfert - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link
When I upgrade my client's computers they say, "Samsung? What happened with Intel?" And I tell them, "Oh those Intel SSD days are long over." I like Intel as a company, and they had the resources to keep up with the SSD innovation train. It isn't too late for them. The focus should move to M.2 PCIe with NVMe.Kristian Vättö - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link
I wouldn't say Intel isn't innovative in the SSD space as the P3700 was one of the first NVMe drives to ship. It's just that Intel's focus is in the enterprise market and their efforts in that front don't translate to the client market.mmrezaie - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link
You are talking about intel. They should be way more innovative with what resources they have, but I assume this is typical intel. They were never satisfying but just dominating.FunBunny2 - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link
Intel doesn't have the experience that Texas Memory has, and is the reason IBM bought them rather than Intel. Intel has cpu design and fab expertise. Enterprise SSD? Not so much. It's not a mass production venue. Whether SSD gets to the point of HDD, where the only real difference is QA of parts, is the question. It's still more about design and execution of a very different part.gsvelto - Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - link
I'm really not sure what these drives are good for. Intel already has a line of drives which offer functionality above that of consumer offerings: that's the Pro 1500 series which is in spirit (and price) an excellent successor to the venerable 320 line. That line was relatively popular even among consumer builds and in workstations precisely because it offered extra features not commonly available in consumer drives (such as encryption and power-loss protection). These drives on the other hand have basically no advantages over competitive offerings and a lot of downsides including the high price.