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


View All Comments

  • johan851 - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - link

    I've been wanting a comparison like this for a couple of weeks now, and I'm really glad you provided one. Thanks! Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, June 9, 2011 - link

    Now if we could get a review with the 240 GB Vertex 2.

    That has been as low as $309 AR at MicroCenter. Yet, despite being able to be found for low prices ($350 AR lately), it's still nowhere to be found in reviews here.
  • shamans33 - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - link

    I just bought one for $220 before a $20 MIR about 2 weeks ago.

    Furthermore, your OCZ Agility 3 price is more expensive than the OCZ Vertex 3 price.....

    Might want to look into getting pricing from a variety of vendors.
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - link

    Updated :) Reply
  • aegisofrime - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - link

    You updated the price but not the price per GB. :p

    I haven't had time to read through the whole article as I have to sleep now, so forgive me if my following question was addressed in the article. I'm considering a 120GB Intel 320, and I'm wondering will performance be lower than the 160GB version?
  • cactusdog - Wednesday, June 8, 2011 - link

    Why no Corsair force 3 drives? Or mushkin Chronos Reply
  • Fallen Kell - Wednesday, June 8, 2011 - link

    They were all just recalled, that is why.
  • Shadowmaster625 - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - link

    No wonder intel was in no hurry with sata6. Half a watt extra power consumption at idle? Will that be the same for notebooks and tablets? If so then that is a serious problem. Why would power consumption be different at idle anyway? Reply
  • imaheadcase - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - link

    I read sometime back that intel drives performance might suffer simply because of power issues itself. Nothing bad mind you, just that its standby mode interferes with transferring data somewhat. Not sure if thats a firmware or just config error. Reply
  • Jaybus - Friday, June 10, 2011 - link

    Because, even though sata6 has improved power management, the higher clock rate simply requires more power. Even at idle, there has to be some communication between the SSD and the SATA host controller. Primarily, it is up to the OS to put the SATA link into sleep mode. In general, sata6 will always use more power than sata3, since you can't get around the physics. Clocking faster requires either more power or a complete paradigm shift to an optical PHY. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now