We had our first contact with the Crucial 32 GB Solid State Drive in late June, when we put some flash SSDs to the test on a notebook to compare the battery life of popular SSDs versus a conventional hard drive. This is a good example of a MLC-based flash drive that reaches excellent read throughput of up to 125 MB/s, but with write performance limited to less than 60 MB/s. Access times are very quick, too. For average desktop or notebook solutions this still seems like a good product.
However, this particular model doesn’t deliver the great power efficiency that many people associate with flash SSDs, leaving it a bad choice for mobile users. An average power requirement of 2.1 W when playing a low-bandwidth DVD stream is clearly too high. We found that some efficient mechanical hard drives deliver better efficiency under controlled performance requirements. The same applies to idle power, which doesn’t drop below 1.6 W, and the workstation-type I/O performance and efficiency of this drive wasn’t glorious either.
Crucial also has a 64 GB version, which seems to deliver less write throughput, according to the data sheet.
- Flash SSDs Compared
- Crucial 32 GB Solid State Drive 2.5”: Reads Fast
- Hama Solid State Flash Drives: 3.5” & 1.8”: Big or Small
- Hama Solid State Flash Drives: 2.5” SLC & MLC 32 GB
- MemoRight MR25.2-032S/064S: Enterprise Class
- Mtron Pro 7500 3.5” SATA 32 GB: Workstation Drives
- OCZ 64 GB SATAII SSD 2.5”: Samsung White Label
- Samsung 2.5” 64 GB SSD SATA-2: The Reference
- Silicon Power SSD 128 GB: Big And Slow
- Super Talent Masterdrive MX 60 GB 2.5”: Unbalanced
- Test Setup
- Access Time, Interface
- Read/Write Throughput
- PCMark Application Benchmarks
- I/O Performance Results
- Workstation Performance And Efficiency
- Streaming Read Performance And Efficiency
- Avg. Power at DVD Playback
- Conclusion: Recommending Samsung