Random Read Performance (background info)
From what we've seen in testing, it can be more difficult to generate consistent data using SandForce-based SSDs than many competing drives. In some benchmarks, we note up to 50 MB/s swings at low queue depths during successive runs. Yet, if we take the median results, all of the 60 GB models collected for this story perform fairly similarly, regardless of their NAND interface. The only exception is Intel’s SSD 520, which achieves a 50 MB/s lead over the competition at queue depths between two and four.
Meanwhile, the 64 GB Samsung 830 falls behind the SandForce-based pack. Crucial's m4 performs respectably, nearly matching the SSDs being rounded-up today. We see one anomaly at a queue depth of four, where the 64 GB m4 falls behind by roughly 90 MB/s.
Random Write Performance, Compressible
In general, all 60 GB SandForce-based SSDs perform within a fairly tight range when we measure performance using compressible random writes. The only clear leaders are the Vertex 3 and SSD 520, but they only differentiate themselves at queue depths between four and eight.
The 64 GB Crucial m4 and Samsung 830 fall further behind in this test. We'd expect that, though, considering neither controller benefits from compression in the same way as SandForce's.
- The Great 60 GB SandForce SSD Round-Up
- Test Setup And Firmware Notes
- 4 KB Random Performance
- 128 KB Sequential Performance
- Incompressible Sequential Write Performance: SandForce's Weakness
- PCMark 7 And Power Consumption
- Endurance Testing
- Exploring The Performance Of A Full SandForce-Based SSD
- Performance Is Defined By Flash