Samsung’s 64 GB 830 jumps to the top of our PCMark 7 chart, followed by Crucial's 64 GB m4.
The SandForce-based drives don't do as well since this test consists of both compressible and incompressible information. The resulting workload isn't a best-case reflection of what its controller hardware can do. We do, however, see a very clear break between the drives with synchronous memory and the less expensive models equipped with asynchronous flash. On average, the faster SandForce-based SSDs deliver about 8.5% more performance than the more value-oriented models.
Because SSDs are so fast, they sit idle most of the time. In our almost 30-minute virus scan, the SSD is only busy for 281 seconds. As a result, idle power consumption is the most important figure to consider in a desktop environment.
Samsung's 64 GB 830 does exceptionally well here. Even though it employs a beefy triple-core ARM-based controller, it consumes slightly less power than Crucial's m4 and its dual-core ARM-based Marvell controller.
When it comes to the SandForce-based drives, our results are less consistent than we might have expected. Though, with all of these sub-1 W measurements, we're not certain any of these SSDs can claim an advantage.
Samsung continues to excel, even under more of a load. Its 64 GB 830 uses less power when it's active than Intel's SSD 520 at idle. Crucial's m4 takes a second-place finish, which is interesting in light of its less impressive finish in the idle chart.
There's again some variation between the SandForce-based drives, with no discernible trend in the finishing order. But we're still hesitant to flag a victor, given a fairly narrow range.
- 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