Throughput, Interface Performance
Actual sequential read throughput is typically rather far from the promises of most of the SSD vendors.
The same applies to sequential writes: the effective, sustainable throughput is often only 30-50% of the stated maximum transfer rates.
The drive interfaces would be fast enough to support faster throughput, as you can see in our interface benchmark.
9
Comments
Sponsored
Latest Internal Storage News
Latest Internal Storage reviews
- 16/05 – Intel SSD 330 Review: 60, 120, And 180 GB Models Benchmarked
- 11/05 – Do-It-Yourself: Upgrading Apple's 27" iMac With An SSD
- 01/05 – Marvell-Based SSDs From Corsair, Crucial, OCZ, And Plextor:...
- 26/04 – Best SSDs For The Money: April 2012
- 25/04 – Hitachi's 4 TB Hard Drives Take On The 3 TB Competition
Any perticular reason you didn't include an OCZ Vertex or a Supertalent Ultradrive? I'm really interested to know if these can match the Intel drives.
Actually a dedicated random write benchmark would have been useful too since this is known to be a serious weakness of most MLC drives.
Pointless review if its not using the latest ssd's available to comparte against intel
Hmm..scratching my head here, wondering where all the buzz went about these devices being streets ahead of conventional hard drive storage.
Perhaps the technology is being held back somewhat?
This test was a complete waste of time, as shawkie said the real test would have been to put the intel x25 up against the OCZ Vertex & Ultradrive as these are the drives people are considering to use as a upgrade.
Come on > chiantech,memory corp,silion,soliware, what was the point in including these in the test, I would never use these with there low read & write performances, and then theres the price, to much for very little performance in my opinion,
This was like a fixed boxing match where Toms hardware is the promoter of Intel X25, and making sure it avoided been knocked out by a better SSD out there.
Source: Tom's Hardware UK
Prices: USD
WTF!
Also, as others have said this review was biased towards Intel (again). If your going to do a job, do it right. If your not going to do the job right, shut up shop.
Nuff said really.
I thought that 0.1 milliseconds was 100 microseconds and 0.1 microseconds was 100 nanoseconds (pico, femto, atto etc).
It's always good to see a good hard drive in the test just to compare so you don't have to go searching another table to compare.