Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Benchmark Results: I/O Performance

OCZ's Vertex 3 Pro: Second-Gen SandForce Perf Preview
By

Intel's X25-M revolutionized the SSD market. But then SandForce turned it upside down, coming out of nowhere to establish a dominant position. Today we see the company preview its second-generation controller, unleashed over a native 6 Gb/s interface.

All of our Iometer tests are run with a queue depth of one, which is more indicative of what you might see on a notebook than a business server. As a result, the majority of our tests here favor the consumer-oriented drives from Intel and OCZ. Clearly, though, there is a progression from all of the SandForce-based drives down to Intel's X25-M and the slower alternatives.

Notice how far we have come from what many would consider a first-generation SSD? The G.Skill drive, based on JMicron's JMF602B, almost always finishes dead last. Only in the Web server benchmark do we see it peel away from the mechanical drives.

This chart is an excellent example of what SSDs do better than mechanical disks. A Web server very rarely writes data. Its main purpose is to deliver pages and graphics. As a result, the low latencies of solid state storage give SSDs a natural advantage.

Display all 10 comments.
  • 0 Hide
    mi1ez , 18 February 2011 14:26
    Quote:
    This field is what allows the nonconductive silicon substrate to function as a conductive channel.

    Erm... Semiconductor?
  • 0 Hide
    shanky887614 , 19 February 2011 01:50
    2$ a GB is still too high for me, i have a 2tb and a 1tb hdd in my computer, i really want to move to ssd's but i cant afford it, at the moment with not a lot on my c partition im using 200GB thats 400$ and i wouldnt be happy with less than a 400gb system partion which is 800$
  • 0 Hide
    shaunpugh , 19 February 2011 16:35
    @shanky887614

    I've been running SSD for a couple of years and you don't need a 400GB system partition. I've run on a 60GB system partition before, and yes that was a bit on the tight side. 120GB is probably a good balance between capacity and cost, but if you can afford it 240GB (what I have now) is enough for the OS, applications, the photo's I'm currently working on and a couple of VM's.

    Most of your 'stuff' doesn't get accessed anyway, just run Treesize and look at the last access date for your data. Look at the size of everything that was accessed in the last month, and this is a good sizing estimate for SSD - obviously leave a bit of overhead for OS components that aren't always used and for growth. Everything else can go on a much cheaper HDD. I guess we all got lazy when 1TB and 2TB disks came out, SSD makes you think about data management again, but the rewards are worth it.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , 19 February 2011 17:41
    >>120GB is probably a good balance between capacity and cost>>
    Ok but $500 for 100 Gb is too much.
  • 0 Hide
    shaunpugh , 19 February 2011 21:14
    True, they aren't cheap, can't argue that one.
  • 0 Hide
    shanky887614 , 19 February 2011 23:45
    actually when i say that i need 400gb partition im including just my games and programs, i would need at least that for peace of mind, actually at moment im only using 200gb of it but i wont a bit of headroom
  • 0 Hide
    shaunpugh , 20 February 2011 03:42
    Do a quick scan with treesize mate, you won't need to spend as much as you think.
  • 0 Hide
    mi1ez , 20 February 2011 22:46
    My system disk is only 80GB (HDD sadly) and has 33GB free. I don't see an 80GB system disk as being too limiting, although I would shy away from 60GB
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , 21 February 2011 10:32
    I've been on an 80gb system disk (hdd) for some time now, and with windows and other programs that have to be on the os drive that leaves me with only about 40gb of free space to do with as i like. 40gb is enough for maybe 4 games at a time if I'm lucky, and even so that means doing a *lot* of uninstalls and reinstalls while leaving the drive almost at capacity all the time, which wouldn't be good for a ssd.
    A ssd much smaller than 100 gb just wouldn't be practical for anything much but the os, and any larger than 100 gb and prices go through the roof. I'm sure theres benefits to be had with ssds, but affordable ones aren't all that much better than fast hdds and just dont have enough space...
  • 0 Hide
    fruees , 22 February 2011 01:24
    I don't know what you lot are talking about - I've been running my os (vista and win7) on a 30gb vertex and it great. Programs and storage are on an HDD.

    The Vertex range is for sure the staple of the ssd market and OCZ customer service on their forums is by far the best I have ever seen
React To This Article