Random write speeds: Intel X-25M: 39.49MB/s Corsair P256: 4.67MB/s
Random Write Latency: Intel X-25M: 0.30ms Corsair P256: 2.5ms
it's not even in the same order of magnitude.
and to say that it doesn't suffer from slowdown like the Intel drives do is bullshit. It's a fundamental problem with flash based drives to slowdown once they have written to every block once. That is why the TRIM command needs to be FULLY supported and the blocks need to be cleaned when they are eraased, not when they are being re-written.
Numbers are worthless if you don't understand their meaning.
The Corsair P256 and OCZ Summit both use the new Samsung controller, and while they don't have the random write performance of the Intel X25M their random write performance is 1000X better than all the other SSDs that use the old JMicron controller, and they don't experience any of the write stuttering whatsoever.
As many review sites have covered, for non-server use Intel's X25M random write performance is total OVERKILL and doesn't provide any TANGIBLE BENEFITS over the new Samsung or Indilinx controller. As long as the SSD isn't using JMicron's old controller (which literally has random write performance 100X worse than any of these drives), the random write performance won't be an obstacle of any kind.
In addition, Intel's over-optimizing for random write performance led the X25M to have a sequential write speed of only 75MB/sec --- whereas the Indilinx or new Samsung controller-based drives doing over 200MB/sec (while still having plenty of random write performance)
so it's overkill if you optimize for Random reads/writes which is the VAST MAJORITY of everything that a computer does that actually bottlenecks a drive (very little is stored sequentially on an SSD thanks to block level wear leveling which basically takes advantage of the ultra low "seek" times of flash memory and spreads blocks of even LARGE files all over the "disk") but okay to optimize for artificial benchmarks that do nothing?
oj, i see, you really DON'T know what you're talking about.
there are no sequential reads and writes of anything larger than a block size on an SSD drive.
this will explain that, once again, you can't erase anything less than a whole block at a time, so in order to prevent the same block (the "first") from being the target of all the erases on a non-full drive, SSD controllers employ block level wear leveling which basically splits every file larger than glock size and sends it to an algorithmically selected block that hasn't been written to as much and thus creates the necessity for RANDOM read access being the MOST important metric for an SSD drive.
If random read weren't important, and only sequential read were important, than the very same JMicron controllers you are bagging on would be perfectly acceptable for use in desktop SSD drives, because they have very good sequential read performance even when "used" citation here: (see drives #3&4) go to page 14 as i can't enter enough url's to directly link
instead, we get the famous "stuttering" of JMicron drives due to their TERRIBLE random read performance, and we get this while just trying to open a simple application. citation here: (look for the second table and read directly above and below it as well as the numbers on the table) go to page 17 as i can't enter enough url's to directly link
you also say that the Intel drive has a sequential write speed of 75MB/s which is patently false as proved by this wonderful graph from the same article which shows it to be 191.7 MB/s. Or basically within 10% of the indilix/samsung drives. citation here: go to page 24 as i can't enter enough url's to directly link
now go to look at random write speeds and see that the intel has a speed of 23.1 (now a bit higher evidently by the other tes but lets keep the same numbers from the article) or even then nearly 500% higher than the corsair drive.
random matters more so than ANY sequential number ever will.
sequential numbers are published (by anand's own admission) as "sexy big numbers" to sell drives.
Sorry, but you're the one who doesn't know what they're talking about. When people talk about sequential vs. random performance they mean "sequential or random as far as the host is concerned". Regardless of the fact that the host doesn't know where the data is actually located because of wear leveling, they still run the tests that way and see differences. The reasons would have to do with the controller, and its ability to predict the locations of things, and the way the cache works, and the ability of the controller to parallelize the operations when they are sequential, etc.
And there are several safe and documented procedures that can restore Samsung/Crucial + Intel drives to new condition by booting off a cloned external drive, writing one volume-filling file to the SSD, erasing the file, reformatting the SSD and then re-cloning the drive & make it the boot device again. Depending on how much capacity you're truly using on the device you need to do this every 9-12 months. And the fact that the whole process takes about 60 minutes on my MacBook Pro.... well, it's faster than defragging a Windows (which you have to do every week!)
In my book the 100x increase in speed over a 7200.3K mechanical disk for desktop use is more than worth it.
most of your random writes and reads are on the order of 4K blocks. With that worst-case scenario the speed difference between the fine Intel SSD and the bitchin' Corsair SSD is negligible. especially where seek times are in microseconds (as opposed to milliseconds in mechanical HDD). What this means in real-world computing is that both drives are so fast that you will see a palpable difference between your blender drive and your new electronic drive. The SSDs today are so fast that the only thing you need to worry about in actual usage is how the benchmarks make you feel about yourself.
The Corsair, OCZ, and Intel are all so fast that you will not see appreciable speed differences in actual desktop computing since your system is constrained to all sorts of other bottlenecks that are on par with normal spinning HDD performance.
Believe me, any of the best SSDs out there will knock your socks off.
The Rip is the latest addition to the Boogie eWriter line, devices that let you scribble notes and drawings and can be wiped away with the press of a button.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Random write speeds:
Intel X-25M: 39.49MB/s
Corsair P256: 4.67MB/s
Random Write Latency:
Intel X-25M: 0.30ms
Corsair P256: 2.5ms
it's not even in the same order of magnitude.
and to say that it doesn't suffer from slowdown like the Intel drives do is bullshit.
It's a fundamental problem with flash based drives to slowdown once they have written to every block once.
That is why the TRIM command needs to be FULLY supported and the blocks need to be cleaned when they are eraased, not when they are being re-written.
this "review" has FAIL written all over it.
They didn't even mention the X25-E which I have as my boot disk (64GB).
Nevermind, I do see the X25-E, but it is missing from many of the graphs.
Numbers are worthless if you don't understand their meaning.
The Corsair P256 and OCZ Summit both use the new Samsung controller, and while they don't have the random write performance of the Intel X25M their random write performance is 1000X better than all the other SSDs that use the old JMicron controller, and they don't experience any of the write stuttering whatsoever.
As many review sites have covered, for non-server use Intel's X25M random write performance is total OVERKILL and doesn't provide any TANGIBLE BENEFITS over the new Samsung or Indilinx controller. As long as the SSD isn't using JMicron's old controller (which literally has random write performance 100X worse than any of these drives), the random write performance won't be an obstacle of any kind.
In addition, Intel's over-optimizing for random write performance led the X25M to have a sequential write speed of only 75MB/sec --- whereas the Indilinx or new Samsung controller-based drives doing over 200MB/sec (while still having plenty of random write performance)
@loosely_coupled
FAIL!
so it's overkill if you optimize for Random reads/writes which is the VAST MAJORITY of everything that a computer does that actually bottlenecks a drive (very little is stored sequentially on an SSD thanks to block level wear leveling which basically takes advantage of the ultra low "seek" times of flash memory and spreads blocks of even LARGE files all over the "disk") but okay to optimize for artificial benchmarks that do nothing?
oj, i see, you really DON'T know what you're talking about.
there are no sequential reads and writes of anything larger than a block size on an SSD drive.
The very same Anandtech article you cite will explain this very well.
for reference you can read starting here:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531&p=8
this will explain that, once again, you can't erase anything less than a whole block at a time, so in order to prevent the same block (the "first") from being the target of all the erases on a non-full drive, SSD controllers employ block level wear leveling which basically splits every file larger than glock size and sends it to an algorithmically selected block that hasn't been written to as much and thus creates the necessity for RANDOM read access being the MOST important metric for an SSD drive.
If random read weren't important, and only sequential read were important, than the very same JMicron controllers you are bagging on would be perfectly acceptable for use in desktop SSD drives, because they have very good sequential read performance even when "used"
citation here: (see drives #3&4)
go to page 14 as i can't enter enough url's to directly link
instead, we get the famous "stuttering" of JMicron drives due to their TERRIBLE random read performance, and we get this while just trying to open a simple application.
citation here: (look for the second table and read directly above and below it as well as the numbers on the table)
go to page 17 as i can't enter enough url's to directly link
you also say that the Intel drive has a sequential write speed of 75MB/s which is patently false as proved by this wonderful graph from the same article which shows it to be 191.7 MB/s. Or basically within 10% of the indilix/samsung drives.
citation here: go to page 24 as i can't enter enough url's to directly link
now go to look at random write speeds and see that the intel has a speed of 23.1 (now a bit higher evidently by the other tes but lets keep the same numbers from the article)
or even then nearly 500% higher than the corsair drive.
random matters
more so than ANY sequential number ever will.
sequential numbers are published (by anand's own admission) as "sexy big numbers" to sell drives.
That's it.
no thanks,
Sorry, but you're the one who doesn't know what they're talking about. When people talk about sequential vs. random performance they mean "sequential or random as far as the host is concerned". Regardless of the fact that the host doesn't know where the data is actually located because of wear leveling, they still run the tests that way and see differences. The reasons would have to do with the controller, and its ability to predict the locations of things, and the way the cache works, and the ability of the controller to parallelize the operations when they are sequential, etc.
Since when do you write to every block once?
And there are several safe and documented procedures that can restore Samsung/Crucial + Intel drives to new condition by booting off a cloned external drive, writing one volume-filling file to the SSD, erasing the file, reformatting the SSD and then re-cloning the drive & make it the boot device again. Depending on how much capacity you're truly using on the device you need to do this every 9-12 months. And the fact that the whole process takes about 60 minutes on my MacBook Pro.... well, it's faster than defragging a Windows (which you have to do every week!)
In my book the 100x increase in speed over a 7200.3K mechanical disk for desktop use is more than worth it.
most of your random writes and reads are on the order of 4K blocks. With that worst-case scenario the speed difference between the fine Intel SSD and the bitchin' Corsair SSD is negligible. especially where seek times are in microseconds (as opposed to milliseconds in mechanical HDD). What this means in real-world computing is that both drives are so fast that you will see a palpable difference between your blender drive and your new electronic drive. The SSDs today are so fast that the only thing you need to worry about in actual usage is how the benchmarks make you feel about yourself.
The Corsair, OCZ, and Intel are all so fast that you will not see appreciable speed differences in actual desktop computing since your system is constrained to all sorts of other bottlenecks that are on par with normal spinning HDD performance.
Believe me, any of the best SSDs out there will knock your socks off.