Computer Hardware

Home Entertainment

Forum

Find Lowest Prices

About Us

Contact Us

Our Reviews

Computer Hardware 

AMD A10-6800K Review ....................

Antec ISK110 VESA Case Review .............................. ....................

Antec P280 Case and HCP1200 PSU ....................

Intel Ivy Bridge i7-3770K CPU

Fujifilm FinePix HS20EXR Camera

AMD Radeon HD 7870

AMD Radeon HD 7770 & 7750

AMD Radeon HD 7970 .........................

AMD Bulldozer FX-8150 CPU

ASUS EAH6970 Graphics Card

AMD Llano A8-3850 Review

Cougar GX G1050 1050W PSU

Antec HCG900 900W PSU

Rasurbo Xange Case and 550W PSU ....................

Cooler Master Storm Enforcer Case ....................

AMD Phenom II X4 980BE CPU Review

AMD 6-series Entry Level GPUs

AMD ATI Radeon HD6990 Review

Intel 510 Series 250GB SSD

ASUS ENGTX580 DCUII Review

Sapphire Radeon HD6870 Vapor-X

Antec Minuet 350 Case Review

Sapphire Radeon HD6950

Intel Sandy Bridge Processors

AMD Phenom II X4 975BE & X6 1100T

AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Thuban CPU ...............

Kingston V+ Series 128GB SSD Review

Antec P183 Case and 1000W PSU

AMD ATI Radeon 5670 Review

AMD ATI Radeon HD 5850 Review

AMD Athlon II X4 630 CPU Review

Intel Lynnfield i7-870 Processor Review

Kingston DDR3 Memory Review

ASUS Maximus III Gene Motherboard

ASUS M4A79T Deluxe Motherboard

Antec Midi Tower Case and PSU

Active Media SaberTooth SSD

More Power Protection Products ......................... ...............

DDR2 Memory Roundup

Dual Layer DVD Burners Reviewed

Dual Format DVD Burner Review

QuietPC Product Roundup

GlobalWIN Product Roundup

Sapphire Radeon 9800 AIW Pro

Athlon 64 FX-51 Review

Lian Li PC37 Aluminum Mini Tower Case ...............

Abit IS7-G Motherboard Review 

AOpen AX4C Max Review

Promise S150 TX4 RAID Controller

Silent Power Supplies Reviewed

Nvidia GeForce FX5900 Ultra ....................

Promise TX4000 RAID Controller

ASUS V9900 Ultra Review

Promise TX2Plus RAID Controller

AMD Athlon XP3200+ CPU Review

Intel Canterwood Chipset Review

ASUS P4SDX Deluxe Motherboard

Dual Athlon MP2600+ Review

Pinnacle Systems: Edition DV500

Athlon XP3000+ CPU

  ..

TwinMOS Memory

 

Leadtek K7NCR18D-Pro

Aopen CRW4850 CD Burner Review

AOpen AK77-8X Max Motherboard Review

AOpen AX4PE Max Motherboard Review

Enlight Cases Roundup

Power Protection Products Review

Creative Webcam Pro eX Review

PAPST Fans (Silent PC Part2)

AMD Athlon XP2700+ CPU

Leadtek WinFast A280 MyVIVO

Crucial PC2700 DDR333 Memory

Chieftec Wireless Desktop Review

Intel Pentium4 3.06GHz CPU with Hyper Threading Review

Hyper-Threading Technology Guide

PURE Digital SonicXplosion Sound Card

PURE Digital ZXR-500 Speaker System

Logitech Z-560 4.1-Speaker System

Global Win GAT-001 Case Review ....................

Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz Review

Belkin Omniview 4-Pt. KVM Switch + Audio

AKASA Paxmate Acoustic Matting Installation Guide

Chieftec Winner Series: WX-01BD Case Review ..........

Cooler Master ATC-710 Case Review

80mm -> 60mm Fan Adapter

TDK USB Bluetooth Adaptor

Socket-A Cooler Roundup 

Promise FastTrak SX4000 RAID Card

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intel 510 Series 250GB SSD Review

Page Navigation   

 

Introduction

Five years ago we made some predictions about the future development of SSD technology and how it would revolutionize PC storage. Rather than vague musings, we predicted that 2010 was the year SSDs would gain widespread acceptance in the mainstream markets. It turns out we were very close to the mark and things are lining up nicely for a paradigm shift that could have interesting long-term repercussions for a variety of knock-on technologies. SDDs have come a long way in terms of reliability and now are reckoned to be able to last longer than tradional HDDs thanks to wear-leveling algorithms and use a fraction of the power they did in 2005. Even as recently as January 2009, a technology article on Tom's Hardware concluded that SSD performance was not yet good enough - how far things have come in the last 2 years.

This article is primarily a review of Intel's new 510 Series 250GB SSD but, since few people are really clear about SSDs and even many techies have nagging questions about the technology, we thought we should start off with a technology guide showing how this all came about, the Pros and Cons of SSDs versus traditional HDDs and some Frequently Asked Questions about SSDs. Readers familiar with all this can skip straight to the testing section to see benchmarks but surprisingly, even our hardened techies learnt a thing or two about SSDs while compiling the reference material in the next 3 sections.

 

Disruptive Technologies

What's a disruptive technology?

It's something that has poor performance characteristics at present compared to the incumbent or mainstream current solution but the rate of improvement (the slope of the line or curve with regards to time) is such that at some point in the future it will overtake the current leading solution. The best way to illustrate this is with the following graph:

 

Using HDDs as our example we can see (looking forward from 2005, say) that disk speeds are steadily increasing as we move from ATA-33 to ATA-66, ATA-100, ATA-133 to SATA-1, SATA-2 and (unknown to us in 2005) SATA-3). Capacity doubles every year while the price remains constant. Speed has gone up by a factor of 5 in 20 years which is nothing to sniff at but look at what those SSDs are doing! In 2005 they cost a fortune and are slower than HDDs (really only being used by the military and some enterprise solutions where HDDs just couldn't stand the heat) but they sure are improving fast and prices are bound to come down as volumes increase.

Today they are much faster (we shall see during testing just how much faster than the latest HDDs) and more importantly we will examine the difference in practical terms (such as Windows boot times and application loading times) rather than just theoretical speeds in benchmarks. First though, let's take a look at the advantages and disadvantages and then (hopefully) all your SSD questions will be answered in the following section.

 

SSD Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages

  • Faster start-up because no spin-up is required.
  • Fast random access because there is no read/write head
    • Low read latency times for RAM drives. In applications where hard disk seeks are the limiting factor, this results in faster boot and application launch times (see Amdahl's law).
    • Consistent read performance because physical location of data is irrelevant for SSDs.
    • File fragmentation has negligible effect.
  • Silent operation due to the lack of moving parts.
  • Low capacity flash SSDs have a low power consumption and generate little heat when in use.
  • High mechanical reliability, as the lack of moving parts almost eliminates the risk of "mechanical" failure.
  • Ability to endure extreme shock, high altitude, vibration and extremes of temperature. This makes SSDs useful for laptops, mobile computers, and devices that operate in extreme conditions (flash).
  • For low-capacity SSDs, lower weight and size: although size and weight per unit storage are still better for traditional hard drives, and microdrives allow up to 20 GB storage in a CompactFlash form-factor. Since 2008 SSDs up to 256 GB are lighter than hard drives of the same capacity.
  • Flash SSD's have twice the data density of HDD's (so far, with very recent and major developments of improving SSD densities), even up to 1TB disks (currently more than 2TB is atypical even for HDD's)). One example of this advantage is that portable devices such as a smartphone may hold as much as a typical person's desktop PC.
  • Failures occur less frequently while writing/erasing data, which means there is a lower chance of irrecoverable data damage.

Disadvantages

  • Wear leveling used on flash-based SSDs has security implications. For example, encryption of existing unencrypted data on flash-based SSDs cannot be performed securely due to the fact that wear leveling causes new encrypted drive sectors to be written to a physical location different from their original location -- data remains unencrypted in the original physical location. It is also impossible to securely wipe files by overwriting their content on flash-based SSDs.
  • As of early-2011, SSDs are still more expensive per gigabyte than hard drives. Whereas a normal flash drive is US$2 per gigabyte, hard drives are around US$0.10 per gigabyte for 3.5", or US$0.20 for 2.5".
  • The capacity of SSDs is currently lower than that of hard drives. However, flash SSD capacity is predicted to increase rapidly, with drives of 1 TB already released for enterprise and industrial applications.
  • Asymmetric read vs. write performance can cause problems with certain functions where the read and write operations are expected to be completed in a similar timeframe. SSDs currently have a much slower write performance compared to their read performance. (No longer true with newer controllers - Ed)
  • Similarly, SSD write performance is significantly impacted by the availability of free, programmable blocks. Previously written data blocks that are no longer in use can be reclaimed by TRIM; however, even with TRIM, fewer free, programmable blocks translates into reduced performance.
  • Flash-memory drives have limited lifetimes and will often wear out after 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 write cycles (1,000 to 10,000 per cell) for MLC, and up to 5,000,000 write cycles (100,000 per cell) for SLC. Special file systems or firmware designs can mitigate this problem by spreading writes over the entire device, called wear leveling.
  • As a result of wear leveling and write combining, the performance of SSDs degrades with use.
  • SATA-based SSDs generally exhibit much slower write speeds. As erase blocks on flash-based SSDs generally are quite large (e.g. 0.5 - 1 megabyte), they are far slower than conventional disks during small writes (write amplification effect) and can suffer from write fragmentation. Modern PCIe SSDs however have much faster write speeds than previously available. (Also no longer a problem - Ed)
  • DRAM-based SSDs (but not flash-based SSDs) require more power than hard disks, when operating; they still use power when the computer is turned off, while hard disks do not.
  • Defragmentation cannot be performed on flash-based SSDs due to wear leveling (operating system cannot control the real physical location of disk sectors). Some SSDs compact free space when idle. However, this improves only writing speed -- not reading speed of existing fragmented data.

 

SSD Frequently Asked Questions

This FAQ is a compilation of information we have gathered from around the Internet and will hopefully answer most questions about Solid State Disk technology and help explain some of the technical jargon for newcomers to this field and explain from a practical point of view how SSDs work. Many of the questions and answers relate to SSDs in Windows 7 systems and were originally from Microsoft related discussion groups and forums too numerous to reference here but a Google (or Bing) search using the question as the search term should find the sources if more detail is needed.

Random Reads: A very good story for SSDs

SSDs tend to be very fast for random reads. Most SSDs thoroughly trounce traditionally HDDs because the mechanical work required to position a rotating disk head isn’t required. As a result, the better SSDs can perform 4 KB random reads almost 100 times faster than the typical HDD (about 1/10th of a millisecond per read vs. roughly 10 milliseconds).

Sequential Reads and Writes: Also Good

Sequential read and write operations range between quite good to superb. Because flash chips can be configured in parallel and data spread across the chips, today’s better SSDs can read sequentially at rates greater than 200 MB/s, which is close to double the rate many 7200 RPM drives can deliver. For sequential writes, we see some devices greatly exceeding the rates of typical HDDs, and most SSDs doing fairly well in comparison. In today’s market, there are still considerable differences in sequential write rates between SSDs. Some greatly outperform the typical HDD, others lag by a bit, and a few are poor in comparison.

Random Writes & Flushes: Your mileage will vary greatly

The differences in sequential write rates are interesting to note, but for most users they won’t make for as notable a difference in overall performance as random writes.

What’s a long time for a random write? Well, an average HDD can typically move 4 KB random writes to its spinning media in 7 to 15 milliseconds, which has proven to be largely unacceptable. As a result, most HDDs come with 4, 8 or more megabytes of internal memory and attempt to cache small random writes rather than wait the full 7 to 15 milliseconds. When they do cache a write, they return success to the OS even though the bytes haven’t been moved to the spinning media. We typically see these cached writes completing in a few hundred microseconds (so 10X, 20X or faster than actually writing to spinning media). In looking at millions of disk writes from thousands of telemetry traces, we observe 92% of 4 KB or smaller IOs taking less than 1 millisecond, 80% taking less than 600 microseconds, and an impressive 48% taking less than 200 microseconds. Caching works!

On occasion, we’ll see HDDs struggle with bursts of random writes and flushes. Drives that cache too much for too long and then get caught with too much of a backlog of work to complete when a flush comes along, have proven to be problematic. These flushes and surrounding IOs can have considerably lengthened response times. We’ve seen some devices take a half second to a full second to complete individual IOs and take 10’s of seconds to return to a more consistently responsive state. For the user, this can be awful to endure as responsiveness drops to painful levels. Think of it, the response time for a single I/O can range from 200 microseconds up to a whopping 1,000,000 microseconds (1 second).

When presented with realistic workloads, we see the worst of the SSDs producing very long IO times as well, as much as one half to one full second to complete individual random write and flush requests. This is abysmal for many workloads and can make the entire system feel choppy, unresponsive and sluggish.

Random Writes & Flushes: Why is this so hard?

For many, the notion that a purely electronic SSD can have more trouble with random writes than a traditional HDD seems hard to comprehend at first. After all, SSDs don’t need to seek and position a disk head above a track on a rotating disk, so why would random writes present such a daunting a challenge?

The answer to this takes quite a bit of explaining, Anand’s article admirably covers many of the details. We highly encourage motivated folks to take the time to read it as well as this fine USENIX paper. In an attempt to avoid covering too much of the same material, we’ll just make a handful of points.

  • Most SSDs are comprised of flash cells (either SLC or MLC). It is possible to build SSDs out of DRAM. These can be extremely fast, but also very costly and power hungry. Since these are relatively rare, we’ll focus our discussion on the much more popular NAND flash based SSDs. Future SSDs may take advantage of other nonvolatile memory technologies than flash.
  • A flash cell is really a trap, a trap for electrons and electrons don’t like to be trapped. Consider this, if placing 100 electrons in a flash cell constitutes a bit value of 0, and fewer means the value is 1, then the controller logic may have to consider 80 to 120 as the acceptable range for a bit value of 0. A range is necessary because some electrons may escape the trap, others may fall into the trap when attempting to fill nearby cells, etc… As a result, some very sophisticated error correction logic is needed to insure data integrity.
  • Flash chips tend to be organized in complex arrangements, such as blocks, dies, planes and packages. The size, arrangement, parallelism, wear, interconnects and transfer speed characteristics of which can and do vary greatly.
  • Flash cells need to be erased before they can be written. You simply can’t trust that a flash cell has no residual electrons in it before use, so cells need to be erased before filling with electrons. Erasing is done on a large scale. You don’t erase a cell; rather you erase a large block of cells (like 128 KB worth). Erase times are typically long -- a millisecond or more.
  • Flash wears out. At some point, a flash cell simply stops working as a trap for electrons. If frequently updated data (e.g., a file system log file) was always stored in the same cells, those cells would wear out more quickly than cells containing read-mostly data. Wear leveling logic is employed by flash controller firmware to spread out writes across a device’s full set of cells. If done properly, most devices will last years under normal desktop/laptop workloads.
  • It takes some pretty clever device physicists and some solid engineering to trap electrons at high speed, to do so without errors, and to keep the devices from wearing out unevenly. Not all SSD manufacturers are as far along as others in figuring out how to do this well.

Performance Degradation Over Time, Wear, and Trim

As mentioned above, flash blocks and cells need to be erased before new bytes can be written to them. As a result, newly purchased devices (with all flash blocks pre-erased) can perform notably better at purchase time than after considerable use. While we’ve observed this performance degradation ourselves, we do not consider this to be a show stopper. In fact, except via benchmarking measurements, we don’t expect users to notice the drop during normal use.

Of course, device manufactures and Microsoft want to maintain superior performance characteristics as best we can. One can easily imagine the better SSD manufacturers attempting to overcome the aging issues by pre-erasing blocks so the performance penalty is largely unrealized during normal use, or by maintaining a large enough spare area to store short bursts of writes. SSD drives designed for the enterprise may have as high as 50% of their space reserved in order to provide lengthy periods of high sustained write performance.

In addition to the above, Microsoft and SSD manufacturers are adopting the Trim operation. In Windows 7, if an SSD reports it supports the Trim attribute of the ATA protocol’s Data Set Management command, the NTFS file system will request the ATA driver to issue the new operation to the device when files are deleted and it is safe to erase the SSD pages backing the files. With this information, an SSD can plan to erase the relevant blocks opportunistically (and lazily) in the hope that subsequent writes will not require a blocking erase operation since erased pages are available for reuse.

As an added benefit, the Trim operation can help SSDs reduce wear by eliminating the need for many merge operations to occur. As an example, consider a single 128 KB SSD block that contained a 128 KB file. If the file is deleted and a Trim operation is requested, then the SSD can avoid having to mix bytes from the SSD block with any other bytes that are subsequently written to that block. This reduces wear.

Windows 7 requests the Trim operation for more than just file delete operations. The Trim operation is fully integrated with partition- and volume-level commands like Format and Delete, with file system commands relating to truncate and compression, and with the System Restore (aka Volume Snapshot) feature.

Windows 7 Optimizations and Default Behavior Summary

As noted above, all of today’s SSDs have considerable work to do when presented with disk writes and disk flushes. Windows 7 tends to perform well on today’s SSDs, in part, because they made many engineering changes to reduce the frequency of writes and flushes. This benefits traditional HDDs as well, but is particularly helpful on today’s SSDs.

Windows 7 will disable disk defragmentation on SSD system drives. Because SSDs perform extremely well on random read operations, defragmenting files isn’t helpful enough to warrant the added disk writing defragmentation produces. The FAQ section below has some additional details.

Be default, Windows 7 will disable Superfetch, ReadyBoost, as well as boot and application launch prefetching on SSDs with good random read, random write and flush performance. These technologies were all designed to improve performance on traditional HDDs, where random read performance could easily be a major bottleneck. See the FAQ section below for more details.

Since SSDs tend to perform at their best when the operating system’s partitions are created with the SSD’s alignment needs in mind, all of the partition-creating tools in Windows 7 place newly created partitions with the appropriate alignment.

Frequently Asked Questions

Before addressing some frequently asked questions, we’d like to remind everyone that we believe the future of SSDs in mobile and desktop PCs (as well as enterprise servers) looks very bright to us. SSDs can deliver on the promise of improved performance, more consistent responsiveness, increased battery life, superior ruggedness, quicker startup times, and noise and vibration reductions. With prices steadily dropping and quality on the rise, we expect more and more PCs to be sold with SSDs in place of traditional rotating HDDs. With that in mind, they focused an appropriate amount of their engineering efforts towards insuring Windows 7 users have great experiences on SSDs.

Will Windows 7 support Trim?

Yes. See the above section for details.

Will disk defragmentation be disabled by default on SSDs?

Yes. The automatic scheduling of defragmentation will exclude partitions on devices that declare themselves as SSDs. Additionally, if the system disk has random read performance characteristics above the threshold of 8 MB/sec, then it too will be excluded. The threshold was determined by internal analysis.

The random read threshold test was added to the final product to address the fact that few SSDs on the market today properly identify themselves as SSDs. 8 MB/sec is a relatively conservative rate. While none of their tested HDDs could approach 8 MB/sec, all of their tested SSDs exceeded that threshold. SSD performance ranged between 11 MB/sec and 130 MB/sec. Of the 182 HDDs tested, only 6 configurations managed to exceed 2 MB/sec on our random read test. The other 176 ranged between 0.8 MB/sec and 1.6 MB/sec.

Will Superfetch be disabled on SSDs?

Yes, for most systems with SSDs.

If the system disk is an SSD, and the SSD performs adequately on random reads and doesn’t have glaring performance issues with random writes or flushes, then Superfetch, boot prefetching, application launch prefetching, ReadyBoost and ReadDrive will all be disabled.

Initially, we had configured all of these features to be off on all SSDs, but we encountered sizable performance regressions on some systems. In root causing those regressions, we found that some first generation SSDs had severe enough random write and flush problems that ultimately lead to disk reads being blocked for long periods of time. With Superfetch and other prefetching re-enabled, performance on key scenarios was markedly improved.

Is NTFS Compression of Files and Directories recommended on SSDs?

Compressing files help save space, but the effort of compressing and decompressing requires extra CPU cycles and therefore power on mobile systems. That said, for infrequently modified directories and files, compression is a fine way to conserve valuable SSD space and can be a good tradeoff if space is truly a premium.

We do not, however, recommend compressing files or directories that will be written to with great frequency. Your Documents directory and files are likely to be fine, but temporary internet directories or mail folder directories aren’t such a good idea because they get large number of file writes in bursts.

Does the Windows Search Indexer operate differently on SSDs?

No.

Is Bitlocker’s encryption process optimized to work on SSDs?

Yes, on NTFS. When Bitlocker is first configured on a partition, the entire partition is read, encrypted and written back out. As this is done, the NTFS file system will issue Trim commands to help the SSD optimize its behavior.

We do encourage users concerned about their data privacy and protection to enable Bitlocker on their drives, including SSDs.

Does Media Center do anything special when configured on SSDs?

No. While SSDs do have advantages over traditional HDDs, SSDs are more costly per GB than their HDD counterparts. For most users, a HDD optimized for media recording is a better choice, as media recording and playback workloads are largely sequential in nature.

Does Write Caching make sense on SSDs and does Windows 7 do anything special if an SSD supports write caching?

Some SSD manufacturers including RAM in their devices for more than just their control logic; they are mimicking the behavior of traditional disks by caching writes, and possibly reads. For devices that do cache writes in volatile memory, Windows 7 expects flush commands and write-ordering to be preserved to at least the same degree as traditional rotating disks. Additionally, Windows 7 expects user settings that disable write caching to be honored by write caching SSDs just as they are on traditional disks.

Do RAID configurations make sense with SSDs?

Yes. The reliability and performance benefits one can obtain via HDD RAID configurations can be had with SSD RAID configurations. (Please note - SSD RAID Arrays cannot user TRIM at present even if each drive alone can)

Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs?

Yes. Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger sequential writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs handle well.

In looking at telemetry data from thousands of traces and focusing on pagefile reads and writes, we find that

  • Pagefile.sys reads outnumber pagefile.sys writes by about 40 to 1,
  • Pagefile.sys read sizes are typically quite small, with 67% less than or equal to 4 KB, and 88% less than 16 KB.
  • Pagefile.sys writes are relatively large, with 62% greater than or equal to 128 KB and 45% being exactly 1 MB in size.

In fact, given typical pagefile reference patterns and the favorable performance characteristics SSDs have on those patterns, there are few files better than the pagefile to place on an SSD.

Are there any concerns regarding the Hibernate file and SSDs?

No, hiberfile.sys is written to and read from sequentially and in large chunks, and thus can be placed on either HDDs or SSDs.

What Windows Experience Index changes were made to address SSD performance characteristics?

In Windows 7, there are new random read, random write and flush assessments. Better SSDs can score above 6.5 all the way to 7.9. To be included in that range, an SSD has to have outstanding random read rates and be resilient to flush and random write workloads.

In the Beta timeframe of Windows 7, there was a capping of scores at 1.9, 2.9 or the like if a disk (SSD or HDD) didn’t perform adequately when confronted with their random write and flush assessments. Feedback on this was fairly consistent, with most feeling the level of capping to be excessive. As a result, they now simply restrict SSDs with performance issues from joining the newly added 6.0+ and 7.0+ ranges. SSDs that are not solid performers across all assessments effectively get scored in a manner similar to what they would have been in Windows Vista, gaining no Win7 boost for great random read performance.

 

The Intel 510 Series SSD

Finally we can move on to the main focus of this review which is Intel's 510 Series 250GB SATA-3 Solid State Disk. 

The Intel G25-M was the first SSD to make people sit up and take notice. It was followed by a G-2 refresh that used 34nm memory and was cheaper. A year ago Intel was the brand to beat in terms of performance and reliability. Since then SandForce has come along with a controller that can be paired with cheap flash memory to give remarkable performance. This posed a thorn in the side on Intel who have now responded with their SATA-3 capable drive boasting claimed speeds of up to 500MB/s. Crucial have had a drive able to (barely) make use of SATA-3 for many months but the write performance was quite poor by comparison. The 510 SSD is the first drive to offer write speeds exceeding the SATA-2 specifications. The drive comes in a retail box that includes a mounting kit

 

The packaging clearly shows all aspects of the drive's features and will be useful for those who like to shop in big stores rather than over the Internet (such people will have made a purchase decision already and will not be concerned about packaging).

The kit includes a tray for placing the SSD in a 3.5" bay, a molex to SATA power lead and a SATA data lead as well as the usual screws. We advise using this lead for SATA-3 operation as the quality seems a lot better than that supplied with most motherboards we have come across and may translate into increased performance due to fewer data transmission errors at high speeds.

 

The drive itself is made from strong plastic with a sandstone texture. SSDs have been quite tough recently (see the video below for what they can withstand). We didn't hesitate to remove the cover with a fine screwdriver to reveal the insides.

 

Gone is the Intel controller and is replaced with a Marvel 9174 controller and 128MB Hynix DDR3-1333 SDRAM. This does not necessarily mean that Intel could not produce a newer controller as one of the factors in the price of Intel drives was cost which was attributed to in a substantial way by the controller cost. Without producing controllers in bulk for many varied manufacturers (as SandForce have done), Intel is forced to adopt a low cost alternative and Marvel have made big strides in the performance of their controllers in recent months. Switching to a Marvel controller actually seems like a sound business decision from Intel's point fo view.

 

 

This is an amusing video showing just how tough Solid State Disks are. Just don't try this at home - it's not covered by the 3 year warranty. No traditional hard drive could take even a fraction of this punishment.

 

Specifications

 
Model name

Intel® Solid-State Drive 510 Series

Capacity1 120GB and 250GB
NAND flash   components 34-nm Intel® NAND Flash Memory multi-level cell compute-quality components
Bandwidth2 Sustained sequential reads
120GB250GB
  • Up to 400 MB/s
    (SATA 6 Gb/s)
  • Up to 265 MB/s
    (SATA 3 Gb/s)
  • Up to 500 MB/s
    (SATA 6 Gb/s)
  • Up to 265 MB/s
    (SATA 3 Gb/s)
Sustained sequential writes
120GB250GB
  • Up to 210 MB/s
    (SATA 6 Gb/s)
  • Up to 200 MB/s
    (SATA 3 Gb/s)
  • Up to 315 MB/s
    (SATA 6 Gb/s)
  • Up to 240 MB/s
    (SATA 3 Gb/s)
 
Read latency3 65 microseconds (120GB and 250GB)
Write latency3 80 microseconds (120GB and 250GB)
Random I/O Operations per Second (IOPS)4
  • Random 4KB Reads: up to 20K IOPS
  • Random 4KB Writes: up to 8K IOPS
Interface Compatible with SATA 1.5 Gb/s and 3 Gb/s
Form factor, height and weight
  • 2.5 inch industry standard form factor
  • Height: 9.5 mm thick
  • Weight: 80 grams (± 2 grams)
Life expectancy 1.2 million hours Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF)
Power consumption
  • Active: 380 mW Typical5
  • Idle: 100 mW Typical6
Operating shock 1,500G/0.5 ms
Operating temperature 0°C to 70°C
Compatibility and compliance SATA Revision 2.6 compliant. Compatible with SATA 3.0 Gb/s with Native Command Queuing and SATA 1.5 Gb/s interface rates. This product certified by the following organizations:
Image of icons
RoHS compliance Meets the requirements of European Union (EU) RoHS Compliance Directives

1 Please note: Some of the listed capacity is used for formatting and other functions and thus is not available for data storage.
2 Based on internal testing. Performance may vary based on system settings

 

Test Setup

Test Configuration

System Hardware

CPU

Intel Core i7-2600K (3.3 GHz, 8MB Cache

AMD Phenom2 X6 1100T (3.3 GHz, 6MB Cache)

Motherboard

Intel DH67BL

ASUS M4A79T Deluxe

CPU Cooler

Corsair H50

Corsair H50

RAM

Kingston KHX2133C8D3T1K2/4GX 4GB 2133MHz DDR3 Non-ECC
CL8 (Kit of 2) Intel XMP Tall HS CAS 8-8-8-24

Kingston KHX1600C8D3T1K2/4GX 4GB 1600MHz DDR3 T1 Series Non-ECC
CL8 DIMM (Kit of 2) XMP CAS 8-8-8-24

Graphics

ATI Radeon HD5850

ATI Radeon HD5850

Hard Drive

  • Intel 510 250GB SSD SATA-3

  • Maxtor 300GB SATA-2 (OS)

  • Samsung 1000GB SATA-2

  • Kingston SSDNOW V+ 128GB SSD SATA-2

 

  • Intel 510 250GB SSD SATA-3

  • Maxtor 300GB SATA-2 (OS)

  • Samsung 1000GB SATA-2

  • Kingston SSDNOW V+ 128GB SSD SATA-2

Sound

Realtek® 1200 8 -Channel High Definition Audio CODEC

Realtek® 1200 8 -Channel High Definition Audio CODEC

Network

Gigabit LAN controller

Realtek® 8112 Gigabit LAN controller

Chassis

Antec 902 Midi Tower Case

Antec P183 Ultra Quiet Case

Power

Antec TruPower 750W

Antec CP-1000 1000W

Software

Operating System

Windows 7 Professional

Windows 7 Professional

Graphics

Latest Catalyst and Forceware

Latest Catalyst and Forceware

Chipset

Intel P67

AMD 790

Applications

  • HD Tune Pro

  • AS SSD

  • Crystal Diskmark

  • HD Tune Pro

  • AS SSD

  • Crystal Diskmark

 

We will be testing using the Intel 510, Kingston V+, a high performance HDD (Samsung's 7200rpm 1TB SATA-2 drive), a high performance replacement SSD aimed at the NetBook market and a low end SSD that comes as standard with NetBooks. We'll also show the results for using Windows file compression with the most basic SSD to simulate users who just can't afford to upgrade and would like to know what effect compression has on performance. Because this is the first drive we are testing to break the 300MBps SATA-2 barrier, we will be running each test twice for the Intel SSD, once on a SATA-2 port and again on a SATA-3 port to see how important having the correct controller is.

 

Test Results - HD Tune

HD Tune Pro 3.5 is our standard benchmark for storage devices and has served us well since we moved from HD-Tach. It allows comprehensive read and write tests that stress both SSD and HDDs as well as optical and flash drives.

 

The Intel 510 does slightly better than the V+ on a SATA-2 port and leaves the NetBook SSDs for dust. Connect to a SATA-3 port and it shoots ahead. It's worth noting also that while the minimum and maximum performance of the HDD varies considerably, that of the SSDs is much more consistent. The SaberTooth does well at the same price point as the Samsung HDD but is restricted to 32GB of capacity compared to the whopping 1000GB of the HDD.

 

Looking at write speeds shows how the 510 has triple the average and quadruple the minimum speed of the conventional HDD. The traditional weakness of SSDs has been slow write speeds and it's a testament to the quality of modern controllers are that write speeds are so high (still short of read speeds - dramatically so in the case of some entry level models). Burst rates are really only theoretical and depend more on cache than any sustainable performance so the first three indicators are key here.

 

 

Now time to hang on to your hats as we demonstrate the real reason why we have been champions of SSDs for years. HDDs are limited by having to physically move heads over spinning magnetic media whereas SSDs have no such limits on the number of operations they can complete in one second. For small block sizes the HDD heads have to move back and forth furiously clicking away and spend far more time traveling than they do reading and/or writing data. This allows modern SSDs to be over 100 times faster than the Samsung HDD for such operations and even the ultra cheap SSDs that come with NetBooks as standard can easily beat the high end HDD.

 

HDDs are limited in their seek times by moving heads as per the previous benchmark and here we can see typical access times. Without any moving parts the Intel SSD is up to 100 times faster at accessing data. This is not the case with all SSDs though as we can see the budget ones that use low quality memory and cheap controllers are actually worse than the Samsung HDD.

 

At the end of the day speed is king and when accessing lots of little files there is a big slowdown for every drive but the HDD is affected so badly that it is beaten by all the contenders. On the more representative Random access scale, the Intel 510 SSD is over 10 times faster than the HDD. This is also the closest indicator of how fast windows will boot with a particular drive as the types of files loaded during booting are of this mixture. It does not mean that windows will boot up 10 times faster since other bottlenecks such as the CPU will affect load times and the time spent POSTing by the BIOS varies from one motherboard to the next.

 

 

This graph can be a little misleading as the SaberTooth and Phison SSDs were tested on an ASUS Eee PC 901 and in fact, when we compensate for the fact we are using an i7-2600K system and not an Intel Atom one, the CPU utilization for all the drives is around the 1-2% mark showing a level of efficiency that is very close to optimal for all test participants.

 

Test Results - AS SSD

 

AS SSD is a benchmark designed exclusively for SSDs but handles HDDs just as well. It also gives a nice graphical summary of results so readers don't have to look at boring derived Excel charts. We looked at comparative performance in the previous section and the Intel 510 Series SSD is a clear winner. Now we'll look at the difference between using a SATA-2 port and a SATA-3 port. In practice readers with a SATA-3 port will use that and never look back but for those with motherboards only supporting SATA-2 it is very useful to know what sort of performance boost (if any) they will gain upon upgrading.

 

On the left is the SATA-2 test and on the right we used a SATA-3 port. You can click on either one to launch a higher resolution picture in another window if you're having trouble making out the detail in these shots. The scoring system may seem a little arbitrary but supports the test results we have seen so far. There is a phenominal 81% increase in sequential read speeds and a 26% increase in sequential writes. Less of a difference in random read/write speeds but for everyday use most people will notice a profound improvement.

 

 

Test Results - Crystal DiskMark

CrystalDiskMark is a disk benchmark software that measures performance for sequential reads/writes and random 4KB/512KB reads/writes for any storage device. It does not require the target device to be formatted.

 

 

Here we see a similar improvement in sequential read and write speeds. It's clear that the bottleneck is the SATA bandwidth holding back the true capabilities of the Intel SSD.

   

Conclusion

We knew that the Intel 250GB SSD was going to beat the Samsung 1TB HDD but would it be enough to justify ten times the price and almost 80 times the cost per Gigabyte? In our opinion, the answer is most definitely yes, not because of the benchmarks but rather the experience of using an SSD instead of HDD and having Windows 7 boot up in less than half the time and even more, seeing games and applications load in the blink of an eye because SSDs can be a hundred times faster than HDDs when loading numerous small files. We are not comparing like for like in this instance as the markets are very different and anyone purchasing the Intel 510 SSD will not doubt have sufficient funds to also purchase a large HDD for storage of less critical data (DVD/BD images, music achives etc.).

The real test is between the Intel 510 and the Kingston V+. They are similarly priced per GB so its all down to performance. The Intel 510 wipes the floor with all contendors but only when paired with a SATA-3 port. Its not so long ago people were complaining about HDD and SSD speeds not being enough to justify a SATA-3 port. Clearly, things have changed a lot. Until the arrival of the new SandForce drives based on their 2K series controller Intel has the fastest SSD available. If you have have a SATA-3 port on your motherboard then the Intel 510 SSD will get you the best performance available. If you only have a SATA-2 port then you will get the best performance that your system can manage but with the re-assurance that as soon as you upgrade to SATA-3, the SSD performance will jump massively to take advantage of it.

SSDs have a long way to go before being cheaper than HDDs in terms of cost per GB but this should not put people off purchasing as the best combination today is an SSD as the boot drive containing the Operating System and a conventional HDD of whatever size is needed for storage/archiving data that is less frequently accessed. An interesting technology is coming soon with the release of Intel's Z68 chipset called SSD Caching which will allow a small SSD or part of a larger SSD to be used as a cache for a conventional hard drive (a bit like Windows Virtual Memory). This addresses the performance/cost issues raised above allowing 1TB and larger HDDs with performance which can potentially rival that of SSDs at a fraction of the cost of a 1TB SSD. How this works in practice will have to wait until we test such a system when it becomes available and we will be making use of Intel's speedy 510 series SSD when that time comes.

The Intel 510 Series SSD is an excellent choice in terms of performance and future longevity and we heartilly recommend it.

 

All trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Custom Search

 

    Celebrity Pictures