Intel SSD 510 Series SATA 6Gbps Solid State Drive - HotHardware

Intel SSD 510 Series SATA 6Gbps Solid State Drive

7 thumbs up

Our Test MethodologiesUnder each test condition, the Solid State Drives tested here were installed as secondary volumes in our testbed, with a standard spinning hard disk for the OS and benchmark installations.  The SSDs were left blank without partitions wherever possible, unless a test required them to be partitioned and formatted, as was the case with our ATTO, Vantage, and CrystalDiskMark benchmark tests. Windows firewall, automatic updates and screen savers were all disabled before testing. In all test runs, we rebooted the system and waited several minutes for drive activity to settle before invoking a test.

HotHardware Test System
Intel Core i7 and SSD Powered

Processor -

Motherboard -


Video Card -

Memory -

Audio -

Hard Drives -

 

Hardware Used:
Intel Core i7-2600K


Asus P8P67 Deluxe
(P67 Chipset)


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285

4GB Patriot DDR3-1600

Integrated on board

WD Raptor 150GB (OS Drive)
Intel SSD 510 Series (250GB) x 2
OCZ Vertex 3 (240GB)
OCZ Vertex 2 (120GB)
Corsair Performance 3 Series (128GB)
Intel X25-M G2 (160GB)

OS -
Chipset Drivers -
DirectX -

Video Drivers
-


Relevant Software:
Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Intel 9.2.0.1021, iRST 10.1.0.1008
DirectX 11

NVIDIA GeForce 266.58

Benchmarks Used:
IOMeter 1.1.0 RC
HD Tach v3
ATTO v2.46
CrystalDiskMark v3.01 x64
PCMark Vantage
SiSoftware Sandra 2011

 IOMeter
 I/O Subsystem Measurement Tool

As we've noted in previous SSD articles, though IOMeter is clearly a well-respected industry standard drive benchmark, we're not completely comfortable with it for testing SSDs. The fact of the matter is, though our actual results with IOMeter appear to scale properly, it is debatable whether or not certain access patterns, as they are presented to and measured on an SSD, actually provide a valid example of real-world performance for the average end user. That said, we do think IOMeter is a gauge for relative available bandwidth and response times with a given storage solution. In addition there are certain higher-end workloads you can place on a drive with IOMeter, that you really can't with most other benchmark tools available currently.

In the following tables, we're showing two sets of access patterns; our Workstation pattern, with an 8K transfer size, 80% reads (20% writes) and 80% random (20% sequential) access and IOMeter's default access pattern of 2K transfers, 67% reads (34% writes) and 100% random access.

Our IOMeter results have the Intel 510 Series SSDs outperforming the 128GB Corsair Performance 3 drive which uses a similar controller; the deltas can likely be attributed to differences in firmware and the higher capacity of the Intel drives. Moving to a two drive RAID 0 setup improves performance here by about 40%. What's most interesting to note, however, is that previous-gen SandForce and Intel drives outperform the 510 SSD Series in random writes, and the upcoming SF-2000 based Vertex 3 is simply in another league.

Article Index:

0
+ -

A big win for OCZ..... I can only see people choosing the 510 over the Vertex 3 because of the branding and specially because the previous gen Intel SSD's had rave reviews about their reliability. But times have change , OCZ has done an excellent job and that hundred dollar less price factor (and performance)is going to swing buyers to their product.

0
+ -

Again OCZ is clearly the leader in the SSD space.

I am hoping prices will come in as the technology becomes more mainstream.

Great review Marco

0
+ -

I have a 2010 uMBP with the 3Gbps how will this SSD perform on it? Will I notice any difference from my X25-M 160GB?

0
+ -

I'm driven by availability and price,.......when I'm buying.

Most of these drives are close performance wise, and all of them are smokin' fast, so I'm not stuck on brand loyalty at all.

0
+ -

Hey jwelsh just look at the write up on the vertex 3's with the benchmarks as it shows the difference on the same drive is Sata 3Gbps and Sata 6Gbps while it may not be double the performance I would bet it is somewhat close to that as the 2 interfaces are setup so. I think Sata 3 stops at 300, but generally performs at between 200 to 250 Gbps where Sata 6Gbps performs pretty close to it's name which would be at least double.

Either way as far as I see it this is going to finally start a price war. While we have seen minor ones really up until now this one looks different. The Intel drives write speeds are half if not less than half of the OCZ drives while the reads are close to the same. One way to rationalize this for easier understanding is the difference between downloads and uploads with your internet connection. If you up speed is low it in the end has a major effect on your total internet speed.

While of course upload speeds in the US at least are generally nowhere near the download speeds available even on a corporate account unless of course you pay dearly for it network communication is two way at all times. This is because networking in general has to let where ever the information was sent from know it was successfully retrieved. If this does not happen the sender keeps sending it over and over locking up the data flow.

While this is of course different that point is just for general understanding. Either way I bet Intel will have to lower there prices if competition becomes heated. They can of course to make a big first drop which I bet they will. OCZ then has much lower costs of operation than Intel so they match or beat them etc. Meanwhile everyone else has to come at least somewhat close to these prices. So I also hope this happens, but with the difference in general OCZ and Intel prices I cannot see how it will not, especially with a performance difference, if even on one side that is this significant.

0
+ -

Random read/write, especially small block random read/write, is by far the most noticeable performance metric of an SSD in real world situations. What this means is that this drive is almost a step back for Intel.

0
+ -

yeah intel's letting everyone down :/ for ssd, im gunna have to go with OCZ

0
+ -

I'm still holding out on an SSD to see more price drops and more advances. In my mind it's still in it's infancy and is only going to get better and cheaper.  I'm fine sitting back and waiting.

0
+ -

Hey Joma I would suggest you grabbing one of the cheaper smaller drives so you could see. I have a Kingston 60Gb which I know is one of the lesser of the brands, and of course 60Gb is one of the lesser of capacities to. You can grab one for cheap though. Then you can check it out for under $100, in may cases considerably under that $100. I will bet you, that you don't mind it in the least as even with the one I have it makes a significant difference. I would love to get a larger one but I am waiting for these new OCZ drives to actually get some competition (as OCZ has been pretty generous about dropping there prices) then I will grab a 120Gb I think.

This Intel drive you have to wonder why they rushed it though with the seen stats on it. I mean one side (Read or Write) is great it seems, while the other is median performance wise or ar least by what you would expect after seeing what the OCZ standard or pro can do. I bet it has lesser room to spare as well so that the one stat that matches the OCZ 500 Gps won't actually do it for lack of overhead consistently over time.

0
+ -

I can see many brand in the SSD market , OCZ ,Fusion , RunCore , WD ,share the web with you : http://www.storagesearch.com/ssd-top10.html ...

Login or Register to Comment
Post a Comment
Username:   Password: