UPDATE 29/11/2011 ** SSD Testing Line Up - Vertex 3, Force 3, M4 and HyperX 120/128GB Tested! + ADAT

Andrew Moore · 29 Nov 2011 at 21:04

UPDATE 29/11/2011

The Sandforce based S510 and S511 have now both been added.

GoogalyMoogaly · 4 Dec 2011 at 23:31

Andrew Moore said:
Vertex 3

[/FONT]

ADATA S510

ADATA S511

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but...
Can I ask why the ADATA S510 was the only one run without the "All 0x00, 0Fill" test data?

My understanding is that if the drive uses compression (and I'm guessing most/all the SandForce ones do?) then using all 1s or all 0s will compress a lot better than random data. So while this setting does seem to favor drives that use compression, it also seems unrealistic. But it would explain why the S510 scores so much lower as the data being used is more realistic.

~Mike~ · 5 Dec 2011 at 07:57

Great thread, very interesting read thanks.

I'm very tempted to get an SSD and the M4 looks the way to go.

SL09 · 5 Dec 2011 at 15:10

not too surprise, M4 it is. I'll stick to it until there's a SATA4 or it fails (touch wood

)

Montala · 5 Dec 2011 at 15:21

One thing I would like to see is more SSD manufacturers bringing out these drives in 3.5" format.

Other than the OCZ Vertex 2, which is probably not as fast as many of these latest models, there is not much else around.

I know that there are adapters available, but I would still prefer a 'native' 3.5" drive... especially for use in a desktop system

Darkman · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:45

Why clog up the air flow in your case? You can easily fit 2 of these in a single 3.5" slot or even tuck them out of the way completely.

They don't get hot, don't need cooling, and don't make any noise or vibration. Why have something bigger than it needs to be?

.:SAmSuNG:. · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:54

I agree. Smaller the better.

Andrew Moore · 6 Dec 2011 at 13:56

GoogalyMoogaly said:
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but...
Can I ask why the ADATA S510 was the only one run without the "All 0x00, 0Fill" test data?

My understanding is that if the drive uses compression (and I'm guessing most/all the SandForce ones do?) then using all 1s or all 0s will compress a lot better than random data. So while this setting does seem to favor drives that use compression, it also seems unrealistic. But it would explain why the S510 scores so much lower as the data being used is more realistic.

This is the mistake that was made by the test team and as such should be ignored.

The Force 3 result is what you should expect in terms of performance here

TheVoice · 6 Dec 2011 at 14:34

Montala said:
One thing I would like to see is more SSD manufacturers bringing out these drives in 3.5" format.

Other than the OCZ Vertex 2, which is probably not as fast as many of these latest models, there is not much else around.

I know that there are adapters available, but I would still prefer a 'native' 3.5" drive... especially for use in a desktop system

Why? It's just making the drive bigger for the sake of it, there's no benefit. Using an adapter will achieve the exact same thing.

Montala · 6 Dec 2011 at 16:36

TheVoice said:
Why? It's just making the drive bigger for the sake of it, there's no benefit. Using an adapter will achieve the exact same thing.

Well, in the case I am currently using, the drives are mouned on the 'floor' with anti vibration mounts supplied for bottom fixing of two drives, side by side.

A 3.5" 'space' will have to be filled up anyway, it will make no difference to the airflow whatsoever, and a slim drive (such as the OCZ Vertex 2), fitted without any ugly apapters will look much 'neater'.

This is just something I would personally prefer to see, although I accept that others do (obviously!) feel differently!

bhavv · 6 Dec 2011 at 17:22

Most modern cases dont even have 3.5" slots anymore, so making 3.5" SSDs would be terrible.

My case has one, and it holds two SSDs. Much better to be able to fit two of them into one slot.

Tombo · 6 Dec 2011 at 17:26

bhavv said:
Most modern cases dont even have 3.5" slots anymore

Wut.

Revolution · 6 Dec 2011 at 17:43

.:SAmSuNG:. said:
I agree. Smaller the better.

That not what she said..... :eek:

.:SAmSuNG:. · 6 Dec 2011 at 19:49

Are the aData drives still on track for been in stock tomorrow?

Andrew Moore · 6 Dec 2011 at 21:16

.:SAmSuNG:. said:
Are the aData drives still on track for been in stock tomorrow?

Hello! It'll be a day or so late, nothing drastic though. A new eta has been set but this is over estimated just in case

.:SAmSuNG:. · 6 Dec 2011 at 21:44

Whats the new eta? Site still says the 7th.

GoogalyMoogaly · 6 Dec 2011 at 21:56

Andrew Moore said:
This is the mistake that was made by the test team and as such should be ignored.

The Force 3 result is what you should expect in terms of performance here

To be honest, since I can't guarantee that all the data I'm reading and writing to the disk will be highly compressible, I'd argue that the S510 is actually the only one done 'right'. Using data that is highly compressible seems like a tactic to inflate the performance numbers. Otherwise surely the M4 wouldn't be as highly regarded as it is. Other than the fact it's the only one not using a Sandforce controller (I believe).

Andrew Moore · 6 Dec 2011 at 23:32

GoogalyMoogaly said:
To be honest, since I can't guarantee that all the data I'm reading and writing to the disk will be highly compressible, I'd argue that the S510 is actually the only one done 'right'. Using data that is highly compressible seems like a tactic to inflate the performance numbers. Otherwise surely the M4 wouldn't be as highly regarded as it is. Other than the fact it's the only one not using a Sandforce controller (I believe).

I agree with what your saying there however that is how the test is to be carried out by manufacturer specification to highlight the potetial speeds of the drives.

AS SSD is the one I would pay attention to the most as it has the most true reflection of performance of the drives.

QuackPot · 14 Jan 2012 at 18:00

Sorry to bump an old thread but is the Crucial M4 faster and better overall when compared to the Corsair Force GT?

I'm thinking about getting one for my C drive as I only have 300mb-1GB left on my old HDD from 2005 or something.