First Intel G3 SSD Benchmarks

I meant only the HDD test part of Vantage. The system does have some influence but if the system is fast enough, the differences are very small.

 

Is the 3G SSD release date still Q4 2010?

I have seen sites reporting using the link from page 1 in this thread saying G3 SSDs will not be available to the public until February 2011. However, I am skeptical of Q1 2011 date unless Intel has publicly changed their release date.

 

There has been 1 site that claimed it has been delayed based on 1 rumor of an anonymous source.

I'm very skeptical too. The fact that these drives are already in consumer hands is a good sign. My guess is the G3 will be available before Christmas.

 

Forgive my ignorance, I've never been too knowledgeable about SSDs. I have an Intel G2 drive now, will the upgrade to G3 be worth it in terms of speed? I'd like to keep my laptop for a while but if I could make it faster, that would be great. I also need the extra capacity.

Any expected prices on these?

 

In write speed the new G3's will double what the G2's can do.

What I'm more interested in though is the access times have been halfed on the G3 compared to a SandForce based drive - I hope this makes the drive even more responsive than the Inferno I have.

See first page for benchmarks.

 

HDD -> SSD will be a noticeable and significant difference; however, SSD -> SSD will most probably have very little effect, despite numbers since the difference in real life is much less noticeable (ie. 17 ms seek time vs. 0.1 ms vs. 0.05 ms). If you need more capacity though, you will definitely be able to get that and at a lower cost than an equivalent drive today.

 

Probably not. Unless you're looking for higher write speeds.

 

Any news when Intel is going to release the G3 SSDs?

 

I believe they were delayed until Q2 2011.

 

By the length of time it takes Intel to come out with the G3 I'm guessing the initial Chinese benchmarks were fakes.

 

Maybe they have problems with the number of 22nm flash chips. As far as I know Intel will not be releasing the product in small quantities. Similarly, with low voltage processors, they usually appear six months later because usually their crystals are more strict and their number is always much lower.

 

i won't be suprised... it looked a little too low..

Panther214

 

It appears that the Intel 3G SSDs will ship in March 2011 in 40, 80, 120, 160, 300 and 600 GB.

http://www.silica.com/fileadmin/02_.../Intel/SSD_Product_Selection_Guide_Jan_11.pdf

 

Nice find! Let's hope they are nice drives!

 

I am hoping 300GB drives @ $400 and 600GB @ $800. That should ensure healthy adoption of ssd.

 

Do you think they will release more SSD's this year? I haven't been keeping up with how often new SSD's are released.

 

im sure other companies will follow intel if they want to stay competitive, but I dont know how much of a speed increase we can expect..id much rather have a price drop

 

I agree! a price drop would be great.

 

Interesting.

This supports SATA III?

 

I would like to think Intel would have a controller that can utilize the SATA III interface since Micron/Crucial have started producing SSDs with SATA III.

Micron Technology, Inc. - Micron Introduces Faster, Higher Capacity Solid-State Drives for NAND Flash-Based Notebooks

 

No, the G3s are still SATA/300 (25nm NAND). Only the G2.5's are SATA/600 (34nm NAND).

 

Intel and Micron join only in memory production. I think ssd controler is various.

 

Micron and their retail arm, Crucial, use Marvell's SATA/600 controller.

 

Bearing in mind these three posts, I know that going from HDD to SSD wil be a noticeable step up in terms of speed etc.

The question that I need answering is not so much the initial "jump" as I am prepared to do that....its more so a question of G2 vs G3.

I can grab a pair of G2 160gb's atm in the UK for £400 all inclusive of delivery vat etc etc (or $633usd for two!).....I am very worried that if the performance difference is NOT there or NOT significant on Sata II between G2 to G3 then I stand to lose out on a good UK deal.

(I think the price I can get these G2 Drives atm is less than the US price on Newegg...($400usd on newegg....my UK price for the same NEW is equivalent to $316usd per drive)) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...8120 50001157 600038488&IsNodeId=1&name=160GB

Does anyone have any idea how much the G3's will retail at? - im thinking that a 160gb version will be signiicantly over $300usd and by the time I add the cost increase for us over in the UK (as we always pay HUGE amounts more than the US), I may as well add another $150usd to that...meaning a G3 160gb could end up costing me upwards of $500 opposed to a G2 for $315usd.....thats if the G3 160gb comes in at a US retail of around $300usd......probably would be more than that i imagine..anyone have any idea of G3 160gb price?

Im stuck between a rock and a hard place here, as I am considering two G2's in Raid 0....or a single SSD with a larger capacity, say 256gb (Crucial C300 but I have heard that the SataII performance of these isnt that brilliant - could be wrong!)

Ideas anyone????

 

As stated in my post, any current SSD to SSD will not be a big difference, doesn't really matter which ones in the current market (esp. since JMicron fixed their first generation consumer controllers). The C300 is a solid performer on SATA/300 and SATA/600, so in the end it depends on the cost of your end. Also, IMO RAID0 isn't worth it for consumers unless you're a bencher.

 

Id always thought that a Raid setup was "extreme performance".....but at what cost? - I know this is TRIM related but exactly what is the downfall/impact of not having TRIM enabled? - I had heard that GC has to be run manually but dont know what this entails.

I guess Im more concerend with the £/gb ratio....if the G3's are well priced, thats great. If not, then I have shot myself in the foot on missing out on the G2's I *could* get now....

IS the G3 likely to be a significant improvement over G2 in raid OR non raid?

 

Without TRIM, your SSD will degrade performance over time...

 

Likelihood of TRIM for RAID?

 

it depends on the RAID driver. However, you can compensate the lack of TRIM by extra over provisioning.

 

Why do even want RAID0? What are you doing with your computer that makes you want this?

 

Is that where you create a partition on the drives using, say 66% of the available capacity , leaving the rest "unutilised"? - if thats the case, Id be looking to lose a fair bit in storage to make up for the lack of TRIM? - correct?

If thats right, I can kiss goodbye to 100gb of storage on a 320gb raid setup to enable "over-provisioning" if I understand that correctly - and I am a novice when it comes to SSD jargon!

 

BTW 633 for two 160 x25m is very good price. I would grab it. G3 speed is incremental.

 

yup. but you don't need to go to that length. The sweet spot based on Intel's test is about 17-20%. So you have 80-85% of the original capcity.

 

Im not dead set on it, It was only my understanding of Raid that was telling me that it means "best performance".....Obviously, this is completely different when it comes to SSD vs HDD...

Im not a huge bencher, so I suppose its not that imperative....I would just like the best performance for my system. If that meant a Raid setup, and it didnt cause problems...great. BUT, as stated, I lose TRIM, meaning degredation over time unless I over provision and lose alot of space (which seems a huge waste given the cost of these things anyhow)

Basically, I am trying to "size up" my options and see which is best.....its better to do homework now than buy and repent at leisure lol

 

And that would negate the loss of TRIM? - I could live with maybe 17-20% of lost space IF it meant that my drives didnt degrade significantly becasue of the abscence of trim support.

Also, I guess that would account for the size difference between x2 160's and x1 256gb...if I overprovisioned by that degree (20% or 64gb) bringing remaining storage space in line with the single SSD???

Would be interesting to know how much better the raid performance would be over the sinlge SSD option.

(Sorry for my noob questions guys, like I say, havent got much clue atm , just really starting to look into it in more and more detail!)

 

Best performance is really only reflected in benchmarks. I have used SSDs and compared to 2x (Indilinx) RAID0, from my experience (and I believe several others), you will not notice the difference in speed. To give an example, it might load up Windows in a fraction of a second faster (sometimes even slower, depending on the RAID controller). So that's why I'd always recommend a single SSD and the rest of the money, you can get the biggest mechanical (even 5400RPM) HDD for capacity with lots of money to spare.

 

Im hearing you on the "extra cash" score! - thing is, i have x2 500gb 7200's in this laptop atm....whatever way i go, one is getting used either internally or in an external caddy. This way, I get the best of both worlds as i see it...speed of SSD (raid or not) and additional storage on mechanical.

Thanks for the info...+rep.

 

If you have replaced your ODD, then (check first of course) you should be able to get a 1TB 2.5" 12.5mm drive in there to replace both drives. I assume you have 3 slots for storage, so depending if one of your other bays supports 12.5mm, another 1TB, or if it's only 9.5mm, then stick with a single current 500GB drive or upgrade to 750GB. You can get an external caddy to hold your current drive(s) for additional storage. From my usage, I can get by with a 40GB drive for OS and programs, but if you want more performance, you can increase the SSD size (performance typically scales up with higher models, especially sequential writes). IMO this is a more cost effective solution.

 

yup, with that OP size, the need of TRIM is greatly reduced(if it is going to make any difference).

i don't think you are going to see difference in RAID 0 vs non-RAID.

 

Thanks very much for the info...+rep. I suppose that my "end decision" will be greatly based on the cost of Intel G3 160gb drives and how they stack up compared to G2 drives.

I would really like to know how much these are gonna cost

A brief summation would be that raided SSD's provide no real gain in speed/performance over a single SSD (unless im a huge bencher, which im not), Raid loses TRIM support, meaning overprovisioning to keep the drive from degrading over time (without a secure erase from time to time).... (which means tha I lose 17-20% of overall storage space) as opposed to a single SSD which DOES have trim support, doesnt nee to be over provisioned (unless i really wanted to max out performance).

Is that about right? lol

 

yup, that sums it up nicely.