Intel G3 test

Reviews of the Intel 320 (G3) SSD here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4244/intel-ssd-320-review
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-ssd-320-crucial-m4-realssd-c400,2908.html
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Intel-SSD-320-Series-Review/
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1579/1/
http://www.storagereview.com/intel_ssd_320_review_300gb
http://techreport.com/articles.x/20653

Found a chinese (i think) site where they were testing G3s both single and in Raid 0. It is going to be a lot of pictures here, but the source site had problems where i couldn`t see the pictures, so it is probably better to repost them here. Enjoy


One 160GB G3:
HD Tune test, Seq Read max 269MB/s:




HD Tune test, Seq Write max 170MB/s:




AS SSD @ Intel RST 10,1 AHCI Driver:



Crystal Disk Mark 3,01:


Two 160GB G3s in Raid 0:

Crystal Disk Mark 3,01


AS SSD Benchmark @ Intel RST 10,1 AHCI Driver



HD tune test, Max seq Read 510MB/s




HD tune test, Max seq Write 343MB/s:




Source: http://www.hkepc.com/forum/archiver/?tid-1584824.html

 

Comparison of these results with the legitreview test of G2:

160GB G2 Crystal Disk Mark v2.2:


160GB G3 Crystal Disk Mark 3,01:

 

With or without pictures, RAID0 makes for some pretty 'meh' moments.

They obviously didn't use a discrete RAID card here...

 

they should've shown the write performance in raid0.


i like teh 4k numbers. rather balanced drive, i like it that way.

 

They actually had results of write in Raid. I forgot it. Sorry. But i have added them now

 

looks like, except for single 4k, it scaled nearly linearly. with nice raid0 tuning (stripes and all), it could even be smoothed out a bit.

 

A single 510 is essentially equalling this.

With no RAID headaches, no TRIM problems and with slightly less capacity for slightly less money.

Of course RAID0 scales (almost) linearly with synthetic benchmarks - if it didn't, what would be the allure?

 

it does scale the same in daily usage, though. latency doesn't go down, but bandwith goes up.

and yes, a single 510 is essentially equalling this, but not at the same cost. (again, stock prices, not special tiller-cool-aid-deals).

 

Scales nowhere the same in daily use unless you're constantly copy/moving files exclusively on that system.

No cool aid deals needed: a single 510 @ 250GB is cheaper than 2x 160GB G3's.

 

and 2x 160gb == 320gb which is ~30% bigger.

and yes, in daily usage, it feels about the same as, well, a single ssd with same performance.

what you state is, in daily usage, a 510 has not much gains over a 310, then. and that's the reason why i can still support buying them.

the 510 is for those who need the bandwith in their daily usage (manipulation of lots of video stuff). and there, a raid0 of 310 would be fine, too.


so again, none of your arguments makes sense.

 

Wow, confused much?

A 510 makes sense because it is a single drive. A RAID0 is what doesn't make sense (even if your system can do RAID).

Try to stay focused on what I'm trying to communicate and not what words you want to put in my mouth next.

 

a 510 makes sense where the performance gain makes sense. a raid0 makes sense at the same place.

 

Actually, for over a decade RAID0 has not made sense for me (and I've tried to make it work, trust me).

SSD's haven't changed this fact.


(Before that, it was undeniably the performance choice (that's how bad hardware was then...)).

 

my point is just, there's no real difference between a 510 and a raid of 310 in actual daily usage (unimportant what usage).

so if you need >310 performance (that, in most daily usage cases is about never), then both a 510 or a raid of 310 make sense.

if the performance of a 310 are adecuate, obviously both a 510 and a raid0 of 310 don't make sense.

raid0 not making sense for you doesn't change that fact. it looks like you just bottlenecked somewhere else, that's all.

 

for a more detailed analysis on when what makes sense:

if you are on a desktop, and have a 310 already, and notice a bottleneck. getting a second one to raid is makes more sense than dropping it and getting a 510. same for a 2+ slot laptop with raid controller in it and no need for extra storage.

if you build a new system (with sata3), then a 510 is the better option.

if you want to get a ssd for an existing system taht doesn't have sata3, price comparison of a raid solution (might be on the board already) to a sata3 pci card helps to determine what's more worth it (again this is desktop only).

personally, i want a sata3 laptop and a sata3 ssd in my next setup. i don't care about needs actually, i want it

for most people, a sata2 310 will be more than enough (160gb or bigger, that is, where write is really fast)

 

Once again, the ever assuming davepermen ignores the obvious ;


With RAID0 you need a minimum of 2 (hopefully identical) drives.

With RAID0 you need a minimum of 2 drive bays.

With RAIDO you are at much greater risk: not only twice the risk for the drives, but also the added risk of the controller failing too.

With RAIDO you are at the performance level of the controller - not to mention the additional $$$ issue if we're talking a discrete desktop RAID controller - and you want to approach anything like 100% scaling as you think all RAID controllers offer (they don't).

So, taking all the above into consideration a single 510 is far, far, far superior to 2x 320's (not, 310's, btw).

Okay? Now what have I typed that you can criticize? Lol...

 

now now girls, calm down

Intel 310 was never intended to compete with 510 anyways and it is an unfair comparison because it is SATA 2 vs SATA 3. I do agree with davepermen that if you only have SATA 2 ports in your laptop and you have 2 harddrive bays, i don`t see the problem with buying two 310s because you won`t be utilizing the 510 anyway with that port. And as seen from the results of these tests, Raid0 gives a pretty good improvement over a single drive.

And tiller, how can you say that 510 is far far superior to 320 in raid0? 2x 320 is faster than a single 510. Here are comparisons for you
Intel 510:

Intel 320 Raid0:


I agree that Raid have its negative effects, but if you have only SATA 2 ports with room for 2 SSDs and the money, i don`t see anything wrong with buying 320s and putting them in raid0. But i guess we are speaking to closed ears since you made this thread few days ago http://forum.notebookreview.com/solid-state-drives-ssds-flash-storage/565112-why-ssds-raid0-make-almost-no-sense.html

 

An interesting review appeared on Toms Hardware Crucial m4 And Intel SSD 320: The Other SSD Competitors, that has the Vertex 3, Crucial m4 and Intel 320 among a lot of other ssds, btw they tested Intel 320 300gb version.

 

ZOMG thank you Abula. +Rep.
Im going to eat first then enjoy it later. Awesome

 

The Intel SSD 320 Review: 25nm G3 is Finally Here - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

Cloudfire you should make a G3 Reviews thread.

We have Anandtech and TomsHardware reviews now.

 

Actual prices are slightly better than what was reported earlier. But still it should be at least 20% less. Plus I am hoping we could buy 300gb drive for < $400. Then I might consider G3. Specially with intel saying it has hand picked best quality nand for G3.

 

Well prices seem better on 1000 units scale, but thats still not retail, i expect for the 300gb around $550, maybe on the first weeks around $599.

Btw i never heard of Superbizz until last week with the C400, but they seem to also starting to list the Intel 320s,

Intel 320 Series G3 Postville Refresh 2.5 inch 160GB SATA2 Solid State Drive (for Laptop and Desktop PC) - SSDSA2CW160G3K5 $365

 

yeh the 300 is going for $540 on amazon.

i could see it getting near $400 during some sales though. i'd like to wait for such a sale but we won't get one for several months.

and...

300gb 320series = $540
240gb Vertex 3 = $500

 

I am sure retail prices will go below the 1000 units price in the near future. G2 took a while because that was rated as the best/most reliable at that time. Reliability is still there but its far from best. So I see street prices going down very quickly.

 

yah, I also agree we will see a far price drop... it's not a premium product... it's not bad it's just no where near the best.

so yah, <250$ I would consider the 160GB.

 

Any chance you could link me the 300gb, i dont seem to find it.

 

Amazon.com: Intel 320 Series 300 GB SATA 3.0 Gb-s 2.5-Inch Solid-State Drive SSDSA2CW300G3K5: Computer & Accessories

 

Thank you (+rep for you sir), preordered

 

600GB price is in line with 1K unit price.

Amazon.com: Intel 320 Series 600 GB SATA 3.0 Gb-s 2.5-Inch Solid-State Drive SSDSA2CW600G3K5: Electronics

 

Damn nice find, too expensive for me, but price wise seems with in what was expected.

 

Abula: So you were pleased with the reviews of the G3s? Is that why you didn`t buy Vertex or 510? Very nice with that 300GB It would be the perfect size for me. I have a 160GB G2 and it is barely enough. I don`t want to fill it up too much either because that will slow it down

 

Its very hard to point it out why, im very disappointed on all new SSDs, i had very high expectations, I bought the G2 a couple of weeks after the release, and been waiting for the third gen from all manufacturers for more than a year to upgrade my desktop, and to me there is no clear winner, really tired of waiting, if i knew how this gen would end up, i would have bought a second X25m G2 160gb a year ago, i was even considering now if it went below $300.

Vertex 3, seems amazing on paper, but i have 3 friends that have issues with OCZ, one with a revo, 2 with vertex 2. Im not taking a chance on few milliseconds on expensive drive.

Intel 510, i consider it, and probably im making a mistake not buying it, as this drive goes for my desktop, and atm i have Asus Sabertooth X58 but only with Marvel sata III, in the past reviews i seen (mostly C300s) this controllers didnt do justice to that drive, big performance boost using PCIe LSI dedicated controllers... but im upgrading as soon as Intel releases the X68 / Socket 2011 Sandy bridges o maybe ill wait for Ivy Bridge, but those will have Intel Native Sata III, which from what i seen are doing a great job, so i probably should have gone with 510 as 250gb is enough for me, but im disappointed into intel using marvel controlers also, and not willing to take the risk.

C400, mmmm very tempting, not much of an upgrade from a C300, but for the same reasons as the 510 was good choice, more mature drive as Crucial/Micron has been using marvel with good success, but nothing is perfect, i seen stuttering and BSODs related to the C300, but very few, this was almost my second choice.

My final decision after reading a lot of those reviews, is not based on performance, but on how reliable the 160GB G2 has been on my case, to me the G3/320 will be a very reliable drive with small upgrades on write speed, i have confidence on intels having mature fw already using their old g2 controller, and probably in time, improve it (another reason i like intel as their fw isn't destructive as with the C300). As i said before, im disappointed in all, so im hopping the G4 from all manufacturers are somewhat better, and with sata III more widely available/adopted next year, i hope to see big upgrades from all manufacturers, but for this year, i just wanna be problem free with my ssd, and that what i feel the 320 will be or hopping to be (I also like to use the latest intel chipset and RST, i dont want to deal with workarounds or issues like with other ssds).

There is even a refresh for the X25e in the horizon, im thinking its going to be the rumored 700 series (kinda like their i core like with the i3 = 320, i5 = 510, i7 = 700).

 

Amazon (Retail Box):
40GB $127.29
80GB $192.56
120GB $237.74
160GB $313.05
300GB $538.98
600GB $1,041.04

Amazon (OEM):
600GB $1,062.08

 

Intereseting, the item numbers vary on the high capacities between B n K, wonder if the kit included is different like was on the G2s.

Intel 320 40GB SSDSA2CT040G3 B5
Intel 320 80GB SSDSA2CW080G3 B5
Intel 320 120GB SSDSA2CW120G3 B5
Intel 320 160GB SSDSA2CW160G3 B5
Intel 320 300GB SSDSA2CW300G3 K5
Intel 320 600GB SSDSA2CW600G3 K5

I posted while you were adding, i find wierd that the OEM are more expensive than the Retail (according to amazon description), maybe they got it backwards in terms of the K being retail and B being oem. If you see the past gen the K were retail (im not 100% sure), Intel X25M 120 GB Solid State Drive with Internal SATA and Power Cables MLC Flash Technology, 2.5-Inch Form Factor SSDSA2MH120G2K5

 

The 'B' is for basic and the 'K' is for the higher performance models.

Just like the 2nd gen iCores.

 

, im staying with the K then just out of your comment

 

A quick point of clarification. While mathematically correct, that statement is also a bit misleading.

To make things easier, let's just keep this strictly to disk failure rates. For example, let's say an SSD fails 1% of the time (I have no idea what the real rate of failure is, but this is for educational purposes). The probability of successfully running a single SSD drive is 99%. However, in RAID 0 two disks are now in play. The chance of success decreases to 98.01%. While not exactly twice, the odds of having a problem has greatly increased to almost that 2X claim.

Also, since desktops were brought up earlier in this thread, the more disks you add the worse things get for RAID-0. For example, a 4 disk RAID-0 has a 96.06% chance of success.

Note, this failure rate comparison is only valid when comparing a single drive vs. the same EXACT SAME drives in RAID0. Failure rates will be different between makes/models of SSD drives, so one needs to know their hardware failure rate when making this choice.

I'm not picking a side, as I think RAID0, RAID1, RAID5, RAIDx all have their place, even within a DTR based laptop. I just want to make sure everyone understands what is in play when you use RAID-0. The moral of the story with RAID-0... BACKUPS are must, and if you *do* have a drive failure, plan on spending time either restoring a system image or reinstalling your machine.

 

New review from Hothardware here Intel SSD 320 Series 300GB Solid State Drive Review - HotHardware

 

Please keep this thread on topic: Intel G3.

For discussions about RAID with SSDs please create a new thread.