HARDWARE

Intel SSD 335 And Intel SSD 330 - The Development Of Inexpensive SSDs (Part 3)

4/22/2013 9:24:05 AM

Random and sequential Read/Write

We used CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 benchmark to test the random and sequential read and write speeds. This benchmark is convenient as it can measure the speeds of an SSD with both random incompressible and fully compressible recurring data. This feature is important for testing SSDs based on SF-2281/2282 controller, which tries to compress the data before writing it into the flash-memory. So, there are two numbers in the diagrams below that reflect the maximum and minimum SSD speeds. The real-life performance of an SSD is going to be somewhere between those two numbers depending on how effective the controller data compression is.

Please note that the performance tests in this section refer to SSDs in their “Fresh Out-of-Box” state (FOB). There is no degradation that might have happened yet.

Sequential read

Sequential read

Sequential write

Sequential write

Random read 4K

Random read 4K

Random write 4K

Random write 4K

Random Read 4K QD=32, MB/s

Random Read 4K QD=32, MB/s

Random write 4K QD=32, MB/s

Random write 4K QD=32, MB/s

With anything written in the official specifications of the new Intel SSD 335, we wouldn’t consider it the same as the SSD 330. It is different for some reasons, which may be the 20nm flash (which theoretically has lower latency) or firmware, or both. It delivers higher performance than the Intel SSD 330 when the request queue is long and also is outstanding with the higher sequential write speed than the other Intel SSDs. The 335 model is better, however, than the SSD 330 in the other scenarios.

The SSD 335 is also no exception. Its reaction is generally the same as that of any other SandForce-based SSDs, so it is only average in performance in temrs of today's standards. Flagship products are remarkably faster and, unlike their SandForce-based opponents, deliver consistent performance with any types of data. Intel's SSDs compress data prior to writing it into the flash memory and get slow down when data is incompressible.

Degradation and steady-state performance

Unfortunately, SSDs are not always as fast as when they are still new. In most cases their performance goes down in quality after some time of use and in real life we deal with completely different write speeds than what we see on the diagrams in the previous chapter of our review. The reason for this phenomenon is like this: as the SSD lacks free pages in the flash memory, its controller has to clear memory page blocks before saving data into them, which causes considerable delays. Although, modern SSD controllers can reduce the performance drop by erasing unused flash memory pages, when idle. They use two techniques for that: idle-time garbage collection and TRIM.

Of course, users should be more interested in the consistent performance of their SSDs over a long period of time rather than the top speed they are going to obtain only during the first short-term usage period, while the drive is still “new”. The SSD makers, however, declare the speed characteristics of “fresh” SSDs for marketing reasons. That’s why we decided to test the performance hit that would occur when a “fresh” SSD becomes an old one.

To get a complete picture of SSD performance degradation we ran special tests based on the SNIA SSSI TWG PTS (Solid State Storage Performance Test Specification) methodology. The main idea of this approach is to measure the one-by-one write speed in four different cases. First, we measured the “fresh” SSD speed. Then we measured the speed after the SSD had been fully filled with data twice. The third test occurred after a 30-minute break during which the controller could partially restore performance by running the idle-time garbage collection. And finally, we measured the speed after giving a TRIM command.

We ran the tests in the artificial IOMeter 1.1.0 RC1 benchmark, where we measured the random write speed when working with 4 KB data blocks aligned to flash memory pages at a depth of 32 requests queue. The following diagram indicates the history of the relative speed changes, where 100% is equal to the SSD performance in “fresh-out-of-box” state.

Tests run in synthetic IOMeter 1.1.0 RC1 benchmark

Tests run in synthetic IOMeter 1.1.0 RC1 benchmark

SandForce-based SSDs undergoes a performance shock when they run out of free memory pages. They are getting slower in use due to poor algorithms of garbage collection. This is actually the controller’s problem because it can be observed with any firmware. The performance hit has become less severe with faster flash memory as shown by the Intel SSD 335 as well as the Corsair Force GS (which is equipped with 24nm Toggle Mode NAND flash). The Intel SSD 330 would get 15% slower when writing with a long request queue whereas the Intel SSD 335 only gets 10% slower when writing 4KB data blocks with a long request queue.

Anyway, we wouldn’t recommend using SandForce-based SSDs, including Intel ones, in any operating systems that do not support TRIM. Otherwise, you may feel so disappointed with the eventual and very noticeable degradation in the performance of your SSD.

Since the characteristics of most SSDs won’t change once they change from fresh out-of-the-box state into the steady state, we measure their performance once again using CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 benchmark. The diagrams below show the achieved results. We use random data writing and measure only performance during writes, because the read speed remains constant.

Sequential write

Sequential write

Random write 4K

Random write 4K

Random write 4K QD = 2, MB/s

Random write 4K QD = 2, MB/s

Intel’s SSDs are much closer to each other when it comes to steady-state performance, but the SSD 520 proves its higher position as it is slightly faster than the SSD 335 and SSD 330. The two cheap drives are similar in this test and do not give a strong impression when compared to their opponents. Well, second-generation SandForce controllers have already appeared for over two years, so you should not be surprised that they fail to compete with newer solutions. Intel’s exclusive firmware cannot save everything, so the only good news for the SF-2281 controller is that it is good for typical desktop usage scenarios that involve a lot of reading.

Other  
 
Top 10
Review : Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
Review : Canon EF11-24mm f/4L USM
Review : Creative Sound Blaster Roar 2
Review : Philips Fidelio M2L
Review : Alienware 17 - Dell's Alienware laptops
Review Smartwatch : Wellograph
Review : Xiaomi Redmi 2
Extending LINQ to Objects : Writing a Single Element Operator (part 2) - Building the RandomElement Operator
Extending LINQ to Objects : Writing a Single Element Operator (part 1) - Building Our Own Last Operator
3 Tips for Maintaining Your Cell Phone Battery (part 2) - Discharge Smart, Use Smart
REVIEW
- First look: Apple Watch

- 3 Tips for Maintaining Your Cell Phone Battery (part 1)

- 3 Tips for Maintaining Your Cell Phone Battery (part 2)
VIDEO TUTORIAL
- How to create your first Swimlane Diagram or Cross-Functional Flowchart Diagram by using Microsoft Visio 2010 (Part 1)

- How to create your first Swimlane Diagram or Cross-Functional Flowchart Diagram by using Microsoft Visio 2010 (Part 2)

- How to create your first Swimlane Diagram or Cross-Functional Flowchart Diagram by using Microsoft Visio 2010 (Part 3)
Popular Tags
Microsoft Access Microsoft Excel Microsoft OneNote Microsoft PowerPoint Microsoft Project Microsoft Visio Microsoft Word Active Directory Biztalk Exchange Server Microsoft LynC Server Microsoft Dynamic Sharepoint Sql Server Windows Server 2008 Windows Server 2012 Windows 7 Windows 8 Adobe Indesign Adobe Flash Professional Dreamweaver Adobe Illustrator Adobe After Effects Adobe Photoshop Adobe Fireworks Adobe Flash Catalyst Corel Painter X CorelDRAW X5 CorelDraw 10 QuarkXPress 8 windows Phone 7 windows Phone 8