South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
In reality, the Intel SSD 510 may not be the fastest SATA SSD we've ever tested, but it comes very close. Overall performance is within striking distance of the Vertex 3 and depending on the test, performance can actually be a little higher than the clever competitor.
How the hell do you get 'fail' out of that?
Wow, just wow at the op.
Im gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and say you know nothing about SSD's and the key performance areas
go read the article again and we can chat
![]()
I've actually expected that the Intel SSD would be way faster/better than the Vertex 3, seeing that they used a smaller die and made all those predictions, etc.
The drive is still incredibly fast. I'll still buy one instead of the Vertex 3 if the price is way below it.
You're going to bleat about 4K performance, while being unable to understand how insignificant it is in regards to the performance requirements for consumer oriented drives versus enterprise drives.
My biggest complaints about the 510 actually aren't about Intel's use of a 3rd party controller, instead they are about the drive's lackluster random read performance. In a horrible bout of irony Intel fixed its sequential performance and moved backwards in the random department. Random read performance, as it turns out, has a pretty major impact in the real world.
is enough to constitute this drive as a failmoved backwards in the random department
I am also very dissapointed in the new Intel SSD's...
If you look at their past releases... the G1's and G2's dominated the market with their awsome performance.
The fact is... this SSD came out along the same timelines as the SF2000 controller based SSD's. So its fair to compare them with the current models.
There was a lot of hype and high expectations for this new SSD, but sadly unless the price is not a lot cheaper, I dont see people flocking to go and buy them... well unless they are totally clueless when it comes to hardware for that matter.
I have a intel SSD and a Sandforce based SSD... I know which one will be my next one...
You're going to bleat about 4K performance, while being unable to understand how insignificant it is in regards to the performance requirements for consumer oriented drives versus enterprise drives.
Most people dont care how fast you can copy a 10GB file. Okay they might CARE, but most users care MORE about real world experience, and random read is real world.
sequential isnt where a SSD shines, its the random... and the fact that they have is enough to constitute this drive as a fail
I agree with the OP that Intel has slightly failed but only in terms of price. It shouldn't be more than R2.5k for the 120GB and the older gen 160GB should be at about 3k if you ask me..
Both are trading random r/w for sequential speed
because for consumer performance, random read/write does not make that big of a difference
The numbers are right there in the very article you linked. Huge discrepancies in small block r/w speeds lead to relatively small effects in real-world testing. Perhaps you have some answer, rather than just displaying slack-jawed incredulity when someone points out this fact?
Huge discrepancies in small block r/w speeds lead to relatively small effects in real-world testing. Perhaps you have some answer, rather than just displaying slack-jawed incredulity when someone points out this fact?
Random read performance, as it turns out, has a pretty major impact in the real world