Samsung Series 470 250GB 2.5in SSD
Review Reg Hardware first reviewed a Samsung SSD - the South Korean giant's first, and a device aimed at computer makers rather than upgrade-hungry punters - way back in March 2009. Rather keen we were on it too.
But that was two years ago - how has Samsung managed to improve matters in the meantime?
Samsung's Series 470: cornering the market?
Currently available in the usual 64GB (£110), 128GB (£180) and 256GB (£400) capacities, Samsung isn’t going too wild with this one, except for perhaps the chrome and orange finish.
Despite the casual capacities and reasonable pricing, Samsung has sunk a considerable amount into R&D on this one by designing its own controller rather than doing the usual and buying in a SandForce or Marvell part.
It’s called the S3C29RBB01-YK40, and Samsung claims it will allow the 256GB model I have here to read at 250MB/s and write at 220MB/s through its 3Gb/s Sata interface.
The closest rival to Samsung’s new toy is Intel’s 320 series, which is very similarly priced and also features a 3Gb/s Sata interface. Before I get technical with this one, here’s a quick real-world time comparison between the two:
Times in Seconds
Shorter bars are better
As you can see, the Intel drive seems to have a slight edge in booting and shutting down, but the Samsung drive claws back some glory in being quicker on the application front.
Next page: Smart on Sata II
Maths is hard
Perhaps it's SATA II because 3Gb/s > 250MB/s
Unless you're talking one of the 500MB/s drives there's no point in putting a SATA III interface on a drive that isn't capable of filling a SATA II bus. Except that middle management types might be willing to pay more for the same performance...
I am somewhat confused by the comment that "The closest rival to Samsung’s new toy is Intel’s 320 series".
I'd have said that for the 256GB part, the Crucial M4 (which is approximately £330) would kill this new samsung part stone dead. The M4 is sata-III, built on a 25nm process (so doesn't chuck out lots of heat), and it totally destroys the new samsung SSD in terms of performance: well over 400MB/s on a read, >300 on a write.
120GB OCZ Vertex 3 with Sandforce 2200 (500MB/sec read) - £185
90%? I don't think so.
Its is a well known phenomena that the smaller SSD will be slower than the large capacity ones. It is generally to do with the number of chips installed (8,16 or 32) So the figures for the 256gb drive can in no way be relied upon to be the same for smaller drives, especially 64gb. Its generally the write performance that suffers, often dropping by 50% thus affecting any benchmarks. And yes, these drives are still too expensive 25nm was supposed to change all that, they traded longevity for price. And we got ...shorter longevity, so where's the price?
I am don't care much about minor differences of price or performance.
4 Gb Kingston costs 1.25 per Gb . So do these.