Smart on Sata II
To be honest, both of these drives feel identical to use on a fresh Windows 7 Professional x64 install, so let’s pull them apart (figuratively):
Throughput in Megabytes per Second (MB/s)
Longer bars are better
Crystal DiskMark brings good news, with the 470 effectively hitting 250MB/s for sequential read , and although I wasn’t able to see the claimed 220MB/s writes, it did blow past the Intel drive in most of the other tests, most notably the 512KB random read.
IOPS
The AS SSD numbers are equally impressive, demonstrating the huge advantage SSDs have over magnetic media. With peak read IOPS at 31K and writes topping out at around 17K, the Samsung 470 is very much similar to Intel’s 320.
Regcast training : Hyper-V 3.0, VM high availability and disaster recovery
Next page: Crunching the numbers
COMMENTS
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...
£400?
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.
Meh..
120GB OCZ Vertex 3 with Sandforce 2200 (500MB/sec read) - £185
90%? I don't think so.
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider
Cloud based data management
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
