Crunching the numbers
And to round it off, ATTO confirms the same results as seen in the previous tests. This drive is really pushing the limits of its 3Gb/s Sata controller.
I must say I rather like this drive. It’s priced almost identically to Intel’s 320 drives, but does seem to have a slight performance edge over them. It may not be available in such large capacities, but it you’re looking for a drive on a budget you won’t be opting for 500GB or more, anyway.
Verdict
No matter if you just want a 64GB boot drive or you reckon your whole system will fit on 256GB, Samsung’s latest delivers what it promises and as such, is deserving of a large chunk of your attention.
Even if the current Sata limitations cramp your style, this is certainly a line of drives worth watching, even if you don’t grab one this generation. I for one am looking forward to 6Gb/s Sata offerings from Samsung in the future. ®
More SSD Reviews |
||||
 Intel
510 300GB |
 Crucial
M4 256GB |
 Iomega
128GB USB 3.0 SSD |
 How I learned
to stop worrying and love SSDs |
 Seven...
SSD Sizzlers |
Samsung Series 470 250GB 2.5in SSD
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.
Bad lad
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?
/* Comment
I am don't care much about minor differences of price or performance.
4 Gb Kingston costs 1.25 per Gb . So do these.
*/
