Intel's new SSD 510 series using Marvell controller ?

[drizek]

The C400 should perform the same way, right?

 

[drizek]

I just read the review and am pretty surprised by how poorly it did. A 64GB C300 has better random performance than a 256GB drive based on the same controller?

I think it would be more interesting to see the 120GB drive comparison. I think that is where the Vertex 3 will really shine.

 

[RonniJamesDiode]

Thankfully, the 510 isn't the G3. The proper successor to the X25-M will be the upcoming 320 series.

Yes, this does 510 model does look like a stopgap measure until the 320 series is released, likely reacting to pressure from sandforce and marvel based drives.

The very preliminary 320 specs showed a big jump in random IOPS from the G2 series -- as we've seen sequential speeds aren't everything, so maybe the true G3 drive will be a contender, not just a cheaper lower performance device.

 

[Voo]

Yes, this does 510 model does look like a stopgap measure until the 320 series is released, likely reacting to pressure from sandforce and marvel based drives.

The very preliminary 320 specs showed a big jump in random IOPS from the G2 series -- as we've seen sequential speeds aren't everything, so maybe the true G3 drive will be a contender, not just a cheaper lower performance device.

But that begs the question: If Intel thinks the 320s will be the better/faster drives, who the hell came up with the names? The higher number usually denotes the faster product.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

The C400 should perform the same way, right?

The performance on these drives using the same controller is determined by firmware more than anything. Micron has had a chance to work with the Marvell controller for a long time now, and the fact that the C300 is on par or above the new 500's from Intel speaks volumes to the maturity of Micron's firmware. I would bet that when they release the C400 it will show numbers above their C300 in all respects.

 

[watzup_ken]

which supports my assertions. The 510 is an interim 3rd party drive to buy intel time to get their act together.

This is probably true since they have already pushed forward to include SATA3 on their mobo (all should thank AMD for this since they pushed SATA3 on their 8XX series chipset), they will need something that can make use of it.

 

[taltamir]

This is probably true since they have already pushed forward to include SATA3 on their mobo (all should thank AMD for this since they pushed SATA3 on their 8XX series chipset), they will need something that can make use of it.

there is a good chance they were holding back on adding to their mobos because they did not have a SATA3 SSD... can't allow competitors to look good while using their hardware. Its not about your total performance, its about your performance while using all intel products for them.

 

[3xVicious]

Hey guys, I'm still a bit confused on which direction I should go... I'm planning on building a High-End Gaming System by Mid March. The board I'll be buying is a ASUS Maximus IV, it has 2 SATA 6.0 Gb/s ports. So, I was hoping to take advantage of a new Intel 510 Drive, but the reviews have been a bit disappointing, especially seeing how a Vertex 3 trumped the 510 in most bench marks. That coupled with the fact that those benchmarks a based on the 250GB SSDs has me confused. I'm only really interested in a 120GB to use as a boot drive and to install games on while using a F3 Spinpoint for Storage.

I'm curious on what you all think between a Vertex 3 and Intel 510 or maybe even a Intel G2? I'm interested in the fastest drive which is a Vertex 3, but I'm also interested in reliability which is Intel's 510. The lack of an Intel Controller has really disappointed me, so maybe a G2 with would be a better choice then 510s? So now I can't decide between the three... Like I mentioned before, this will be used for gaming, I play a lot of FPS, but I also play a lot of MMOs, some known for heavy loading times between zones.

I didn't even want to consider a Vertex 3 because of the whole Vertex 2 False Advertising Fiasco... I also heard that they have a large chance of dieing out on, and I'd like to be able to use this drive comfortably for the next 3 years.

 

[flamenko]

Word just hit the street last night that Intel will, most likely, be introducing a Intel SSD with SF-2000 series processor in the near future.

 

[Makaveli]

Hmmm and things just keep getting more twisted lol.

 

[flamenko]

Makaveli my friend...long time.

 

[aigomorla]

I'm curious on what you all think between a Vertex 3 and Intel 510 or maybe even a Intel G2? I'm interested in the fastest drive which is a Vertex 3, but I'm also interested in reliability which is Intel's 510.

nothing has more reliability then an intel G2.

Hands down, has the lowest fail rate across all the SSD's ever released.

However, there most definitely not the fastest u can get.

 

[Makaveli]

Yes sir how are you doing?

Where do you think intel is going with this starting to use other peoples controllers?

is it just a stop gap solution or will this be a new trend?

 

[samboy]

Hey guys, I'm still a bit confused on which direction I should go... I'm planning on building a High-End Gaming System by Mid March. The board I'll be buying is a ASUS Maximus IV, it has 2 SATA 6.0 Gb/s ports. So, I was hoping to take advantage of a new Intel 510 Drive, but the reviews have been a bit disappointing, especially seeing how a Vertex 3 trumped the 510 in most bench marks. That coupled with the fact that those benchmarks a based on the 250GB SSDs has me confused. I'm only really interested in a 120GB to use as a boot drive and to install games on while using a F3 Spinpoint for Storage.

I was in exactly the same boat and have the same thoughts on OCZ (which I was considering until I read how they handled the Vertex 2).

I read Anandtech's review of the 510 and what struck me was the "AnandTech Storage Bench 2010" page which is more or less real usage and not synthetic benchmarks etc. The G2 has better 4k random read performance which for an O/S drive is really important (and is probably what closes the gap in real work usage when comparing G2 with 510)

In the end the 510/G2 was comparable for my needs and I jumped on the Intel 120GB G2 Newegg Shell Shocker deal earlier in the week for $177 and couldn't justify the extra $$$ the 510 demands for what it seems to deliver.

The other drive that looked interesting is a 128GB Crucial C300 over at Superbiiz for around $200....... but in the end the track record of the G2 won me over (even of it is slower)

 

[sticks435]

I'll be going Corsair Force GT or Intel 522 if those rumors turn out to be true.

 

[tweakboy]

I wonder if you get this or a new revision on B3 stepping. hmmm :twisted:

 

[Zap]

I just read the review and am pretty surprised by how poorly it did. A 64GB C300 has better random performance than a 256GB drive based on the same controller?

It is a different controller with likely vastly different firmware. Intel's firmware is tuned different. Look past the 4k random performance and look at the other benchmarks, especially the AnandTech Storage Bench (all three) as well as PCMark Vantage. These benchmarks are supposed to more closely mimic "real world" usage patterns. Note how the Intel drive now ranks above the C300 in some of them? Anand suggested that IOPS are now no longer the limiting factor for real world performance. Here is a quote straight from Anand's review:

Random write performance is also pretty low by today's standards, however the impact on most of our real world performance tests is minimal. It looks like we may have hit the upper limit of what we need from 4KB random write performance (at least given current workloads).

 

[drizek]

I realize that, but the drive they tested was a 256GB model. Maybe that one is fast enough to not be bottlenecked, but the 128GB one will be slower, and the limitations might be more apparent.

I just didn't expect it to be any slower at anything than a last-gen drive.

Of course, now that I'm thinking about it, I can't help but be a bit angry at Crucial. If the C300 is using the same controller, why is there no firmware update to bring performance up to the level of the 510, or at least the C400(whatever that ends up being)?

 

[IntelUser2000]

Random performance was never the primary performance indicator. It just proves we are in the "Pentium MMX Era" of benchmarking.

Intel using Marvell controller brings some interesting possibilities.

Of course, now that I'm thinking about it, I can't help but be a bit angry at Crucial. If the C300 is using the same controller, why is there no firmware update to bring performance up to the level of the 510, or at least the C400(whatever that ends up being)?

I don't think you should, because Intel and Marvell doesn't share development on the firmware.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

Of course, now that I'm thinking about it, I can't help but be a bit angry at Crucial. If the C300 is using the same controller, why is there no firmware update to bring performance up to the level of the 510, or at least the C400(whatever that ends up being)?

They're not the same controller. The C400 will use the same controller as the new Intel drives, but the C300 is the older Marvell controller. Micron is still working on their new drive. Intel beat them to market. With a new controller generation, and everybody developing and refining their own firmware, there is lots of room for improvement as new firmware releases come out.