Terrible random speeds on 510/are game files compressible?

[sticks435]

Hey all, I kind of have a 2 fold question here. I picked up a 120GB 510 yesterday during the sale, but thinking I might regret it. I knew the random speeds were low, but I didn't realize how terrible they actually were. . My original plan was to hold out for a Corsair/Patriot SF-2200 drive, but the price suckered me in. I mostly game and do general computing stuff (folding, web surfing).

So here are my questions. Are game files compressible and thus will benefit from the SF and will the extremely low random speeds hurt real world performance? I know in PCMark vantage the intel is pretty mediocre (and that wasn't even the 120GB model), but I'm not even sure that is "real world" accurate.

 

[groberts101]

All I can tell you is that a recent Intel user came over to the OCZ forum and said he was wanting to switch to V3 due to unimpressed performance from the 510.

Afterwards he stated that the V3 was much snappier and performed better overall.

As for the V3 when used for gaming? one of my good friends over there says he loves having first dibs on many of the vehicles in COD due to the super fast level loads when booted to his V3. I would imagine that many of those files have some amount of compression available from the Sandforce controller.

My V2's and V3 never suffer for very long at all even with totally incompressible streams since it's all about the averages throughout the entire logged on session with Sandforce. Is why they rate so well in the reviews.

 

[Bauss]

Hmm...

Not that I don't believe your personal observations, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how you can come away unimpressed by ANY SSD's performance. Here's why:

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/830...rucial-m4-ocz-vertex-3-intel-ssd-510-320.html (FRENCH)

Look at the Ramdisk, it does 10 times (5GB/s) the random performance and access latency of the best SSDs out, but all that does very little for performance. The SSD impact on current software that isn't storage bottlenecked (like gaming) has peaked. There's nothing one SSD will do significantly better than another in actual live comparisons.

Anyways, a few questions:

1) Is this your first SSD?

2) What do you mean by "I knew the random speeds were low, but I didn't realize how terrible they actually were."? Do you mean you've observed them in benchmarks? Or are you actually not feeling like things are fast? Do you get freezes? I'd love to get details.

Here are my thoughts. First, there's an issue with your config somewhere. Hard drives are designed to run the same games you play, but have 1/100th of the random performance and 1/500th of the access latency of the 510... and the 510 isn't even particularly strong in these areas. So, I'd trouble shoot a bit if you're finding issues, or else you'll just waste time looking for another SSD that'll disappoint.

I, frankly, just don't see how random performance is any indication of a drives "snappiness" at this point in the SSD game. It's like having a Radeon 6850 and a 6870, and claiming that the 6850 runs slower at 640x480 in certain games. Both are huge overkill for the usage model.

 

[sticks435]

Hey Bauss, I guess I should have clarified a bit. Yes, this is my first SSD. The drive actually doesn't arrive until tomorrow, but looking at Anand and Tom's reviews the random speeds are even lower than last gen, hence my questions.

I'm trying to decide whether to go ahead and use it, or wait for Anand's 120GB roundup and then try and sell it if it does poorly. I wish they used actual real world tests, instead of just some benchmark numbers. Don't see why it would be hard to load up Crysis or Warhead and use the console to get exact level load times.

 

[Bauss]

Oh

I guess I got a little too curious there

Yeah, I've had a gripe with most SSD reviewers for months now. They all seem to miss the point somewhat...

Random performance IS great to have. But these days, so much of it goes unused that it shouldn't be much of a consideration when choosing an SSD, let alone the deciding factor. Especially when there's so much more to worry about. (Reliability, Longevity, Pricing, Warranty, Availability, Sequential Performance, Firmware Support etc.)

If I were you, I'd pop it in and give it a week. If you're the type who values huge benchmark numbers, it may not be for you. But if you value more intangible things like Intel's reliability, then you made a good choice.

 

[sticks435]

At least that French site and Techspot seem to get it. TS includes Starcraft 2 level loading times. On the point of the other considerations when buying hardware, I like to see big benchmark numbers as much as the next guy, but with pretty much every other part there are real and tangible numbers to show the differences and make an informed decision. % FPS difference, % of temp difference, power efficiency etc.

I've never had a part fail on me yet, could be because I buy from reliable company's or it could be because I know there is a point of diminishing returns on pushing hardware and don't care enough to spend gobs of money to get an extra 3fps or lower temps by 5 degrees, etc. I like to consider myself a high-end mainstream or low-end enthusiast. lol

 

[Zap]

Hey Bauss, I guess I should have clarified a bit. Yes, this is my first SSD. The drive actually doesn't arrive until tomorrow, but looking at Anand and Tom's reviews the random speeds are even lower than last gen, hence my questions.

Don't worry about this one aspect of synthetic performance. How well does it do in "real world" applications? Quite well, it turns out. Random write performance is important, but only up to a certain point.

For instance, if cars were SSDs, then random writes are top speed. Sure, having a top speed of 60MPH is much better than a top speed of 40MPH because there are freeways that have speed limits of 65MPH, 70MPH and maybe higher. However, what good does a top speed of 150MPH do? What about a top speed of 200MPH, or 250MPH? Sure, you got bragging rights on car night down at the local diner, but in the real world does it make a lick of difference once the top speed is past a certain number? No.

SSDs are like that. BITD with the early SSDs, random writes were pretty bad, so a newer SSD comes along with better random write performance and voila it gets better overall performance. So, the race was on for higher and higher random write performance. Nowadays the random writes on any of the good SSDs are so high that it no longer matters much to a normal desktop user in the real world. But it benchmarks higher and gives you more e-peen at your favorite internet forum.

 

[sticks435]

Thanks Zap. I did a search for Intel 510 120 reviews, and looks like KitGuru does real world testing (win 7 startup and Stalker: COP level load times). The 510 comes in 2nd compared to the 240GB V3 in COP by 3 seconds and 4 seconds in the boot time.

 

[sticks435]

So I had another question. Are app/game installs random or sequential?

 

[velis]

Installs are mostly sequential. But stop worrying about this. Any second gen SSD will bring worlds of improvement to your PC.

As you said yourself: you were lured into purchasing by price. Trust me: you bought a fine drive, even if it was a bit cheaper than the latest and greatest.
I have Intel G2s and a Vertex 1 and they are all absolute bragging pieces both at work and among friends (who all still have the spinning disks). And I mean absolute: I just convinced a buddy to get himself a Vertex 2 and he came to work next day all red-eyed (from lack of sleep) explaining how he just couldn't understand how the speed difference could be so HUGE...

Sure, buying a V3 would bring you a bit more speed, but not really something you'd notice with ordinary usage. The only real benefit would be for a very I/O intensive DB app - not something I suppose you're doing lots of...

 

[imaheadcase]

OP..you mean mediocre in compared to a mechanical drive? Because if you mean SSD you won't notice a difference from that drive vs the fastest drive in the market for any app.