Intel G3 test

[Cloudfire]

Reviews of the Intel 320 (G3) SSD here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4244/intel-ssd-320-review
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...c400,2908.html
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Intel...Series-Review/
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1579/1/
http://www.storagereview.com/intel_ssd_320_review_300gb
http://techreport.com/articles.x/20653

Found a chinese (i think) site where they were testing G3s both single and in Raid 0. It is going to be a lot of pictures here, but the source site had problems where i couldn`t see the pictures, so it is probably better to repost them here. Enjoy


One 160GB G3:
HD Tune test, Seq Read max 269MB/s:




HD Tune test, Seq Write max 170MB/s:




AS SSD @ Intel RST 10,1 AHCI Driver:



Crystal Disk Mark 3,01:


Two 160GB G3s in Raid 0:

Crystal Disk Mark 3,01


AS SSD Benchmark @ Intel RST 10,1 AHCI Driver



HD tune test, Max seq Read 510MB/s




HD tune test, Max seq Write 343MB/s:




Source: http://www.hkepc.com/forum/archiver/?tid-1584824.html

[Cloudfire]

Comparison of these results with the legitreview test of G2:

160GB G2 Crystal Disk Mark v2.2:


160GB G3 Crystal Disk Mark 3,01:

[tilleroftheearth]

With or without pictures, RAID0 makes for some pretty 'meh' moments.

They obviously didn't use a discrete RAID card here...

[davepermen]

they should've shown the write performance in raid0.


i like teh 4k numbers. rather balanced drive, i like it that way.

[Cloudfire]

they should've shown the write performance in raid0.


i like teh 4k numbers. rather balanced drive, i like it that way.

They actually had results of write in Raid. I forgot it. Sorry. But i have added them now

[davepermen]

looks like, except for single 4k, it scaled nearly linearly. with nice raid0 tuning (stripes and all), it could even be smoothed out a bit.

[tilleroftheearth]

A single 510 is essentially equalling this.

With no RAID headaches, no TRIM problems and with slightly less capacity for slightly less money.

Of course RAID0 scales (almost) linearly with synthetic benchmarks - if it didn't, what would be the allure?

[davepermen]

it does scale the same in daily usage, though. latency doesn't go down, but bandwith goes up.

and yes, a single 510 is essentially equalling this, but not at the same cost. (again, stock prices, not special tiller-cool-aid-deals).

[tilleroftheearth]

Scales nowhere the same in daily use unless you're constantly copy/moving files exclusively on that system.

No cool aid deals needed: a single 510 @ 250GB is cheaper than 2x 160GB G3's.

[davepermen]

and 2x 160gb == 320gb which is ~30% bigger.

and yes, in daily usage, it feels about the same as, well, a single ssd with same performance.

what you state is, in daily usage, a 510 has not much gains over a 310, then. and that's the reason why i can still support buying them.

the 510 is for those who need the bandwith in their daily usage (manipulation of lots of video stuff). and there, a raid0 of 310 would be fine, too.


so again, none of your arguments makes sense.