PCMark
For these tests, we use RankDisk, an application developed and copyrighted by Intel. In our testing, we found RankDisk to be suitable for a neutral benchmark. RankDisk is used to record a trace of disk activity during usage of typical applications. These traces can then be replayed to measure the performance of disk operations for that usage.
RankDisk records disk access events using the device drivers and bypasses the file system and the operating system's cache. This makes the measurement independent of the file system overhead or the current state of the operating system. In replaying traces, RankDisk always creates and operates on a new dummy file. This file is created in the same (or closest possible) physical location of the target hard disk. This allows the replaying of traces to be safe (does not destroy any existing files) and comparable across different systems. Due to the natural fragmentation of hard disks over time, they should be defragmented before running these tests.
The traces used for each test were created from real usage. The traces contain different amount of writing and reading on the disk; total ratio in the HDD test suite disk operations is 53% reads and 47% of writes.
The following input traces are used:
Windows XP Startup: This is the Windows XP start trace, which contains disk activities occurring at operating system start-up. The test is 90% reading and 10% writes. This trace contains no user activity.
Application Loading: This is a trace containing disk activities from loading various applications. It includes opening and closing of the following applications:
Microsoft® Word
Adobe® Acrobat® Reader 5
Windows® Media Player
3DMark®2001SE
Leadtek® Winfast® DVD
Mozilla Internet Browser
The application loading trace is 83% reads and 17% writes.
General Hard Disk Drive Usage: This trace contains disk activities from using several common applications.
These are:
Opening a Microsoft® Word document, performing grammar check, saving and closing
Compression and decompression using Winzip
Encrypting and decrypting a file using PowerCrypt
Scanning files for viruses using F-Secure® Antivirus.
Playing an MP3 file with Winamp
Playing a WAV file with Winamp
Playing a DivX video using DivX codec and Windows® Media Player
Playing a WMV video file using Windows® Media Player
Viewing pictures using Windows® Picture Viewer
Browsing the internet using Microsoft® Internet Explorer
Loading, playing and exiting a game using Ubisoft Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon
The General Usage trace is 60% reads and 40% writes.
Virus Scanning: Virus scanning is a critical task in today's PC usage. As the major bottleneck of scanning viruses is in hard disk activity, it is reasonable to include virus scanning as a HDD test. The test consists of HDD activity of scanning 600MB of files for viruses. The Virus Scanning test is mostly disk reading (99.5%).
File Write: This trace contains disk activities from writing 680MB files on the hard disk and no read operations are involved in this test.
PCMark replays a pre-recorded trace of IO back on the drive under test. This is one of the more real-world ways of testing, its weakness being that it is more of a short-term test and might not represent long-term usage of an SSD. We mitigate this somewhat by pre-conditioning the SSD prior to the test.
Tempted I am on upgrading my
Tempted I am on upgrading my 4 year old c300 256 gig sata 6, to these in raid 0 or 2 evos 500 gig models. I feel these are more about reliability then performance.
2 cheap ssds in raid 0 or upcoming sata express ssds.
Does this site have a mobile
Does this site have a mobile version?
Not currently, no, but that’s
Not currently, no, but that's in the works!
What device are you using? What problems did you have with the readability?
One 840 1TB EVO is the same
One 840 1TB EVO is the same price as two of these right now, and the mx100s are on sale.
how about making a nas with
how about making a nas with these badboys.
Not sure that I see much wow
Not sure that I see much wow factor out of this one. All presented models has more or less the same performance.
Only difference with the newer model is probably the reduced cost (still minimal) which is starting to show for all SSD on the market. And the actual die has reduced in size.
For a budget, the 128GB would be my pick. An additional HDD would support additional greater storage for the same cost. All my HDD has outlast all my flash devices.
As for the controller, ain’t the Marvell the same as the Sandforce? My mother board doesn’t like Sandforce controllers.
Which flash devices failed on
Which flash devices failed on you?
I have a c300 data 6 256 gig about 4 and a half years now still performs as day one.
Sata 6 *
Sata 6 *
The failed flash devices were
The failed flash devices were not SSD. However, though they were primarily USB flash devices, the concept is the same. You could blame the poor components, but consumers often don’t have control over that aspect.
One of the devices were replaced without any cost or questions asked as it was still under it’s warranty. Luckily, before it failed, I had a backup made of its contents. Backing up your data to various media is key.
I also have another USB flash device that is 10 years old. I treat it like a travelling floppy disk. The only one that has shown best compatibility among various systems used and shows little symptoms of wear.
Currently, I have another USB flash device which is starting to show a lot of wear. It’s primary cause is due to extreme data writing at low bytes. I have reduced it’s wear by optimizing the tool(software) when it was targeted a the source.
All this is great. I am not suggesting that the technology is a failure, however, when looking at cost and reliability, I prefer to have each of both worlds. From experience, Disc platters can sustain much greater amount of data wear than Flash. As proof, I still have 20 years old HDD, though now it no longer has a purpose due to it’s fading technology.
Hope that clarifies my comment.
Cheers!
There really is no comparison
There really is no comparison on relative reliability of USB flash drives vs. SATA and up SSDs. USB drives are not rated at anywhere near the longevity / usage.
I JUST bought a 240gb M500
I JUST bought a 240gb M500 for $100 last week. Is is worth sending it back in exchange for an MX100 256gb, or am i better off just keeping my M500?
great review allyn 😀 though
great review allyn 😀 though this line really needs a 1tb option.
according to this, yes you
according to this, yes you should exchange it (tho ssds are all pretty fast, and the real-life performance gains may be negligible, so ymmv)
http://techreport.com/review/26532/crucial-mx100-solid-state-drive-reviewed/7
Hi Allyn,
I just read a
Hi Allyn,
I just read a review on http://www.trustedreviews.com. They said,
“the MX100 is at greater risk of the electricity leaks that can effect transistors when they’re packed in such close quarters”, is this true?