Intel SSD 330 Review: 60, 120, And 180 GB Models Benchmarked

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]phump[/nom]http://images10.newegg.com/uploadf [...] 12ey39.pdfYou can name all the reasons rebates shouldn't be considered, but when a rebate is 30% off (of the sale price as you say), your can be sure I'm going to take advantage of it.[/citation]

Rebates included, only the 180GB model drops below $1 per GB. The 60GB model is still above $1 per GP and the 120GB model doesn't have a rebate, so it's actually more expensive than the 180GB model, if the rebates are included. So, even then, only the 180GB model drops below $1 per GB and the rest of them dare still above $1 per GB, meaning that even if you include rebates, you're still wrong for two out of the three 330 drives.

 

[acku]

Rebates included, only the 180GB model drops below $1 per GB. The 60GB model is still above $1 per GP and the 120GB model doesn't have a rebate, so it's actually more expensive than the 180GB model, if the rebates are included. So, even then, only the 180GB model drops below $1 per GB and the rest of them dare still above $1 per GB, meaning that even if you include rebates, you're still wrong for two out of the three 330 drives.

Thanks for jumping in with the explanation blazorthon. @phump, we don't include rebates. I understand that's important for many people. And some buyers are diligent enough to follow up on rebates, but realistically, many people don't put in the same effort. For that reason, we look at market prices sans rebates.

Cheers,
Andrew Ku
TomsHardware.com

 

[acku]

What's with all the "raw" benchmarks? We don't use these things "raw". We use them with file systems. These things perform differently with file systems installed.

Testing with a file system introduces cache effects of the system. In order to isolate the performance of the storage subsystem, the standard evaluation methodology is to use raw benchmarks. That's been the norm for nearly every SSD review at every website.

 

[acku]

reliability reliability reliability. I could care less if my web browser loads in 0.02 second vs 0.019 second. I do care if my SSD crashes and I have to wait 5 weeks for RMA. Tom's please do more tests on reliability.

There's no way to test reliablity in the short term. You need a data center, a few thousand SSDs and a couple of years.

 

[boletus]

[citation][nom]acku[/nom]There's no way to test reliablity in the short term. You need a data center, a few thousand SSDs and a couple of years.[/citation]

The consumer's best tool in this regard is user reviews at vendor websites, e.g. Newegg, Amazon, etc. But it is essential to bear in mind that this is anecdotal evidence and subject to many flaws that would not exist in a large scale controlled test environment, such as user errors, system incompatibility, and even perhaps bogus reviews.

Nevertheless, if there are enough reviews for a given set of drives, and one has >20% of users reporting major problems while another has

 

[boletus]

...while another has

 

[boletus]

(oops -wtf?)

 

[acku]

The consumer's best tool in this regard is user reviews at vendor websites, e.g. Newegg, Amazon, etc. But it is essential to bear in mind that this is anecdotal evidence and subject to many flaws that would not exist in a large scale controlled test environment, such as user errors, system incompatibility, and even perhaps bogus reviews.

Nevertheless, if there are enough reviews for a given set of drives, and one has >20% of users reporting major problems while another has

That's a pretty good summation of how you can track down a reliable SSD. Ancedotal information is all that's available, unfortunately.

Cheers,
Andrew Ku
TomsHardware.com

 

[ojas]

Well, from newegg:
Intel 330 series SSDs have a cost per GB of between 1.11 to 1.33.
The 320 series has a $/GB of over 1.66
While the 520 series is sitting on around 1.4 $/GB.

I'm not including rebates, and i'm not looking at the OEM models. blazorthon said something about the price reductions being temp, i can't see that written anywhere though, so idk about that.

Anyway, as far as i can see it:
320 series -> Slower SATA II based, more expensive, intel controller+ intel-picked NAND, proven reliability, 5 years warranty

520 series -> 510 series replacement, SATA III, fastest they have right now, cheaper than the 320 series, unproven reliability (reviews suggest BSODs below 180GB), Sandforce controller but Intel picked NAND, 5 year warr.

330 series -> cheapest Intel SSD, most probably binned (thus even more questionable reliability), SATA III, low $/GB, SF+intel, 3 year warr.

All in all,
$/GB : 330 < 520 < 320 (lower is better)
Speed: 520 > 330 > 320
Reliability: 320 > 520? > 330?
Warranty: 320=520>330

Clearly, 520 for the performance seekers, 320 for the reliability seekers (like me, got a 120GB on recently), 330 for those who want price/GB.



EDIT: some stuff went wrong with my post. typing >, ?, $, / together did something odd the first time, cut a bit of my post in the end.

 

[ssd_privacy]

http://www.usenix.org/event/fast11/tech/full_papers/Wei.pdf

According to this paper SSD's are very insecure. One drive reported that the data was gone when in fact all of the data was recoverable.

Which drive was that? This paper does not tell us that. It would be very helpful if Tomshardware would replicate this study and tell us which drives performed in what capacity. Much more helpful than whether drive A performed a write/read 10kb/sec faster than drive B.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]ssd_privacy[/nom]http://www.usenix.org/event/fast11 [...] rs/Wei.pdfAccording to this paper SSD's are very insecure. One drive reported that the data was gone when in fact all of the data was recoverable. Which drive was that? This paper does not tell us that. It would be very helpful if Tomshardware would replicate this study and tell us which drives performed in what capacity. Much more helpful than whether drive A performed a write/read 10kb/sec faster than drive B.[/citation]

Data can be recovered from ALL drives, even if they say it can't. There is no way to be absolutely sure that someone can't retrieve data from a drive no matter what you do. This applies to hard drives just as much as it does to SSDs. Also, that performance difference number is an extreme under-estimation, especially in highly compressible data and differing queue depths.

 

[Kand]

i`m looking right now at prcies and Intel 330 is 5 euro CHEAPER than Corsair Force GT
which one to buy ?

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Kand[/nom]i`m looking right now at prcies and Intel 330 is 5 euro CHEAPER than Corsair Force GTwhich one to buy ?[/citation]

If I remember correctly, the Force GT should be at least a little faster than an Intel 330.

 

[acku]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]If I remember correctly, the Force GT should be at least a little faster than an Intel 330.[/citation]
Correct. The GT is = SSD 520, which is faster than SSD 330.

 

[dreadlokz]

BAR graphics plx? I can't see sh*t! =S

 

[Drez143]

180gig Intel 330 is $140 on Newegg. That is $.77 / gig.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]drez143[/nom]180gig Intel 330 is $140 on Newegg. That is $.77 / gig.[/citation]

[citation][nom]acku[/nom]Thanks for jumping in with the explanation blazorthon. @phump, we don't include rebates. I understand that's important for many people. And some buyers are diligent enough to follow up on rebates, but realistically, many people don't put in the same effort. For that reason, we look at market prices sans rebates.Cheers,Andrew KuTomsHardware.com[/citation]

Someone didn't read before posting.

 

[ssd_privacy]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Data can be recovered from ALL drives, even if they say it can't. There is no way to be absolutely sure that someone can't retrieve data from a drive no matter what you do. This applies to hard drives just as much as it does to SSDs. Also, that performance difference number is an extreme under-estimation, especially in highly compressible data and differing queue depths.[/citation]

Do you have a link for your voice of God proclamation?

No?

Why am I not surprised.

SSD drives in no way behave as regular platter drives do. Completely different animals. Your post is dangerously ignorant. Just do a Google search - without the quotes - "ssd drives erase data".

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]ssd_privacy[/nom]Do you have a link for your voice of God proclamation? No?Why am I not surprised.SSD drives in no way behave as regular platter drives do. Completely different animals. Your post is dangerously ignorant. Just do a Google search - without the quotes - "ssd drives erase data".[/citation]

All storage mediums say they erase data, but there are ways to get the data off of them anyway (although they are often very expensive ways). For example, even system memory's data that is supposedly volatile can be extracted after the power is turned off if you know what you're doing and have the proper tools.

This is true for SSDs and HDDs too, although like you said, they are different technologies and they need different methods for doing it. One thing that methods for most storage technologies share is heat. Cooling the storage makes it easier to retrieve data more accurately. For example, you could quickly cool off a RAM module from a computer, put it into another device, and then dump it's contents. That's what you can do with volatile storage, think about how easy it is to extract deleted data from storage that is specifically designed to retain data.

Your post is the ignorant one. With the proper tools, deleted data can almost always be extracted from pretty much any storage technology.

 

[iamtheking123]

"Company reps wouldn't answer those questions."

Did you noobs ever consider desoldering the controller from a 520 and putting it on a 330? That would answer your question.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]iamtheking123[/nom]"Company reps wouldn't answer those questions."Did you noobs ever consider desoldering the controller from a 520 and putting it on a 330? That would answer your question.[/citation]

You try it first and tell us how that goes. Did you even think about how that could be done before insulting Tom's over it?

 

[ssd_privacy]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]All storage mediums say they erase data, but there are ways to get the data off of them anyway (although they are often very expensive ways). For example, even system memory's data that is supposedly volatile can be extracted after the power is turned off if you know what you're doing and have the proper tools.This is true for SSDs and HDDs too, although like you said, they are different technologies and they need different methods for doing it. One thing that methods for most storage technologies share is heat. Cooling the storage makes it easier to retrieve data more accurately. For example, you could quickly cool off a RAM module from a computer, put it into another device, and then dump it's contents. That's what you can do with volatile storage, think about how easy it is to extract deleted data from storage that is specifically designed to retain data.Your post is the ignorant one. With the proper tools, deleted data can almost always be extracted from pretty much any storage technology.[/citation]

SSD drives do not store data as platter drives do. An SSD drive has a controller on board that is independent of the operating system. Data is stored all over the drive at random and tracked by the controller and firmware. When you use Secure Delete Trash or Eraser on a file stored on a platter drive it will erase the data, but used on an SSD the operating system is blind to the actual location of the file.

The controller removes data using its firmware "garbage collection" to prepare it for new writing. In addition, some drives have significant space that is not accessible by the user that stores and rewrites data, so if you do a full wipe none of that data will be wiped. Also some data was found to be recoverable on one drive after twenty wipes had been performed due to how the wipe was implemented by the controller on that SSD.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]ssd_privacy[/nom]SSD drives do not store data as platter drives do. An SSD drive has a controller on board that is independent of the operating system. Data is stored all over the drive at random and tracked by the controller and firmware. When you use Secure Delete Trash or Eraser on a file stored on a platter drive it will erase the data, but used on an SSD the operating system is blind to the actual location of the file.The controller removes data using its firmware "garbage collection" to prepare it for new writing. In addition, some drives have significant space that is not accessible by the user that stores and rewrites data, so if you do a full wipe none of that data will be wiped. Also some data was found to be recoverable on one drive after twenty wipes had been performed due to how the wipe was implemented by the controller on that SSD.[/citation]

Hand over an SSD to a group like the FBI and unless you have ridiculous amounts of encryption, I guarantee that they can find a way to extra at least some of it's data, even if it's been wiped, regardless of the drive's technology in an at least somewhat reasonable amount of time. That is what I've been saying. I never said that SSDs store data in the same ways as in HDDs or anything like that, so telling me that they don't isn't disproving me in any way.

 

[sunflowerd]

Mein Bruder schlug mir vor, wie dieser Webseite. Er war absolut richtig. Dieser Beitrag wirklich made my day. Sie haben soeben cann't vorstellen, wie viel Zeit hatte, diese Informationen weitergegeben! Vielen Dank!

 

[triny]

Samsung is king