SSD Performance Review - 270TB Written Discussion
Posted 28 February 2012 - 06:15 PM
SSD Performance Review - 270TB Written
Posted 28 February 2012 - 07:49 PM
i assume that more agressive over provision would lengthen life & performance? also the difference between 2x nand & 32 nand cycles seems pretty big -though not as much as it use to given the results of the test- wonder how the top tier 2x nand that inte uses in their new 520 compares to 2x nand used in other drives. i guess what im asking is does the top tier intle nand have the same write cycles as 'lower tier' 2x nand. & is there really much(if any) difference between intel vs toshiba & samsung top 2x nand.
another question- do partions affect ssd performance & reliability/durability in anyway?
Edited by mike2h, 28 February 2012 - 08:02 PM.
Posted 28 February 2012 - 10:01 PM
Posted 29 February 2012 - 01:57 AM
i usually have a hd for c drive a nother for game & yet another for storage. for me that isnt finacially viable withh ssd especially when i can generally get better perf from one large ssd(180-256 gig) than a 120 & seperate 64 ssd. for about the same price.
so, i want t oget 1 lrg ssd & partition it into a sys partiton & a partition for games. i like having then seperate for file management/backup purposes but if the partion is going to have any sort of neg impact then i can live wiht the single partiton.
Posted 29 February 2012 - 05:18 PM
If I were you I'd bite into the grape fruit and do it the science way: switch back to the old firmware (if possible..) and repeat the tests.
Posted 29 February 2012 - 06:06 PM
And yes I agree the firmware consistency would have been great, but we went through upgrading all of our SF-2x00 SSDs months ago when the bluescreen error was patched and it had to be stable for the tests to be able to work this long. The main point of this test though was showing the performance still stands after more than 3x the stated TBW of the drive.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users