First of all, this is a much needed insight into a new burgeoning area. I am especially thrilled that you bothered to do a cost/benefit analysis - something most tech reviewers don't bother to include. Having said that, I found it hard to believe in the numbers that the synapse cached solution wasn't doing better after what I'd read. First, I could not replicate your "Price-Performance-GB" data. Secondly - what does that even *mean*?
I think I know what you're getting at though (accounting for all 3 variables to find best value) but I get very different results. I used 2 different methods using your data and both showed similar trends. I will use the Gaming Perf benchmark on the Synapse vs RevoDrive to demonstrate:
1) I calculate the same Price/GB as you have. Here, lower is better obviously (as it means cheaper/gb). Now if we take the performance figures (MB/s so higher is better), it would be best to divide it by the price/gb right? So with the resultant figure, a high performing but expensive solution is tempered and a low performing but cheap solution is bolstered. In Gaming, this gives me final numbers of (where higher is still better):
1654 - Synapse
1122 - Revo
234 - Vertex
194 - Momentus
These are actually in line with expectations when I examine the numbers - the Momentus is cheap but not that large and is punished by being *so* slow. The Vertex performs well but is punished by being most expensive *and* not that large. The Revo is expensive but is quite well compensated by being large and very fast. The Synapse has a great mix of everything.
2) Alternatively, you could say that the total 'firepower' of a drive is its performance (mb/s) *multiplied* by its capacity (gb). This accounts for the small and fast trade off of SSDs vs the slow and huge trade off of HDDs. Finally you would then divide this total 'firepower' by the price to give its 'value proposition' (cost per firepower). Here I get (again higher is better):
4660 - Synapse
2773 - Revo
1921 - Momentus
300 - Vertex
Sure the Momentus and the Vertex have swapped places but that's largely academic to me - just a different methodology giving different results.
Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree but in that case I'd urge you to at least explain briefly how you got your final figures and what they mean.
Otherwise I urge you to carefully rethink what the last 3 lines of your table actually shows as to me this is the crux of the article and I'm not sure it shows what you may think it shows.
I'm genuinely not writing all this as criticism but because I really want to understand how valuable and cost effective this new tech is. You're welcome to PM me about it (if indeed you're able to on these forums). Otherwise, great write up.