Brian

Corsair Force Series 3 SSD Discussion

Recommended Posts

In the next two weeks Corsair will have a new flagship SSD based on the SATA 6Gb/s interface and a SandForce SF-2281 processor. The Force Series 3 boasts read speeds of 550 MB/s and writes of 520 MB/s, along with 85,000 IOPS, which is well above the IOPS quoted for the OWC Pro 6G, OCZ Vertex 3 and even the OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS. While it may have taken Corsair a little extra time to get to market with a next-generation SandForce drive, they appear poised to release a very promising SSD - perhaps the fastest client SSD to date.

Full Story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks interesting because the power consumption is quoted at 2.0W Max, so it could be suitable for use in a power over eSATA/USB enclosure. I haven't seen another SSD that comes close to combining this performance with a power envelope that could work in a 2.5" enclosure. Makes you wonder what trick they have used to trump other drives with the SandForce SF-2281 processor? Presumably they use special ;) NAND.

I see that the 60Gb model isn't listed on the Corsair website yet - but I think it's a safe bet that the performance will be a little lower than the larger models. I noticed that Corsair still haven't listed the specifications for the F40A and F60A, despite them being widely available for retail. My suspicious mind thinks that they don't want to publicise the poorer performance of the smaller capacity models...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SandForce drives normally don't take that big of a performance hit in the smaller capacities...that's a much bigger problem with Marvell and other controllers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean all those OCZ "undisputed leader" banner ads have to come down? :)

But seriously, I'm curious to see how Corsair's parts do on your benchmarks as I'm eager to find a good alternative to OCZ, hopefully without giving up too much performance. I simply don't trust OCZ (ie, some of the recent shenanigans with their offerings) or their products' reliability at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah - maybe, we you know, we don't really regulate banner messaging ;)

There is some question on these drives though about that IOPS number. We did see 85K IOPS performance on the Vertex 3 Max IOPS (review coming today), but that's with toggle mode NAND - we don't think that's what Corsair is using though, so the 85K IOPS claim seems strange. Still waiting on a comment from Corsair...

OWC is a player today with the Pro 6G if you want a V3 alternative and don't want to wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I'm finally taking the plunge into SSD land, this seems almost too good to be true ... esp. at $499!

I visited their web site, and they seem to have direct sales.

Is this true?

If so, what is their return policy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about their return policy, but products like this are generally cheaper through retailers when available...I'd probably just wait it out some. Generally though the return is limited to unopened or if opened, damaged units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SandForce drives normally don't take that big of a performance hit on widely used benchmarks in the smaller capacities...that's a much bigger problem with Marvell and other controllers.

Fixed that for ya. Sandforce drives do take real world hits in performance it's just people like the pretty benchmark scores.

Manufacturer specs on maximum sequential write speeds compared to Actual test results for Sequential Write speeds:

Drive           Spec    Test
X25-M G2 160GB 100MB/s 101.2
X25-M G2  80GB  70MB/s  81.6
X25-V G2  40GB  35MB/s  37.7

C300 256GB     215MB/s 203.0
C300 128GB     140MB/s 131.1
C300  64GB      70MB/s  71.0

Corsair F120   275MB/s 136.6 or 214.8
Corsair  F40   270MB/s  72.5 or 210.4

There is a clear progression from larger is faster to smaller is slower. On top of that Sandforce drives don't live up to the promised spec even when you do use compressible data. Very few tech sites bother to test with incompressible data and many deny how common incompressible data is when the concept is brought up.

Sandforce drives are clearly faster in some scenarios but on average they are slower than they advertise being. And that difference is more pronounced at lower capacities.

Luckily the Sandforce 2xxx controller fixes the slow TRIM recovery issue for the most part so it won't bite small drives as much but you have to consider that smaller drives are more likely to get into that issue. If you've forgotten about the slow TRIM recovery on Sandforce you might want to take a look at http://www.anandtech.com/show/4159/ocz-vertex-3-pro-preview-the-first-sf2500-ssd/6 or http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2010/06/25/sandforce-ssd-test/9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian's certainly got a point here. The HTPC benchmark consists of 3 GB of writes and 2 GB of reads, with practically all of the writes being compressed movies. That should be the definition of "real world random data". Yet the F40 is just 5% slower than the F120. If the small SF drives are that bad I'd take them any day.

Edit: I meant ""real world incompressible data", not random.

MrS

Edited by [ETA]MrSpadge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now