The SSD Relapse: Understanding and Choosing the Best SSD
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 30, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
One Tough Act to Follow
What have I gotten myself into? The SSD Anthology I wrote back in March was read over 2 million times. Microsoft linked it, Wikipedia linked it, my esteemed colleagues in the press linked it, Linus freakin Torvalds linked it.
The Anthology took me six months to piece together; I wrote and re-wrote parts of that article more times than I'd care to admit. And today I'm charged with the task of producing its successor. I can't do it.
The article that started all of this was the Intel X25-M review. Intel gave me gold with that drive; the article wrote itself, the X25-M was awesome, everything else in the market was crap.
Intel's X25-M SSDs: The drives that started a revolution
The Anthology all began with a spark: the SSD performance degradation issue. It took a while to put together, but the concept and the article were handed to me on a silver platter: just use an SSD for a while and you’ll spot the issue. I just had to do the testing and writing.
OCZ's Vertex: The first Indilinx drive I reviewed, the drive that gave us hope there might be another.
But today, as I write this, the words just aren't coming to me. The material is all there, but it just seems so mature and at the same time, so clouded and so done. We've found the undiscovered country, we've left no stone unturned, everyone knows how these things work - now SSD reviews join the rest as a bunch of graphs and analysis, hopefully with witty commentary in between.
It's a daunting, no, deflating task to write what I view as the third part in this trilogy of articles. JMicron is all but gone from the market for now, Indilinx came and improved (a lot) and TRIM is nearly upon us. Plus, we all know how trilogies turn out. Here's hoping that this one doesn't have Ewoks in it.
What Goes Around, Comes Around
No we're not going back to the stuttering crap that shipped for months before Intel released their X25-M last year, but we are going back in the way we have to look at SSD performance.
In my X25-M review the focus was on why the mainstream drives at the time stuttered and why the X25-M didn't. Performance degradation over time didn't matter because all of the SSDs on the market were slow out of the box; and as I later showed, the pre-Intel MLC SSDs didn’t perform worse over time, they sucked all of the time.
Samsung and Indilinx emerged with high performance, non-stuttering alternatives, and then we once again had to thin the herd. Simply not stuttering wasn't enough, a good SSD had to maintain a reasonable amount of performance over the life of the drive.
The falling performance was actually a side effect of the way NAND flash works. You write in pages (4KB) but you can only erase in blocks (128 pages or 512KB); thus SSDs don't erase data when you delete it, only when they run out of space to write internally. When that time comes, you run into a nasty situation called the read-modify-write. Here, even to just write 4KB, the controller must read an entire block (512KB), update the single page, and write the entire block back out. Instead of writing 4KB, the controller has to actually write 512KB - a much slower operation.
I simulated this worst case scenario performance by writing to every single page on the SSDs I tested before running any tests. The performance degradation ranged from negligible to significant:
| PCMark Vantage HDD Score | New | "Used" |
| Corsair P256 (Samsung MLC) | 26607 | 18786 |
| OCZ Vertex Turbo (Indilinx MLC) | 26157 | 25035 |
So that's how I approached today's article. Filling the latest generations of Indilinx, Intel and Samsung drives before testing them. But, my friends, things have changed.
The table below shows the performance of the same drives showcased above, but after running the TRIM instruction (or a close equivalent) against their contents:
| PCMark Vantage HDD Score | New | "Used" | After TRIM/Idle GC | % of New Perf |
| Corsair P256 (Samsung MLC) | 26607 | 18786 | 24317 | 91% |
| OCZ Vertex Turbo (Indilinx MLC) | 26157 | 25035 | 26038 | 99.5% |
Oh boy. I need a new way to test.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
295 Comments
View All Comments
nemitech - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
opps - not ebay - it was NEWEGG.Loki726 - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Thanks a ton for including the pidgin compiler benchmarks. I didn't think that HD performance would make much of a difference (linking large builds might be a different story), but it is great to have numbers to back up that intuition. Keep it up.torsteinowich - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
HiYou write that the Indilinx wiper tool collects a free page list from the OS, then wipes the pages. This sounds like a dangerous operation to me since the OS might allocate some of these blocks after the tool collects the list, but before they are wiped.
Have you received a good explanation for Indilinx about how they ensure file system integrity? As far as i know Windows cannot temporarily switch to read-only mode on an active file system (at least not the system drive). The only way i could see this tool working safely would be by booting off a different media and accessing the file system to be trimmed offline with a tool that correctly identifies the unused pages for the particular file system being used. I could be wrong of course, maybe windows 7 has a system call to temporarily freeze FS writes, but i doubt it.
has407 - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
It: (1) creates a large temporary file (wiper.dat) which gobbles up all (or most) of the free space; (2) determines the LBA's occupied by that file; (3) tells the SSD to TRIM those LBA's; and then (4) deletes the temporary file (wiper.date).From the OS/filesystem perspective, it's just another app and another file. (A similar technique is used by, e.g., sysinternals Windows SDelete app to zero free space. For Windows you could also probably use the hooks used by defrag utilities to accomplis it, but that would be a lot more work.)
cghebert - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Anand,Great article. Once again you have outclassed pretty much every other site out there with the depth of content in this review. You should start marketing t-shirts that say "Everything I learned about SSDs I learned from AnandTech"
I did have a question about gaming benchmarks, since you made this statement:
" but as you'll see later on in my gaming tests the benefits of an SSD really vary depending on the game"
But I never saw any gaming benchmarks. Did I miss something?
nafhan - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Just wanted to say awesome review.I've been reading Anandtech since 2000, and while other sites have gone downhill or (apparently) succumbed to pressure from advertisers, you guys have continued to give in depth, critical reviews.
I also appreciate that you do some real analysis instead of just throwing 10 pages of charts online.
Thanks, and keep up the good work!
zysurge - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Awesome amazing article. So much information, presented clearly.Question, though? I have an Intel G2 160GB drive coming in the next few days for my Dell D830 laptop, which will be running Windows 7 x64.
Do I set the controller to ATA and use the Intel Matrix driver, or set it to AHCI and use Microsoft's driver? Will either provide an advantage? I realize neither will provide TRIM until Q4, but after the firmware update, both should, right?
Thanks in advance!
ggathagan - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - link
From page 15 (Early Trim support...):Under Windows 7 that means you have to use a Microsoft made IDE or AHCI driver (you can't install chipset drivers from anyone else).
Mumrik - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
but I can't live with less than 300GB on that drive, and SSDs in usable sizes still cost more than high end video cards :-(I really hope I'll be able to pick up a 300GB drive for 100-200 bucks in a year or so, but it is probably a bit too optimistic.
Simen1 - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
This is simply wrong. Ask anyone over 10 years if they think this mathematical statement is true or false. 80 can never equal 74,5.Now, someone claims that 1 GB = 10^9 B and others claim that 1 GB is 2^30 B. Who is really right? What does the G and the B mean? Who defines that?
The answers is easy to find and document. B means Byte. G stands for Giga ans means 10^6, not 2^30. Giga is defined in the international system of units, SI.
No standardization organization have _ever_ defined Giga to be 2^30. But IEC, International Electrotechnical Commission, have defined "Gi" to 2^30. This is supposed to be used for digital storage so people wont be confused by all the misunderstandings around this. Misunderstandings that mainly comes from Microsoft and quite a few other big software vendors. Companies that ignore the mathematical errors in their software when they claim that 80GB = 74,5 GB, and ignore both international standards on how to shorten large numbers.