POST A COMMENT

37 Comments

Back to Article

  • Kristian Vättö - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    Performance vs Transfer Size and TRIM graphs are missing, I know. Already pinged Anand about those so expect to see them soon (the graphs weren't in our admin engine so I couldn't add them, Anand needs to upload them). Reply
  • vol7ron - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    The impact of spare area graphs are interesting. OWC has claimed that the spare area doesn't have much of an influence on drives using SF controller, thus defending their non-TRIM support.

    Perhaps Anand could include an OWC drive in there for comparison.
    Reply
  • dave_the_nerd - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    OWC has to run down TRIM because they sell third-party SSDs to Mac OS X users. Apple forces OS X to disable TRIM on SSDs they don't supply, because they're jerks sometimes.

    Apple ships its own machines with TRIM enabled, just like everybody else,

    There are hacks. But nobody, OWC or otherwise, is going to say, "oh, yeah, our product supports TRIM, but you need to download this sketchy looking program from this guys blog to make it work. Good luck."
    Reply
  • Darnell021 - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    haha yess I just went through that process myself and it's worth adding that every incremental OSX update resets that sketchy little program hack to turn TRIM back off.

    Still worth it though if you know what you're doing ;)
    Reply
  • Samus - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    "but you need to download this sketchy looking program from this guys blog to make it work."

    word. true dat, had to do this when I put an Intel X25-M 160GB in my wife's Macbook a few years ago. after about a year it started running crazy slow and fortunately that was just around the time the 3rd party TRIM tool surfaced. works like a charm, but definitely a sketchy solution.

    no more sketchy than jail-breaking an iPhone though. pretty much the only reason I jailbroke my iPod Touch was to disable wifi while its sleeping, because, for some reason, Apple DOESN'T allow that.
    Reply
  • NCM - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    I don't see anything "sketchy" about it. A quick trip to the Unix command line enables/disables TRIM in OSX. All the TRIM Enabler utility does is to offer a convenient GUI for that process. It can hardly be said to rise to the level of a hack. The System Profiler correctly shows whether TRIM is enabled or not for either an original or aftermarket SSD.

    It's always dangerous to impute motives to others, and especially so in the case of the typically secretive Apple. Nonetheless I'd guess that Apple, whose customer support is consistently rated well above that of other PC manufacturers, isn't going to endorse something it hasn't tested, and isn't going to test something it doesn't sell. Therefore OSX neither enables TRIM automatically for third party SSDs, nor prevents users from doing so themselves. Sound pretty neutral to me.
    Reply
  • PJCarmody - Tuesday, January 08, 2013 - link

    NCM,

    To your point "isn't going to endorse something it hasn't tested" - Apple is not being asked to endorse the third party options. Not for a moment. So your point is invalid.

    I like your open mind but let's face facts: Apple has a history of crippling third party competitors e.g. for storage.
    Reply
  • gw019 - Monday, September 16, 2013 - link

    "But nobody, OWC or otherwise, is going to say, "oh, yeah, our product supports TRIM, but you need to download this sketchy looking program from this guys blog to make it work. Good luck."

    Well, I am surprised but in fact Plextor did say something similar: http://www.plextoramericas.com/index.php/faq/22-ma...
    Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    Yeah, that's true. SandForce drives perform well when it comes to consistency and there is no big benefit from more OP (I've tested this with 240GB Intel SSD 335). Reply
  • Samus - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    I'm just dying for a mainstream Intel S3700 to hit the consumer corner... Reply
  • Beenthere - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    Few if anyone would be able to differentiate a noticeable actual system performance change no matter which one of the listed SSDs they chose. SanDisk hasn't yet learned how to dupe the benches but in due time their numbers will increase similar to the others.

    If you're going to buy an SSD you should do your homework so you know the liabilities and realities including reliability and campatibility issues, lost data, drive size change, etc. If you want an eye opener read the warranties on SSDs at the respective SSD mfg. websites.
    Reply
  • mrdude - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    "The drive PCB itself is very small, potentially paving the way for some interesting, smaller-than-2.5" form factors."

    That's the most interesting bit, I find. Those things are absolutely tiny. So tiny that it kind of makes you wonder if standardizing the NGFF cards is even worth it going forward. If you need small storage then you can just stick with the standard SATA connectors on an itsy bitsy drive.

    Very cool :)
    Reply
  • vol7ron - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    n-TB sizes that much more of a coming reality Reply
  • SmCaudata - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    I picked up a SanDisk extreme 240 last year for about 50¢ per GB and I'm happy. Even during black Friday I didn't see anything cheaper and this drive is fast. The difference between most ssd now is academic. User experience is nearly the same for average consumers. Reply
  • mayankleoboy1 - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    Isnt it the same that OCZ implemented in Vertex4 f/w 1.4 ? Reply
  • blowfish - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    So for XP users, would a drive that doesn't support Trim be the way to go, since MS decided not to add Trim to XP in order to push Win7? Reply
  • randinspace - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    Upgrading to Windows 7 (and pretending like 8 didn't happen even though it has enviable features...) is the way to go. Seriously speaking (upgrade), it's not like a drive that has TRIM support is going to be a bad thing even if you can't use it, but see the above comments about Sandforce controllers in general/Intel's 335 series SSDs in particular. Or even see the comments about hacking in TRIM support, IF YOU DARE!

    FWIW I'm very happy with the performance of my (240GB) 335. I'd probably buy another one to put in my laptop if they weren't going for $40 more than what I paid last month...
    Reply
  • dave_the_nerd - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    They all support TRIM. None REQUIRE it.

    If your OS doesn't support TRIM commands, you just have to find the drive with the best built-in GC routines. That used to be Sandforce, but I don't know anymore.
    Reply
  • kmmatney - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    With Samsung and Intel SSDs you can just run their toolbox software to do a manual TRIM. Iknow you can schedule it automatically with the Intel SSD Toolbox, and I think you can do that with the Samsung software as well. I've had a 40GB Intel SSD running on Windows XP for 2+ years and the TRIM scheduler works great. Reply
  • Flunk - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    If you want real performance you could make a versio of this that features two of these PCBs along with a RAID chip for enhanced performance. All in a 2.5" form factor would be quite compelling. Reply
  • bmgoodman - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    Sorry, but after the way SanDisk handled the TRIM issue on their SanDisk Extreme hard drives last year, I will NEVER buy from them again. I understand mistakes are made and things don't go as expected, but for the longest time they simply would not comment at all on the problem. Their response plan to bury their heads in the sand is NOT a strategy for good customer support.

    Quoth the raven, "nevermore!"
    Reply
  • magnetar - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    IMO, SanDisk handled the SandForce 5.0 firmware TRIM issue as it needed to be dealt with, carefully and professionally.

    The weak statement about it from a SanDIsk forum moderator that was buried in a thread started by a SanDisk customer was apparently missed by most of those concerned about this issue. That was a mistake. Responding to angry demands for a release date is not professional.

    The other SSD manufactures that provided the fixed firmware very quickly were not doing their customers a favor. That indicated to me that those manufactures did very little testing and verification of the new firmware. Considering that all the SSD manufactures that used the 5.0 firmware, and SandForce itself missed finding the problem, a careful approach with the new firmware was warranted.

    The firmware update SanDisk provided not only included the fixed firmware, but other fixes as well, including a fix for the incorrect temperature reading some of the Extreme SSDs had. SanDisk chose to provide one update with multiple fixes, rather than multiple firmware updates, which was the better option IMO. The more firmware updates necessary, the less professional the product is.

    The R211 firmware update program SanDisk provided was the best one I've ever used. Running in Windows, it worked with the SanDisk Ex connected to the Marvell 9128 SATA chipset! Any other firmware update programs can do that? The lack of complaints about that firmware update program in the SanDisk forum also indicates how good it is.

    No blemish on SanDisk IMO, actually exactly the opposite.
    Reply
  • Kevin G - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    Looking at the PCB for this drive makes me feel that this was a precursor to an mSATA version down the road. Hacking off the SATA and power connector for an edge connector looks like it'd be the right size. Kinda makes one wonder why they just didn't using a mSATA to SATA adapter in a 2.5" enclosure and launch both products simultaneously. Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    SanDisk X110 was launched alongside the Ultra Plus, which is essentially an mSATA version of the Ultra Plus. Reply
  • perrydoell - Tuesday, January 08, 2013 - link

    How about making the PCB 4x larger... 1GB SSD drive! Reply
  • vanwazltoff - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    most companies purposely put out a high performing ssd and a low performing ssd, this probably their low end or more likely they are trying to shrink power consumption and size for smaller form factors such as tablets. sandisks extreme ssd went toe to toe with an 830 and proved itself a worthy component with more leveled results than an 830. i am sure they will have answer to the 840 pro soon enough Reply
  • Death666Angel - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    The Extreme was a normal SF-2281 offering with Toggle Mode NAND. Nothing fancy about that imho. Reply
  • iaco - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    64 GB packages. Verrrry nice.

    Tells me what we've known all along: Apple has no excuse charging obscene prices for NAND on their iPads, iPhones and Macs. 64 GB probably costs what, $50 at retail? Apple wants $200 to upgrade from 16 to 64 GB.

    Maybe they'll finally get around to updating the iPod classic.
    Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    8GB 2-bit-per-cell MLC contract price is currently $4.58 ($0.57) on average according to inSpectrum. That would put the cost of 64GB MLC NAND to $36.50. Price depends on quality, though, but smartphones/tablets in general don't use the highest quality NAND (the best dies are usually preserved for SSDs, the second tier NAND is for phones/tablets). Reply
  • name99 - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    If you want to buy flash, buy flash.
    If you want to buy an iPod, buy an iPod.
    But DON'T whine that an iPod (or iPhone, or iPad) costs "too much" because the flash in it is cheap.

    It's not 2003. We all know Apple costs more (sometimes a little more, sometimes a lot more) than the competition. We also all know that Apple provides more (sometimes a little bit more, sometimes a lot more) than the competition. What we DON'T need is MORE fscking half-assed bitching about whether Apple does or does not "cost too much".

    You want to do that, go read the comments on any damn tech site for any year from about 1976 onwards. Just don't waste our time bringing up the issue on modern threads, especially threads that have NOTHING to do with the cost of Apple's products.
    Reply
  • Death666Angel - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    It's not Apples products only, this applies to all tablets/smartphones. Google charges 50$/€ for an 8/16GB upgrade. Also, if you want to whine about people whining about Apple, please don't. Reply
  • mayankleoboy1 - Monday, January 07, 2013 - link

    And if you want to whine about people whining about people whining about Apple, please dont. Reply
  • runeks - Monday, August 05, 2013 - link

    I really have to say I agree with this.

    This is not a choice between an Apple (or any other company's) device costing either "$n for a 16GB version and $n+200 for the 64GB" version or "$n for a 16GB version and $n+50 for the 64GB version". It's the choice between the former or a "$n+150 16GB version and a $n+200 64GB version". See? You're happy now, because the difference in price reflects the cost of the more expensive part. Except no one will every buy a 16GB version. Why would they? Only $50 more for 64GB. At the same time they would shut out a part of the market that just wants an iPhone, which they can get for $n, if you don't have the requirement of them only selling devices with largers capacity at the added cost for the part in question.

    Pricing is so much more than just the cost of a chip. It's the way the company makes its money back on an investment. They wouldn't be able to sell the larger capacity phone at +$50 because that would raise the price of the low capacity phone and shut out a part of the market that wants that $n phone. And these people would say "Oh, see, Samsung phones only cost $n for a 16GB version, why does an iPhone have to cost $n+150?" It's an eternal neverending loop of some segment of your customer base that are not quite satisfied. The people who really like the 64GB version are dissatisfied with paying $200 more than the 16GB version, but the people who only need 16GB are glad to be able to get it for $200 less than the 64GB version. You change the rules and you just make a different customer segment unhappy, or just unwilling to buy your product.
    Reply
  • SanX - Wednesday, January 09, 2013 - link

    4k read/write random/seq - 600MB/s
    8k read/write random/seq - 600MB/s
    128k read/write random/seq - 600MB/s

    8GB SDRAM power off safe cache
    Reply
  • zyk - Wednesday, January 09, 2013 - link

    It's nice to see Anand finally get some different brands to test, but unfortunately he probably missed the party on some key drives. There had been excellent prices on SanDisk's Extreme line of drives and it would have been nice to see how SanDisk's combination of high density / low die count toggle mode NAND stacked up against the likes of the Patriot Wildfire or OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS - Which was less extreme of a channel limitation as this marvell based drive. Also missing from his tests were drives from those such as Mushkin Enhanced who's Chronos Deluxe was frequently the cheapest togglemode+sandforce 2nd gen drive on newegg. Since all these other brands are missing from Anand's testing, it would be nice to get these charts to show a little bit more details in them about controller and NAND type rather than just linkspeed and occationally firmware version, so they don't have to be constantly looked up when making decisions. Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Wednesday, January 09, 2013 - link

    I finally got a Chronos Deluxe from Mushkin. I originally asked for it over 6 months ago (due to reders' request) but there were some issues with getting in contact with Mushkin.

    I think Anand also has a SanDisk Extreme.

    To be honest, there aren't big differences between SandForce based SSDs. Corsair Force GS is an example of a SF-2281 drive with Toggle Mode NAND and FW 5.x.x, all similar SSDs I've tested (coming soon!) perform very similarly.
    Reply
  • fritz33 - Friday, July 12, 2013 - link

    I just bought a Lenovo X201 Tablet. Can i use this drive with activated Windows 7 Bitlocker? Will Bitlocker slow down this drive and wear it down noticeable? Or does this drive have a hardware encrypten like the Crucial M500 from your review? If so how would i use it instaed of Bitlocker? I am sorry but I don't have any experience in encrypted drive. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now