SSD season spring-2011. New OCZ, Intel and G.Skill : Specs| Hashrate

SSD season spring-2011. New OCZ, Intel and G.Skill
– Today will will take a look at the Specs, Hashrate, CPU performance and also a testing of this SSD Drive. We will go into more details as it regards to the testing in the article below.

Spring is the time for change! So the manufacturers of solid state drives have presented new lines of their products. I propose to dispense with historical excursions and go straight to the point: let’s see how successful these SSDs turned out to be.

OCZ Vertex 3

140x200  7 KB. Big one: 697x1000  89 KB

250x126  5 KB. Big one: 2867x1450  315 KB

No, the photo is not prohibited by censorship, it is really a black box with no inscriptions … A pre-production 240 GB sample has arrived to me. In this model, the manufacturer used all the most advanced technologies: the SATA-III interface, microcircuits of the “20-nanometer series” and the SandForce SF-2200 controller. As a result, the declared speeds exceed 500 MB / s, both for reading and writing.

Intel 510

announcements and advertisements

140x200  9 KB. Big one: 701x1000  149 KB
140x200  6 KB. Big one: 702x1000  135 KB

250x126  9 KB. Big one: 1000x503  71 KB

Protecting the honor and dignity of the next generation of Intel drives will be this 120GB model. Unfortunately, it was not possible to get a more capacious copy for testing, because an SSD has a larger volume, the higher the speed. It won’t be easy for him to face the Vertex 3.

It’s a pity that I didn’t get a representative of the 320th line, which has a thinner 25nm process technology and is equipped with only a SATA-II interface. It would be interesting to compare them all together.

G.Skill Phoenix EVO

140x200  10 KB. Big one: 715x1000  122 KB
140x200  10 KB. Big one: 715x1000  155 KB

250x113  7 KB. Big one: 1000x450  47 KB

G.Skill also recently announced a new SSD line called Phoenix EVO. It features a SandForce 1200 series controller, state-of-the-art memory and SATA 3Gb / s interface. Not to be confused with SATA 3. Noteworthy is the size of the device: 115 GB – it seems that with new microcircuits the manufacturer is forced to reserve more free space for business needs.

Intel X25-M G2

140x200  8 KB. Big one: 704x1000  123 KB
140x200  5 KB. Big one: 705x1000  82 KB

250x124  8 KB. Big one: 1000x496  57 KB

This “old” model (already five months after the announcement) is taking part in the review as a reference. With its help, you can compare the results of new participants with the data in this article, but keep in mind that the configuration of the test bench has changed, you need to compare not absolute, but relative values.

Summary table of technical characteristics:


OCZ Vertex 3

Intel 510

G.Skill Phoenix EVO

Intel X25-M G2

Model number

pre-production sample




Volume, GB





Form factor










Firmware version





Process technology, nm






SandForce SF-2200

Marvell 88SS9174

SandForce SF-1222

Intel PC29AS21BA0

Maximum read speed, MB / s





Maximum write speed, MB / s





Maximum random read speed, IOPS




Maximum random write speed, IOPS





Test stand:

  • Motherboard: Asus P8H67-M EVO (B2 stepping chipset, BIOS 1502);
  • Processor: Intel Core i7-2600K, 3.4 GHz (HT off, TB on);
  • Cooling system: Scythe Yasya;
  • Thermal interface: KPT-8;
  • RAM: Samsung M378B5673FH0-CH9, PC3-10600 (1333 MHz, 9-9-9-24), 2×2 GB;
  • Hard drive: WD Raptor WD740ADFD-00NLR5, 74 GB;
  • Video card: Radeon 6950, 1 GB GDDR5 (engineering sample);
  • Power supply unit: Enermax Modu 87+, 700 W.

Software used:

  • Operating system: Windows 7 x64 SP1 Ultimate RUS;
  • Operating system updates: all as of 04/12/2011;
  • Driver for video card: Catalyst 11.3;
  • Driver for SATA controller: Intel RST 10.1, controller operates in RAID mode.

Testing technique

Global settings:

  • The operating system does not have any antivirus installed that can affect disk performance measurements, including Windows Defender;
  • For the same reason, the file indexing service is disabled;
  • Disabled Windows UAC, which made it impossible for some test programs to work.
  • At the time of taking measurements, background monitoring programs such as Crystal Disk info, HWMonitor, perfmon counters and others are not used.
  • The disk write cache is enabled (in the device manager, in the disk properties on the policy tab, the checkbox “Allow write caching for this device” is checked). “Enhanced Performance” is not activated. Typically, the default drive is configured like this, but you still need to make sure.
  • SATA-III drives were tested in both SATA-III and SATA-II modes. SATA-II drives were connected to the SATA-III port.

The set of test applications remained almost the same as in my previous article, but some of the readers’ wishes were taken into account.

  • HD Tune Pro 4.60. One of the most popular benchmarks for drives, but I increasingly doubt the objectivity of its results, especially in the case of SSDs. Details in the next section.
  • Crystal Disk Mark 3.0 x64. A popular test that measures the speed of a disk in eight modes: read and write with sequential access, in random mode in large blocks of 512 KB, small blocks of 4 KB, and the same 4-KB requests with a disk queue length of 32 requests. The effectiveness of the NCQ and load parallelization mechanisms is checked. The default settings were applied, namely a five-time run on a 1000 MB segment.
  • Intel NAS Performance Toolkit 1.7.1. NASPT is a very powerful test, comparable in functionality to IOMeter and designed primarily for testing network drives. I use only the basic functionality that displays the average speed of standard tests.
  • FC-test 1.0 build 11. In previous reviews, the program worked on two NTFS partitions of 32 GB each. This time it was decided to use the full capacity of the disks and split them in half. Before the start of each measurement, the computer was rebooted, the whole process is fully automated.As test suites, we used the Install templates (414 files with a total volume of 575 MB), ISO (3 files with a total volume of 1600 MB) and Programs (8504 files with a total volume of 1380 MB). For each set, we measured the speed of writing the entire set of files to the disk (Create test), the speed of reading these files from the disk (Read), the speed of copying files inside one logical disk (Copy near), and the speed of copying to the second logical disk (Copy far). Windows’ aggressive write caching skews the results in the Create test, and the two methods for copying to SSD are no different, so I’ll limit myself to publishing the remaining two results for each template.
  • WinRAR 4.0 x64. A new version of the archiver was used, not 3.93, as last time. The reference file was a zipped Windows 7 folder. 83,000 files with a total volume of 15 GB were compressed to 5.6 GB using the standard method. Measurements have shown that the disk compression speed is minimally affected, therefore, to save your time and yours, only unpacking into a neighboring folder was tested.
  • Microsoft Office 2007 Small Business Edition. In this and all subsequent tests, the drives were system drives: the reference Windows image, including all test programs and files, was uploaded using Acronis True Image 11. The installation time was measured from the distribution kit, which was a copy of the original CD (several folders with CAB, MSI and XML files ).
  • Crysis Warhead. The shooter, popular at the time, was used to test the speed of installation and download. The choice fell on him, since it was previously revealed that the “dis-dependence” of this game is one of the strongest. The installation was carried out from the original DVD, unpacked to the system disk in the form of a set of folders. The launch was carried out through the Framebuffer Benchmarking Tool 0.32 with the following settings:
    • Mode: Gamer
    • API: DirectX 10
    • Global Configuration: 64 bit
    • Display resolution: 1920 x 1200
    • FSAA: AA 0x
    • Loops: 1
    • Map: ambush
    • Time of Day: default
  • Photoshop CS5. Everyone’s favorite graphic editor was installed from an ISO image connected with Daemon tools lite. Both versions (x32 and x64) with an English interface were installed and the installation time was measured. As in the last time, the scheme from this specialized forum was used, namely, this script, which creates an image of 18661×18661 pixels and performs several actions with it. The total execution time was measured without pauses between operations. In an amicable way, such things require a huge amount of RAM, so the test drives, in fact, boils down to checking the speed of work with a scratch file and a Windows swap file. Photoshop was allowed to occupy 90% of the memory, the rest of the settings remained at default.
  • Virtualbox 4.0.4 At the request of the workers, I will try a virtual machine as a benchmark. For this, Windows XP was installed in it with all the updates. The volume of the virtual hard disk is 10 GB, the amount of dedicated RAM is 1 GB. We measured the startup time from the saved state and the duration of a clean boot (from pressing the Start button while the machine was turned off to the appearance of the Windows desktop).VT-x, and Nested Paging were not used, although the necessary checkboxes were set in the vehicle properties. The top-end K-series processors do not support another technology, VT-d, and the home chipsets P67 and H67 do not support it on any processor of the Sandy Brigde family, but this is different. VT-x should work, but the fact is, Virtualbox refused to use both VT-d and Nested Paging, although they work fine on the X58 platform.
  • Boot Windows 7. Three time intervals were measured: the interval from the moment the “power” button was pressed until the appearance of the Windows logo, the time until the appearance of the Windows desktop, and the time until the end of loading applications: Word 2007, Excel 2007, Acrobat Reader X and Photoshop CS5 were located at startup, opening the corresponding files. In addition, Fraps, Daemon tools and Intel RST started in the background. The end of the download, I considered the appearance of the photo in Photoshop, the rest of the applications started earlier.Also, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the values ​​from the Windows log. Read more about this little-known trick here. Which of the suggested methods do you think is more correct? I would be glad to receive your comments on the forum.