text:
All fields are required.
Train tickets from Amsterdam to Paris by Thalys.
Departure from Amsterdam Centraal station to Gare du Nord. Trip duration: 3:20 hr
Fares, Promotions, & Conditions
Promotional Fares:
Thalys Train Tickets - Terms and Conditions:
b) Senior and Youth Fares: Senior fares are valid for persons 60+ years old.
c) Seat Reservations (Passholder fare): Requires a valid rail pass. We only can book it for travelers who have purchased their rail passes through our company.
d) All tickets are subject to confirmation. The tickets have a variable horizon for booking, normally 60 to 90 days within trip date. A booking confirmation will be sent as soon as the booking have been processed.
d) All fares are per person in US Dollars, subject to to change before the booking processing
e) E-tickets: The way for retrieve or use instructions will be sent with the booking confirmation by email. The tickets should be retrieved and printed at train station or printed at home as instructed in booking confirmation.
f) Physical Tickets: The tickets are sent by FedEx, with the selected shipping option to the informed shipping address.
g) Tickets Protection: An good option for you travel in peace in mind. Reimbursement and General rules as described at General Terms and Conditions.
h) Handling fee: all bookings are subject to US$ 18 handling fee (if informed in checkout process).
Thalys Services
In order to ensure passenger safety, Thalys reminds you that you should arrive on the platform 2 minutes before the departure of the train at the latest. After this time, access may be refused. Wifi available in all lines.
In 1st class (Comfort 1) our hostesses and stewards are at your service. They can assist you with finding your seat and help you to make yourself comfortable when you board the train.
The staff are multilingual and are committed to ensuring that you have a pleasant trip.
The Train Managers are responsible for welcoming you and for your safety, and will be able to answer your questions and to assist you in the event of any difficulty while travelling.
You will find a large range of dishes at the ThalysBar or served at your seat (1st class)
Assistance to Passengers with Reduced Mobility


text:
Very Hard Pics Honami uehara photo
Hard Sex, Fetish, Femdom, Latex, Extreme, Bizarre, Perverted, Bitch, Pissing, Domination, Fisting, Footjob pics.
out of
Honami uehara
Jolly Honami Uehara posing almost naked and getting nailed
Click here
for: Honami uehara
Uehara Ai Tits Gif
Hana Uehara Xxx
Ai Uehara Cumshot Gif
Honami Uehara Nurse Pic
Ai Uehara Blowjob
Hana Uehara Cum
Ai Uehara Av
Ai Uehara Sex Gif
Ai Uehara Cum On Face
Hana Uehara Sex
Honami Uehara Xxx
Japanese Ai Uehara Fucking
Hanomi Uehara Pussy Tumbir
Ai Uehara Bus Nude
Ai Uehara And Yui Hatano Nude
Hana Uehara Sucks The Cock Xxx Videos
Mizuho Uehara Pic
Ai Uehara Cumshot
Fhgjschoolgirl Ai Uehara Schoolgirl Rides Chair
Hana Uehara Cumshoot
Foto Ngentot Mizuho Uehara
Honami Uehara Big Xxxgif
Big Black Cock Ai Uehara
Ai Uehara Gif
Hinano Uehara Sex Pics
Hana Uehara Ass
Uehara Ai Cum In Mouth Tumblr
Uehara Ai Tumblr
Ai Uehara Anal Photo
Ai Uehara Tits
Ai Uehara Lesbian Tumblr
Ai Uehara Anal Pic
Ai Uehara Love To Suck And Fuck Porn Video
Uehara Anal Tumblr
Uehara Ai Pussy Gif Tumblr
Uehara Ai Gallery
Galleri Ai Uehara Dildo
Hana Uehara Sex In Bus Pic
Honami Uehara Anal Pic
Download Video Bokep Hana Uehara
Big Booty Ai Uehara Porn Pic
Japanese Teacher Ai Uehara
Foto Making Love Honami Uehara
Ai Uehara Porn Gif
Ai Uehara Africa Black Guy
Amazing Group Sex Tsubasa Amami And Ai Uehara 3gp
Hinano Uehara Naked
Hana Uehara Fuck Bus
Honami Uehara Gif
Foto Ngentot Yui Uehara
Images Gif Porn Star Japanese Ai Uehara
Hana Uehara Bus
Honami Uehara Sperma
Ai Uehara Fuck Oldman
All models depicted on this Website were 18 or older when the images were created. Very Hard Pics is a global porn search engine, we index and provide our visitors the most convenient way to search the best porn pics ever posted on the Internet. Very Hard Pics has a zero-tolerance policy against illegal porn. Very Hard Pics does not host any pics on its servers. All porn pictures and porn videos/photos are provided by third party tube sites, and we have no control over the content on these sites. Also, we take no responsibility for the content on any website which we link to.
Remove content

subset: commoncrawl


text:
HOUSTON - A man was shot and killed Thursday in a pre-screening area at Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, authorities said.
Houston Police Department spokesman Kese Smith told reporters that the man had just come through the doors in Terminal B when he fired at least one shot into the ceiling.
A Homeland Security Investigations agent was working in an office near the scene, came out and told the man to drop his weapon. The agent fired once at the suspect, who appeared to try to shoot himself at the same time.
An autopsy will determine whose bullet killed the man, who has not been identified, police said.
Rebecca McCormick, a CNN iReporter, was just getting off a plane when she saw people running towards her and shouting and screaming. She talked to Grant Huff of Charleston, South Carolina, who heard the shots.
"After the first two gunshots everyone stopped and kinda looked" thinking it might be a fallen chair or something like that, he said. "A TSA gentleman came out and said, 'Everybody get down.' We heard two more gunshots."
Everyone took off running, Huff said.
As iReporter McCormick recounted her interview with Huff, an airport announcement could be heard asking people to stay where they were because everyone had to be interviewed before they could leave.
The Federal Aviation Administration said on its website that many flights bound for Bush were being held at their departure airports.
Copyright 2013 by CNN NewSource. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


text:
NVIDIA Synergy to Bring Optimus to Desktopsby Kristian Vättö on 4/27/2011 12:43 AM EST
34 Comments
Back to Article
fluxtatic - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - linkI've been waiting for this for years...although I will continue to wait, apparently, as I'm an AMD man, proc-wise, and will continue to be. Bring me Bulldozer with switchable graphics, and then kill me, as I'm unlikely to ever be that happy again. Reply
Zendax - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - linkAt first I was sad that this apparently won't work with GTX 200 series GPUs, but then I remembered my i7-860 doesn't come with integrated graphics anyway.
This is a good change for those of us who like to have equally powerful and power hungry graphics card, but don't want them chewing away on power when they're not necessary. Especially with the powerful IGP on the high-end SNB processors, this makes a lot of sense. Reply
slyck - Friday, April 29, 2011 - linkSandy's IGP powerful? Guess I wouldn't stretch it quite that far. If it's so "powerful", why have a dedicated card? Reply
dananski - Saturday, April 30, 2011 - linkPowerful enough for accelerating e.g. flash playback and other minor things you used to need dedicated cards for. You don't really want your gaming card with its high idle power on at those times if you can help it. Reply
iGo - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - linkBack in 2009, when I met Anand sir I had discussed this him. At that time nVidia and ATi was working on not-too-similar but related tech called Hybrid SLi/Crossfire. That is using their own IGP with dGPUs in SLi or Crossfire mode. The query that I had asked was, instead of running them Crossfire or SLi why NV/ATI doesn't make switchable graphics. Running IGP on normal operation and switching to dGPU for demanding tasks like Gaming/HD Decoding etc. thus saving power in normal day-to-day operation. Anand sir did mention that it might come to that, but if GPU chips also started using power-gating like CPUs then idle power consumptions wouldn't be an issue.
Thankfully, to QuickSync there is a very compelling reason for switchable graphic on desktop. Plus, current generation IGPs are powerful enough to handle HD decoding tasks negating the need for powerful dGPU to handle HD video. Hope ATi comes up with their solution also quickly. Too bad for Lucid/virtu, although inability to access dGPU native control panels was kind of a bummer for Virtu (when IGP was used in primary mode and dGPU was used in virtualized mode). The other way around enabled the panel access (NVC or CCC) but by keeping the dGPU always active and scrapping the power saving benefits. Reply
Shadowmaster625 - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - linkThe trouble with quicksync is that it will be useless when a new codec comes along that delivers twice the compression (along with 8 times the cpu usage, but with 8 cores who cares?). It has been a long time since we've had a major breakthrough in encoding technology but that could change in an instant. Reply
shawngmc - Monday, May 02, 2011 - linkNot necessarily... By then, firmware may have advanced to the point that quick sync might be usable with a discrete GPU. Then, you can have interesting solutions, such as HW-to-HW transcoding. For example, let's say you've downloaded or recorded video in a newer codec. The flexible GPU could decode and hand off to the CPU, which could reencode in H.264 for other devices that don't support the new format (like an iPod). Plus, even as better formats exist, not all video gets instantly converted to it.
It's true that a new format likely won't work with QuickSync, but any new codec might also be optimized for more efficient computation. I'm not a compression software expert, but I am a software developer, and if I was going to make a compression format today, bandwidth would honestly be the smallest priority in my mind. I'd be focusing on processor usage (since we are moving towards mobile devices with ever-increasing bandwidth but few battery life gains) and better quality (artifact reduction and/or dealing with dropped keyframes better).
I'm not saying your point is wrong, per se, just that it's not the be-all-end-all. Reply
Hrel - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - link"You also don't have to worry about new GPU drivers breaking support with Virtu, as NVIDIA handles all of that in their own drivers." I think you meant with Synergy.
As far as the article, at most I can say "eh". I'm still running LGA775 with GTX460. I have intention of changing that till USB 3.0 is natively supported as well as full 6MBPS SATA. I'm thinking/hoping summer/fall 2012.
As far as Optimus goes I'm FAR FAR more interested in seeing it implemented on laptops with the GTX460 and up. Mostly just the GTX460 personally cause that's the GPU I want; but there's no reason it can't be on EVERY GPU.
I see the advantage of switchable graphics on the desktop; especially as a casual video editor. But really, on my wish list that's pretty far down there. Nvidia GPU's do a pretty darn good job of speeding up rendering times all on their own. Intels way isn't much (if at all) better. And really with their motherboard failures and constant socket switching and apparent inability to use a technology that feels old at this point (USB 3.0, SATA 6MBPS) and price gauging of their customers I really am about to jump ship to becoming an AMD only guy. Intel is just pissing me off lately. My Penryn kicks butt; however if they don't stop being so greedy, and stupid with the sockets and SB USB support, I will buy AMD only out of spite.
I do still prefer Nvidia GPU's though when I can get them at fair prices. For several reasons. Reply
Hrel - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - linkI have no intention* Reply
JarredWalton - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - linkNo, I meant GPU drivers breaking support with Virtu -- as in, the latest version of Virtu only lists support for the 260.89 and 260.99 drivers from NVIDIA, which are now about four months old. Maybe it still works -- I don't have hardware to test it on -- but the fact that their release notes explicitly state that they added support for the 260.99 drivers makes me nervous.
PS -- Yes, I edited and wrote some of this article. :-) Reply
Kristian Vättö - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - linkIf you look at the Sandy Bridge article, you will see that QuickSync boosted the transcoding by up to 100%. It was tested with NVIDIA GTX 460 though, so I don't know how much faster e.g. GTX 580 would be. If I recall correctly, NVIDIA transcoding also suffered from some quality issues (it's been awhile since I read that article so might be that it is fixed or I remember incorrectly).
We are all entitled to make out own choices though so if you find AMD better, don't hesitate to buy one. Bulldozer looks very promising :) Reply
ratana - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - linkYawn...I keep all my CPUs and GPUs at 100% Folding so who cares? besides, I am in the demographic that doesn't even think about electricity bills. Reply
lowenz - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - linkA question: is it possible a "reverse" approach as Lucid Virtu can do?
Connecting the output to discrete VGA and virtualize the IGP for Quick Sync..... Reply
pubjoe - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - link"besides, I am in the demographic that doesn't even think about electricity bills".
Haha. What demographic would that be? The one who pops to the shops in a hummer or a Lambo?
Efficiency is ALWAYS a good thing and it's about much more than money (if you're able to stop thinking about it!).
For one, this technology can dramatically increase the life of high-clocked multiGPU configurations as well as the system they run in.
But then perhaps the demographic that doesn't care about electricity usage also happily tosses burnt out computers in their local river.
Well done for folding, but surely you can see that any step toward less wastage of energy and hardware is a very good thing for everybody. Reply
erple2 - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - linkCuriously, if you're not running your desktop at 100%, it's wasting electricity as it is. You should probably have instead purchased an extremely low power machine (that runs fine on a 150W PSU), and a serious power machine that has the muscle when you need it. Trying to buy for an outside chance possibility is asking for cutting too many corners when it comes to efficiency.
It's a similar argument made about servers. If the server isn't at near-100% utilization, you've wasted money on overbuying for a use case you don't use. Reply
pubjoe - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - linkI agree.
Nothing's ever 100% efficient, but steps like this are at least in the right direction.
For the record, I don't have a beefy gpu by the way. Reply
ratana - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - linkWell, I suppose it is my own demo, since i don't have any bills to pay and I have like 200 Tesla 2070s (6GB) running 24/7 in my lab doing DNA matching with a custom C++/CUDA app we built to BLAST and run Smith-Waterman. This is a gov lab, so I don't pay the bills, the US taxpayer gracefully does. Useful stuff too, when I can match a DNA seq between Arabidopsis and mouse in less than a couple of days, i can tell the vaccine guys if they are on target or not, saving the US so we can accumulate more adipose cells on the backside whilst filling the vaccuum between the ears with re-runs of Serenity and Red Dwarf.. Reply
pubjoe - Thursday, April 28, 2011 - linkRighty-ho. Reply
bunga28 - Friday, April 29, 2011 - linkSociety is paying for it. Humanity is paying for it. Your children and grand children are going to pay for it. Hell, I'm paying taxes therefore, I am paying for it. Your mentality is similar to those in Congress is that, if they don't directly pay for things then they can be wasteful. When are we, as a society, going to take responsibility (and castrate people like you)? As a famous person used to say, "some people should pro-create." And I think that you are a perfect example of that person. Reply
bunga28 - Friday, April 29, 2011 - link"some people shouldn't pro-create." Reply
chaoticlusts - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - linkI've been wanting this for ages..hell if this had of been announced before I bought my HD6950 it may well have been the tipping point to go Nvidia instead (as it was the tipping point was being able to unlock the 6950)
Also as a random note the new name of Synergy is kinda hilarious for a power saving feature...the power company in my state (Western Australia) in named Synergy so if I get Synergy on my next GPU upgrade then Synergy will be making Synergy lose money :P Reply
Neoarun - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - linkWell Optimus is really an awesome application till now i never found out when it switches graphics from IGP to dgpu and it would be better if synergy works the same. Nvidia as it logo, is going GREEN :) now a days providing room heaters with graphic card :) Reply
pelov - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - linkyea, I hope they tackle the issue of massive power consumption by nvidia cards under full load as well. They just always seem to chew through more power than comparative AMD cards (whereas the idle power consumption is relatively the same).
Using the IGP (and maybe even APU?) for non-graphic intensive tasks is fantastic and a great power saving measure, but currently the most available nvidia modern class of graphics cards on mobile devices like laptops are the 400 series, and those things are the pickup trucks of GPUs. The 500 series isn't much better off and still trails behind AMD in wattage, so i guess what I'm saying is: Great. but where's the rest?
furthermore, llano is almost here and we're only going to see better and better graphics offerings in an APU by both AMD and Intel. this just seems like a way for nvidia to hang on for dear life in the laptop market without addressing the real issue. It's a great idea, but it's limited in its market and it only partially goes after the real problem. Reply
Den - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - linkI'd been planning to replace my original C2D E6600 with SNB when x67 came out but I had not decided yet between AMD and Nvidia graphics. I'd really like to be able to do this though, so that means Nvidia for me.
Now I wonder though, would it work with SLI? Reply
Kristian Vättö - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - linkIf you buy a mobo with Z68 chipset, then Synergy should work with SLI as well (at least according to VR-Zone's slide). Reply
hechacker1 - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - linkBesides QuickSync (which is nice if you don't care about quality but speed), new GPUs idle at around 20-40W.
I'm guessing activating and switching between integrated video and discrete isn't going to save that much for a desktop user with a modern GPU. Plus you have to deal with any driver issues that brings. And you have to connect your monitor to the integrated video output. Reply
JarredWalton - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - linkNVIDIA has been doing this with Optimus for over a year, so they've gotten pretty good at it. Is it perfect? No. But 20 to 40W is pretty steep if you're only consuming 100W. My particular gaming system idles at around 185W, and a large chunk of that is the GPU (HD 5870, so this wouldn't help). I'd guess it's at least 60W at idle, considering when I had two 5850 cards I was sitting at 150W idle. (The second CF card can go into a very low power state, apparently.) Reply
Shining Arcanine - Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - linkWhen will this be available on Linux? Does Nvidia intend to cede the entire market to ATI and Intel? Reply
Slaimus - Thursday, April 28, 2011 - linkWhy is video encoding even using the GPU like QuickSync? Why not run it through the much touted AVX units? Each core should have its own 256-bit AVX unit. Reply
DesktopMan - Sunday, May 01, 2011 - linkSandy Bridge CPUs have dedicated hardware for video encoding/decoding. It's not strictly speaking "using the GPU" as nVidia and AMD does for encoding. Even if the functionality is made available through the GPU drivers. Reply
Wolfpup - Saturday, April 30, 2011 - linkGreaaaaaaat. I don't want Sloptimus on a notebook, and actively avoid notebooks using any switchable graphics (at least with Intel CPUs...I assume AMD can pull it off better with a Phenom II and their integrated graphics).
Just...swell...that it and Intel's Flaphics are going to infect desktops too. Reply
flyvog6 - Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - linksells clothing,footwear,handbags,Sunglasses
Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!
Our Website: ===== www voguecatch com ====
Our main product list is as follows: Reply
flyvog6 - Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - link
sells clothing,footwear,handbags,Sunglasses
Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!
Our Website: ===== www. flyingstyle org ====
Our main product list is as follows: Reply
aa0101bb - Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - linksells clothing,footwear,handbags,Sunglasses
Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!
Our Website: ===== w w w voguecatch com ====
Our main product list is as follows: Reply


text:
Mr. T, Barbra Streisand, Christian Slater, Jimmy Kimmel, Sarah Silverman, a Guy Fieri impostor and most recently, Eminem. What do they all have in common? Very awkward in-game interviews that left viewers scratching their heads. Going back to the very early days of Monday Night Football, the in-game celebrity interview has been a major part of sports television. However, unless the celebrity turns his or personality on, they rarely come off well. Well, in the case of Silverman, maybe the personality had to be turned off. No matter, these interviews usually bring the game broadcast to a screeching halt because the announcing team is distracted from the action and has to pay attention to stroking the celebrity's ego. It's taken a few days, but we have compiled a list of some of the most awkward celebrity interviews in the history of sports television. We've tried to cull video wherever it's possible. In other cases, your humble writer will try to recreate the moment. Feel free to add a celebrity interview. There could be a follow-up post in the future. The list is in chronological order. 1983 -- Bob Costas Interviews Mr. T NBC was televising Super Bowl XVII between Miami and Washington and scheduled the premiere of "The A-Team" to follow the game. So the producers sent a young Bob Costas to interview the star of the show, Mr. T. Back then as he is now, Mr. T. was known for his Mandinka hairstyle and wearing gold jewelry. Costas in his infinite wisdom decided to ask Mr. T., "I speak for most Americans in asking when you'll get rid of the jewelry, ditch the angry young man thing and slip into a nice three-piece suit and a pair of Thom McAn's." If you're not aware, Thom McAn was a shoe store chain and sold "comfortable" footwear. Needless to say, Mr. T. paused and stared back at Costas to which Roberto thew it back to announcers Dick Enberg and Merlin Olsen who continued their commentary of the game. On an Awkward Scale of 0 to -10, minus 10 being extremely awkward, this gets a -4 as it was also amusing as much as it was awkward. 1992 -- Barbra Streisand at the U.S. Open I remember watching this live. Andre Agassi was playing an early round match and USA Network's Michael Barkann went to interview the famous actress/singer. An aside, wasn't it great when USA Network aired multiple sporting events? Anyway, this was a period when Agassi and Ms. Streisand were quite friendly and there were rumors that they were dating. I'm not sure if they were actually dating, but in this clip, you'll hear Streisand gush over Agassi to the point where it's almost to the point of Thom Brenamman glowing over Tim Tebow. I'm not kidding. Zenmaster? I thought the only Zenmaster was Phil Jackson! On the Awkward Scale, this receives a -9. Very awkward. 2006 -- Christian Slater Doesn't Care About Football This begins a series of strange Monday Night Football interviews on this list. When ESPN obtained the rights to MNF, the network tried to imitate the early days of the series by bringing in celebrities to increase viewership. ESPN forgot that it was a sports network and sports fans were watching the game for the action, not for celebrities in the booth. So Mike Tirico, Tony Kornheiser and Joe Theismann were stuck with these awkward discussions with celebrities who didn't care. Example A was Christian Slater who for some reason made an appearance on MNF. To this day, it's not really known what Slater was promoting or why he was in the booth. Tirico asked Slater if he was a football fan and the response was "I have a lot of friends who are football fans." Try to find a video of this interview. ESPN is so embarassed about this period, it was wiped all evidence of this interview from YouTube. On the Awkward Scale, Christian Slater receives a -15. Extrremely awkward. 2007 -- Jimmy Kimmel Gets Banned While Kimmel has been in the news for that fake twerking video, he was also in the news back in 2007 for a very funny appearance on Monday Night Football that got him banned from the series. This is on the list more for the end result than the actual appearance. During the New York Giants-Atlanta Falcons game, Kimmel entered the booth in the third quarter and proceeded to napalm the announcing team of Tirico, Kornheiser and Theismann replacement Ron Jaworski. Kimmel commented that it was Jaworski who got Theismann fired from MNF. Kimmel also asked Mr. Tony and Jaws if they had ever bet on games. Kimmel's funniest comment was "I'd also like to welcome Joe Theismann, watching from his living room with steam coming from his ears." However, ESPN was not laughing and announced the following day that Kimmel was no longer invited to appear in the booth. It didn't matter as the following season, the celebrity interviews were killed. On the Awkward Scale, the appearance receives a -1, but ESPN's reaction receives a -8. 2007 -- Russell Crowe Mumbles Through MNF Interview Two weeks after Kimmel's appearance that put the MNF celebrity interviews on life support, the Russell Crowe barely audible interview killed them off for good. During the Indianapolis at Jacksonville game, Crowe came on to talk about his upcoming movie, "American Gangster" and discuss the Australian rugby team that he owned, but instead, he was interrupted by a safety and commercial break. In addition, Crowe mumbled so much, he was barely understandable. By the time Mike Tirico bid him goodbye, viewers wondered what exactly happened. On the Awkward Scale, this gets a -7. 2009 -- Guy Fieri Impostor Dupes Fox Sports Kansas City You can argue whether Guy Fieri is an actual celebrity, but the man has his own Food Network show, has hosted a game show and owns several restaurants. In this interview, Guy Fieri impostor barely says anything, pulls out the cell phone and blows off the reporter, but the interviewer just continues and genuflects at the Fieri altar. Soon afterwards, Fieri went on social media to declare that it was not him on Fox Sports Kansas City and he was not in KC at the time. On the Awkward Scale, -8 for this very strange interview. 2011 -- Sarah Silverman Makes LSD Reference to Joe Buck Unlike AA fearless leader Matt Yoder, I am a fan of Sarah Silverman, but like our Fearless Leader, I was wondering why Fox chose to have comedian Sarah Silverman in booth during a primetime Red Sox-Yankees game. Apparently, Fox did not learn the lessons from ESPN's Monday Night Football celebrity interviews. Sarah's interview interrupted the flow of the game and while it was nice to know that she grew up a Red Sox fan as a fellow New Englander, I did not need have Joe Buck attempt to carry her along to fill the 5th inning. Tim McCarver sat there like a potted plant and did not know what to do. And while Sarah did not attempt to make any references to any of the players, she did make a reference to former Pittsburgh Pirates pitcher Doc Ellis who admitted to pitching on LSD back in the 1970's. Buck tried to hush-hush her. And at the beginning, she made reference to "Massholes,' what Massachusetts residents lovingly call themselves, but Fox excised it from the broadcast. At end of the video, Joe and Sarah did not know the delay bleeped it out. The Awkward Scale gives this interview a -6. 2013 -- Eminem and Brent Musburger No need to rehash this interview as it's still fresh, but here's the video so you can enjoy it again. The Awkward Scale awards this a -10, but it still doesn't surpass the Christian Slater interview for Most Awkward. That concludes this list of Most Awkward In-Game Celebrity Interviews. Again, feel free to add your own in the comments below. There could be a sequel if there are enough responses.
Entertainment News
Delivered to your inbox
You'll also receive Yardbarker's daily Top 10, featuring the best sports stories from around the web. Customize your newsletter to get articles on your favorite sports and teams. And the best part? It's free!
|Best of Yardbarker
|NFL News
|MLB News
Today's Best Stuff
For Bloggers
Join the Yardbarker Network for more promotion, traffic, and money.
Company Info
What is Yardbarker?
Yardbarker is the largest network of sports blogs and pro athlete blogs on the web. This site is the hub of the Yardbarker Network, where our editors and algorithms curate the best sports content from our network and beyond.
|© 2014 Yardbarker, Inc. All rights reserved. Use of this website (including any and all parts and components) constitutes your acceptance of these Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. (What's New?)


text:
ROME, Ga. - Authorities in Georgia said a man donning a costume of the Burger King mascot was caught dancing and handing out free burgers inside of a McDonald's restaurant last week.
The Rome-News Tribune reported that the unwelcome fast food invader posed for photos with children and placed Burger King burgers on the restaurant's counter before slipping out the front doors.
According to the newspaper, when the restaurant's manager approached the man, he said he was collecting for charity, but the manager said no funds exchanged hands.
Police were called to the scene, but the culprit left before officers arrived.
A video of the prank was posted on YouTube by a group calling itself The Woodcreek Faction, which as received more than 350,000 views.
To read the original story, click here.Burger King invades McDonald's
Distributed by LAKANA. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


text:
The Intel SSD 510 Reviewby Anand Lal Shimpi on 3/2/2011 1:23 AM EST
- Posted in
- Storage
- IT Computing
- SSDs
- Intel
- Intel SSD 510
128 Comments
Back to Article
deadsmeat - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkI am not sure if I missed it, but will you do a price/performance for SSDs? For example, and Intel or Corsair SSD migth be the fastest, but if it has a good price/performance vs the fastest SSD then it's something that consumers might consider when getting an SSD.
I don't have a clear "performance" since you have run many benchmark in there, but something like a "real world load" would be good to see. I may not want the fastest SSD, but I will be looking for something that has good over-all balance in performance, and not so heavy on the pocket... Reply
deadsmeat - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkWoops, I missed "not" i.e.
Intel or Corsair SSD might NOT be the fastest, but if it has a good price/performance vs the fastest SSD then it's something that consumers might consider when getting an SSD. Reply
dagamer34 - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkI thought that's what the light benchmark was, more "normal" tasks that aren't super-abusive with the SSD. Reply
vol7ron - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkYes, light being "AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 - Light Workload".
Either Light or Heavy depending on your use seems to be a combination of both random and sequential performance.
As stated in the article:
"I'll be sharing the full details of the benchmark in some upcoming SSD articles but here are some details:
1) The MOASB, officially called AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 - Heavy Workload, mainly focuses on the times when your I/O activity is the highest. There is a lot of downloading and application installing that happens during the course of this test. My thinking was that it's during application installs, file copies, downloading and multitasking with all of this that you can really notice performance differences between drives.
2) I tried to cover as many bases as possible with the software I incorporated into this test. There's a lot of photo editing in Photoshop, HTML editing in Dreamweaver, web browsing, game playing/level loading (Starcraft II & WoW are both a part of the test) as well as general use stuff (application installing, virus scanning). I included a large amount of email downloading, document creation and editing as well. To top it all off I even use Visual Studio 2008 to build Chromium during the test." Reply
therealnickdanger - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkWhat price would you use? MSRP? Newegg after MIR? Just pick a usage scenario that fits your usage and divide the score by the dollar amount of your favorite e-tailer... Pretty simple. Reply
vol7ron - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkWhy not have both? AT has used a price grabber in the past.
Actually, where did that go? It started to break down on the old site, but I'd like to see AT put that part shopper back up. Reply
MrDiSante - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkRealistically speaking, if you're buying computer components/peripherals, the function
Retailer GetLowestPrice(Component component)
return Newegg;
would probably be better than the average price comparison site. Reply
marraco - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkTo be useful, the comparison needs to consider RAID 0 setups. Reply
dagamer34 - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkIt seems like the one true major difference between the Intel SSD 510 and the OCZ Vertex 3 is that one is available now while the other is only talked about in reviews. First to market is always a benefit for a manufacturer that has a decently performing product, though Newegg's markup makes early adopter's pay dearly for it.
Of course, this leads to the important question of "when will the Vertex 3 series reach general availability?" I recently purchased a 120GB OCZ Vertex 2 for a new 2011 17" MacBook Pro and the performance is stunning compared to the stock HDD (it's my first SSD). I'm wondering if I should return the drive and just wait for the Vertex 3 because once you've gone SSD, it is so hard to go back!
Thanks for the review Anand! Reply
dagamer34 - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkOh, another thing. Are we going to get an SSD State of the Union for 2011? I'm guessing you're waiting to finish the reviews of most of the SSDs that are coming out this year first... Yeah, I just answered my own question, I think. :) Reply
TrackSmart - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkIt would be silly to return the Vertex 2 (my opinion). Just check out the PCMark Vantage scores in this article. There's little real world difference between all of the high end drives. Without the benchmarks, there's no way to tell the drives apart.
But if it's going to eat you up inside, knowing you were just a 2-3 months away from having the latest model, go ahead. I'll be keeping be enjoying my OCZ Agility 2 in the mean time. Reply
JohnBooty - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - link"I'm wondering if I should return the [Vertex 2] and just wait for the Vertex 3"
I've got a mix of Vertex 1's, Intel G1s, Intel G2, and Vertex 2's in a variety of machines at home and at work.
For workstation usage as a software dev, there's not a heck of a lot of subjective (ie, "it feels faster") difference between them. At this level of disk performance, your machine just isn't waiting on the hard drive very often.
Obviously you may have specific needs. I used to work for a client who had a 8GB database that I was constantly backing up and restoring many times a day in the course of development work. Now there was a situation where raw read/write speeds were king and the Vertex 3 probably would have performed close to 2x faster. For me that kind of usage is the exception and not the rule though. Reply
sean.crees - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkI didn't see any discussion on internal garbage collection (ie: NOT trim).
Does it have any?
In my mind, this will be the key deciding feature between Intel and Vertex 3. Whichever has the better garbage collection without TRIM. Remember, TRIM still doesn't work in a RAID array or in OSX. Reply
MrCromulent - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - link+1. I'm really eager for an IGC comparison of the Intel 510, the Vertex 3 and if possible, also of a current firmware version of the Crucial C300 (since the drive still competes very well).
In Anand's initial test, the C300 suffered from very poor IGC, but Marvell supposedly alleviated this problem in their new firmware releases. Unfortunately, no IGC tests have been conducted with the 0006 firmware yet. Reply
halcyon - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkHate to do this, but
It's not what's the latest, but what's offers the best bang for buck after upgrades.
Such a review would be immensely helpful.
Although based on the Intel 510 TRIM-test random write results, it may have to wait for the first Intel FW upgrade as the numbers with the shipping FW are truly appalling. Reply
Syan48306 - Saturday, March 05, 2011 - linkI'm dying to know how it will hold up in my macbook pro. I finally caved and bought one of these 510 SSD's and although it's after the fact, I still want to know how long it'll still be "good" in my system. Reply
tim851 - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkIf the original X25-M "conroe'd" the market, it seems G3 "atomed" it. In the way that Intel, in their crusade to maximize profits and segmentize the market, designed quite a bit to conservatively.
I'm all for it though, because I believe that currently, the last thing SSDs are lacking is speed, so the last thing they really need is more of it. I believe at this point just about everybody would want one, if it weren't for the prohibitively high prices. So if Intel can half the per-GB-price of the G3, I'll buy one for sure! Reply
anactoraaron - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - link+1
I thought the exact same thing about the 1st gen drive compared to this one. What makes SSD's "feel" so much faster is the random read/write performance. When the 40GB X25-V is so close to matching random read/write the 510 will just "feel" slow, especially once you have everything installed on it. I mean, really, who cares about sequential performance once you have everything on the drive that you planned putting on it?
Anand, please put the current WD velociraptor numbers into this graph. It will demonstrate what I mean.
Glad I didn't wait and got my 60GB Vertex 2... Reply
anactoraaron - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkoh yeah if I just looked I would see the velociraptor numbers... lol its late and I should be asleep... maybe I am? Did Intel just atom their next SSD? Reply
Golgatha - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkI think this is a fair criticism. I also only look at the random R/W performance of these new SSDs. I can pull 215 MB/s R/W from my 300GB Velociraptors in RAID0, and use these drives to install all my games on since game loading performance is largely determined by sequential reading of data from the disks (lots of big sequential files), and because I need around 400GB of space currently for all my game installs .
Sequential reads for most SSDs are lower than the 215 MB/s reads I enjoy from my Velociraptors in RAID0. I have a Crucial C300 256MB in this same desktop and I also use an 80GB Intel G2 in my laptop; both of these drives are slower than my Velociraptors in RAID0 in terms of sequential read performance. Also, there is obviously a space concern, in that there isn't enough space on either of these drives to install my games to them.
Now for the host OS and all the random programs I run in parallel, a SSD gives you huge gains and the system just feels snappier. This is largely due to random R/W performance. Basically you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between sequentially reading 10MB of data or less at 215MB/s (Velociraptors in RAID0) vs 320MB/s (my Crucial C300 256MB average speed on a PCIe4x, SATA3, ASUS add-in card), hence the reason that sequential performance of SSDs doesn't matter much to me anymore.
Now if I could get a 512GB or bigger SSD with greater than 215MB/s sequential read performance for less than $1/GB, I might bite on that. So far this product has not come to market, so I'll stick with my Velociraptors until it does. Reply
Golgatha - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - link
Basically you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between sequentially reading 10MB of data or less at 215MB/s (Velociraptors in RAID0) vs 320MB/s (my Crucial C300 256MB average speed on a PCIe4x, SATA3, ASUS add-in card), hence the reason that sequential performance of SSDs doesn't matter much to me anymore.
I'd also like to add that you will however most certainly notice the difference of 3.15MB/s of random R/W performance my RAID0 Velociraptors put out versus the random R/W performance of pretty much any SSD. SSDs make a huge amount of sense as an OS and applications drive. Reply
EddyKilowatt - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - link"...the last thing SSDs are lacking is speed..."
Amen. Ninety percent of us still have 3 GB SATA and are just waiting for the 25 nm devices to do their thing to the $/GB on more prosaic drives Reply
mgl888 - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkI had high expectations from Intel.. now I'm a little disappointed.
As the article said, random read is MOST important for a boot drive. Surely Intel should know this? Reply
critical_ - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkI'm not sure I agree.
1. The SSD market still has a lot of growth ahead of it. Price per GB is the current issue and may be the new "performance per watt" buzz word in this space. Case in point, when I can grab a cheap Dell server for $350 and average notebooks are advertised everyday for $300-$600, are people really going to spend $300-$600+ on an SSD? If it was a much cheaper option then many would go with it.
2. Synthetic vs. Real-world. Synthetic benchmarks are great for bragging on the various overclocking forums but most of us get work done in the real-world. This is no different than people who tune cars for 1/4 mile races but must transport the car on a flat-bed carrier. For some this is a perfectly great trade-off for bragging rights but many of us prefer to get 90% of the 1/4 mile performance and be able to drive the car back and forth to a weekend outing. My point is that in real-world benchmarks there may be some minor deficiencies but will 95% of users notice? I doubt it.
3. I put an Intel X-25M G2 160GB SSD in my father's quad-core desktop that he uses for Photoshop work after listening to many months of complaints that his system was too slow. After the swap, he loves the performance and I love the fact that I'm no longer fielding "it's too slow" complaints. This was the best money I've spent in recent memory but the price is still an issue for most people.
4. Would a user like my father noticed a difference between the X-25M and either a 510 or Vertex 3? I doubt it. Besides we'd have to get him a SATA3 motherboard or an add-in card. Again, it's a price issue.
5. Not too long ago the must-have upgrade was adding RAM to a Windows machine. These days 3-8GB systems are almost the norm so the must-have upgrade is an SSD if a user can stomach the cost. Head on over to NewEgg and read the reviews of "value" SSDs and you'll get an idea of the disappointment for some people who transitioned from HDDs to SSDs in both desktops and laptops. The drives in this segment aren't changing the user experience as dramatically as those ponying up for the high-end devices. Then there is the issue of lack of TRIM support, 4K issues, firmware upgrades destroying data, and the list goes on. The segment needs to addressed by Intel.
6. Finally, hybrids. We see the Intel Z68 will support SSD caching along with higher-end stuff from Adaptec or HighPoint's RocketHybrid controllers trying to get the best of both SSDs and HDDs. Could this be a game-changer? Possibly.
The points that I'm making come down to both real-world performance and market segments. The SSD market would benefit from a better stragety on the entry-level and mid-range markets the way ATI and nVidia have done things. Whoever brings the price down to grab the majority of users will eventually win a good chunk of business. With all that aside, as it stands the 510 is fine for the types of loads I'd put on an SSD as a power user so I'm happy to trade a bit of real-world performance for Intel's reliability. Reply
landerf - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkWell that was disappointing. Unless intel prices themselves under OCZ they may do very poorly with this drive. Reply
semo - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkThe sad thing is that they won't. They always have their "conroe" moment and then they sink up their product in the next generations but they still come out ahead. Even their Prescott cores did very well when they shouldn't have. Reply
vol7ron - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkYeah that was my fault. I shouldn't have bought a Prescott Reply
m.amitava - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkI am really the biggest fan of Anand and his team (used to bypass my company firewall and risk losing my job just to read all the stuff here..) but it does seem like Anand is trying to smooth over the 510's seriously non-competitive random performance....
IMO it showed badly enough that I finally decided to sign up and post a comment...
I hope I am mistaken... Reply
Sigwulff - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkWell isn't it the old debate regarding synthetic vs. real-world tests? I'll admit it looked bleak for the random parts, but looking at the heavy and light workload 510 looked somewhat shinier...
I was 100% sure on the Vertex 3, but presently I'll have to wait and see about the pricing when it lands here in little Denmark :-)
Btw, mentioning the bundle you completely overlooked the very nice cabinet sticker Intel included. I would like some tests about glue adherency, how envious your friends look when they see the sticker on your pc-cabinet etc. :-)
ok just kidding, very nice and informative review! (why we love Anand so much :-) Reply
semo - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - link+1
I'm still disappointed that Anand hasn't covered the OCZ Vertex 2 "25nm version" con. This is a consumer rights issue and should take precedence over any other development of a technical nature. Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkCorrect me if I'm wrong, but I believe everything regarding the 25nm issue has been resolved? OCZ has initiated an exchange program and is covering all associated costs for users that were affected.
I'm still curious to look into the behavior of 25nm NAND however by the time I got back from MWC it looks like the bulk of what needed to happen regarding the 25nm issue already happened.
Is there a remaining aspect of the issue that hasn't been addressed that you'd like me to pursue?
Take care,
Anand Reply
semo - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkHi Anand,
Thanks for replying. Just to be clear, what I've been expecting is for you to write a news item or an article about OCZ and 25nm SSDs. It seems you thought I was asking for you fix the problem (it is not your problem and it isn't you who was supposed to fix it).
I still don't understand why all the review sites were silent even after the OCZ 25nm drives hit retail. Was I the only one excited about the new NAND flash tech, and itching to read an in depth review/analysis. Some time passed and some people started complaining that their 25nm V2s were somewhat slower than what reviews (and the packaging) were promising…still no in depth look at 25nm tech at that point.
The jmicron issue was resolved eventually as well but there were a lot of articles written about it.
I'm still stumped as to how hard it is to find a proper review about the 1st ever consumer 25nm SSD to hit retail (the OCZ V2). Reply
m.amitava - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkI am sure Anand has quite a lot of pull with OCZ and I believe users who have been stranded with 25nm drives will thank him for investing his time in sorting out the issue rather than writing on it....
would like to hear your POV though Anand, so far you haven't given us your take on it.... Reply
FunBunny2 - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - link-- Is there a remaining aspect of the issue that hasn't been addressed that you'd like me to pursue?
Absolutely!!! Not so much the OCZ nonsense, but rather the impact we can expect on SSD acceptance and viability with 25nm parts. IIRC, IMFT NAND at 25nm has/will have ECC on die to deal with some of the issue.
What's not clear is whether an SSD can be built at 25nm that ends up being as "good" as one at 32/34nm at the same price point. We may have hit a corner case in Moore's Law: the reduction in price at 25nm may not be sufficient to overcome both the erasure and electrical issues which present at 25nm. The OCZ fix was to replace larger die with smaller die to get back channels. That's gotta hurt the profit equation. And this doesn't fix the erasure issue.
In other words, there's a whole lot to be delved into with regard to 25nm impact on SSD. A whole lot. Reply
semo - Friday, March 04, 2011 - link"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe everything regarding the 25nm issue has been resolved?"
I've just done a quick search on newegg for a Vertex 2 and I still can't figure out at a glance which are the nerfed 25nm drives and which aren't. So the bait-and-switch games is still on as far as I can tell. Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkIt really boils down to the performance vs. reliability debate. The Vertex 3 is overall a faster drive (assuming you're not doing much in the way of incompressible writes), however it's unclear how much OCZ and SF have improved their reliability testing and validation. If the 510 is close enough in performance and can boast the same sort of reliability that the original X25-M did, then it may be a viable alternative for some users who aren't as interested in absolute performance but want a product that has gone through Intel's validation/testing.
With the X25-M the performance gap was too great to really value the drive over the SF-1200 based offerings. The 510 is much more competitive, although our recommendation for pure performance is still obviously the Vertex 3.
As I mentioned in the conclusion, if OCZ can ramp and ship the Vertex 3 with a better reliability track record than the Vertex 2 (not that the latter was bad, it just wasn't quite as good as the X25-M) then this becomes a non-issue. The way I see it is this: the 510 pressures OCZ to work on validation and QA testing, while the Vertex 3 forces Intel to take performance much more seriously. Both are very important to have in the market.
Take care,
Anand Reply
lyeoh - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkHi Anand, have you noticed any issues with hibernate for SSDs? Being able to hibernate is rather important for many mobile users.
There are some people complaining that hibernate stopped working when they switched to their SSD drive, whereas others say they don't have probs.
As for reliability, how much more reliable are Intel really anyway? They did have problems with their previous drives too. Reply
epicsnackus - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkI have hibernated my laptop with Intel G2 160GB drive every day for more than a year, with no issue Reply
jimhsu - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkI do have an issue with sleep though on an Intel SSD. On resume after sleep, the drive errors with KERNEL_NONPAGED bluescreens. Does not occur with hibernate. Any idea what is going on? Reply
aarste - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkNot tried Hibernate, but sleep is working fine on my Intel X-25M 80GB (I put the PC to sleep every night), so the BSOD may be something else entirely. Reply
lyeoh - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkOh yeah, thanks for the max latency figures. They're very useful.
The G2's max of 900ms is quite a long time. Nearly a second! What are the max latencies for say a velociraptor in similar tests? I know the theoretical figures would be based on seek time + RPM but often theory is different from practice.
I find it interesting that the Crucial RealSSD C300 does worse than the Intel SSD 510 in the "Anand Storage Bench 2011- Heavy Workload" despite getting better numbers in the random and sequential tests. Any idea why this would be so? Poorer max latency? Reply
jimhsu - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkPoorer sequential performance I guess. The C300 (which I just got) is very fast, but the sequential perf of the 510 is simply better, which impacts a lot of the sequential portion of the workload test. Random performance in typical desktop models has reached somewhat of a plateau, particularly since most applications currently out there are optimized for the dog-slow random performance of consumer hard drives. Reply
Creepwood - Friday, March 04, 2011 - linkAbout reliability/compatibility: have you tested this drive in the new Sandy Bridge Macbook Pro? Any issues? Reply
davepermen - Monday, March 07, 2011 - linkInterestingly, one of THE main performance cases is when you need to quickly write lots of stuff, like in video editing. And there, all data is at least partially compressed, so i guess there the intel will be in a better place. Reply
RaistlinZ - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkIntel is going to have to price this thing cheaper than the Vertex 3, or any other new Sandforce SSD for that matter. They can't use performance as a selling point. I'm sure the new SF controller will offer good stability. Unless you're an Intel fanboy I don't see any reason to get the 510 over the Vertex 3, unless they price it much lower. Reply
semo - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkThis is an Atom alright!
I think the conclusion, although critical in places was overall mild. "It looks like we may have hit the upper limit of what we need from 4KB random write performance"… Yeah, in the consumer/budget space. But what consumer/budget computer user would buy a 250GB SSD. I've managed to convince a few of my clients to go with an "expensive upgrade" and in the end they've been extremely happy… In those cases I've only installed 64GB drives.
At the moment SSDs are NOT mainstream and it's mostly the enthusiast and pro crowd that will be buying consumer grade SSDs. I'll be using my SSD for VMs for testing and studying and I do a lot of heavy random IO operations.
For a drive as big and as expensive as the 250GB 510, I expect much better across-the-board performance. Reply
TSnor - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkHi, the article states "~900ms write operation, the 510 keeps the worst case latency to below 400ms. The Vertex 3 by comparison has a max write latency of anywhere from 60ms - 350ms"
microseconds are usually abbreviated us, where the u has a funny tail on it. (the u is greek for something)
ms usually means milliseconds. I usually type 'mics' when on the keyboard and reserve the funny u for when handwriting. example, a good SSD write takes less then 100 mics.
saying something is around 900 ms means it takes about a second. Reply
epicsnackus - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkThe article is correct, the numbers are really in milliseconds. The microsecond numbers you're thinking of are 1) best case, and 2) usually reads Reply
Chloiber - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - link"Write speed with fully incompressible data is easily a victory for the SF-2200 based OCZ Vertex 3."
I think you meant fully compressible? Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkFixed! Thank you :)
Take care,
Anand Reply
TSnor - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkArticle says "Write speed with fully incompressible data is easily a victory for the SF-2200 based OCZ Vertex 3. "
I think you meant "Write speed with compressible data is easily a victory for the SF-2200 based OCZ Vertex 3. "
Excellent article, I was interested in the 3rd gen intel SSD, but not at these specs. Wish you gave the read latency time (it can be inferred to some degree from the elapsed time charts which are good). Also, given the size of internal cache these devices use perhaps running for more than 3 mins would be a good idea. The average performance is still changing at 3 mins. Reply
AstroGuardian - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - link"I mentioned earlier that the 510 would go through Intel's extensive validation testing, just like any other Intel product."
Yea right! Just like the H67 and P67. Yea, that made me so happy. Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkThat's 100% a valid point and it does show that even with extensive validation errors can still get through.
You'll remember that the X25-M was the first to have major firmware issues before any of its present day competitors were even created.
Only time will tell how well Intel has learned from those experiences and how seriously it's taking the validation of the 510. Initial compatibility testing looks good but we've got a long road ahead of us.
Take care,
Anand Reply
Ryomitomo - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - linkAt least Intel's labs identified the problems themselves, disclosed the problem themselves, will recall and exchange to fix the problem.
These things makes me feel very confident to buy future Intel products. Reply
Nihility - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - linkA good point. Unlike certain NVIDIA mobile chipsets. Reply
Chloiber - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - link...I think Anand is right. Many of you are complaining, but as he said on the final page: it is not clear, where the actual limits are for random speeds. Of course, it's always better to have more. The thing is, that your PC at home can't benefit from 60'000 IOPS. It just can't. You can run it through benchmarks which show high numbers, but as soon as you feed the drive and the CPU with real data, the drive is NOT the limiting factor anymore.
I'm not saying that it's a good thing the Intel 510 has such low random speeds, compared to other, even older drives. But in the end, the question is whether or not you can actually benefit from 200MB/s random reads and random writes with QDs above 4.
Anand said himself, and I assure you that he is correct - you can trace it yourself if you want - that with standard workload on home desktop PCs, Queue Depth rarely exceeds 1 or 2, especially not with an SSD in your system. Not even during boot!
And now THINK AGAIN. What are the random 4k read speeds for low QD of EVERY SSD today? It's actually limited by the NAND being used and it's between 20MB/s and 30MB/s for EVERY SSD.
Again, I'm not saying that high IOPS aren't important. I'm just saying, they aren't as important as you think. Not anymore, not in the very high regions we are today and especially not with very high QDs.
The 510 seems to have very good performance in real world benchmarks - it seems that most of you rate synthetic benchmarks higher than real world benchmarks. This, I don't quite understand. Reply
semo - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkThe fact is, you will not be using a very competitively priced 250GB SSD for net browsing. When I get my SSD, I'll be using it to store my test VMs where I do a lot of software installations and snapshot jumping.
The 510 is not a mainstream product where the QD rarely goes above 2. Not at that price at least. I've installed an SSD for a few average users but they were all 60GB drives. I could never justify the price of a 250GB SSD to them but a pro user might (i.e. someone who might make use of a high IOPS drive). Reply
semo - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkMeant to say "uncompetitively". Too expensive for the average computer user. Reply
tno - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - linkSpot on, and so a mainstream drive this is not. As workstation drive, however, this seems pretty solid. Reply
Nentor - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkIf it (the 510) was very cheap everything you say makes sense, but since it is not they'd better make it as fast as possible. Reply
7Enigma - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkLike Anand I'm shocked Intel went this route. After touting the random read/write so heavily (and for good reason) they pull this stunt and look horrible. I'm an owner of an 80gig G2 and love it but have been in the process of justifying an upgrade so I can put the 80gig in my laptop. I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of sequential performance (just like I did with the G2 over other competitors), but this is a complete step backwards.
And remember the review unit was the larger drive. Put the 120gig version in those benchmarks and the critical numbers that are so low to start with are only going to become much worse. Just like all of the previous releases due to high cost the majority of people will be purchasing the smaller-sized drives (most people bought Intel 80gig when 160gig was out, etc.).
When you are competing on firmware only, and that firmware is not the best to begin with (in comparison to Sandforce), you have to be perfect, and in this case Intel just didn't produce.
Very disappointed indeed. Reply
Concillian - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - link"After touting the random read/write so heavily (and for good reason) they pull this stunt and look horrible."
They don't look horrible, they are 2nd or 1st in most of the real world tests, Improving on the G2 performance.
Random performance is lower, but the real world tests demonstrate that random performance has reached a point where it is "enough" for typical workloads. Reply
semo - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkWhose real world are we talking about here? Average Joe "real world", mainstream "real world", enthusiast "real world"... you get the idea.
As an average user (net browsing, office apps, flash gaming, etc...) this sort of performance is great. However, the same user would benefit just as much from a much cheaper 60GB SSD. The 510 is neither cheap overall or in $/GB sense. My "real world" is using VMs and lot's of tests involving high QDs and IOPS so this drive is not for me... At that price, capacity and performance, I don't know who this drive is for. Reply
TEAMSWITCHER - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkIt's a bit surprising that the Crucial C300 (on the 6 GB/s) interface did so well in the real world benchmarks. This drive is a year old and still competitive. Newegg had them on sale a couple weeks ago for only $480.00. Which is a bargain compared to the $615.00 for the Intel 510. This is an interesting technology to watch, with lots of plot twists and upsets. I can't wait to see the crucial M4. Reply
Lonesloane - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkI see the price point of the new Intel 510 drives extremely critical. Intel have always charged more than the competition and got away with it due to the fact that on the other hand there was the good quality, compatibility and reliablity of their SSD products.
Now it seems like a clear win for Sandforce, especially if we take the superior write amplification of the sandforce controller, which is a big advantage regarding the reduced write cycles of the new 25nm NAND. Reply
Shadowmaster625 - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkYou have to tell them to stop sending you Ferraris because no one buys Ferraris. The 120GB versions of both the OCZ and Intel drives are much more relevant, and we dont have the foggiest clue how they line up. And even if we did, we would not know how the 40/60/80 GB versions stack up against each other. I am currently shopping for a 40-60GB SSD and I cannot even to this day get a clear answer on which product is better (performance per dollar). And all of these drives have been out for at least year.... Reply
7Enigma - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkExactly. I posted above about this and it will seriously hurt Intel as the poor random read/write will only become worse. Reply
Concillian - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - link"I am currently shopping for a 40-60GB SSD and I cannot even to this day get a clear answer on which product is better (performance per dollar). And all of these drives have been out for at least year.... "
This is a concern and all you really need to know is how they reduce capacity.
They can do it by reducing the number of chips (usually will see a performance hit)
They can do it by using the same number of chips, but each stores less (usually will perform about the same)
When you look at the OCZ 25nm "debacle" it was this very decision that created the issue. The 25nm flash itself was not the problem (even though that got a fair bit of the blame)... it was how they implemented it. They used half the 25nm higher density chips in the drives, reducing performance. This also meant reserving one block for over-provision meant it was larger in size, so that ate into the usable capacity. The solution still uses 25nm chips, but they're the same number of chips as 34nm, so they perform at about the same level.
There probably needs to be a chart at the beginning like the video card articles showing details for each drive. It would clear up any issues, as well as something that can be referred to in the future. I refer to the old video card reviews when looking for things like ROP / texture counts, memory bandwidth, speeds, etc... because those charts have really useful information in them. Reply
jnmfox - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - link+1
We need a round-up of OS boot drives (40/60/80 GB). I love my 80GB G2 but I'm not interested in paying more than $200, hopefully less, for an SSD. Reply
Stargrazer - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkI too would love to see the numbers for the 128(-ish) GB versions. Reply
Marlin1975 - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkHow about throwing in a AMD SB850 to see how they handle SSD's.
AMD has had native SATA6gb longer than intel so like to see how that matchs up. Most only look at CPU and ignore the chipset. Reply
DarkKnight_Y2K - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - link+1 Reply
tech6 - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkSo nothing has really changed. There still isn't one "perfect" SSD that does everything well and is proven to be reliable. I guess the disappointment stems from many that were hoping that the new Intel SSDs would tick all those boxes - speed, reliability and price. As usual YMMV - Samsung and Intel is the conservative choice and SF based drives are for those who want maximum performance in random I/O situations. Reply
tno - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkThis, as always in the tech world, is a numbers and marketing game. Somewhere there is a user who is encoding video and really needs the bleeding edge for that. There is an artist working on large incompressible canvasses in Photoshop. These guys need this drive. They have a small Sandforce doing OS duties but they need a fast non -Sandforce drive for data. All those numbers mean squat without perspective and that's what's the text of Anandtech articles bring.
So maybe for the consumer that is tech savvy enough to know they want an SSD but not enough to have read all that has been published with regards SSD drives they need a simple primer. Maybe a web app. Do you use you computer with VMs? Do you use it with games? Is your computer a netbook? I'm certain there is a way to ask a few questions and come up with a sensible suggestion for what drive is right for which user.
That would only work with a more comprehensive field of tested drives. Other posters are right, there is little to no way of knowing which is the best 40GB drive. So I volunteer myself to help. Anand, I am a soon to be new father that would love to work from home if for no other reason than daycare costs nearly as much as what I get paid as a paramedic. Send me a system, every SSD on the market and a small stipend and I will test anything and everything solid state. Reply
Gigantopithecus - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - link...with poor product differentiation. With Intel's adoption of the same controller others are using, SSDs become that much less interesting. I realize firmware and QC differences still exist, but without hard numbers (aside from the French site's), and given that major snafus can hit any maker at any time, it seems like the only real consideration is ye ole customer service. I've dealt with OCZ's 'support' department twice and that was enough for me. Intel and Crucial have always treated me right, so considering real world performance differences more or less don't exist anymore, they'll be getting my SSD $s. Reply
LeeKay - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkhave had 100% Faliure and i have had 5 drives all failed. Reply
iwod - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkI have been asking the question for a long time. Why an Toshiba SSD manage to beat Sandforce in some real world usage. And finally we got an answer.
Given all SSD latency are roughly equal or the same.
Seq Read Write is EXTREMELY Important in Everyday usage. IT IS THE SINGLE MOST Important factor that gives you most improvement in SSD Real World usage benchmarks.
Random Write reaches the top with 50 MB/s. And while we would want further reduction in Write latency, but with the increase of Ram / Cache onbroad with SSD. This should not be an issue.
Random Read results shows we have still some head room to grow.
With further tweaking Intel may be able to squeeze out even more performance our of it. Reply
tno - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - linkI think I missed something, while Seq Read Write is obviously the big number that makes the marketing materials, in terms of user experience (ooh, buzzword) the Random Reads are where lies the money, and as Anand said in the article, no modern OS stresses this enough to make the lower numbers a significant limitation.
High sequential reading and writing is only going to be felt by those that are moving large files around within an already fast environment where a mechanical disk drive would be a bottle neck (encoding files locally for instance). And while for those users Seq Read Write might be considered "THE SINGLE MOST important factor" it wouldn't be for, say, the person that wants to add some oopmh to a dual-core laptop of otherwise mediocre specifications.
Certainly, aside from playing around with transferring files, my drives have probably never approached their max seq speed. As OS drives, they mainly spend their time hunting out small files for the OS to use. Reply
Beenthere - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkThese SSDs aren't ready for prime time just yet IMO. Maybe in another 2-3 years? Reply
tno - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - linkWhat's the hold up? Reliability? Speed? Reply
masterkritiker - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkWhen will we be able to buy $100+ SSDs @ 1TB capacity? Reply
gammaray - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linknever Reply
tno - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - link+1 Reply
Nihility - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - linkAt least 4 years. Reply
ionis - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkIt would be nice if some HDDs were also included in workload benches. They were in the random read/write benches so I don't get why they were left out of the other ones. Reply
dagamer34 - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkHDDs aren't included because they'd throw off the scale pretty horribly. The number labeling the performance would be larger than the bar itself compared to all the other SSDs out there. Reply
ionis - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - linkI find that hard to believe, considering they were included in the random read/write graphs at 1/100 or less of the performance of some of the SSDs and the charts weren't scaled horribly.
In the sequential reads/writes, they performed at 25%-80% which doesn't through the scale off much at all.
The heavy workload looked to involve a lot of sequential access (installs and downloads). So again, I don't see why they weren't included.
There are also other comments asking for more HDDs in the benches. For people like myself, who didn't start following storage benchmarks until SSDs came out, it's hard to tell what the performance gain is. Reply
ionis - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - linkI find that hard to believe, considering they were included in the random read/write graphs at 1/100 or less of the performance of some of the SSDs and the charts weren't scaled horribly.
In the sequential reads/writes, they performed at 25%-80% which doesn't throw the scale off much at all.
The heavy workload looked to involve a lot of sequential access (installs and downloads). So again, I don't see why they weren't included.
There are also other comments asking for more HDDs in the benches. For people like myself, who didn't start following storage benchmarks until SSDs came out, it's hard to tell what the performance gain is.
(sorry if double post, comment didn't seem to show up 1st time) Reply
mateus1987 - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linknow you know.
http://nzealander.blog.com/files/2011/03/6661.jpg Reply
mateus1987 - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkthe satanic Apple logo.
http://nzealander.blog.com/files/2011/03/6661.jpg Reply
AnnihilatorX - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkAnand you didn't clarify very clearly what is the difference of naming between 510 series and X-25 G3.
The introduction leads me to believe 510 is X-25 G3, or is it not?
Is X-25 G3 going to use 25nm flash instead, so it's another drive? If so, when is the release date of that, and how do we expect its performance compared to 510 in this review? Will the X-25 G3 uses a custom controller? Reply
strikeback03 - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - linkAs the article stated, the G3 (whatever it is officially called) will be a lower-performance part whose aim is to bring lower prices and better reliability to more mainstream segments Reply
MrStromberg - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkSo I've been waiting for quite some time now for the new intel drives since the reviews in the past about how reliable and how long life an SSD has, promising that all of this would be better with these new generation drives. Although now I am faced with the potential "problem" of a 3Gbit bottle neck in mi macbook pro and as mentioned in the review above "these next-generation SSDs not only use 6Gbps SATA, they really need it." So where does that leave me? Should a go for a cheaper older drive which might be less reliable in the long run (but nobody really knows right?) or buy a new generation drive which might be suffering from a bottleneck? I didn't really understand why the new drives really need the 6Gbit SATA to function well? Can someone please explain or give me some advice.
thank you Reply
Denithor - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkBest right now would probably be an Intel G2 drive. Fast enough and very good durability.
The next generation drives aren't really going to perform much better on a 3Gb SATA port than the current generation already does, plus you have the worse durability inherent in the 25nm NAND chips. Reply
Nentor - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkWow, so Intel has a gap in it's road map and goes the 3rd party route and brings us a product that is essentially slower than a consumer product (Vertex 3) from another manufacturer.
They could have gone Sandforce, why not? Reply
mateus1984 - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkhttp://forums.hexus.net/general-discussion/199892-... Reply
Drag0nFire - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkWould love to see you run a traditional hdd through the new bench so we can see what sort of real world improvements can be expected from making the switch to an SSD...
Great article. I'll be waiting for the x25-m G3. Keep on Intel about this! Reply
wheel - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkThanks for the review Anand, but I am a little disappointed that there are a lot of synthetic benchmarks but no real world tests.
By "real world tests" I mean separate tests for: booting into Windows; loading a web browser with 25 tabs of saved web page documents on the HDD; starting Star Craft and loading a map; copying a large amount of files to itself; running a batch Photoshop image transform job; starting IE6 from a stopped Windows XP Mode VM and opening a complex web page hosted on the local disk; running a intensive anti-virus scan on a specific (large) folder etc.
I know PC Mark and SysMark are meant to represent these real world test, but as individual consumers we have different usage profiles and by breaking down the results into individual tests we can better work out which drive is most appropriate for us, instead of studying the synthetic tests and making an educated guess.
Ian Reply
Boogaloo - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkSeconded.
A lot of people are complaining about the performance of the drive, and I'd like to know how much of a difference it actually makes in real world scenarios. If this drive comes within 10 ms of a vertex 3 loading up starcraft 2, then who cares? Reply
iwod - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkIf you read carefully the Anand Benchmarks does exactly just that. Reply
aarste - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkThose graphs on the TRIM test look nothing remotely close to ATTO, which I use. I checked HDTach as well and it wasn't that, but close.
What app was it? Reply
mino - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkPlease, be so king and include a fast HDD (say a WD Velociraptor) in EVERY SSD benchmark.
While most readers here understand the difference between SSD and HDD, including a single fast HDD would make the article useful also as a reference/datapoint when talking to not-so-techy people. Reply
strikeback03 - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - linkThen people would complain because the numbers are so small as to be unreadable Reply
nerex - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkMaybe I missed it, but i didn't see any discussion of the power usage of the new drives- according the intel press releases, the new drives use 380mW/100mW active/idle and the G2 drives only use 150mW/75mW active/idle.
This means the new drives would actually be worse on laptop battery life, correct? Reply
DigitlDrug - Saturday, March 05, 2011 - linkHi Anand,
Power consumption figures would be great for us laptop users!
I find it interesting that a number of these drives report consumption of up to 3watts and others are in the mw range when browsing the Egg.
Some clarity on power consumption would be a great addition.
As always, great review! Reply
ClagMaster - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkThe Intel SSD 510 is not a bad drive but it cost more than a Vertex 2 or 3.
The Intel Toolbox, and extensive compatablity and reliability testing are major pluses.
The SSD is still an extravagance for desktops though I can see its a no-brainer for laptops because of power conservation. Unless the cost per gigabyte is less than $0.80/gigabyte, the performance gain does not offset the mechanical harddrive. Reply
neotiger - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkI.e., an epic FAIL product priced at a premium to competing products that are far superior.
What misguided priorities from Intel. People shell out the big bucks for SSD's for their RANDOM IO performance, NOT sequential IO. So the geniuses at Intel decided to release a "next gen" product that actually has WORSE performance than the last gen product. Really?
I'm speechless. The really sad part about this fiasco is that most people will still buy this piece of crap over far superior competing products just because it's Intel.
Just like NetBurst all over again. Reply
strikeback03 - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - linkDid you actually look at the real-world results? the 510 is almost twice as fast as the G2 160GB in some tests. Reply
poohbear - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linknice review, but you're talking & comparing the Vertex 3 and this new drive, but where's the vertex 3 on the market? its not even released, its months away from release if im not mistaken? the C400 will be released before it, so what's the point of comparing tech today with tech months away from release (and in the SSD world months is a very long time!) Reply
sor - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkFWIW, we've deployed literally hundreds of X25-E drives, and our failure rate is well over 1%, closer to 2%. Usually they drop link, try to renegotiate at 1.5Gbps, and fail, so it's more likely the controller than a wear-out issue. Reply
someguy11 - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkHey Anand
I've been reading your SSD bibles for years, searching and keeping abreast of the latest SSD news so I'd know the best before taking the plunge.
Well, I took the plunge after reading some reviews of the Samsung SSDs elsewhere. The price of a 60GB ($90) was too hard to pass up. In short I'm happy. Very happy.
Why dont any Samsungs appear in these exhaustive SSD lists? Do you have plans to do so? Reply
sequoia464 - Wednesday, March 02, 2011 - linkI have to agree with some of the earlier comments on the size of the drives tested. Hopefully you can promptly add the Vertex 3 and this new Intel in the 120 GB flavors to your SSD BENCH when they are available. The larger capacity drives are just unafordable for quite a few of us, at least to me anyway.
Too bad the manufacturers don't send you the smaller capacity drives as well initially, although I understand why they don't. All of the Vertex3 results that I have seen so far are on the 240 GB drive also.
As comprehensive as the SSD bench currently is I'm sure that the 120 Gb versions will eventually be in there.
Thanks for the review. Reply
Rasta_Cook - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - linkIt would be really nice if the corsair performance 3 could be benched and compared to intel 510, both use the same controller, however the corsair p3 has barely any reviews online even though it has been available for a while now. Reply
yekn - Sunday, March 06, 2011 - linkactually Corsair P3 has the same level high sequential number and poor random number, which lead me to believe P3 and 510 are using the same firmware with different Nand.
looks like Intel not only uses 3rd party controller but also 3rd party firmware. Reply
Ryomitomo - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - linkI would also like to find out how this SSD perform against the rest. This drive had been on the market for a while now. Thank you! Reply
RealGsus - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - linkHi guys,
I really hope you can help me out. I'm putting together a new system and am looking for a new SSD. I've been awaiting the arrival of the new intel drive, but I'm a little disappointed with its performance.
So I'm wondering which would be the best choice for a pretty much gaming-system.
Crucial C300 128GB
Intel G2 120GB
Intel 510 120GB
Guess it's narrowed down to these three, since the Vertex three is month away and also the C400 shouldn't be coming within the next weeks?
Thanks in advance for any opinions on this :)
Kind regards,
Gsus Reply
princekermit - Friday, March 04, 2011 - linkI have the C300 128 and I am very pleased with it. Reply
RealGsus - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - linkHi guys,
I really hope you can help me out. I'm putting together a new system and am looking for a new SSD. I've been awaiting the arrival of the new intel drive, but I'm a little disappointed with its performance.
So I'm wondering which would be the best choice for a pretty much gaming-system.
Crucial C300 128GB
Intel G2 120GB
Intel 510 120GB
Guess it's narrowed down to these three, since the Vertex three is month away and also the C400 shouldn't be coming within the next weeks?
Thanks in advance for any opinions on this :)
Kind regards,
Gsus Reply
Sampleboy - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - linkAny chance we could get the benchmarks for the OCZ RevoDrive X2 thrown into the mix for comparison? It's about the same price point now as the Intel 510 so I'm debating between the two. Reply
hyperasus - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - linkI do not understand why Anand didn't include the latest Corsair drives in this review. Has Corsair done something to offend AnandTech? Reply
Squuiid - Friday, March 04, 2011 - link+1
They were the 1st of this next gen to be available, yet NOBODY has reviewed them.
Based on the 2nd Gen Marvel controller I believe, a' la C400. Reply
Luke212 - Friday, March 04, 2011 - linkAnand,
I am looking to implement SSDs in Application servers and I need to know how they go in Raid 1 over time. Noone seems to test this! So I am stuck with magnetic drives!! Reply
sean.crees - Friday, March 11, 2011 - linkAnyone else notice the Samsung 470 near or at the top of most benchmarks on a 3gb controller? Is this the SSD in current Macbook Pro's? I havn't seen a review posted to Anandtech about this specific device. Reply
daidaloss - Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - linkI'm curious as to how does this SSD drive stacks up when compared to this unit SATA2 DDR2 HyperDrive5 from http://www.hyperossystems.co.uk/.
Maybe sometime in the future, Anand will consider this RAM drive. Reply
tygrus - Wednesday, May 11, 2011 - linkNot specific to Intel 510 SSD:
Sequential performance after several full disk GB rewrites ?
The LBA remapping for wear levelling must make more of the disk look random (not sequential) after every block has been re-written several times. It's a torture test to see how it can handle reading large files that have been spread over several non-sequential NAND blocks. Or does it not matter as much because the controller can optimise access to several NAND dies at once? Does it only remap 512KB at a time or does the 512KB blocks have non-sequential 4KB LBA's written to them?
Does SSD performance approach random R/W performance after long term heavy use ? Reply
gaffe - Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - linkJust an anonymous tip. I happen to know this data is wildly inaccurate because my friend is a reliability engineer at a major company.
It seems you have tested probably 20 SSDs for your reviews. So, how many of them have failed on you during testing? How many during the course of the past 3 years? What's the failure rate average across all manufacturers?
Even though manufacturers probably send you their best tested units for review, and your sample size is small, etc. I am willing to bet you REAL MONEY that the failure rate will be more than 3% even in a sample size of just 20.
How about we buy 20 SSDs today and in 3 years see who is right, loser buys em all, winner gets em (you can keep the failed ones)?
Any takers? Reply
gaffe - Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - linkOh and P.S.
You forgot to mention above that failure rates are generally PER YEAR. So that's a 3% chance it fails EACH YEAR. And it's still wrong by double or triple (it's closer to 9%). Reply
gaffe - Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - linkSorry to keep piling on, but it bothers me so much that this inaccurate data is out there and people are believing this that I also want to mention this data does not even say which models were tested. This is probably all enterprise grade drives that does not even apply to consumers that are reading this article, and, as I said above, it's STILL INACCURATE! Reply


text:
Driskel has appendectomy surgery
Published: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 at 4:45 p.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 at 4:45 p.m.
The Florida Gators will be without starting quarterback Jeff Driskel when they open preseason camp Friday.
Driskel, a junior, underwent appendectomy surgery Tuesday at UF Health Shands Hospital and could miss the first two weeks of camp, UF coach Will Muschamp announced.
"Jeff had acute appendicitis and fortunately the medical staff caught it very quickly," Muschamp said. "His surgery went well and how long he is out will be determined by how his body responds, which could be two weeks."
The loss of Driskel could be a serious setback for a Florida offense that is hoping to show significant improvement under Driskel in his second season as the starter.
"Thanks for all the prayers and get well wishes. I should be fine #GatorNation," Driskel wrote on his Twitter account Tuesday.
Behind Driskel, the Gators have zero experience at quarterback. They have four scholarship players, but none have played at the collegiate level at the position.
Tyler Murphy emerged as the No. 2 QB in the spring after competing with redshirt freshman Skyler Mornhinweg. Both, however, struggled with consistency and do not appear ready to take over if something happens to Driskel.
The wild card here is Chris Wilkes, a former pitcher in the San Diego Padres' farm system who left pro baseball and will be a 23-year-old freshman. He's got good size and a strong arm, but he hasn't played football in more than five years.
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.


text:
Recently added item(s)
You have no items in your shopping cart.
Items 16-19 of 19
Out of stock
Currently Shopping by:
Shopping Options
You have no items to compare.
For your party supplies, U.S. Toy is your best option. No matter what party you are having, we have the supplies to make sure you throw the best possible get together. From birthday party favors to carnival games, your guests will love the materials used to decorate your party area. When choosing a theme for your party, it may be difficult to pick the right party supplies to go with it. Using U.S. Toy as your party supply store, you will have the perfect decorations for your theme. Ranging from princess party suppliesfor girls, to pirate party supplies for boys, there is a wide range of supplies for themes. If you are looking for the traditional birthday party supplies, we are your best choice for that as well.
© 2017 U.S. TOY Co., Inc. All rights reserved. - U.S. TOY® is a registered trademark of U.S. TOY Co., Inc.
Constructive Playthings® is a registered trademark of U.S. TOY Co., Inc.
Customer Service Toll Free: 1-800-255-6124


text:
Sanford, ME 04073
Enter the email address associated with your account and we'll email you a link to reset your password.
Get ready to rent
Find out how property managers will view your rental application.
Get your TransUnion, Experian & Equifax credit scores to make sure there are no surprises.


text:
Manufacturer: Finecure Pharma
Trade name: Pepcare D
Strength: Pantoprazole 40 mg, Domperidone 10 mg
Type: Tablet
Active ingredient: Pantoprazole + domperidone
Category: Domperidone: Dopamine D2 and D3 receptors antagonists. Pantoprazole is a proton pump inhibitor.
Pregnancy category: Pantoprazole belongs to Australia therapeutic goods administration (TGA) pregnancy category: B3 And US FDA pregnancy category B. Domperidone pregnancy category not classified.
Uses: Pepcare D tablet is used to treat dyspepsia, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.
How to use: Take Pepcare D tablet orally once daily.
Side Effects: Diarrhoea, dizziness, pruritus, skin rashes, GIT infections; anaphylaxis, angioedema, chest pain, dyspnoea, Headache, insomnia, nervousness, thirst, lethargy, irritability, GI disturbances, hot flushes, mastalgia, menstrual irregularities,
Sponsored Links
Dosage: One tablet / capsule once daily.
Written by: : www.healthplus24.com team
Date last updated: March 23rd, 2016
Sponsored Links
Subscribe to our email newsletter.


text:
Man walking with stick along a rocky path on Mount Zion.
Credit: BBC Universal
Creative #: 1B011452_010SD
Licence type: Rights-ready
Collection: BBC Creative
Clip length: 00:00:33:02
Location: Jerusalem, Israel
Release info: Not released
Restrictions: Prior approval required for all uses, please contact your local Getty Images representative. No use as a complete programme, for sequential use with other BBC clips, for unofficial association with BBC or in a manner that brings BBC into disrepute. Additional BBC Motion Gallery restrictions apply – see Section 10.6 of applicable Getty Images licence agreement.
Available for Editorial use. Editorial use: To report or illustrate a newsworthy event or matter of general interest. Editorial uses do not typically require a model or property release.Learn more
Mastered to: QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG SD 720x576 25i More information
Same seriesView all
Similar clipsView all
1 item added to cartCONTINUE SHOPPINGCHECKOUT


text: Derek Clayton Corporate chef, Michael Symon Restaurants Comments Email Print March 04, 2013 Updated Click here to read "A look at the right-hand man to Cleveland's Iron Chef" by Kathy Ames Carr. Related LinksThe Big Issue: March 14, 2011What happens if we're no longer witnesses? Morning Roundup Business headlines from Crain's Cleveland Business and other Ohio newspapers — delivered FREE to your inbox every morning. Sign up for the Morning Newsletter.