text:
OCZ's Vertex Limited Edition Review & SSD State of the Unionby Anand Lal Shimpi on 2/19/2010 12:00 AM EST
- Posted in
- Storage
83 Comments
Back to Article
mertl - Thursday, March 18, 2010 - linkThe Sandforce Controller has hardware AES encryption, which could be used with OCZ Toolbox (which is not available).
It's a self encrypting drive. No CPU Performance wasted with software encryption.
Why doesn't the Vertex LE support FDE (TCG OPAL Standard like a Seagate Momentus 7200 FDE.4)? The BIOS ATA PWD is passed to the drive, alternatively Pre-Boot Utilities like wave can be used. Reply
jaggerwild - Saturday, March 13, 2010 - linkIt's kinda sad that they will not at least replace the drive with an equal value SSD, I suggest to anybody considering buying any OCZ product to read through there forum before making a purchase!!! People are reporting waiting seven months for warranties on the Vertex series? Today more than ever people are not getting what they paid for and to even post a review of there product is a slap in our collective faces. But I guess Aandtech is selling out too as they have there advertisement up top of this section LOL!
NandFlashGuy - Friday, March 12, 2010 - linkHi Anand,
I think your characterization of all IMFT flash as equivalent creates a false idea of quailty equilvalence for readers.
"It's uses a standard Indilinx Barefoot controller but is paired with IMFT 34nm flash branded either as Intel or Micron. It's the same flash that's used in the X25-M G2s."
Intel does not sell enterprise-grade or SSD Nand to competitors. It does do more testing on the Nand used inside the X-25M G2s, ensuring it meets a higher quality level.
While nothing prevents SSD competitors from buying USB-key grade Nand and using it their SSDs, it's incorrect to call it the same Nand that Intel uses. Reply
ayembee - Sunday, March 07, 2010 - linkWell, my 200GB LE lasted one week -- picked it up last Sunday, and now it's so dead the BIOS can no longer even find it. That's one seriously expensive paperweight... Reply
deBlanc - Friday, March 05, 2010 - linkHas anyone tried a Raid 1 (mirror) with an SSD and an HDD? I have a customer with a Dell R410 server which has very limited expansion capabilites, only one expansion slot which has a 4 port NIC in it. They are starting to run into disk I/O issues. Short of buying a new server, I was thinking of Raiding a 500 GB OCZ Colossus with a 500 GB Seagate 7200.12, the idea being much faster reads with failover to the HDD if the SSD bricks. I can't afford to buy the SSD to test this out. What do you experts say?
db Reply
SeanFowler - Friday, February 26, 2010 - linkOverclockers UK has confirmed with Crucial that the 128GB version of the drive has a far slower write speed. They've been told that the write speed is up to 140MB/s.
The details are on page 1 here: http://download.micron.com/pdf/datasheets/realssd/...">http://download.micron.com/pdf/datasheets/realssd/...
Compare this to 235MB/s sustained write on the LE, and 250MB/s max write, and there's no competition.
Yes the C300 still has amazing read speeds, but I think the LE is the better all-round performer.
Unless we find out that the numbers we've been seeing on the net for the LE are for the 256GB version and have been erroneously attributed to the 128GB version as well.
I had the LE on order, then cancelled it to order the C300, then found out that the 128GB drive has mediocre write speeds. Talk about a mess! Reply
Beno - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - linkin Final Words, first paragraph, fifth line.
Crucla Reply
bizautomation - Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - linkI contacted the folks at SandForce for a comment on the un-ceremonious death of the OCZ test drive. Below is my question to them, and their response:
My email to SandForce:
Dear SandForce,
This is more for the blog community, than it is for me personally (although I am considering Enterprise SSDs for our database servers). I don't think it warrants your phone time. If you can simply prepare a statement in reaction to the test drive going bellly up at Anantech's test center, which I can post, I think that would be more than enough.
Here's the main concern out there:
1. CTO's like me are seriously looking at these drives to consider putting their databases on (SaaS based applications can benefit from the performance improvements).
2. We are deathly afraid of the reliability issues, so when initial articles about SandForce controllers came out with the emphasis on reliability, everyone was cautiosly elated.
3. We see a follow-up story on Anantech (arguably THE source of impartial news on hardware), show that the OCZ drive just "died", and I think it's safe to say, there's significant concern.
Yes, everyone knows it was a pre-production drive (Anantech makes that clear), but the cat is now out of the bag, and without a proper forensic investigation, I'm concerned this would happen witth a production drive. Hence my reaching out to
your firm for an explenation beyond "Oh don't worry guys, that was pre-production hardware". As you know, our community is comprised of smart people, and that type of answer just doesn't cut it.
What say you ?
Their answer to me:
Dear Carl,
We appreciate the inquiry and definitely appreciate your concern. It was appropriate that Anandtech highlight the drive that failed was a pre-production drive. The drive used Beta firmware, which by definition, had known issues.
Since then, SandForce has released its 'release candidate' firmware to our customer base of SSD vendors with the intent for them to run their qualification process on the drives and intensive tests for stability. We have received positive feedback so far. We'll take any issues that we hear of (and any that we find ourselves) and release a 'mass production' version of firmware with the intent for end user customer shipments and usage. We're confident that with the large number of leading SSD vendors in both Enterprise and Client markets that are qualifying drives based on our silicon and FW, in addition to our own robust testing capabilities, production drives based on SandForce will be of the highest reliability. Reply
anuraaga - Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - linkLooking at a Japanese retailer's listing for the RealSSD drives at http://bit.ly/clxvoa">http://bit.ly/clxvoa, the write speeds of the 128GB and 256GB versions differ by around 50%!
Random 4K Write:
128GB - 140 MB/s, 30K IOPS
256GB - 215 MB/s, 45K IOPS
Out of curiosity, which version was tested in this article? The numbers are close to the listed 128GB specs, so that's what I'm guessing. What could result in such a big difference in write performance in this as well as other drives(DRAM size?)? Or is this just some retailer manipulating the numbers to sell a more expensive part (work in research long enough and you get to know the amazing things possible through the use of normalization)... Reply
eldiablopotato - Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - linkDon't suppose C300 vs. Vertex LE review is around the corner? Reply
v12v12 - Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - link"To calm your fears, OCZ is selling the Vertex LE with a 3 year warranty."
Umm 3yrs is CRAP! It's the industry standard among ALL HDs... again, how many times do I have to catch Anand-staff soft-wrist-slapping these con-artist manufacturers?! Who's "assured" with a 3yr warranty vs what? I haven't seen any manu offering lower? So how's that a selling/assurance point... let alone if it's even VALID to list in this article?
What you should have said (if at all) was:
"To calm your fears, OCZ is selling the Vertex LE with a STANDARD 3 year warranty (just like everyone else)." Hahaha.
I just don't get how you can continue to soft-scold (more like a notation) these manufactures when you and I KNOW it's crap. Well Okay I DO know; you're smart and running a business/review site (pro-business) and you don't wanna bad mouth these guys like you OUGHT to do. So instead you'll give them wrist slaps at the end of all the journalist-sensationalism in order to wash over the apparent chicanery of these businesses, so they'll keep sending you beta/new samples... Yes I know how the POLITICS of "business" works these days; sucks for the avg-minded consumer who totally misses keystone issues like this for all the hype and grandeur laced commentary... Sigh, the consumer-cattle loses again. Reply
OWC Grant - Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - linkFWIW to this discussion thread and wasn't covered in the brief mention, the OWC Extreme Enterprise comes with an enterprise class level warranty...FIVE years. So, based on pricing and other similarities, will leave it up others to decide what the best value/performance ratio is in SSDs. Reply
kunedog - Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - linkLet's also not forget that he *never* acknowledged the near-immediately stratospheric pricing of Intel's G2 X-25M, right after he praised its affordability:
He mentioned the firmware problems and lack of stock once but never the pricing.
ONLY now, over 6 months later, do we see prices anywhere near what he predicted at release:
80GB for $220
160GB for $430
The 160GB comes with a free Apricorn USB enclosure, the same one "randomly plugged" here by Anand. It's a strange coincidence to see two sites decide to associate it with SSDs (why would you put an SSD in an USB enclosure?).
shin0bi272 - Monday, February 22, 2010 - linkI thought I saw a review on anandtech a few months ago about the corsair p128 which was supposed to be a great ssd. But its not included on these benchmarks. Its supposed to have 220mb seq read and 200mb seq write. yet its not included? why? Reply
OWC Grant - Monday, February 22, 2010 - linkGlad to see so much interest in SSD!
As Anand was made aware, our earliest units went out to reviewers and we contacted him and other reviewers to get these units back upon learning of a firmware revision that became available early Feb. In direct communication with him, he noted that neither firmware version had any effect on the performance.
All other OWC SSD units in the field (and available with same day to 1 day delay shipping from OWC) do have the latest firmware revision.
So, we are not "a bit behind OCZ" in this regard.
Hope this clears up the matter...and that you get an OWC SSD for yourself!
smith11 - Monday, February 22, 2010 - linkThere's something that I'm not getting...
If there's 0.5x write amplification because of real-time compression, why wouldn't the effective capacity be a good bit higher than (the non-reserved part of) the physical capacity ??? Reply
GullLars - Monday, February 22, 2010 - linkWhen i was reading this test, i couldn't help but think on several occasions that a cheap RAID of 3-4 intel x25-V from ICH10R would beat many of the drives tested here, and at a lower price.
4 x25-V in RAID 0 gives 160GB capasity, roughly 600 MB/s seq read (limited by ICH10Rs bandwidth), about 140-150 MB/s seq write, around 100.000 4KB random read IOPS (400MB/s) at higher queue depths, and about 40.000 4KB random write IOPS (120MB/s). At a price point around $400-450, wich is about the same as Intel x25-M G2 160GB costs...
I think it would be great if Anand could do a test with 4 x25-V in RAID 0 from ICH10R to demonstrate a budget concious enthusiast setup. Reply
semo - Monday, February 22, 2010 - linkHi Anand,
Great article. Any word on PCI-e SSDs? Are you leaving them out because of high costs or other reasons?
Also, good to know that you have our backs if those SSDs start crapping out. Without people like you companies get away with it for a long time. Reply
rubbertoe - Sunday, February 21, 2010 - linkLooks like Amazon is also selling the 100G version:
Can someone confirm this is the drive that was reviewed? With selling only 5,000 does anyone have any idea how they will be distributed into the retail channels?
RT Reply
neoflux - Sunday, February 21, 2010 - linkThe OCZ Agility uses Intel 50nm or Toshiba 40nm flash.
The OCZ Solid 2 uses Intel 34nm flash.
The OCZ Vertex uses Samsung flash, but what SIZE?
And based on that size, if the controller is the same as Anand mentioned a few articles ago, is the Solid 2 faster or at least the same speed-wise as the Vertex?
I did find that the Solid 2 may actually have some sort of 'crippled' Indilux controller, but that was just some forum, not an article.
I have gone back through all the Anand articles and googled everything I could think, but could not find the answer.
Someone enlighten me as to the size of the flash and the speed compared to the Vertex? Reply
neoflux - Sunday, February 21, 2010 - linkpart number is K9HCG08U1M-PCB00, but still can't find a size in nm. Reply
neoflux - Monday, February 22, 2010 - linkFurther research shows me that no one knows what manufacturing process size these actually are, which I find strange. No reviews include the information, there are no manufacturing spec sheets, etc. Only that they are lead-free and have 48 pins, haha.
This all must makes me more curious. How does no one know? Reply
eldiablopotato - Sunday, February 21, 2010 - linkBoth the OCZ & Crucial SSDs are nice, since my motherboard can't do 6Gbps can anyone recommend which SSD to get? I'm thinking Crucial SSD, but then again I'm no expert on SSDs like Anand. :P
Feedback welcomed. Reply
nivek - Sunday, February 21, 2010 - linkOCZ says they can't get any more sandforce controllers at a low price point. But how does OWC get the same controller for their Mercury Extreme Enterprise SSD. OWC 100GB SSD is priced the same as OCZ Vertex LE 100GB!
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/internal_storage/Me...">http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/internal_storage/Me... Reply
Per Hansson - Sunday, February 21, 2010 - linkJust curious about the missing capacitor, will there not be a big risk of dataloss incase of power outage?
Do you know what design changes where done to get rid of the capacitor, where any additional components other than the capacitor removed?
Because it can be bought in low quantities for a quite ok retail price of £16.50 here;
http://www.tecategroup.com/ultracapacitors/product...">http://www.tecategroup.com/ultracapacitors/product... Reply
sjobal - Sunday, February 21, 2010 - linkHi Anand,
I'm curious to know what SSD is most suitable for a mac. Since OSX does not support TRIM, some sort of garbage collection has to be done within the drive (firmware) or a software tool has to be available for OSX.
Is this something you'll look into in forthcoming reviews?
Best regards! Reply
AnnonymousCoward - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - linkAnand,
How can you benchmark in so many different ways, and yet end up with hardly any relevant information? All those PCMark graphs don't tell me squat. Your AnandTech Storage Bench is flawed, since (as your last article found) the SandForce uses compression and IOPS don't equal bandwidth! Why does the user care about IOPS?? Do they care about IOPS of their graphics cards? Or CPU?
With CPUs, you measure things like encoding time and game framerates. Things that matter!
This is the 3rd time I'm posting this. Refer to the last time: http://tinyurl.com/yjcr5vm">http://tinyurl.com/yjcr5vm Reply
Zoomer - Sunday, February 21, 2010 - linkIt's a waste of time to do what you're suggesting. The point of SSDs is to improve the user response time.
Encoding time? It would likely be virtually identical due to the modern pre-fetching algorithms in place.
Game framerates won't really be affected since the average of 3 runs is taken. After the first run, most everything will be cached, either in hardware or in software by the os in mem.
In the real world, you would expect to see less dips in fps (min fps will be higher), assuming it is a fresh first run. Reply
bradley - Sunday, February 21, 2010 - linkThe point is germane. New SSD benchmarks are required to measure real world performance. Some of the current benchmarks end up limited to measuring nothing more than cache speed. IOPS is impractical and demonstrates nothing indicative regarding real world performance.
the Problem with Write IOPS - in flash SSDs
http://www.storagesearch.com/problem-write-iops.ht...">http://www.storagesearch.com/problem-write-iops.ht... Reply
erple2 - Sunday, February 21, 2010 - linkOrdinarily, I'd agree with you. However, the point of the article was to point out the problems with "older" benchmarks that would simply look at, in a vacuum, IOPS of a drive was inconsistent at best, and misleading at worst. In the case of Anand's testing methodologies, you see that the IOPS numbers he comes up with are, in fact, the "worst case scenario" listed for SSD's in the article you linked to.
Until the giant Meltdown of SSD's in Anand's article (http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=35...">http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=35..., testing methodologies that benchmark reviewers were using were definitely perfectly suited to the problems with SSD's, namely the write-erase cycle being specifically excluded from the benchmarks. That indicated the main problem storagesearch.com referred to in the above linked article.
Anand has since changed his benchmark methodology for all SSD's to be a "polluted" SSD - he does not simply wipe the drive clean, then benchmark. He first fills the drive with data, then does a format (which does NOT wipe the drive clean - you still have the write-erase cycle to contend with), then runs benchmarks.
The other thing to look at is that the benchmarks that Anand looks at are, in fact, consistent. Saying that one drive attains 600 IOPS on "Anand's light StorageBench" where another attains 500 IOPS _ON THE SAME BENCHMARK_ does, in fact, give you a reasonably accurate comparison. The trouble you'll get into is if you state "Drive X gets 5000 IOPS, but Drive Y gets 9000 IOPS", not mentioning the actual benchmark used, or even worse, cherry-picking the benchmarks to favor the particular Drive. Then, you have to dig down and figured out whether the benchmarks that gave you "5000 IOPS" was, in fact, properly executed - is that really indicative of the performance of the drive, or only in a very tightly controlled environment to maximize performance numbers? However, that's a question you always have to look at regardless of what you're testing, be it video cards (3D Vantage doesn't give you an accurate picture of how well the card will perform in some particular scenario), CPU's (SPECint or SPECfp give you minimal information about how a CPU performs in a large database environment) or other devices.
So really, I think that the point the article in storagesearch is hammering at you should be wary of reading more into generic IOPS as a benchmark for these SSD's as is simply stated.
So, in conclusion, I disagree about 80% with what you have written.
(minor "edit"):
So I've re-read the GGP post - while it is true that IOPS as a number means nothing to me, it also winds up being true that posting a Bandwidth number would also be more or less worthless to me - what is important is the general ranking of these devices in the same benchmark. The benchmark is measuring the _relative_ performance of each of the drives in the same sequence of tests. Taking conclusions like "this drive gets 600 in a benchmark and that one gets 400 in another benchmark" ultimately fails.
(BTW, Anandtech staff, please fix the fact that I can't use any "rich" text in these posts) Reply
AnnonymousCoward - Sunday, February 21, 2010 - link> Zoomer: The point of SSDs is to improve the user
> response time.
Exactly! So why don't we compare response times?
> erple2: Saying that one drive attains 600 IOPS on
> "Anand's light StorageBench" where another
> attains 500 IOPS _ON THE SAME BENCHMARK_ does, in
> fact, give you a reasonably accurate comparison.
Sorry, not true. Like I said, SandForce's compression makes IOPS not equal to bandwidth. See http://tinyurl.com/yden7kc">http://tinyurl.com/yden7kc . And allow me to restate my comments from the last article: In article http://tinyurl.com/yamfwmg">http://tinyurl.com/yamfwmg , in IOPS, RAID0 was 20-38% faster! Then the loading *time* comparison had RAID0 giving equal and slightly worse performance! Anand concluded, "Bottom line: RAID-0 arrays will win you just about any benchmark, but they'll deliver virtually nothing more than that for real world desktop performance."
So there you have it. Why measure IOPS?
> erple2: what is important is the general ranking
> of these devices in the same benchmark. The
> benchmark is measuring the _relative_ performance
> of each of the drives in the same sequence of
> tests.
What "general ranking" lacks is the issue of significance. I apologize, but I will again restate what I posted on the last article: is the performance difference between drives significant or insignificant? Does the SandForce cost twice as much as the others and launch applications just 0.2s faster? Let's say I currently don't own an SSD: I would sure like to know that an HDD takes 15s at some task, whereas the Vertex takes 7.1s, the Intel takes 7.0s, and the SF takes 6.9! Then my purchase decision would be entirely based on price! The current benchmarks leave me in the dark regarding this. Reply
jimhsu - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - linkThe performance/free space dropoff is a significant issues, especially with otherwise-fast SSDs (i.e. Intel). For example, the 80GB X25-M should really be relabeled as a 60GB drive due to progressive worsening performance as the amount of free space decreases (beyond 70GB, it starts getting REALLY bad). Do these drives show any improvement in the performance to free space degradation curve? Reply
Demon-Xanth - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - linkGiven the state of so many SSDs out there using so many controllers with the performance being so dependent on the controllers...
...if is possible to get "summary" chart of what drives use what controller configurations? Reply
yottabit - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - linkThought I would point out that Page 8's title lists "Apricon" instead of "Apricorn"
As always, thanks for great articles Anand! Reply
aarste - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - linkI'm building a new PC soon and was going to buy another Agility 60 and use it with my existing 60gb agility and raid0 them up. But since the Intel X25-M 80GB is almost the same price, and blows away the agility in random reads (which is more relevant in OS/App usage than sequential speed, correct?) would it be better just to buy and run the single Intel drive instead?
I'm not too fussed about losing out on 120gb of capacity in raid0, and besides, I can install the games to the Agility instead, and use the Intel for the OS/Apps. Reply
leexgx - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - linkNo TRIM support in RAID so the drives would end up like 1 or less SSD speeds, SSDs really tank in speed once the drive has to erase before Write (Filled State)
need to use Standard AHCI drivers (install win7 but do not install chipset drivers or Intel matrix drivers as that would disable TRIM)
1 intel SSD 80gb and the Agility 60GB with updated Firmware one you got now is the best option
(correct about random reads and Writes the intel one hardly drops in speed at random Writes at all, most get to Focused on sequential speeds, as long as TRIM support is there) Reply
cjcoats - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - linkThe one thing missing is the one that's really relevant to me: workstation performance.
It's probably close to the "heavy load" scenario", but... For me, it's a mix of compiles, compute-intensive modeling, visualization, and GIS use. Of these, the compiles, the visualization, and the GIS are the really-interactive items, so are probably most important.
There are lots of compile-benchmarks out there; it would be relatively easy to generate a GIS benchmark, using some of the GRASS GIS logs I have from what I've been doing lately.
FWIW. Reply
NeBlackCat - Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - linkI completely agree that there should be a developers benchmark, and keep mentioning this when these articles appear.
Compiling a large software project seems to me to be a good general purpose test. There'll be random and sequential reads and writes, of a few bytes to many megabytes, in some hard to predict ratio, as the build process reads sources/headers, uses temporary files and writes output. It isn't obvious to me whether the Intel or the Indilinx/Micron characteristics would be favored.
But afaik no-one's studied this from an SSD angle, and I wish Anand would at least add a benchmark which could, say, build a Linux distro while grepping it repeatedly for some random text.
What say you Anand?
OfficeITGeek - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - linkAnand,
As always another great article. I just wanted to say that it is looking really bright for SSD's. The performance benefits of SSD's are just to great to ignore (unlike the switch from DDR2 to DDR3). But I am going to hold off though until Q4 as by then, the market will have alot more competition (hence lower prices), bugs will be sorted out and the thought of dead drives (such as the one you experienced) just gives me the creeps even if they do replace it with a new one.
MadMan007 - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - linkAnand, it is getting hard to keep track of different SSDs, which controller they use, how many flash chips, etc. It would be wonderful if you could start an 'SSD decoder ring' chart that lists the relevant information, maybe even linked to performance numbers like you've done with CPUs. Reply
allessd - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - linkmaybe this site is of interest to you:
"SSD Decoder Ring - an SSD comparison guide"
www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=736 Reply
Jupie - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - linkGreat article - always nice to hear about SSDs as I clearly see them as the future for a boot drive at least.
What I'm curious about is the performance of drives of the same series with different capacities. I'm not willing to spend ~800 USD on a drive but rather ~400 USD. How much performance hit does a Real SSD C300 really take? Manufactors clearly seem to prefer to send their biggest drives with the highest performance to test but what about the performance of the reasonalbe priced ~100 GB versions?
Would be great to read about that as well ;o)
Otherwise keep up the good articles! Reply
MadMan007 - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - linkYeah this is an important point, it applies to regular HDs to a much lesser extent too. I would like to see tests on smaller capacity drives of a given series. I guess a lot depends on implentation, for example using the same number of flash chips with a given controller just of a lower capacity per chip versus using fewer flash chips and channels. Reply
Conscript - Friday, February 19, 2010 - linkNot sure why I'd pay the premium for "limited" SF-1500 drives when I can just get the same thing here, for less...
Anand, any chance you think they'd give you one for review? Thinking about putting one of these in my new MBP (when they come out). Unless the new MBP has SATA 3, in which case I might look hard at the C300. Reply
iwodo - Friday, February 19, 2010 - linkMay be Anand can do an article on that. You mention previously that controller contribute VERY little to the total cost of SSD. NAND being the major part.
If that is the case, then assuming we always need 8 chips for an SSD. SSD Prices wont ever dropped below $100? Because while capacity per unit will grow, it seems minimum unit prices dont fall that much. Reply
icrf - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - linkYeah, I'd love to see a reliable, slow 8-16 GB drive for $50. I've got a RAID server that can't seem to keep up boot drives and would love something like that. Reply
Bolas - Friday, February 19, 2010 - linkSo if I'm willing to spend up to $1200 for a boot drive, what's the best option? Crucial? Vertex LE? Intel? OCZ Z-Drive? Something else? Reply
czesiu - Friday, February 19, 2010 - linkAny chances for a Kingston SNV425 review? Reply
mckirkus - Friday, February 19, 2010 - linkI would like to see what pure RAM drive based storage would do so we can get a sense of how close these drives are getting to some sort of maximum.
I'm not sure if you can do this with a RAMDisk you create with software or if and entire image would need to run in RAM (HDTach, etc., will not work on RAM drives for some reason. Just to be clear, I'm not referring to benchmarks of RAM using a SATA interface.
Good stuff yet again Anand. Reply
mindless1 - Friday, February 19, 2010 - linkThere is no "sort of maximum", DRAM keeps getting faster.
However, if you were to create and use a RAMDISK, however you ended up doing so, it would destroy any flash drive in terms of performance on every possible parameter. The question is not about performance at all, rather the implementation and volatile nature of using it... and of course that it's no small feat to end up with hundreds of GB worth of those chips for typical HDD replacement purposes (in a reasonably sized form factor). Reply
mindless1 - Friday, February 19, 2010 - linkI meant the above within the context of it using a PCIe, otherwise the SATA600 link would clearly be a bottleneck. Reply
mckirkus - Friday, February 19, 2010 - linkI know what you're saying. But I'm wondering what PCMark scores look like when you remove drive IO as the bottleneck. If the best SSDs are scoring 20,000 would the same system with no disk bottleneck score 25,000? 30?
In other words, with only SSD scores we're still not sure how close we are to removing the drive bottleneck in system performance. IMO this is an important question and the answer would give these SSD scores some context. Reply
overzealot - Monday, February 22, 2010 - linkI just tried out PCmark on a 2gb ramdrive. My q6600 (stock) had 1 core maxed from about 20% through each test, and got a score of 362,471 in the HDD test. That's with DDR800 folks.
I'm guessing all the results would be CPU bound so my system is really not the best place to test it. Reply
overzealot - Monday, February 22, 2010 - linkPhysical Memory: 4 GB (2GB Ramdisk, so really 2)
Graphics card: ATI Radeon HD 5770
Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate (6.1.7600) 64-bit
Full suite results:
PCMark 6,566.0 PCMarks
Memories 5,596.0
TV and Movies 4,326.0
Gaming 5,133.0
Music 6,085.0
Communications 5,948.0
Productivity 6,242.0
The scores for everything would be way too long, here's the HDD results:
HDD - Windows Defender 1,797,924,224.0 B/s
HDD - gaming 2,064,242,048.0 B/s
HDD - importing pictures to Wind 1,810,203,648.0 B/s
HDD - Windows Vista startup 2,053,050,752.0 B/s
HDD - video editing using Window 1,549,093,504.0 B/s
HDD - Windows Media Center 1,607,108,864.0 B/s
HDD - adding music to Windows Me 1,423,892,096.0 B/s
HDD - application loading 1,355,910,784.0 B/s
HDtach rates it at 3GB/s. Reply
jimhsu - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - linkThere will also be an I/O bottleneck unless the entire dataset can fit directly onto the CPU. The RAM/CPU bottleneck is the Von Neumann bottleneck which is a well known one in computer science (time/space tradeoffs). It's just what's the point at which the bottleneck ceases to become a user issue... Reply
srue - Friday, February 19, 2010 - link"Despite early messaging to press, the 40GB Kingston SSDNow V Series Boot Drive will never get official TRIM support for Kingston. Luckily some adventurous folks have figured out a way to trick Intel's firmware updater into thinking Kingston's drive is worthy of such a gift."
That first sentence upsets me because I purchased the drive believing TRIM support would eventually come. Granted, I probably would have done the same knowing what I know now, but I thought I was getting a better value.
Does anyone have a link to the trick mentioned in the second sentence? Reply
Glenn - Sunday, February 21, 2010 - linkHere ya go.
I did this last week and it works great. Reply
srue - Friday, February 19, 2010 - linkI found the instructions on overclock.net. Reply
mschira - Friday, February 19, 2010 - linkSo I think I would rather go with an intel X25-M
By the way, what do you guys reckon are two X25-M 80Gb connected to the Intel Motherboard Raid in Raid 0 faster than a X25-M 160Gb?
leexgx - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - linkRAID 0 = no Trim support (maybe get TRIM support)
160GB SSD would require no fussing to keep the drive tidy (with windows 7 that is standard drivers in AHCI mode) it stay at its advertised speeds as long as the Chipset driver was not installed or the intel matrix driver was Not installed
i give up for the most part commenting about how pointless RAID 0 with an SSD is, all you get is more data rate speed that you not even notice (unless your messing with Very big files 5-10GB but you lose TRIM so it degrade fast if you Write that much data a lot, One drive would still be faster) SSDs are about 2x data rate (a lot focus on this to much when its random you should be looking at ), 30x random data rate faster or more and the IOPS is 50x faster then an HDD (normally)
RAID + SSD = Fast for about an week or month then it be slower then 1 SSD Reply
v12v12 - Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - linkYES! You tell these idiot RAID-0 fanboys that it's USELESS and doesn't offer any real world benefit for all the potential catastrophic FAILURE it can cause, and the fact that it's DOUBLE: the drive price, double the heat, double the noise, double the space required, double capacity loss... the list of negatives about RAID-0 go on and on.
__ WHile nobody talks about RAID-1, like it's some redheaded-step-child. RAID-1 is the BEST thing anyone can do if they value their data. Screw a meager speed increase (very subjective/specific to the intended usage) when you risk losing it all and THEN you'll spend how many HOURS of DOWN TIME cursing your HDs to hell? Logic right out the window folks...
RAID-O has long been proven to be a complete WASTE OF TIME! Go search Xbit-labs, Storage review and the myriads of other comparisons that PROVE (again not my opinion) that it's a farce and doesn't belong on "desktop" systems at all: stupid gamers/fanboys never learn. Reply
funkyd99 - Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - linkI wouldn't call double the capacity useless. Before you generalize everyone who uses RAID-0 as an "idiot fanboy", realize that:
1. Some people need more than 160GB of storage for their primary drive, and prefer a hardware solution vs. a software solution such as dynamic disks.
2. Some people have a solid bare-bones backup solution in place, and can recover from a catastrophic failure in less than an hour.
3. RAID-1 on a desktop is the waste of time and hardly the best thing someone can do if they value their data. Please tell me how RAID-1 will save your data if a faulty power supply fries everything in your computer, or a faulty controller writes a bunch of garbage to both disks, etc. etc. An external drive and a weekly backup is safer than relying on RAID-1 as a backup solution.
4. Some people can get a point across without resorting to name-calling and CAPS. Reply
mlambert890 - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - linkThis is so well said. Why are so many people so insanely emotionally involved with disk drives, video cards, etc?
There is no "final answer" discussing RAID 0. Lots of people like to declare they have a "final answer" and call anyone who dissents an "idiot", but this is just noise.
As has always been the case with *any* RAID level, cost/benefit analysis really depends almost entirely on your use case and indvidiual situation. It is tempting to try to paint with a broad brush (especially on web forums), but reality just doesnt work that way
Anyone who understands RAID, storage, or really technology in general in any meaningful way, knows this.
A lot of technology passes through my hands as a result of my profession (and a lot has come and gone during the course of a 20 year career).
Annecdotally, I can tell you right now that I absolutely "feel" the difference between Intel SSD single drive and the sames drives in RAID 0. I have the two setups sitting right here for testing. Synethetics show a difference, and the difference is measurable and noticeable. Many people say they don't notice the difference between SSD and *HDD*. They arent wrong - perception is subjective.
Objectively, however, RAID-0 yields a performance increase. Whether or not one can perceive it or feels the tradeoff is worth it (as is ALWAYS the case with RAID-0), is a subjective and individual decision.
Some day a lot of these kids are going to look back on their post history (unique thing - your words last forever on the internet) and wonder what the heck they were thinking... Reply
kmmatney - Friday, February 19, 2010 - linkI agree. NewEgg just had the Intel 80 GB SSD on sale for $219. They sold out pretty fast, though. I think at the end of the day, you can't go wrong with Intel for an SSD. Their toolbox can schedule a anutomatic TRIM operation once a week for Windows Xp systems as well, so lack of autoatic TRIM in Window XP is not an issue. Reply
leexgx - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - linkintel toolbox will only work in AHCI mode (Sata mode as well i think but you lose NCQ) and no updated chipset drivers or no intel matrix drivers installed Reply
mschira - Friday, February 19, 2010 - link
typo gallore...
But I am so excited...
M. Reply
micksh - Friday, February 19, 2010 - linkVertex LE 200GB is $920 at Amazon (preorder, no availability date)
Just one note. Numbers on charts are aligned to bars and text is aligned to the left edge of the chart. If the bar is too short the numbers overlap with text and it's hard to read the numbers.
Shining Arcanine - Friday, February 19, 2010 - linkI thought Linux's ext4 and btrfs filesystems supported TRIM too. Why do you say that only Windows 7 supports TRIM? Reply
Chlorus - Sunday, February 21, 2010 - linkBecause BTRFS is still experimental and EXT4 is a piece of shit that randomly corrupts large files? Reply
gwolfman - Friday, February 19, 2010 - linkAnand,
I'm jealous of your serial number: 1.
OCZ showing some special love to you. :) Reply
anikolayev - Friday, February 19, 2010 - linkI just bought an OCZ Agility based on your benchmarks, the ones suggesting the drive is capable of 160MB/s writes. However it has been confirmed by several other customers that the current batch being shipped by NewEgg uses different chips in the OCZ lottery which comes up with 100-130MB/s writes. This is very significant for people buying this drive for video capture related purposes, since 100 is hardly any better than the average 70 on a standard HDD.
The Agility's random writes that you show in the charts and latest article are also almost double of the drives being shipped right now. After countless tweaks I can barely do 7MB/s, forget 12.
I understand the Agility is a dated drive, but it's still very popular due to recent sales ($130 for 60GB) and I think it would help your readers to take a look at updated performance numbers that are more realistic to what they will actually get.
Also there's no refunds with SSDs, so anyone buying into these charts will just have to live with what they get. Reply
v12v12 - Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - linkFYI... 100 vs 70 is THIRTY PERCENT FASTER DUH? 30% is HUGE in regards to technological competition/advancements. Where have you been all these years? Show us a 30% performance gain (aside from SSD beta testing and new releases) in 1-2 mechanical HD generations... Umm you CAN'T>.< Reply
AnnonymousCoward - Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - link> FYI... 100 vs 70 is THIRTY PERCENT FASTER DUH?
Duhhh it's 43% :) Reply
hardwareguy - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - linkIf you want and SSD that's fast and cheap the agility is hard to beat. If that last bit of performance is important you can buy one of the vertex turbos or an intel drive but it quickly gets un-cheap. Even a 3/4 speed agility is still 10x better than a spinning metal drive. Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - linkHmm, what size drive do you have? I tested the 120GB Agility I believe which has higher read/write specs than the rest.
Take care,
Anand Reply
bji - Friday, February 19, 2010 - linkThey've admitted that they are building only a limited number of drives, so how will they honor the three year warranty? It's unlikely they will be able to replace a dead drive with another OCZ Vertex Limited Edition, since there won't be any more. Will they replace with an equivalent drive? If so, what would the equivalent drive be?
I continue to be skeptical of SandForce's controller technology. I would be interested in seeing some more rigorous testing done on these drives, such as repeated and random simulated power outages during writes, to ensure that the drive doesn't brick itself if power is lost at an inopportune time (especially as this version does not have the supercap).
Exelius - Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - linkTypically what they would do is either hold back a percentage of production for warranty replacements. Once they run through these they'd just offer you an equivalent current product. Reply
LazerFX - Friday, February 19, 2010 - linkSomeone's not read the article...
From the "Final Words" page, reproduced here so that anyone else reading the first few pages can get the answer:
"If you're willing to take the risk, the Vertex LE appears to be the best SSD you can buy at $399. It is a difficult proposition simply because we have had such limited experience with the drive and the controller/firmware have a completely unproven track record. It really boils down to how much of an early adopter you are. At least OCZ as a company tends to take care of its customers, so even if you do take the jump and something does go wrong you won't be SOL. The Vertex LE will ship with a 3 year warranty and if your drive dies you'll get another LE (OCZ is putting some aside), Vertex 2 or other equivalent in its place.
OCZ's CEO Ryan Petersen and I could always get into another yelling match if you aren't taken care of."
So... there you go. Reply
Kibbles - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - linkeven if they run out of those they put aside. they still have the enterprise versions. Reply
bji - Friday, February 19, 2010 - linkAbsolutely right, my answer was there and I posted before reading all the way to the end. Mea culpa.
crimson117 - Friday, February 19, 2010 - linkThey can still buy more SF-1500 controllers at the non-sweetheart-deal price and create new drives for warranty replacements. Or they could offer refunds but not replacements. Reply
vol7ron - Saturday, February 20, 2010 - linkI'm glad they realized that the controller was too expensive. It should definitely be cheaper, SF is ripping them off. I think this was a good move on their part.
But, I also have to wonder, was this decision influenced in part from the CES-2010? The V2Pro seems lke it was a not superior, but competitive product that would soon be inferior. Just makes me wonder if execs said, "halt production, sell what you can. We'll market it as Limited Edition."
vol7ron Reply
sdhfkjsdhfksjdhfks - Wednesday, March 03, 2010 - link
Sports, mainly by the advanced sports equipment.
Do you have enough good equipment? Of the world's most famous brands. Only two brands, jordans Nike.
If you want to have these two brands of equipment, and want to use the lowest price to buy,
Then I suggest you go to: http://www.dearsales.com">http://www.dearsales.com
More and more fashionable style. More favorable, the more you want.
Open the wardrobe is not yet found love after another the right clothes? So, also waiting for? Immediate action bar! Welcome to { http://www.dearsales.com">http://www.dearsales.com } sure you will find what you need. Moreover, the company has a good reputation, product quality standards, at reasonable prices. Over the years, has been well received by overseas friends for their support. Therefore, please rest assured purchase.
===== http://www.dearsales.com">http://www.dearsales.com ==== Reply


text:
Intel SSD 335 (240GB) Reviewby Kristian Vättö on 10/29/2012 11:30 AM EST
69 Comments
Back to Article
Dug - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkIf Samsung continues to produce the 830 as a value drive compared to the 840, I think Intel will have trouble selling these. I don't see any advantage. Reply
Kristian Vättö - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkSamsung is phasing out the SSD 830 by the end of November, so it won't be available much longer. Reply
mfenn - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkNooooooooo....
I want my cheap fast drives damnit! Reply
DanNeely - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkThey're only cheap now to get rid of them; once they're out of the channel people can't point to the old model discount for why the new one is too expensive.
If you want a bigger SSD, now's the time to buy the 830 you've been lusting over. Reply
BrianDustin - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - linkLove my job, since I've been bringing in $5600… I sit at home, music playing while I work in front of my new iMac that I got now that I'm making it online(Click on menu Home)
http://goo.gl/ntYAX Reply
JohnUSA - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - linkYou can shove your iMac in your rear where the sun does not shine. Reply
jwilliams4200 - Thursday, November 01, 2012 - linkIt is too bad the comments software does not have a "report spam" button. Reply
JonnyDough - Friday, November 23, 2012 - linkAGREED. :( MODERATOR HELP! Reply
hrga - Thursday, November 01, 2012 - link@BrianDustin SPAMMER Reply
Wolfpup - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkSamsung's drivers are flaky if hit hard, and of course less reliable. These Intel drives with Sandforce controllers aren't as good as Intel controllers, but still...Micron/Crucial and Intel are the best choices. Reply
Bull Dog - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkDo you have any hard data to back up this these assertions? Or are they just your unfounded opinions?
I ask because the SSD 830 has a terrific reputation for being reliable. It has even demonstrated an exceptionally impressive lifespan over at XtremeSystems Forums. Reply
kkwst2 - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkYeah, where's your data on that? I'm not aware of any data that suggests the 830 is less reliable in any way than Crucial or Intel. And my perception from experience and reviews are that Samsung has a significantly better reliability record than Sandforce. All vendors have had firmware issues to some degree, and Intel has had some pretty significant ones. The 8 MB issue on the 320 that caused data loss comes to mind. Reply
Samus - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkHonestly the first Intel SSD I've come across dead was an SSD520 120GB, just wont detect by the system, clearly a Sandforce controller problem.
I'd never seen an Intel SSD fail until now that (August 2012) and Intel has made a big mistake joining the likes of OCZ quality with its Sandforce marriage. Reply
JonnyDough - Friday, November 23, 2012 - linkYou must forget about all the issues that plague hard drives. Reply
MichaelD - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - linkTo what "Samsung drivers" are you referring? You don't need to load any drivers for this or any other SSD (at least in Windows 7, 8 and Server 2012). The driver is provided by Microsoft and has a date of 2006.
And I'll note that Samsung SSDs are not plagued by the infamous "Sandforce controller bug." And that Samsung makes the controller the NAND and everything else in the SSD.
So how again, is it less reliable than other SSDs? Reply
centosfan - Wednesday, October 31, 2012 - linkI don't think you know what you are talking about. I have two Samsung 830's and use them everyday and push they quite hard. Haven't had 1 single issue. I haven't heard of any problems with them either. Reply
hrga - Thursday, November 01, 2012 - linkIt all depends about the market Samsung 830 128GB is here 170USD while 256GB version is 400USD so they aint affordable at all. While Intel 520 series 240GB costs 350USD and 120GB 180USD respectively Reply
seapeople - Friday, November 02, 2012 - linkSo $170 and 128GB is less affordable than $180 and 120GB? You live in strange world. Reply
djshortsleeve - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkI dont see the need for all these various models. Make a value drive and a high end one. You either buy cheapest or best. Reply
Kristian Vättö - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkThat's essentially what Intel offers. SSD 335 is the value drive, whereas the successor of SSD 520 will be the high-end one. SSD 335 and 330 are basically the same and 335 will replace the 330 sooner than later (I'm hearing Q1'13 for the other capacities). Reply
MichaelD - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - linkI agree! Take Corsair for example; they've got like a hundred (sic) different SKU's. "Force" "Subforce" "Battle" "Skeedaddle" and "Primo" versions of SSDs...marketing FUD at it's finest. Only the .5% of SSD buyers (like AT readers) will actually look at specs and decide. The other 99.5% will just buy whatever box has the "fastest looking" cover art. Reply
zanon - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkNow they just get giggle-stomped across the board by Samsung. I hope Intel decides to be competitive again someday, but in the mean time it's hard to see any reason to bother. Reply
MadMan007 - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkRead past the sythetics to real-world tests. It is at least competitive in most cases, and all these drives are stupid fast anyway. Reply
jeffbui - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkWhy is there such a discrepancy between the power consumption figures given by the manufacturer vs what you're getting from your testing? (Samsung mostly) Other websites are getting completely different power usage figures as well. Reply
DanNeely - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkComments on one of AT's other recent SSD articles claimed this is because the power consumption test is being done using an external enclosure that never lets the drive drop into it's lowest power states. I didn't see any official comment on it. Reply
Kristian Vättö - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkSome manufacturers such as Samsung report their power numbers with DIPM/HIPM (Device/Host Initiated Link Power Management) enabled, which can lower the power consumption significantly. DIPM/HIPM are not enabled on desktop by default and I'm not sure if all laptops have them enabled either.
We have ran tests with DIPM/HIPM enabled and gotten results similar to what manufacturers report, but so far we have kept on publishing numbers with DIPM/HIPM disabled. We will probably add DIPM/HIPM numbers once we redo our SSD testing methodology. Reply
DanNeely - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkIf available, would the feature be called DIPM/HIPM in our bios's; or is it likely to be obfuscated to something else?
Also, why is it often disabled by default? Is there a penalty related to enabling it? Reply
Kristian Vättö - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkHere are instructions for enabling DIPM/HIPM:
In desktops it's not as important because you aren't running off of a battery and the power that SSDs/HDs use is so little anyway that it won't affect your power bill. I'm not sure why it's disabled, though, because I havent heard of any concrete issues caused by it. Reply
Per Hansson - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkActually I'm not sure that DIPM/HIPM is the whole reason.
I mentioned it previously and it for sure can have a dramatic difference.
But just as important is the measuring equipment used for the power consumption.
A cheap DMM only measures in very slow intervals, you would get very different results when measuring using a $100 Fluke vs a $1000 Fluke vs a Scope with really high bandwidth.
It's because the SSD changes power levels many hundred times per second and this is too fast for a regular DMM so you just get some of the data points, not enough to make a reliable averge... Reply
MrSpadge - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkWouldn't the slower / cheaper DMM measure over longer intervals (that's why it's slow in the first place) and hence automatically average over some fluctuation? Reply
Per Hansson - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - linkNo, it does not work like that.
A slow DMM might take a reading every second.
An example, in seconds:
1: 2w
2: 2w
3: 2w
A fast DMM might take readings every 100ms:
1: 2w
2: 0.5w
3: 2w
4: 0.5w
As you see a DMM does not take a continous reading, it takes readings at points in time and averages those...
An SSD drive might actually change power levels much more frequently, like every millisencond (consider their performance, how long does it take to write 4KB of data as an example?) Reply
hrga - Thursday, November 01, 2012 - linkdont think SSD even try to write such a small amount of data as 4kB every milisecond considering how large buffers usually have 128GB LPDDR2. So thes kind of small writes occur in bursts when they accumulate every 15-30s (at least hope so as this was case with hard drives) That ofc depends on firmware and values in it. Reply
Per Hansson - Thursday, November 01, 2012 - linkThat makes no difference, I sincerely hope that no drive waits 15 > 30 seconds to write data to disk because that is just a recipe for data loss in case of power failure or BSOD.
I also hope no drive uses a 128GB write cache. (Intel's in house controller keeps no user data in cache as an example, but I digress)
Even if the drive waits a minute before it writes the 4KB of data you must still have a DMM capable of catching that write, which is completed in less than a millisecond.
Otherwise the increased power consumption during the disk write will be completely missed by the DMM Reply
Mr Alpha - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkWouldn't it make more sense to the idle power consumption on a platform that supports DPIM? The idle power usage is mostly a matter on mobile devices, and it is on those you get DPIM support. Reply
sheh - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkThe text says total writes were 1.2TB, (+3.8TB=) 5TB, and 37.8TB. The screenshots show "host writes" at 1.51TB, 2.11TB, and 3.90TB? Reply
sheh - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkAnd why the odd power on hours counts? Reply
Kristian Vättö - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkYou are mixing host writes with the actual NAND writes. Host writes are the data that the host (e.g. an operating system) sends to the SSD controller to write. NAND writes show much is written to the NAND.
When the SSD is pushed to a corner like I did, you will end up having more NAND writes than host writes because of read-modify-write (i.e. all user-accessible LBAs are already full, so the controller must read the block to a cache, modify the data and rewrite the block). Basically, your host may be telling the controller to write 4KB but the controller ends up writing 2048MB (that's the block size). Reply
extide - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkBlock size is 2048KB* Reply
sheh - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkSo the write amplification in the end was x9.7?
Are NAND writes also reported by SMART?
And with the messed up power on count, how can you know the rest of the SMART data is reliable? Reply
Kristian Vättö - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - linkYes, write amplification was around 9.7x in the end. That makes sense because the drive becomes more and more fragmented the more you write to it.
As you can see in the screenshots, the SMAT value F9 corresponds to NAND writes. Most manufacturers don't report this data, though.
We just have to assume that the values are correct. Otherwise we could doubt every single test result we get, which would make reviewing impossible. The data makes sense so at least it's not screaming that something is off, and from what I have read, we aren't the only site who noticed weird endurance behavior. Reply
sheh - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - linkThanks for the clarification. Reply
jwilliams4200 - Thursday, November 01, 2012 - linkI think the most accurate figure is the write amplification during the 4KiB QD32 test.
In your first table, E1 = 1.51 TiB (Intel seems to have the same bug as Windows, labeling TB when they mean TiB)
And F9 = 1208 GiB (I am assuming it is GiB not GB, since Intel usually seems to use the binary power units)
Then in the last table, E1 = 3.90 TiB and F9 = 37791 GiB.
Then WA = (37791 - 1208) / (3.90 - 1.51) / 1024 = 14.95
So WA is about 15 for the QD32 4KiB random writes. Reply
jwilliams4200 - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkWhat is the exact wording from Intel for the $184 price?
The article says MSRP, but in the past, Intel has often quoted their distributor price for 1000 units. In other words, how much newegg would pay Intel if they ordered 1000 units.
So I am wondering whether $184 is really the MSRP, or whether it is the 1000 unit price (in which case the street price would be higher than $184) Reply
Kristian Vättö - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkIntel said the $184 is the RCP/MSRP (Recommended Customer Price/Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price). Reply
jwilliams4200 - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkThank you for the clarification. So apparently newegg is selling for significantly more than the RCP (currently $210). Reply
Kristian Vättö - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkThanks for the heads up, I updated the article with the NewEgg pricing info. I guess this once again proves that MSRPs are totally meaningless. Reply
MadMan007 - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkOr it proves that Newegg prices a bit high on newly launched tech. Maybe Newegg shouldn't be used as the sole basis for pricing any more. Reply
jwilliams4200 - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkNo, it is not just newegg. The cheapest price (from a major retailer) that I see for the 335 now is $195 from buy.com. Most of the others want more than $200 including shipping. Reply
meloz - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkSSDs continue to be a minefield for consumers. It is pathetic that this SSD wore out as quickly as it did. Such a fundamental issue should have been caught in Intel's internal testing before the drive was dispatched for reviewing, specially when the drive started with MWI of 92. No one at Intel thought this was odd?
Looks like we will have to wait another 18 months for SSDs to become truly reliable. But I thought the same 18 months ago. Ugh. Only the Samsung 840 inspires some sort of confidence.
I shudder to think how these manufacturers will cope with newer NAND in future which will have even lesser write-erase cycle life.
Reading about all these laughable "oops" by SSD manufacturers makes you *really* appreciate the job Segate, WD and Samsung do with their platter drives. Reply
jeffrey - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkAfter Anandtech's 840 Pro review sample died, I'm not super inspired with confidence about the plain 840. Reply
meloz - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - link>After Anandtech's 840 Pro review sample died, I'm not super inspired with confidence about the plain 840.
Oops, I had almost forgotten about that, thanks for the reminder.
Damn, all SSD manufacturers suck in their own ways. Reply
jwilliams4200 - Thursday, November 01, 2012 - linkI'm disappointed that there hasn't been any more information on that 840 Pro that died.
Anand should really post some more details. Like what it was doing just before it died, the symptoms of how it failed, whether the SMART parameters could still be read, etc.
Also, Anand should be hounding Samsung to get back to him about it, if they haven't already. The 840 Pro is apparently shipping on Nov 6. If Samsung has not been able to diagnose the problem and report back by then, it looks bad for Samsung. Reply
Kristian Vättö - Thursday, November 01, 2012 - linkAnand was filling the drive with sequential data (preconditioning it for our enterprise tests) and it just died in the middle of the run. After that it was no longer recognized in BIOS, not even when connected using USB to SATA adapter.
As far as I know, Samsung has not gotten back to us about it yet but let me ask Anand and see if he knows more. Reply
jwilliams4200 - Thursday, November 01, 2012 - linkThank you for the additional information.
I am highly interested in what Samsung has to say about the failure. It seems to me that anandtech should be able to put some pressure on Samsung to give them a thorough failure analysis in a timely manner, or else anandtech will report that Samsung was unable to explain the failure and that looks bad for Samsung. Reply
mmonnin03 - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - linkThe flash on SSDs arent going to get more reliable. ECC basically scales exponentially as the process dimensions keep shrinking. As the lines get closer and closer, the number of electrons holding the charge becomes harder and harder to measure. Each cell is 2 bits, so 4 different amounts of electrons need to be measured. Errors occur more frequently and get fixed. And that's not going to make the NAND any faster by going smaller. SSD speed/reliability improvements will/have come at the controller level. If you truly want a reliable SSD, go 34nm SLC. Its still being produced. Reply
jeffrey - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkBetween the Samsung 840 Pro dying during testing and now the endurance issue testing Intel's 335, I believe OCZ should get some more credit for their Vertex 4.
Everyone wants to mention Intel, Micron/Crucial, and Samsung for SSDs, but the Vertex 4 deserves to be there too. Reply
josephjpeters - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkEndurance will play a larger role in differentiating future SSD's as the industry continues to move to smaller NAND geometries.
I'm interested in seeing OCZ's Vector which will use 20nm MLC NAND. It'll be a big test for OCZ to see how their endurance technology stacks up against the competition (or lack thereof in the consumer space). Reply
Samus - Monday, October 29, 2012 - linkI've had my Intel SSD320 160GB for about two years, use it daily, and still have only written 10.6TB to it and the MWI is still 100%.
Either way you look at it, this drive will last the average user a decade easily, even with less than 1000 P/E Reply
IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - linkThis is false: "Based on the data I gathered, the MWI would hit 0 after around 250TB of NAND writes, which translates to less than 1,000 P/E cycles."
There is a forum that exclusively tests SSD endurance and Intel drives last far past the MWI of 0. In fact, after it reached zero, it started counting up. I remember the original X25-M lasting until the second MWI is significantly greater than 25(it could be 50 I don't remember).
They thought that after the Media Wearout Indicator reached 0, the drive would die. In fact, none of the drives did. NONE.
Even 240TB is hell of a lot. My X25-M has 7.6TB written to it and I had it since the year the drive was announced. At this rate, I'll be 30 years older by the time it reaches that point. So its a needless worry about nothing.
Contrary to Platter HDDs, which die off slowly and more and more data gets corrupted and gets slower and slower until you notice that the drive is dying. Less than 5 years for lot of people around me too. Reply
Kristian Vättö - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - linkI did not say the drive will die after the MWI hits 1. In fact, I said the opposite:
"Even after it has hit 1, it's likely the drive can still withstand additional write/erase cycles thanks to MLC NAND typically behaving better than the worst-case estimates."
The problem here isn't that 1,000 P/E cycles isn't enough for a consumer, but the fact that there seems to be a huge difference in endurance between 20nm MLC and 25nm MLC if our data is correct. Intel claimed that there is no difference, both are 3,000 P/E cycles, but our data contradicts with theirs. Given that the SSD 335 doesn't bring any immediate price cuts, you are getting a worse product for the same money compared to the SSD 330.
It's of course possible that there is a simple firmware bug which reports wrong MWI or NAND writes, but at least so far Intel has not said anything to suggest that. Reply
MrSpadge - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - link"It is always impressive to think about performance going up with subsequent NAND generations"
Well.. it might be impressive, but nevertheless it's a false assumption (if NAND generations are defined by lithography - newer interfaces could be implemented on the same lithography just as well). Reply
Kristian Vättö - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - linkMy point was that overall performance has gone up even though the NAND is slower. Reply
mmonnin03 - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 - linkAs for the comment about stocks of 25nm flash... IMFT/Micron are still making a significant amount of 25nm NAND as well as some 34nm chips. Reply
CristianM - Wednesday, October 31, 2012 - linkyou wrote on average 1000 times the capacity of the disc but that does not translate in write cycles because there is the nasty write amplification which seems to be about 3 for your testcase, so there you have it. But for an average user writing 10GB per day it would take many years to wear (68) or about 7 years for writing 100G which seems unlikely for a home user Reply
CristianM - Wednesday, October 31, 2012 - linkMy bad, the write amplification is taken into account, so just divide by 10 :D and the lifespan drops to 7 years for medium use and 1 year for a mad torrent user :)) Reply
bankster66 - Friday, November 02, 2012 - linkTrim needs:
series 7 chipset (Z77 Z78) - NOT Z68
11.5+ Intel RST OROM in bios
11.6+ Intel RST driver pak
Preferably Win 8
"RAID falls under the T10 specifications. These specs require the UNMAP command to be issued to TRIM the drive. No current Microsoft operating systems supports the UNMAP command so regardless of driver or OROM RAID arrays will not be Trimmed. Win8 will be the first MS operating system with an API in place to support the UNMAP command "
There is no way in hell you can get trim functioning with your setup, all prereqs are wrong Reply
Per Hansson - Saturday, November 03, 2012 - linkI don't know what you are on to make an accusation like that.
TRIM is supported by Windows 7
It requires the AHCI drivers in Windows to be used, or any other driver that specifically mentions that it supports TRIM.
What you are referencing is TRIM support with 2x harddrives in a RAID-0 array, and that has a long list of requirements, but how that is relevant to this Intel 335 single drive review is beyond me.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6161/intel-brings-tr... Reply
Bruno2 - Tuesday, March 12, 2013 - linkI noticed the following firmware update for the SSD Series 335. Perhaps this was the reason for the endurance test problems.
November 2012
This release adds a firmware update for the Intel® SSD 335 Series fixing the following issue :
- Incorrect reporting of the E9h media wear indicator value Reply
Bruno2 - Tuesday, March 12, 2013 - linkFYI, I noticed the following firmware update for the SSD Series 335.
November 2012
This release adds a firmware update for the Intel® SSD 335 Series fixing the following issue :
- Incorrect reporting of the E9h media wear indicator value Reply

subset: commoncrawl


text:
By Leo W Banks
Geronimo lay in bed, delirious. He was moments from death, and his final mutterings would be familiar to those who knew him in life. He spoke of his regret at having surrendered, saying he should've died fighting his enemies—the Mexicans, for whom he harbored a lifelong hatred, and the white eyes who'd taken over his homeland.
This was the warrior Geronimo, the man American settlers knew, the blood lover, the killer.
But he also talked about his love for his children. As his nephew Asa Daklugie held his hand that night in 1909, at the Fort Sill hospital in Oklahoma, Geronimo begged Daklugie to care for his daughter, Eva Geronimo, as if she were his own.
After a bout of unconsciousness, his eyes—those narrow, burning, paralyzing eyes—would open and fix on Daklugie. "I want your promise," he'd say.
This was Geronimo, too, the worried father, the family man.
News of his death made telegraph wires crackle worldwide and, in those reports, the same split can be seen between Geronimo the man and Geronimo the monster.
In covering his passing, The New York Times called him "the worst type of aboriginal American savage," whose life proved "the proverb that a good Indian is a dead Indian."
Many of the same reports also noted his intelligence, his genius at warfare and how, in 1886, pursued by one-third of the US Army, plus 4,000 Mexican soldiers, he melted into the landscape, ghost-like, there one moment and gone the next.
But as with other great Western figures—Billy the Kid, Custer, Wyatt, Hickok—Geronimo's death wasn't an end, but a beginning. He's too much fun to say goodbye to—and far too useful.
The question now is whether his skull and two femurs sit inside a spooky gothic stone building known as the Tomb, on High Street in New Haven, Conn.
It has long been rumored that several Yale students—among them Prescott Bush, father of former President George Herbert Walker Bush and grandfather of former President George W Bush—dug up Geronimo's remains in 1918 while taking artillery training at Fort Sill.
The bones were allegedly taken to Yale, where some believe they're used to this day as ritualistic props by an elite student society called the Order of Skull and Bones.
Harlyn Geronimo, of Mescalero, NM, a great-grandson, in February filed a suit to free Geronimo's remains and spirit "from 100 years of imprisonment at Fort Sill, Okla., the Yale University campus at New Haven, Conn., and wherever else they may be found."


text:
Posted July 29, 2013 by Kay Walten in Riviera Maya Activities,Riviera Maya Photos,Watersports
The championship winning team, the Quintana Roo Tigers, have made baseball popular in Cancun and the Riviera Maya. Playoff games start in August and these boys of Summer are sure to be a staring team! Games at the Beto Avilar Stadium in Cancun are fun and affordable.
Read more about the Tigers.
Select Month
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
January 2010
November 2009
October 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
October 2008
September 2008
July 2008
June 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
March 2007
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
May 2006
June 2005
March 2005
February 2005
December 2004
October 2004
July 2004
May 2004
March 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
August 2003
July 2003
May 2003
March 2003
January 2003
November 2002
September 2002
July 2002
June 2002
March 2002
February 2002
December 2001
July 2001
November 2000
October 2000
Select Category
Riviera Maya Activities (218)
Mexican Art (61)
Community Organizations (27)
Mexican Culture (178)
Mexico Destinations (126)
Enviroment (93)
Family vacations (101)
Food (247)
Guest Bloggers (20)
Riviera Maya Photos (303)
Riviera Maya events (79)
Riviera Maya Services (63)
Watersports (47)
Sustainable Tourism (112)
Vacation tips (64)
Destination Weddings (32)
Ecotourism (9)
Loco Adventures (41)
Mayan Ruins (40)
Riviera Maya Destinations (248)
Community Announcements (20)
Mexican Recipes (36)
Riviera Maya Restaurants (74)
Mindful Traveler (49)
Yucatan Activities (47)
Riviera Maya Vacation Tips (154)
Mexico Vacation Tips (163)
Restaurant Reviews (8)
Interview with a Local (15)
Podcasts (70)
Culture (7)
Activities (17)
Travel Tips (8)
Hyper Local Info (9)
Events (2)
City Information (10)
"Not sure if we will be returning next summer, but will definitely let you know if we are, as Loco Gringo is the ONLY way to go for us!"
--Lesley P., Texas
"You always recommend amazing accommodations and we are always comfortable and feel safe. Your staff does a fantastic job at making our vacation each year a " hassle free " experience ! All we have to do is " show up " and the rest is already taken care of. We will continue in future to use LocoGringo and also continue as we have done already, to highly recommend your company to anyone we know that is planning a vacation."
--Nancy & Bill, Toronto, Canada
"Both in 2011 and this year we have booked our room through Locogringo.com. We searched and found a great rate at the resort we wanted, and then Locogringo met that price, and with their booking came their amazing customer service and the peace of mind that if we need anything while we are there we simply need to call. I always get a fast turnaround on any email I send them, and they work so hard to find us the best rates and the rooms we want. We hope to have a long relationship with them, and recommend their site to everyone we know."
--Tim A and Teri A, Salem, UT
"and for the past five years we have used Loco Gringo for every reservation, I'm sorry that we did not find them sooner.
I have been searching Loco Gringo for all these years and one thing I have not yet found ........... someone who is not fabulous to work with. Great people, great owners and a great way to run a business."
--K & DB, Outer Banks, NC,
"People who "live the area" will want to make sure you enjoy your vacation and come back again!"
"I just wanted to take a moment to say THANK YOU! The trip we booked through Loco Gringo was perfect! The price was exceptionally good and the service was second to none! If you've never booked with Loco Gringo before, we *highly* recommend them!"
--Derek S.,
"She & her new Husband had a fantastic hassle free trip. This was their very first time to Mexico and her comment upon return was " Dad, 7 days is NOT enough time ! " Super job, LG."
--Bernie in Denver,
"And their amazing website is one of the main reasons we started going regularly to the Riviera Maya and especially Akumal. No other place around the Caribbean has nearly as good a web presence as LG has given this area."
--Dan, St. Louis MO,
"All our Riviera Maya trips have been booked using LocoGringo. We love their service."
--Debbie, California
"Thanks for everything you have done with Locogringo… the site is great and your staff has been nothing short of incredible when it comes to helping us plan our trips. Maybe we'll run into you on one of your walks some day."
"Now is a great time to tell you how wonderful you and your staff are at making it so easy to find and book the best vacations, THANK YOU !"
--Joyce & Hugh,
"quick and informative replies from Bart ( thanks Bart) , easy booking procedure plus online management of your booking . I am highly impressed."
--Theressa - Middlesex U.K.,
"So here is a GREAT BIG TEXAS THANK YOU TO LOCO GRINGO for all the awesome, fantastic vacations in Paradise."
"It's a great comfort to visit the Riviera Maya and know that Loco Gringo is there to help, if needed. "
--Bryan in IN,
"We usually need reservations for 2 to 4 people but for 2 years we needed reservations for 7 to 9 people, adults and kids and they have always done a flawless job in getting the resort we wanted and at the best price too!!"
"I have booked most of my Mayan Riviera trips through Loco Gringo and can only say I wouldn't even consider using anyone else to handle my bookings for stays in that area.
Their booking process is simple, fast and friendly, and they will answer your questions and queries until you are completely satisfied that every single detail has been taken care of.
Who else would know the area better than folks who live and work right there? Try to get that level of expertise and knowledge with a booking agent who lives and works several hundred, or even thousands of miles away.
Not only that, but they are genuinely nice people as well, who really care for their customers and the community and area that they call home
Keep up the great work Loco Gringo!!"
--George, Calgary
""I was soooo delighted with the Loco Gringo services. Everything was trouble free and all my questions were always answered promptly. Thanks for a GREAT trouble free vacation!""
"I would recommend Locogringo to everyone I know. It is such a great service that they provide from researching and booking the perfect place to stay to finding all the needs you could possibly want during your stay. Thanks Locogringo."
"We spent a lot of our time sitting on the second floor porch with our feet propped on the railing just staring at the water. Coming home was hard this year..Staying for two weeks still wasn't long enough."
--Susan, USA
"I had contacted you before I left for my first trip to Mexico and all of your recommendations were spot on. I started in Playa Del Carmen and worked my way to Tulum. I had only expected to stay 2 nights there and instead wound up staying for a week-and that still was not nearly enough time. Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks! I will be checking in with you guys as I am tring to plan a trip to Holbox next. That place looks amazing!"
--Louis Skip Gonzalez, Unidos Magazine
"It is like having a friend make your reservations for you .... we always feel comfortable knowing LG will be in charge of our arrangements because they know the area first hand, they live there ..... you ask a question and they answer it with good humor and great knowledge of what they speak. I will always recommend Loco Gringo in a heart beat!"
--Nancy, Michigan
"We have been Booking our Riviera Maya vacations from Loco Gringo since 2005. Always Great communication, helpful tips and quick responses to our questions. They were especially helpful when Hurricane Wilma hit and put a stop to our Vacation plans. They made sure we knew about the weather situation and did all the work with re-booking our vacation in Paradise!"
"When we use LG to book a trip we get immediate help with all of our questions in a very timely way by people who know what they are talking about and are extremely helpful, patient, knowledgeable, and congenial. They really get how to do customer service.
Once we book through LG we never have to worry about any of it again. We are always amazed at how smooth and trouble free our bookings through LG have been."
--K.B., Fort Worth, TX
"A company made up mostly of American Expats living in the Riviera Maya with a booking list of many hundreds of properties. Big enough to know each property intimately and small enough to know each customer personally. A level of service simply impossible for the giant companies to provide.
--Jim T., Colorado
"What an amazing company Locogringo is. Every silly question I have.... they answer , If something comes up like a travel day change, adding more people, or whatever it might be... you get a response from a real person ... who seems to love what they do . That is hard to find these days and I really appreciate that."
--Brenda, Oregon
"I will be bragging about your site to any and all who will listen. Our experience was phenomenal!!!"
--M. Palaschak,
"Loco Gringos is the VERY BEST booking site I have ever worked with. They respond to emails promptly, work hard to honor special requests, answer questions etc. They ALWAYS take great care of their customers and are conscientious and professional at all times. We have booked 8 trips with this company and NEVER hesitate to use them or recommend them when traveling to the Riviera Maya."
"Go to the home page or check the forum."
--Liz, Portland
"...for your patience with me and making this process go soooo much smoother! I truly appreciate you and the staff at LocoGringo. Thanks again! I can't wait to be sitting on the beach!
Maggie in Colorado"
"LocoGringo.com books total trip packages and I recommend LG to all my friends and even to strangers I hear talking about going to Mexico!!"
"Loco Gringo has an AWESOME website with great info, it is lots of fun to visit, be sure to join their forums. The forums hold more information and trip reports than you can 'shake a stick at'!"
* Denotes A Required Field
How much are you thinking about spending?


text:
We're sorry, but the page you requested is not available on the Office of R&D site. This could be due to an outdated bookmark, a misspelling in the URL that was entered, or a broken link on one of the pages in our site.
Please use the navigation buttons (left) or perform a search to find the content you are looking for. Please update your bookmarks to avoid receiving this error in the future.
To report a broken link or ask a question of the webmasters, please contact us.
Veterans Crisis Line:
1-800-273-8255 (Press 1)
Social Media
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs | 810 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington DC 20420
Updated/Reviewed: Nov 20, 2013


text:
Epic Games Releases Epic Citadel for Android Devices - We test it outby Brian Klug on 1/30/2013 9:31 PM EST
- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Android
- Mobile
- Benchmarks
- unreal
- epic citadel
52 Comments
Back to Article
Brian Klug - Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - linkI forgot to include Galaxy Nexus, that'll be up shortly.
-Brian Reply
Blindsay04 - Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - linkShould be pretty close to mine, I got an average of 40.5 FPS Reply
mmp121 - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkGot a 40.8 on my GNex Reply
mark29 - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkI just got a 51.0 average with high quality on mine Reply
mark29 - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkthen I ran with extended desktop to have a 1280x720 resolution and got 48.7 average Reply
noll - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkWhat ROM are you running? Reply
mark29 - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkLatest cm10.1 nightly plus latest franco kernel Reply
Souka - Friday, February 01, 2013 - linkI'd like to see rooted devices and their scores.
Keep the CPU/GPU clocks the same... I'm just curios if theres a difference.
then overclock and see if it helps.
My $.02 Reply
santeana - Friday, February 01, 2013 - link53.9 at 720p ;-)
aokp 4.2.1, Franco kernel 364, 1405mhz, wheatly Reply
louisotto - Saturday, March 23, 2013 - link56.8 on Xperia Z on High Performance, 1080 res
Drops to 56.0 on High Quality
Curious that it runs at 1794x1080 even though it fills the screen! Reply
SquattingDog - Friday, February 08, 2013 - linkOn my Samsung Google Nexus S (2nd generation Nexus):
24.8 @ 800x480 (Native), High Performance
21.6 @ 800x480 (Native), High Quality
Specs: 1GHz Cortex A8 Single Core, 512MB RAM, PowerVR SGX540, Jellybean 4.1.2 Reply
Taemoor - Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - linkI just got 58.8. I want to confirm this score. Is there anyone else out there with a Kobo Arc? Please reply to this and post your score.
thanks Reply
Taemoor - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkit was on full res (1280X736) and ran it again with even astonishing 58.9. Reply
nagi603 - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkB&N NookColour with CM10: 13.whatever fps, regardless of resolution. Reply
neothe0ne - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkOn my APQ8064 / Adreno 320 phone at 720p and "power saving" mode (only 1 core turned on?), I got a 42.9 FPS average (was generally always at ~58 except for some outdoor scenes in the 30s).
With all cores on, the average FPS is 57.3. (I saw a low of 45 for a split second I believe)
Apparently that makes this APQ8064 / Adreno 320 phone is marginally better than the Nexus 4 :) Reply
dragonsqrrl - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkStrange, I don't seem to have a benchmarking mode on my Droid 3. When it starts up I'm taken straight into the environment, and I don't see any options or settings available. Am I just noob'n out, or is anyone else having this problem? Reply
WeaselITB - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkSwipe down from the top little banner thing, tap the gear on the right to go into Settings to adjust quality / resolution. Then when you're back in the engine, swipe down again to hit the Benchmark button. Reply
dragonsqrrl - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkThere is no top little banner thing when I'm running around in the environment. This is the difference I was talking about between what I'm seeing on my Droid 3 and the screen shots posted above. I'm wondering if it's a problem specific to the Droid 3 (wouldn't surprise me), or if it has to do with Android 2.3. Is anyone else still running 2.3? Reply
jmke - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkit's good that it is running close to vsync.
means that once you start adding AI , gameplay elements, bots, objects etc the performance will remain good.
imagine if it were running <30fps without any elements or objects inside the gameworld, that would be a bad sign. Reply
xaueious - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkAverage was mid 30s for my T30 TF300. Anandtech should have one of these devices lying around. Would be curious to see your results. Reply
powerarmour - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - link48.8fps with an Asus Transformer Prime :-
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/7978/screenshot... Reply
fabarati - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkJust as a reference, my Optmius 2X (Tegra 2) @ 800x480 scores on High Quality.
1st time, 48.7 FPS
2nd time 52.3 FPS
3rd time 51.3 FPS Reply
tipoo - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkEven my now archaic Nexus S never dipped below 30FPS in this, and I think the average was just below 40. Most games look far worse than this, yet run worse as well. Granted this has no AI or characters on screen which would rob some performance, but it still looks like more geometry and shading work than the vast majority of mobile games. Reply
piroroadkill - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkI want Y-inversion.. Reply
piroroadkill - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkThat said, I get 23.8fps on my HTC Desire HD at maximum resolution (800x480) at High Quality.
Looks even smooth, the quality is glorious. Reply
piroroadkill - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - link*looks even smoother [than that]
Desire HD - 800x480 High Performance: 25.6fps
Desire HD - 800x480 High Quality: 23.8fps
Desire HD - 600x360 High Peformance: 16.5fps
Desire HD - 600x360 High Quality: 15.6fps
Desire HD - 400x240 High Performance: 18.1fps
Desire HD - 400x240 High Quality: 17fps
Yes, reducing resolution dramatically reduced framerate on my device. Reply
piroroadkill - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkNot that it matters, but for completeness, this is running an old Gingerbread ROM, Android Revolution HD 5.1.11, Android 2.3.3, CPU clocked @ 1.2GHz. Reply
sheh - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkAnd would performance on the Exynos/Mali variant be better than the MSM/Adreno? Reply
sheh - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkI guess the Note 2 there should be pretty similar to the "other" S3. Reply
Kepe - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkA friend of mine ran the benchmark on his Exynos based S3, he got 41,3 fps. Reply
CeriseCogburn - Friday, February 01, 2013 - linkHardware variants - something to do with the cell chip type and other wifi junk - but yeah the point is, it's irritating.
Got 45.3 on the Note 2 here, not 45.8 as the chart shows - US version, original android no hacks, has the quad and the mali 400, jellybean 4.1.1, cleared the ram first as well that helped a bit, also it came with split screen apps working.
960x540 (75% rez) high quality = 45.6
100% rez(1280x720), high performance = 47.4
lol - Kind of surprised I guess the mali400 is a bit weak / it does better in the bench suites Quadrant and Antutu vs the others in the charts. Reply
sheh - Friday, February 01, 2013 - linkBut then, why should the RF radio affect the CPU and GPU choice? :)
And I also don't get why they don't have unified RF hardware as well, maybe with the exception of antennas which take up physical space. Reply
CeriseCogburn - Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - linkBrain Klug mentioned it somewhere might be in this article about the chip doing LTE - so the dual core snapdragon version had to mesh with the no LTE radio chip as I understood it.
Others elsewhere have stated there were shortages of quadcores due to demand so Samsung used alternate cores for regions and also for similar phones (changing nearly just the ARMs core and making a new phone model).
So I guess there are several reasons. Reply
sheh - Friday, February 01, 2013 - linkStrangely lower. I guess it's difficult to say like that if there are other factors than CPU and GPU. Reply
WeaselITB - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkDroid 4 (TI OMAP4430 1.2GHz / PowerVR SGX540 304MHz / 1GB RAM)
Average FPS of three runs: 49.9
Resolution 960x540 qHD
High Quality Reply
Kepe - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkHTC Sensation (qHD) @ 1728 MHz CPU & 332 MHz GPU and set to High Quality
1st run 42,1 fps
2nd run 41,1 fps
3rd run 41,5 fps Reply
hammer256 - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkResolution: 1024x720
Average FPS: 29.3
Ok so Adreno 220 might be showing its age at this point.... Reply
randomhkkid - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkStrange that the s2 scores lower than the Galaxy nexus even though the GNex is a higher res and has a slower gpu. Reply
powerarmour - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkI think it's quite well optimized for PowerVR hardware, especially if it's an iOS port.
Then again Tegra 3 seems to do quite well, I wonder what excuse the Nvidia haters will have for this one... ;) Reply
CeriseCogburn - Friday, February 01, 2013 - linkNone.
I'm thrilled, it's utter silence...
Wait, the tegra3 won, top o the chart ... why one would think they'd retract all the months of whining about tegra3.
Not thrilled, I take it back. Reply
lmcd - Friday, February 01, 2013 - linkMali 400's deficiencies have been thoroughly noted and addressed in the T-series Reply
SilverEyes - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkDevice: Samsung SGS I9000 @ stock CPU, running 4.2.1 by pawitp
build.props set to Nexus S for install from app store
Resolution: 800x480 (100%)
High Performance (just one run):
Average FPS: 33.7
High Quality:
1st Run: 23.3 fps
2nd Run: 20.5 fps
3rd Run: 18.4 fps
Qualitatively: I'm surprised how well this ran. Far smoother than Splice for instance, which is choppy on my phone at best.
Great framerate given the age of the hardware, only occasional stuttering. Reply
Lonyo - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkI noticed on the Google Play store that it shows 134MB download for my Galaxy S3 and Transformer TF101, but only a 94MB download for my Galaxy Tab 2 7".
Is it the same benchmark being run on each device, or is it different versions of the "game"? Reply
CeriseCogburn - Friday, February 01, 2013 - linkGood question - shows 41.07 mb on my Galaxy Note 2 from the google play store once installed...
If I go full webpage I get 153mb download from google play. Reply
UpSpin - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkAs long as it still runs on a HTC Desire / Nexus One, it's not worth any further investigation.
Sure, it only runs at 11 FPS average according to the benchmark, but that's way too good for my 'ancient' smartphone.
And rendering such static scenes is always less demanding than a moving character, or even several characters (battle) with lots of additional details and effects. So I don't really see a use in this except advertising for Epic, which, however, isn't an indicator for the quality of real games, because of the missing effects/characters/moving objects. Reply
nathanddrews - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkAverage of three runs:
T-Mobile Samsung Galaxy S3 (100% resolution 1280x720)
Quality 42.3fps
Performance 46.2fps
Acer Iconia A100 (100% resolution 1024x552)
Quality 32.5
Performance 36.8 Reply
rs2 - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - linkThe app crashes for me whenever I try to access the 'Settings' section. Device is a Sony Xperia S.
Any ideas? Reply
felipetga - Friday, February 01, 2013 - linkMy Acer Iconia scored 33.7 fps, High Quality @ 1024x552. Running regular Android 4.03. Tegra 2 still hanging on its own... sort of... Reply
RaistlinZ - Friday, February 01, 2013 - linkSprint HTC EVO 4G LTE
Avg: 45.4
High Quality
1028x720 Reply
Krysto - Friday, February 01, 2013 - linkThis just shows how old the Epic Citadel demo is. Most devices already reach 60 FPS at native resolution on max quality with it. I don't know why they even bother porting it at this point. They should've just worked on a new one based on Unreal 4, and then launch for both iOS and Android in the same time. This was pointless. Reply
DesktopMan - Saturday, February 02, 2013 - linkAn option to turn off vsync (if possible) would make it more useful for comparisons. It would also still let Epic brag about how well it runs. Reply
shubham412302 - Saturday, February 16, 2013 - linkmy atrix 2 scored 53.3 with stock Reply


text:
Each month, Rated People connects over 50,000 homeowners with quality tradesmen - simply enter your job details in the form above to get started.
We'll match your job to the relevant tradesmen in your area - those interested will pay to see your contact details and call you to quote.
As each tradesman expresses interest in quoting on your job, we'll send you their profile and ratings to help you choose the right one for you.
After the work is complete, return to the site and rate your tradesman based on their quality of work, reliability and value for money.
Plasterer / Renderer
Added 02/05/2017
replastering to walls & ceiling. Some filling needed where cables have been 'chased in'
Searching for tradespeople
Plasterer / Renderer
Added 10/06/2016
We are looking for someone to come and skim the ceilings in all the rooms in our small bungalow...
Searching for tradespeople
Plasterer / Renderer
Added 14/10/2014
Services required: plaster skimming Complete room(s): 2 x bedrooms: (walls and ceiling), 1...
Searching for tradespeople
Plasterer / Renderer
Added 16/06/2014
Services required: plaster skimming Part of room(s): 5 x ceilings, 1 x medium sized wall,...
Searching for tradespeople
Plasterer / Renderer
Added 03/01/2014
Services required: install plaster / render / plasterboard and plaster skimming 2 x bathrooms:...
Searching for tradespeople
Plasterer / Renderer
Added 06/10/2013
Externally LIME Render Approximately 60-70 Sq Meters including Chimney stack. All old render...
Searching for tradespeople
Wow, this guy was fantastic. Reliable, punctual, polite and really knows his stuff. Def. have him back again. I posted the job on Rated people at 14.00 Wed, he priced the job 18.00 when I got home from work, started at 9.00 Thur and finished exactly as he said. Plus had some plaster left so gave it 3 coats instead of the usual 2. A totally welcome stressfree experience.
Turned up on time, finished quickly and left everything tidy.Would recommend.
We hired Hassan to do a tidy up job in a spare room. We have now found our 'go-to' guy for all things DIY related! He is reliable, friendly, knowledgeable, professional and very trustworthy. We felt comfortable leaving him with a spare key after knowing him just couple of days. I would have no problems recommending Hassan for all kinds of structural or decorative work. In fact he is currently quoting for a job next door! He has got a great knowledge of interior design and is a bit of a perfectionist!
Best tradesman I have ever used. High quality work, wonderful finishes - after the first job we continued to hire him for more work in the house and also around our estate. There is nothing that he cannot do - superb! Would strongly recommend
An excellent job, very impressed with the finish and would definitely recommend them.
Great customer service, competitive price and an amazing standard. Would not hesitate to use again and would recommend to others without a doubt. Happy to provide pictures of the great job completed if anyone would like them. Many thanks Jamie and team!
Managing your job is easier with the Rated People Homes App, download it today.


text:
Dog Walkers in Beetown, WI
Book a dog walker to give your dog a 30-minute walk around your neighborhood.
Tina's Platteville Dogsitting
platteville, WI, 53818
Dog Boarding, House Sitting, Drop-In Visits, Doggy Day Care, Dog Walking
About: (more)
Experience exceptional service and a personalized match
From start to finish, we'll handle all the details for you.Learn About Premier
Rover also offers dog walking in:
|Bloomington, WI
|Buena Vista, WI
|Cassville, WI
|Glen Haven, WI
|Lancaster, WI
|Mount Hope, WI
|North Buena Vista, IA
|Patch Grove, WI
|Potosi, WI
|Rickardsville, IA
We know you can't always be there, and it's our goal is to connect you with sitters in your neighborhood who can help take care of your pet. With Rover, it's easy to find and book Beetown dog walkers who will give your dog the exercise they need. Book a 30-minute walk one day, once a week, or even every day. That way, you can take care of what you need to do and know your dog is getting the love they deserve. No matter how often you need a sitter or dog walker, we're here for you. We're proud to offer complimentary premium insurance with dog walking services booked through Rover. The next time you're looking for a dog walker in Beetown, WI, visit Rover to search for the perfect dog walker, set up a Meet & Greet, and book a walk anytime you need it. All you have to do after that is sit back and relax: your dog's in good hands.
Wondering what you should be paying for a walk? Check out our standard dog walking rates for a comparison.