• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Guide to SSD selection?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
A general question, what makes the Intel controiller so much more superior, Intel never usedto be into data storage or what?
 
Last edited:
barefoot_r.png



http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-x25-m-SSD,2012-4.html

The question is a good one: how the heck did Intel manage to create a MLC flash SSD that is faster than a high-end SLC product? And why do the drives store 80 GB or 160 GB, while silicon-based chips typically have capacities of 32, 64 and 128 GB? The answer is multi-channel flash. Intel uses its own SATA/300 controller and addresses ten different MLC flash channels at once, using a 16 MB cache memory. It also employs native command queuing (NCQ) to be able to distribute read and write operations across the available channels efficiently. Looking at the printed circuit board you’ll realize that the bottom carries the controller and the cache memory together with five of the ten memory channels (two flash chips each). The top side holds the other ten chips.

The current generation of 50 nm NAND flash stores 32 Gbit (4 GB) per chip. If you now use 20 of them (two per channel times 10 channels) you’ll reach exactly 80 GB. If you distribute reads and write across 10 channels it is obvious that performance will scale beautifully. However, we’re curious about how Intel implements the 80 GB (or 160 GB later on) on the 1.8” form factor, as 20 flash chips plus controller plus DRAM doesn’t fit into the 1.8” envelope (although the double-sided printed circuit board does). Intel will have to work with a smaller number of higher density flash chips, but we can only speculate about the layout. The specification of “up to” 250 MB read and 70 MB/s write performance indicates that not all models might perform alike.
The first diagram is Indillix's barefoot controller (in most SSD's now), and the second explanation is the best I could find about Intel. I'm not sure about samsung.

It isn't that Intel's controller is THAT much better, it's just the first generation controllers didn't have nearly enough parrallel channels and cache. So they would try to access multiple memory chips at the same time and you'd just grind to a halt (stutter).

That's the best I can guess anyways. Don't take me too seriously :)


The really beautiful thing about SSD's is that they did to hard-drives what multi-core processors did to CPU's, run in high parrallelism. Intel is able to run every flash chip in parrallel at the same time then pump it into a big cache, along with the other higher end controllers. The two go hand and hand very well in terms of general architectures.
 
Last edited:
Slight nitpick, what's your definition of superior? It can be argued that the Indilix is just as superior since it makes up for the lower random write speeds with much higher sequential write speeds.

Anyway, the answer seems to be multi-channel flash. Both Indilix and Intel use multiple channels to efficiently distribute read and write operations, improving speeds in both. It's in a sense similar to the speed boost you get with RAID0. Intel use 10 channels but I'm not sure about Indilix. The number 6 is coming to mind for some reason, but I can't find any documentation to support that.

EDIT: Shiggity beat me to it. :p
 
Read up on Fusion I/O as well if SSD's interest you Brolloks.

They're making 1TB 3.5" SSD form factors that plug into the PCI-e slot. They're for the enterprise atm, but eventually we might see some consumer SSD's that go into the PCI-e slots.

Those SSD's act like a cache to 100+ TB storage arrays. Capable of doing 1,000,000+ IOPS.
 
A general question, what makes the Intel controiller so much more superior, Intel never usedto be into data storage or what?
Nobody had any experience doing SSD level flash controllers, so everybody kind started out from scratch. This was probably part of the reason the JMicron controllers were so bad. What Intel had was a lot of talent (opportunity), a flash production without enough market (motivation), and a lot of money to throw at it (resources).
 
Read up on Fusion I/O as well if SSD's interest you Brolloks.

They're making 1TB 3.5" SSD form factors that plug into the PCI-e slot. They're for the enterprise atm, but eventually we might see some consumer SSD's that go into the PCI-e slots.

Those SSD's act like a cache to 100+ TB storage arrays. Capable of doing 1,000,000+ IOPS.

lol i just found a old post of mine...
http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=6222029&postcount=31
intel X25-M vs Fusion IO.. :drool:
 
I would go with RAID0ing X25-Ms because you get the Intel drives' super fast random write speeds and a decent amount of seq. write speed. RAID0ing with the Vertex will get you a higher max write speed but that's only useful if you do a lot of video editing or you move around large files at such a regular rate that the RAID0 Intel's 175MB/s won't suffice.

However, one thing to consider is price and stock. Right now the Intel G2 drives are hard to find at a decent price due to low stock. If you can get a good deal on them, great. But if you can't, and you want the SSD experience ASAP, you won't be hurting yourself buying the readily available Vertex instead. They're both great drives in the end and tremendously better than regular hard drives.

Check out deathman20's RAID0 X25-M G2 80GB benches: http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=620426
 
Last edited:
a couple of dumb questions...

1) if using an ssd for a system disk....i'm assuming that fast reads and small random write performance would be the most important features?

I don't know for sure, but I'm assuming that the OS doesn't make a lot of large sequential writes where Intel's deficiency would come into play?

2) Do any of the drives (Indillix or Intel) support RAID 0 via their "garbage collection" tool?

From my research I know that the Intel (G2) and Indillix drives support TRIM under Win7 via firmware but none work in RAID because the RAID hardware/software can't pass the command to the drives.

The main reason I ask is that there have been some good deals on 30gb Indillix controller drives and the upcoming 40gb Kingston (rebadged Intel) is enticing, but to run Win7 and XP virtualization you almost need 2 of these drives as your OS will almost fill all of the 30gb drives too much of the 40gb drive to be usable.
 
OCZ has worked with indilix to make a GC program for raid setups and for os's that dont support Trim(for vertex, vertex-ex, agility, agility-ex only). just like with Trim, the firmware needs to support GC.

intel drive might be better for os's but not by much... i ran a older "solid" 30gig drive, was more then enough space with XP-sp2 patched. i only had a problem when i installed one game... depends on how much stuff you need for your computer 30gig or even 40gig wont cut it. i used a 80gig drive for my os only for the longest time, same drive is in use in another pc right now.
 
The main reason I ask is that there have been some good deals on 30gb Indillix controller drives and the upcoming 40gb Kingston (rebadged Intel) is enticing,


Keep in mind, that 40gb drive doesn't support the Intel TRIM and GC software. I am excited to see how that 40gb Kingston drive pans out so I can put it in all the cheap laptops and netbooks for friends and family. But for us enthusiasts it really is between an Intel drive or Indillix.
 
Keep in mind, that 40gb drive doesn't support the Intel TRIM and GC software. I am excited to see how that 40gb Kingston drive pans out so I can put it in all the cheap laptops and netbooks for friends and family. But for us enthusiasts it really is between an Intel drive or Indillix.

i guess there is some leap of faith involved, but every review of the kingston drive mentions that kingston has said they will release TRIM support.

even if they dont, im sure some creative person out there will find a way to implement the intel firmware on the kingston drive since it is exactly the same thing as the 80gb intel drive with half the nand modules and is rumored to be identicl to the upcoming 40gb intel branded drive
 
Maybe, but personally I've been screwed over too many times by these companies. Its better to just get something you know works. For all we know Kingston could be getting around to TRIM support the day after never. Why take the risk?
 
well the Intel G2 drive didn't support TRIM until 2 weeks ago, but everyone was confident they would add it "just because they said they would". Besides that, Kingston doesn't even have to write their own....Intel has already done it. I'm sure they will tweak the interface on the update software and maybe throw their own logos on the GC software, but it should happen. I'd be surprised if it didn't...Kingston has been a top tier reputable manufacturer for years no reason to doubt them now.
 
Get yourself 2 OCZ Agility's or 2 OCZ Vertex's use FW 1.41 ( GC ) raid them and be a happy camper ....

IMO TRIM isnt ready for prime time , even with W7 and 1 drive I would still use an 120gig Vertex or 120 gig Agility with FW 1.41.....
 
Back