Rezultati testova – 2.dio
ATTO Disk Benchmark
|
 |
| Read 4kb (MB/s) |
| Corsair Force 3 120GB |
| 240,66 |
 |
|
|
| Intel 510 120GB |
| 187,465 |
|
|
|
| Intel SSD320 160GB |
| 184,495 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 250GB |
| 159,967 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Force 120GB |
| 131,62 |
|
|
|
| OCZ Agility 2 120GB |
| 118,739 |
|
|
|
| OCZ Vertex 2 120GB |
| 118,739 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Nova 128GB |
| 58,803 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
0 |
|
| |
| Write 4kb (MB/s) |
| Corsair Force 3 120GB |
| 299,155 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Force 120GB |
| 180,869 |
|
|
|
| OCZ Vertex 2 120GB |
| 168,192 |
|
|
|
| OCZ Agility 2 120GB |
| 152,668 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 250GB |
| 132,314 |
|
|
|
| Intel SSD320 160GB |
| 123,833 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 120GB |
| 123,121 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Nova 128GB |
| 80,838 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
0 |
|
| |
| Read 512kb (MB/s) |
| Corsair Force 3 120GB |
| 551,579 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 120GB |
| 400,649 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 250GB |
| 390,925 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Force 120GB |
| 283,398 |
|
|
|
| Intel SSD320 160GB |
| 282,563 |
|
|
|
| OCZ Vertex 2 120GB |
| 279,62 |
|
|
|
| OCZ Agility 2 120GB |
| 276,737 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Nova 128GB |
| 268,406 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
0 |
|
| |
| Write 512kb (MB/s) |
| Corsair Force 3 120GB |
| 505,29 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Force 120GB |
| 274,018 |
|
|
|
| OCZ Agility 2 120GB |
| 273,913 |
|
|
|
| OCZ Vertex 2 120GB |
| 272,246 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 250GB |
| 232,915 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 120GB |
| 215,178 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Nova 128GB |
| 203,121 |
|
|
|
| Intel SSD320 160GB |
| 176,62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
0 |
|
| |
ATTO benchmark Corsair posebno favorizira kod svojih SandForce diskova, a iz priloženog vidimo i zašto. Performanse su točno onakve kakve su i obećane, jer ATTO koristi podatke koji se daju kompresirati pa Corsair Force 3 ovaj test jednostavno rastura 🙂
IOMeter (100% Sequential)
|
|
| Total I/O per second |
| Corsair Force 120GB |
| 39618,25 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Force 3 120GB |
| 37124,99 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 120GB |
| 32198,24 |
|
|
|
| Intel SSD320 160GB |
| 15167,13 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 250GB |
| 14030,59 |
|
|
|
| Kingston M 80GB SSD |
| 5613,56 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Nova 128GB |
| 2638,5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 0 |
10 |
000 |
20 |
000 |
30 |
000 |
400 |
|
00 |
|
| |
| Total MB per second |
| Corsair Force 120GB |
| 77,38 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Force 3 120GB |
| 72,51 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 120GB |
| 62,89 |
|
|
|
| Intel SSD320 160GB |
| 29,62 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 250GB |
| 27,4 |
|
|
|
| Kingston M 80GB SSD |
| 10,96 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Nova 128GB |
| 5,15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
0 |
|
| |
| Average I/O Response time (ms) |
| Corsair Force 120GB |
| 0,5046 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Force 3 120GB |
| 0,5385 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 120GB |
| 0,6208 |
|
|
|
| Intel SSD320 160GB |
| 1,3182 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 250GB |
| 1,425 |
|
|
|
| Kingston M 80GB SSD |
| 3,5626 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Nova 128GB |
| 7,5794 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
| Maximum I/O Response time (ms) |
| Corsair Nova 128GB |
| 24,17 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Force 3 120GB |
| 57,2797 |
|
|
|
| Intel SSD320 160GB |
| 70,7559 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Force 120GB |
| 216,6968 |
|
|
|
| Kingston M 80GB SSD |
| 467,8258 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 120GB |
| 776,14 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 250GB |
| 879,7614 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
0 |
|
| |
| % CPU Utilization |
| Intel 510 250GB |
| 2,46 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Nova 128GB |
| 2,76 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 120GB |
| 5,68 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Force 120GB |
| 8,35 |
|
|
|
| Kingston M 80GB SSD |
| 8,6 |
|
|
|
| Intel SSD320 160GB |
| 9,33 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Force 3 120GB |
| 13,6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
4 |
|
| |
IO Meter testovi predstavljaju znatno opterećenje na kontroler, a pogotovo stoga jer koristimo Queue Depth od 20 što će rijetko koji korisnik računala u svom svakodnevnom radu postići. Riječ je dakle o napornom multitaskingu, koji Force 3, tj. njegov kontroler odrađuje solidno – barem kada je riječ o ovom sekvencijalnom testu. Vidimo kako ovdje brzina sučelja ne igra ulogu, već je bitna samo sposobnost komunikacije kontrolera s NAND-om. Je li moguće da je ta komunikacija nešto sporija zbog asinkronog NAND-a? Je, pogotovo ako pogledamo brzinu originalnog Force SSD-a.
IOMeter (100% Random)
|
|
| Total I/O per second |
| Intel SSD320 160GB |
| 23125,73 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Force 120GB |
| 16353,67 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Force 3 120GB |
| 10661,53 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Nova 128GB |
| 6271,16 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 120GB |
| 5450,15 |
|
|
|
| Kingston M 80GB SSD |
| 3425,45 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 250GB |
| 2221,49 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 0 |
50 |
00 |
10 |
000 |
15 |
000 |
20 |
000 |
250 |
|
00 |
|
| |
| Total MB per second |
| Intel SSD320 160GB |
| 45,17 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Force 120GB |
| 31,94 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Force 3 120GB |
| 20,82 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Nova 128GB |
| 12,25 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 120GB |
| 10,64 |
|
|
|
| Kingston M 80GB SSD |
| 6,69 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 250GB |
| 4,34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
0 |
|
| |
| Average I/O Response time (ms) |
| Intel SSD320 160GB |
| 0,8645 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Force 3 120GB |
| 1,8753 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Force 120GB |
| 2,2227 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Nova 128GB |
| 3,1885 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 120GB |
| 3,6689 |
|
|
|
| Kingston M 80GB SSD |
| 5,8381 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 250GB |
| 9,0012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
0 |
|
| |
| Maximum I/O Response time (ms) |
| Corsair Nova 128GB |
| 14,598 |
|
|
|
| Intel SSD320 160GB |
| 39,4812 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Force 120GB |
| 43,4204 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Force 3 120GB |
| 111,9069 |
|
|
|
| Kingston M 80GB SSD |
| 443,69 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 250GB |
| 778,0663 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 120GB |
| 881,8132 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
0 |
|
| |
| % CPU Utilization |
| Intel 510 250GB |
| 0,46 |
|
|
|
| Intel 510 120GB |
| 1,06 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Force 120GB |
| 2,94 |
|
|
|
| Kingston M 80GB SSD |
| 4,13 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Nova 128GB |
| 6,07 |
|
|
|
| Corsair Force 3 120GB |
| 7,76 |
|
|
|
| Intel SSD320 160GB |
| 12,04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
,5 |
|
| |
Nasumične su performanse još u nepovoljnije u odnosu na originalni Force SSD. Intelovom pak kontroleru u komunikaciji sa sinkronim NAND-om ipak i dalje nema premca.
TRIM
|
|
| Read 4kb (MB/s) |
| Force 3 Torture OS Long |
| 260,468 |
|
|
|
| Force 3 Torture OS Short |
| 250,254 |
|
|
|
| Force 3 Fresh OS |
| 240,66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
0 |
|
| |
| Write 4kb (MB/s) |
| Force 3 Torture OS Short |
| 316,416 |
|
|
|
| Force 3 Torture OS Long |
| 312,32 |
|
|
|
| Force 3 Fresh OS |
| 299,155 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
0 |
|
| |
| Read 512kb (MB/s) |
| Force 3 Fresh OS |
| 551,579 |
|
|
|
| Force 3 Torture OS Long |
| 544,149 |
|
|
|
| Force 3 Torture OS Short |
| 523,776 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
0 |
|
| |
| Write 512kb (MB/s) |
| Force 3 Torture OS Long |
| 506,558 |
|
|
|
| Force 3 Fresh OS |
| 505,29 |
|
|
|
| Force 3 Torture OS Short |
| 483,214 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
0 |
|
| |
Zanimljivo, ali čini se kako TRIM odrađuje odličan posao, jer su nakon poduže torture pisanja/brisanja velike količine podataka performanse diska na kojem se nalazio operativni sistem postale i bolje. Rezultati su takvi uvelike zbog prirode rada SandForceovog kontrolera.
