The SSD Relapse: Understanding and Choosing the Best SSD
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 30, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
Power Consumption
SSDs are at their highest power consumption when performing large file sequential writes. The majority of the power consumption comes from writing to the NAND flash and when you’re doing sequential writes you have more flash devices engaged at a time. Thus my peak power consumption test involves measuring power used over the 5V rail while the drives perform my 2MB sequential write benchmark in Iometer and at idle of course.
First, the idle numbers:
The Samsung and Indilinx drives use the least power, while the Intel drives use the most out of the SSDs. Intel honestly just needs to stick some power gate transistors in front of the controller and flash to curb power consumption at idle. They are all still lower than a mechanical drive, and much lower than a 3.5" HDD.
It's also worth noting that given the order of magnitude performance advantage these drives hold over traditional hard drives, they spend far more time at idle than their mechanical counterparts.
Under load the SSDs use anywhere from 2.5 - 3.5W, the exception being the Indilinx SLC drive which comes in at under 2W. Power consumption is roughly half if you switch to a random write workload, and the standings also switch places. While Intel's X25-M G2 draws less power than the OCZ Vertex Turbo in the sequential write test, it draws more power in a random write workload:
| Random Write Power Consumption | Min | Average | Max |
| Intel X25-M G2 160GB (MLC) | 1.55 W | 1.60 W | 1.7 W |
| OCZ Vertex Turbo 128GB (Indilinx MLC) | 1.13 W | 1.17 W | 1.21 W |
As I alluded to before, the much higher performance of these drives than a traditional hard drive means that they spend much more time at an idle power state. The Seagate Momentus 5400.6 has roughly the same power characteristics of these two drives, but they outperform the Seagate by a factor of at least 16x. In other words, a good SSD delivers an order of magnitude better performance per watt than even a very efficient hard drive.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
295 Comments
View All Comments
sunbear - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Even though most laptops are now SATA-300 compatible, the majority are not able to actually exceed SATA-150 transfer speeds according to some people who have tried. I would imagine that sequential read/write performance would be important for swap but the SATA-150 will be the limiting factor for any of the SSD's mentioned in Anand's article in this case.Here's the situation with Thinkpads:
http://blogs.technet.com/keithcombs/archive/2008/1...">http://blogs.technet.com/keithcombs/arc...vo-think...
The new MacBookPro is also limited to SATA-150.
smartins - Tuesday, September 1, 2009 - link
Actually, The ThinkPad T500/T400/W500 are fully SATA-300 compatible, it's only the drives that ship with the machines that are SATA-150 capped.I have a Corsair P64 on my T500 and get an average of 180MB/read which is consistent with all the reviews of this drive.
mczak - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
article says you shouldn't expect it soon, but I don't think so. Several dealers already list it, though not exactly in stock (http://ht4u.net/preisvergleich/a444071.html)">http://ht4u.net/preisvergleich/a444071.html). Price tag, to say it nicely, is a bit steep though.Seramics - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Another great articles from Anandtech. Kudos guys at AT, ur my no. 1 hardware site! Anyway, its really great that we have a really viable competitor to Intel- Indilinx. They really deserve the praise. Now we can buy a non Intel SSD and have no nonsensical stuttering issue! Overall, Intel is still leader but its completely nonsensical how bad their sequential write speed is! I mean, its even slower than a mechanical hard disk! Thats juz not acceptable given the gap in performance is so large and Intel SSD's actually can suffer a significantly worst performance in real world when sequential write speed performance matters. Intel, fix your seq write speed nonsence please!Seramics - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Sorry for double post. Its unintentional and i duno how to delete the 2nd post.Seramics - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Another great articles from Anandtech. Kudos guys at AT, ur my no. 1 hardware site! Anyway, its really great that we have a really viable competitor to Intel- Indilinx. They really deserve the praise. Now we can buy a non Intel SSD and have no nonsensical stuttering issue! Overall, Intel is still leader but its completely nonsensical how bad their sequential write speed is! I mean, its even slower than a mechanical hard disk! Thats juz not acceptable given the gap in performance is so large and Intel SSD's actually can suffer a significantly worst performance in real world when sequential write speed performance matters. Intel, fix your seq write speed nonsence please!Shadowmaster625 - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Subtle. Very subtle. Good article though.3 questions:
1. Is there any way to read the individual page history off the SSD device so I can construct a WinDirStat style graphical representation of the remaining expected life of the flash? Or better yet is there already a program that does this?
2. Suppose I had a 2 gigabyte movie file on my 60gb vertex drive. And suppose I had 40GB of free space. If I were to make 20 copies of that movie file, then delete them all, would that be the same as running Wiper?
3. Any guesses as to which of these drives will perform best when we make the move to SATA-III?
4. (Bonus) What is stopping Intel from buying Indilinx (and pulling their plug)? (Or just pulling their plug without buying them...)
SRSpod - Thursday, September 3, 2009 - link
3. These drives will perform just as they do now when connected to a 6 GBps SATA controller. In order to communicate at the higher speed, both the drive and the controller need to support it. So you'll need new 6 GBps drives to connect to your 6 GBps controller before you'll see any benefit from the new interface.heulenwolf - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
Yeah, once the technology matures a little more and drives become more commoditized, I'd like to see more features in terms of feedback on drive life, reliability, etc. When I got my refurb Samsung drives from Dell, for example, they could have been on the verge of dying or they could have been almost new. There's no telling. The controller could know exactly where the drive stands, however. Some kind of controller-tracked indication of drive life left would be a feature that might distinguish comparable drives from one another in a crowded marketplace.While they're at it, a tool to allow adjusting of values such as the amount of space not reported to the OS with output in terms of write amplification and predicted drive life would be really nifty.
Sure, its over the top, but we can always hope.
nemitech - Monday, August 31, 2009 - link
I picked up an Agility 120 Gb for $234 last week from ebay ($270 list price - - 6% bing cashback - $20 pay pal discount). I am sure there will be similar deals around black Friday. $2 per Gb is possible for a good SSD.