On 20 May 2014 14:38, Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
Toby Corkindale wrote:
On 20 May 2014 12:02, Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
Chris Samuel wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 10:36:08 AM Trent W. Buck wrote:
Is it still true that Intel SSDs are special and present completely different performance characteristics to all other SSDs? This report makes interesting reading, but keep in mind that they were specifically looking at SSDs with a smaller capacity (and cost) but they had to be reliable (after a 50+% failure rate with an OCZ model):
http://lkcl.net/reports/ssd_analysis.html Well as a fairly naive reader the above URL does seem to support the contention that currently: "Intel SSDs are special and present completely different performance characteristics to all other SSDs " At the time of that report's writing, that may have been the case, but the drives mentioned are all pretty old models. (And it's worth noting that the Intel 320s they were testing turned out to have a firmware bug that caused complete data loss, although obviously that news broke after the report was created)
SSD drives were still going through a maturation period back then.. I'd say that current drives are considerably better.
So as of " 1 Jan 2014 " ?
No, that's the last publication date of the report, not when it was actually performed. Or if they performed it then, then they were selecting from dusty, old SSDs forgotten on the back of the shelf. They did say in the report that cheapness was an important factor, so maybe that's why they were shopping in the bargain bins? (eg. The Crucial M4 is a 2011-era drive)