Read more.Quote:
High-performance alternative to Kingston's value-orientated range.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
High-performance alternative to Kingston's value-orientated range.
I thought this was meant to be high performance.. those random write IOPS numbers look terrible compared to the competition (hard to tell without an external benchmark comparison I guess).
Thing is they are actually shipping right now.
Your probably thinking of normal IOPS, random ones are generally alot lower.
who cares? The Crucial SSDs are out now, are faster and cheaper..with 5 year warranty :)
..come on...
I'm waiting for:
PRESS..... 128GB 280MB/260MB £56 from your local store :)
And, while some may laugh..I now wouldn't be surprised if the above occurs before November
:rockon2:
Nope, thinking of random write ones. Thought the old Intel and OCZ/indilinx ones are >> 1000.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbonji
The smaller SSDs (64, 128) are now coming comfortably into the 2 quid per GB range... come on drop another 50% =D
And you are correct. Those random write IOPS numbers are pathetic and slower than a conventional HDD.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
While pathetic, they're not slower than consumer HDDs. Although 15k SAS drives with NCQ would certainly give them a run for their money... a lack of cache here, as with their "value" series (which happens to be barely cheaper than the actually decent Crucials) perhaps?Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
Are you just making that up or have you actually checked the figures?Quote:
Originally Posted by miniyazz
15k SAS drives only giving them a run for their money? Even the WD velociraptor is just under 3 times faster than the 128GB one at 4k random writes, averaging 1.6MB/sec
158 IOPS is 632KB/Sec
So, like I said, pathetic.