google1

Friday, September 17, 2010

Samsung Epic 4G Review: The Fastest Android Phone

    The sheer amount of choice you get in the Android smartphone market is overwhelming. Even if you stick within a single manufacturer like HTC, there are several releases to juggle all of which happen in a very short period of time. Below is a list of just the HTC Android phones that have come out in the past 12 months:

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Toshiba Portege R700: A Truly Ultraportable 13.3"

Toshiba Computer released Japan’s first notebook computer in 1985, instantly cementing Toshiba as one of the pioneers of mobile computing. Since then, Toshiba has consistently been amongst the sales leaders of consumer notebooks in the US. But for all their mainstream success, in recent times Toshiba has not had any particularly compelling designs out there. There’s a lot of systems in the same vein as the A505 we tested earlier this year—vanilla mainstream notebooks that offer a lot of glossy black plastic to go along with a good amount of value, but no really compelling portable systems like the Portege R100 or R400 tablet from the past. Until now, with the introduction of the new Portege R700 and R705.







Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Apple's iPod Touch (2010) Review, Not a Poor Man's iPhone 4

Last week Apple announced a complete overhaul of its iPod lineup including a new Shuffle, a new Nano (with multitouch screen) and a new iPod Touch. While the nano looks cool, it’s pricey and honestly I haven’t been interested in a dedicated MP3 player in about a decade.







Monday, September 13, 2010

Server Clash: DELL's Quad Opteron DELL R815 vs HP's DL380 G7 and SGI's Altix UV10

The Quad Opteron Alternative




Servers with the newest Intel six-core Xeon hit the market in April. The fastest six-cores Xeons were able to offer up to twice the performance of six-core Opteron “Istanbul”. The reason for this was that the age of the integer core in AMD's Opteron was starting to show. While the floating point part got a significant overhaul in 2007 with the AMD "Barcelona" quad-core chip, the integer part was a tuned version of the K8, launched back in 2003. This was partly compensated by large improvements in the multi-core performance scaling departement: HT-assist, faster CPU interconnects, larger L3 caches, and so on.




To counter this lower per-core performance, AMD's efforts focused on the "Magny-Cours" MCMs that scaled even better thanks to HT 3.0 and four DDR3 memory controllers. AMD’s twelve-core processors were launched at the end of March 2010, but servers based on these “Magny-Cours” Opterons were hard to find. So for a few months, Intel dominated the midrange and high-end server market. HP and Dell informed us that they would launch the "Magny-Cours" servers in June 2010. That is history now, and server buyers have an alternative again for the ubiquitous Xeon Servers.




AMD’s strategy to make their newest platform attractive is pretty simple: be very generous with cores. For example, you get 12 Opteron cores at 2.1GHz for the price of a six-core Xeon 2.66GHz (See our overview of SKUs). In our previous article, we measured that on average, a dual socket twelve-core Opteron is competitive with a similar Xeon server. It is a pretty muddy picture though: the Opteron wins in some applications, the Xeon wins in others. The extra DDR3 memory channel and the resulting higher bandwidth makes the Opteron the choice for most HPC applications. The Opteron has a small advantage in OLAP databases and the virtualization benchmarks are a neck and neck race. The Xeon wins in applications like rendering, OLTP and ERP, although again with a small margin.




But if the AMD platform really wants to lure away significant numbers of customers, AMD will have to do better than being slightly faster or slightly slower. There are many more Xeon based servers out there, so AMD Opteron based servers have to rise above the crowd. And they did: the “core generosity” didn’t end with offering more cores per socket. All 6100 Opterons are quad socket capable: the price per core stays the same whether you want 12, 24 or 48 cores in your machine. AMD says they have “shattered the 4P tax, making 2P and 4P processors the same price.”




So dual socket Opterons servers are ok, offering competitive performance at a slightly lower price, most of the time. Nice, but not a head turner. The really interesting servers of the AMD platforms should be the quad socket ones. For a small price premium you get twice as many DIMM slots and processors as a dual socket Xeon server. That means that a quad socket Opteron 6100 positions itself as a high-end alternative for a Dual Xeon 5600 server. If we take a quick look at the actual pricing of the large OEMs, the picture becomes very clear.









Compared to the DL380 G7 (72GB) speced above, the Dell R815 offers twice the amount of RAM while offering—theoretically—twice as much performance. The extra DIMM slots pay off: if you want 128GB, the dual Xeon servers have to use the more expensive 8GB DIMMs.




The Quad Opteron Alternative




Servers with the newest Intel six-core Xeon hit the market in April. The fastest six-cores Xeons were able to offer up to twice the performance of six-core Opteron “Istanbul”. The reason for this was that the age of the integer core in AMD's Opteron was starting to show. While the floating point part got a significant overhaul in 2007 with the AMD "Barcelona" quad-core chip, the integer part was a tuned version of the K8, launched back in 2003. This was partly compensated by large improvements in the multi-core performance scaling departement: HT-assist, faster CPU interconnects, larger L3 caches, and so on.




To counter this lower per-core performance, AMD's efforts focused on the "Magny-Cours" MCMs that scaled even better thanks to HT 3.0 and four DDR3 memory controllers. AMD’s twelve-core processors were launched at the end of March 2010, but servers based on these “Magny-Cours” Opterons were hard to find. So for a few months, Intel dominated the midrange and high-end server market. HP and Dell informed us that they would launch the "Magny-Cours" servers in June 2010. That is history now, and server buyers have an alternative again for the ubiquitous Xeon Servers.




AMD’s strategy to make their newest platform attractive is pretty simple: be very generous with cores. For example, you get 12 Opteron cores at 2.1GHz for the price of a six-core Xeon 2.66GHz (See our overview of SKUs). In our previous article, we measured that on average, a dual socket twelve-core Opteron is competitive with a similar Xeon server. It is a pretty muddy picture though: the Opteron wins in some applications, the Xeon wins in others. The extra DDR3 memory channel and the resulting higher bandwidth makes the Opteron the choice for most HPC applications. The Opteron has a small advantage in OLAP databases and the virtualization benchmarks are a neck and neck race. The Xeon wins in applications like rendering, OLTP and ERP, although again with a small margin.




But if the AMD platform really wants to lure away significant numbers of customers, AMD will have to do better than being slightly faster or slightly slower. There are many more Xeon based servers out there, so AMD Opteron based servers have to rise above the crowd. And they did: the “core generosity” didn’t end with offering more cores per socket. All 6100 Opterons are quad socket capable: the price per core stays the same whether you want 12, 24 or 48 cores in your machine. AMD says they have “shattered the 4P tax, making 2P and 4P processors the same price.”




So dual socket Opterons servers are ok, offering competitive performance at a slightly lower price, most of the time. Nice, but not a head turner. The really interesting servers of the AMD platforms should be the quad socket ones. For a small price premium you get twice as many DIMM slots and processors as a dual socket Xeon server. That means that a quad socket Opteron 6100 positions itself as a high-end alternative for a Dual Xeon 5600 server. If we take a quick look at the actual pricing of the large OEMs, the picture becomes very clear.









Compared to the DL380 G7 (72GB) speced above, the Dell R815 offers twice the amount of RAM while offering—theoretically—twice as much performance. The extra DIMM slots pay off: if you want 128GB, the dual Xeon servers have to use the more expensive 8GB DIMMs.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

ASUS' N82Jv: Jack-Of-All-Trades

Our last look at the ASUS multimedia oriented N-series came in the form of the N61Jv-X2, the first laptop with an Arrandale CPU and Optimus graphics to hit the market. Sporting several of the latest and greatest technologies at the time, we came away impressed and presented it with our Silver Editors' Choice award. Nearly six months later, it's amazing how little some things have changed. Specifically, it's currently impossible to find another manufacturer that makes a Core i3/i5/i7 laptop with a midrange Optimus GPU and at least one USB 3.0 port. Yeah, it's that bad. But let's start with the specifications of the N82Jv before we go any further.







Tuesday, September 7, 2010

The SSD Diaries: Crucial's RealSSD C300


The promise was high. Crucial was to not only offer better than X25-M performance but also be the first to deliver a 6Gbps SSD. Competing controller makers wouldn't hit 6Gbps until Q3/Q4 at the earliest. Two things stood in Crucial's way: 1) a little company called SandForce and, 2) a pesky set of firmware issues.




With the latter taken care of, and the former dropping prices to be more aggressive in the market, it's about time that we gave Crucial's C300 SSD a good look.

Crucial RealSSD C300: 64GB for $150

To date, the least expensive SSDs worth consideration have come in at around $100 give or take. Our last roundup looked at the Intel X25-V 40GB, the Kingston SSDNow V Series 30GB, and the OCZ Onyx. Intel uses their own controller, Kingston uses a Toshiba controller, and OCZ uses the Indilinx Amigo controller. Crucial's 64GB C300 is the latest addition to the inexpensive SSD category; it costs 50% more but offers twice the storage of the 30GB drives, which makes it large enough for service as the only drive in your laptop.

OCZ's RevoDrive Preview: An Affordable PCIe SSD


Take two SandForce SF-1200 controllers and put them on a card with a boatload of NAND and a RAID controller. Add some special sauce to keep the price low and you have OCZ's RevoDrive. It'll offer up to twice the performance of a Vertex 2 SSD for only $20 more when it ships in July.




Read on to find out how OCZ did it and how the PCIe SSD stacks up against the best of the best.

Intel's X25-M and X25-V Now Available in Best Buy Stores


Consider this one big step for SSD-kind: Intel just sent along a note letting us know that its X25-M and X25-V SSDs are now available at Best Buy. The drives appear to be priced competitively if you look at Best Buy's online listings. An 80GB X25-M G2 will set you back $230 + tax while Newegg sells the drive for $220. Only the 40GB and 80GB drives are available in stores, the rest are online only.




Best Buy's website has carried SSDs before but this is the first time Best Buy will carry an SSD on its store shelves. The drives should be available in 800 Best Buy stores across the nation. Given Western Digital's command of shelf space in Best Buy it's amazing that the SiliconEdge Blue SSDs haven't been given a similar treatment. Perhaps WD and Seagate are waiting for more competitive product before taking it direct to consumers like that.




If you get the impression that this might have something to do with Intel trying to take SSDs more mainstream, it does. With the switch over to 25nm NAND, Intel hopes to bring SSDs down to even more mainstream price points. Today you can get a 40GB X25-V for around $120. By early next year I'd expect that price to give you 80GB of storage instead.




It's not all about pricing though. Intel believes it will have the performance crown back again with its new 3rd generation SSD controller due out in Q4. I believe the days of one company dominating all SSD recommendations are over and we'll instead see a series of leapfrogging. Today SandForce is doing quite well and I'm working on the Crucial drives with updated firmware. By Q4 we'll get to hit a giant reset button with new offerings from Indilinx, Intel, SandForce and Toshiba among others.

2010 Value SSD (~$100) Roundup: Kingston and OCZ take on Intel

Two years ago the best SSD you could buy was made by Intel and it cost $7.44 per GB of MLC NAND. Today Intel is actually the value leader. The 80GB X25-M G2 will set you back $205 at Newegg, or $2.56 per GB. The performance crown now belongs to companies like Micron and SandForce. Although Intel hopes to have performance leadership once more with its 25nm SSDs due out in Q4, the priorities have shifted. Intel’s focus is on bringing SSDs to the mainstream; it wants a bigger slice of the HDD pie. At the end of the day, that’s where the money is.

At just over $200 that’s affordable enough for high end notebooks and desktops but what about more mainstream price points? For many the $99 mark is key. Luckily as SSDs have gotten faster, a new breed of small, affordable SSDs have emerged right around the $100 mark. Today we’re going to take a look at three of those devices.

ASUS U30Jc Revisited: Adding an SSD

Last week we looked at the ASUS U30Jc and found a lot to like… so much that we awarded it a Bronze Editors' Choice. The stock configuration comes with a conventional hard drive, but SSDs are all the rage these days. What happens to performance when you install a decent SSD, like a 120GB OCZ Vertex? We happened to have one waiting for just such a test, so here are the updated results. Hint: it's a lot faster, at least when the HDD is the bottleneck.

OCZ Announces SandForce Based PCIe RevoDrive SSD

PCIe based SSDs have been reserved for enterprise use ever since their introduction. Generally limited by pricing, even OCZ's own forays into the PCIe SSD market have been targeted at enterprise customers. That may all change with today's announcement. Meet the RevoDrive:





This PCIe x4 card takes a pair of SF-1200 controllers and RAIDs them together, giving you roughly the performance of two SF-1200 SSDs but on a single card. Through some unique component selection OCZ aims to keep costs around 10 - 20% more than a single drive. Obviously you lose TRIM support and the overall performance should be no different than a pair of SF-1200s in RAID (on a good controller/chipset), but if you need PCIe this may be an option.





Seagate's Momentus XT Reviewed, Finally a Good Hybrid HDD

The promise of Hybrid HDDs has come and gone with no champion. Today Seagate is announcing its Momentus XT, a 2.5" 7200 RPM notebook drive (9mm form factor) with 4GB of SLC NAND on board used as a read cache for frequently accessed data. The end result is a notebook drive with notebook power characteristics that performs like a 10,000 RPM VelociRaptor. We finally have something in between a HDD and SSD for those who need more space on a single drive than a SSD can affordably offer.

Hard Drives to reach 3TB in 2010?

Sources close to Seagate roadmaps have leaked the potential of a 3TB SAS drive being released this year.


The quest for storage is almost a never ending saga. Dubbed the Constellation-ES, the replacement for the Seagate Barracuda-ES, the drive is expected to arrive later this year with a 7200 RPM rotation speed, and a 6Gbit/s SAS interface. A 1TB version of the 2.5" Barracuda-ES is also expected to arrive around the mid year point.




A 3TB drive would suggest an increase in maximum platter size, from the current 500GB limit. If you remember back that far, the increase in density was due to a change in bit alignment, from horizontal to vertical, to counter the superparamagnetic effect. Hitachi made an excellent and funny flash animation to describe the technology. The feeling is that the increase in platter size is an extension of that technology, rather than a new physical property being exploited.




Depending on how quickly these new hard drives hit the enterprise sector, we could see consumer 3TB hard drives by the end of the year as a positive estimate. However, 17GB/$ ($175 a unit) or a price comparable to current 2TB hard drives would be required for consumer market acceptance. Whether people require 3TB is another matter - video editors, professional photographers, or just for storing your movie and blu-ray collection are possibilities.

Crucial RealSSD C300 Firmware, Part III

Poor Crucial. Although it started its C300 campaign on the right foot, posting some very impressive sequential read speeds thanks to 6Gbps SATA and ONFI 2.0 NAND, things haven't been so smooth lately.




First off, Crucial's timing was unfortunate as it was right around the time we started seeing SandForce make some noise. Secondly, while performance was good, my drive showed some performance and reliability issues within two weeks of receiving it. And third, the firmware update that was supposed to address the problems I had managed to brick some drives.

Crucial Releases RealSSD C300 Firmware Fix, Bricks More Drives?

Back in March I posted an update on my experiences with Crucial's RealSSD C300. In it I pointed out that not only had my review sample apparently bricked itself but I was also able to get the C300 into a state of extremely low performance (~20MB/s) that it could not get out of, even if I TRIMed the whole drive.




Crucial discovered the source of the problems and promised a fix in mid April. It's a bit later than that but we do finally have an update from Crucial. An updated fw has been posted to Crucial's site (Version 0002)

The Impact of Spare Area on SandForce, More Capacity At No Performance Loss?

No, it’s not the new Indilinx JetStream controller - that’ll be in the second half of the year at the earliest. And it’s definitely not Intel’s 3rd generation X25-M, we won’t see that until Q4. The SSD I posted a teaser of last week is a modified version of OCZ’s Agility 2.




The modification? Instead of around 28% of the drive’s NAND set aside as spare area, this version of the Agility 2 has 13%. You get more capacity to store data, at the expense of potentially lower performance. How much lower? That’s exactly what I’ve spent the past several days trying to find out.

OCZ's Vertex 2, Special Sauce SF-1200 Reviewed

Last week we reviewed OCZ's Agility 2 SSD with SandForce's standard, mass production SF-1200 firmware. This week we're back with the Vertex 2. For an extra $20 you get roughly the same performance as the Agility 2 plus an extra boost in small file random write speed.




Read on for our full review of the Vertex 2.

This Just In: OCZ Vertex 2 SandForce-1200 SSD with Special Sauce

Next week I'll have more to report on than just SSDs, I promise. Until then, the SandForce festivities continue with today's arrival: The OCZ Vertex 2.




As you may have heard, the Vertex 2 uses a special brew of SandForce's SF-1200 firmware that gives it the small file random write performance of a SF-1500 based solution, without most of the added cost. Unless Corsair and SandForce work something out, the Vertex 2 is going to be the only SF-1200 based SSD that can use SandForce's MP firmware and attain 30,000 sustained 4K random write IOPS.


I'm running the drive through the ringer now and hope to have results as well as an update to our SSD Bench later this week. If you want to see pics of its internals

OCZ's Agility 2 Reviewed: The First SF-1200 with MP Firmware

SandForce made news last week, but for some not so great reasons. It turns out that the production firmware on SF-1200 drives drops random small file write performance by a decent amount on drives presently shipping.




Those impacted include Corsair and OWC. Corsair is handling it by sticking with the RC firmware and providing a workaround for a known issue with the earlier firmware. OWC on the other hand has quietly updated its website to reveal the new (lower) specs of the drive.


Today we have our first drive shipping with the new 3.0.5 MP firmware: OCZ's Agility 2. Due to ship to etailers later this week, we put the Agility 2 through our test suite (including some new tests to see how SandForce's technology performs with highly random data).

This Just In: OCZ Agility 2 SandForce-1200 SSD

Things move in real time around here. Just yesterday we published an article detailing the differences between SandForce's SF-1200 and SF-1500 controller. We also pointed out that the mass production firmware for the SF-1200 controller (v3.0.5) caps 4K random write performance on all drives except for OCZ's upcoming Vertex 2. The only problem (aside from the obvious) is I had no way of determining how much of a real world impact the lower 4K random writes would have on a SF-1200 drive. Until today that is.




The Agility 2 is OCZ's standard SF-1200 SSD, using the same firmware that's been made available to all of SandForce's partners. The performance of this drive should tell us what we can expect from all other SF-1200 drives on the market. My Vertex 2 sample won't be here until next week. I also received a reference SF-1200 drive from SandForce to verify the performance results.




The drive just arrived this morning and I snapped some shots of (and took it apart) for a quick This Just In post before I got to testing. As a reminder, these posts are designed to give you all a glimpse into what is dropped off at our doorstep on a regular basis. The full review will follow.




Observations? OCZ bundles the 3.5" drive tray we've seen with a few SSDs now. The Agility 2 PCB has a silkscreened location for a super cap, which indicates that the layout/routing differences between the SF-1200 and SF-1500 are negligible.

Understanding SandForce's SF-1200 & SF-1500, Not All Drives are Equal

Less than 24 hours ago I was called into a meeting with SandForce, the SSD controller manufacturer that has been on fire lately. The company makes two controllers: the SF-1200 and SF-1500. The meeting was initiated by SandForce to clear up any misconceptions I might have about the differences between the two controllers. No good deed goes unpunished, and the quick meeting turned into an hour long debate about responsibility and ethics. It turns out that while I finally know the difference between the SF-1200 and the more expensive SF-1500, not all drives based on the SF-1200 will offer the same performance. In fact, some drives that are currently on the market today will actually drop in performance (in one metric) if you upgrade them to SF’s mass production firmware. Yep.

Corsair's Force SSD Reviewed: SF-1200 is Very Good

SandForce takes a different approach. Instead of worrying about where to place a lot of data, it looks at ways to reduce the amount of data being written. Using a combination of techniques akin to lossless data compression and data deduplication, SandForce’s controllers attempt to write less to the NAND than their competitors. By writing less, the amount of management and juggling you have to do goes down tremendously. SandForce calls this its DuraWrite technology.









DuraWrite isn’t perfect. If you write a lot of highly compressed or purely random data, the algorithms won’t be able to do much to reduce the amount of data you write. For most desktop uses, this shouldn’t be a problem however.




Despite the obvious achilles’ heel, SandForce’s technology was originally designed for use in the enterprise market. This lends credibility to the theory that SandForce was Seagate’s partner of choice for Pulsar. With enterprise roots, SandForce’s controllers and firmware are designed to support larger-than-normal amounts of spare area. As you may remember from our earlier articles, there’s a correlation between the amount of spare area you give a dynamic controller and overall performance. You obviously lose usable capacity, but it helps keep performance high. SandForce indicates that eventually we’ll see cheaper consumer drives with less NAND set aside as spare area, but for now a 128GB SandForce drive only gives you around 93GB of actual storage space.

Introducing the SF-1200


The long winded recap brings us to our new friend. The Vertex 2 Pro I previewed last year used a full fledged SF-1500 implementation, complete with ridiculously expensive supercap on board. SandForce indicated that the SF-1200 would be more reasonably priced, at the expense of a performance hit. In between the two was what we got with OCZ’s Vertex Limited Edition. OCZ scored a limited supply of early controllers that didn’t have the full SF-1500 feature set, but were supposedly better than the SF-1200.









Today we have Corsair’s Force drive, its new performance flagship based on the SF-1200. Here’s what SandForce lists as the differences between the SF-1500 and SF-1200:

SandForce Controller Comparison
SF-1200 SF-1500
Flash Memory Support MLC MLC or SLC
Power Consumption 550 mW (typical) 950 mW (typical)
Sequential Read/Write Performance (128KB) 260 MB/s 260 MB/s
Random Read/Write Performance (4K) 30K/10K IOPS 30K/30K IOPS
Security 128-bit AES Data Encryption, Optional Disk Password 128-bit AES Data Encryption, User Selectable Encryption Key
Unrecoverable Read Errors Less than 1 sector per 1016 bits read Less than 1 sector per 1017 bits read
MTTF 2,000,000 operating hours 10,000,000 operating hours
Reliability 5 year customer life cycle 5 year enterprise life cycle

The Mean Time To Failure numbers are absurd. We’re talking about the difference between 228 years and over 1100 years. I’d say any number that outlasts the potential mean time to failure of our current society is pretty worthless. Both the SF-1200 and SF-1500 are rated for 5 year useful lifespans, the difference is that SandForce says the SF-1200 can last for 5 years under a "customer" workload vs. an enterprise workload for the SF-1500. Translation? The SF-1500 can handle workloads with more random writes for longer.




The SF-1500 also appears to be less error prone, but that’s difficult to quantify in terms of real world reliability. The chip sizes are identical, although the SF-1500 draws considerably more power. If I had to guess I’d say the two chips are probably the same with the differences amounting to be mostly firmware, binning and perhaps fusing off some internal blocks. Maintaining multiple die masks is an expensive task, not something a relative newcomer would want to do.






Note the lack of any external DRAM. Writing less means tracking less, which means no external DRAM is necessary.




Regardless of the difference, the SF-1200 is what Corsair settled on for the Force. Designed to be a high end consumer drive, the Force carries a high end price. Despite it’s 100GB capacity there’s actually 128GB of NAND on the drive, the extra is simply used as spare area for block recycling by the controller. If we look at cost per actual GB on the drive, the Force doesn’t look half bad:

SandForce Controller Comparison
Drive NAND Capacity User Capacity Drive Cost Cost per GB of NAND Cost per Usable GB
Corsair Force 128GB 93.1GB $410 $3.203 $4.403
Corsair Nova 128GB 119.2GB $369 $2.882 $3.096
Crucial RealSSD C300 256GB 238.4GB $680 $2.656 $2.852
Intel X25-M G2 160GB 149.0GB $489 $3.056 $3.282
OCZ Vertex LE 128GB 93.1GB $394 $3.078 $4.232

But looking at cost per user addressable GB isn’t quite as pretty. It’s a full $1.12 more per GB than Intel’s X25-M G2. It's also a bit more expensive than OCZ's Vertex LE, although things could change once Corsair starts shipping more of these drives.

This Just In: Corsair Force 100GB SSD (SF-1200)

Testing is nearly complete on the last Corsair SSD that came my way, but this morning UPS dropped off another surprise: the Corsair Force SSD. Based on a derivative of the controller in the OCZ Vertex LE I reviewed earlier this year, the Force uses the mainstream version of SandForce's technology. Here's how it breaks down. Last year's Vertex 2 Pro used a SF-1500 controller, the Vertex LE uses something in between a SF-1500 and SF-1200 (closer to the SF-1500 in performance) while the Corsair Force uses a SF-1200.




The SF-1200 has all of the goodness of the SF-1500, just without some of the more enterprise-y features. I haven't been able to get a straight answer from anyone as to exactly what you give up by going to the SF-1200 but you do gain a much more affordable price. The Vertex LE is only low in price because it is using a limited run of early controllers from SF, presumably so SandForce can raise capital. The SF-1200 based SSDs should be price competitive with current Indilinx offerings.


You'll notice that like the Vertex LE there's no supercap on the Force's PCB. There's also no external DRAM cache thanks to a large amount of on-die cache and SandForce's real time data compression/deduplication technology. As you may remember from my Vertex 2 Pro and Vertex LE reviews, SandForce achieves higher performance by simply reducing the amount of data it has to write to NAND (similar to lossless compression or data deduplication).




I've got the Force on my SSD testbench now and I should have the first results by the end of the day today. This one is exciting as it could give us a preview of what the performance mainstream SSD marketplace will look like for the rest of 2010.

This Just In: Corsair Nova 128GB SSD

I haven't taken a look at a new Corsair SSD in a while. The company started out by shipping relatively uninteresting Samsung based SSDs, but since then we've seen Corsair ramp up adoption of newer technologies fairly quickly. With drives from Indilinx and now SandForce onboard, it's time for an update from one of the first companies to ever visit me in NC over a decade ago.




Next week I should receive their new SandForce SF-1200 based drive, the Corsair Force, however today I got their Indilinx Barefoot based Nova drive:


This drive is based on Indilinx's Barefoot controller but uses 34nm Intel NAND (other NAND vendors are supported as well). It's Corsair's version of the G.Skill Falcon II we looked at a while back, or OCZ's Solid 2. I'm running it through our test suite now, expect to see results in Bench in the next couple of days.

Western Digital's New VelociRaptor VR200M: 10K RPM at 450GB and 600GB

We first laid eyes on Western Digital's Raptor line of 10K RPM desktop hard drives in 2003. The drives were only 36GB in size, but man were they fast. Since then Western Digital has increased capacity, decreased physical platter size (3.5" to 2.5") and overall driven performance up. With the last VelociRaptor dating back to 2008, the line was overdue for an update.




Meet the new VelociRaptor:


Available in 450GB and 600GB capacities at $299 and $329, respectively, the new VR200M keeps the formula mostly unchanged but sees a performance boost thanks to increasing platter density. Can it restore faith to the VelociRaptor line? Read on to find out.

Intel's X25-V for $98 at Newegg, Update:Dead Deal

A few folks have sent this in so I thought it was worth posting about. Intel's X25-V that we've recently reviewed is now on sale at Newegg for $98. The deal lasts as long as supplies last but given the incredible performance we've seen from a pair of the drives in RAID-0, this might be worth looking at if you're thinking about jumping to an SSD.




I'm still waiting on OCZ's Onyx before calling the value race over at this point. The competition below $130 isn't huge yet but we're at least getting some action down there. As I've said before, once 25nm NAND starts shipping in Q4 then we should really see $/GB start to drop.








Update: Congrats to all who got them, the drives are now sold out.




Update 2: Drives back in stock, but the deal is over.

Intel X25-V in RAID-0: Faster than X25-M G2 for $250?

Intel has been shipping its value 40GB X25-V SSDs for a little while now, but the official launch was just 11 days ago. In our review we found that for $125, the X25-V was a reliable way to enjoy all of the benefits of an SSD without breaking the bank. Today we're here to tempt you a bit more.


For $220 you can get an 80GB X25-M G2 but for another $30 you can nab a pair of X25-Vs and RAID them together. The resulting performance is truly staggering. I'm talking faster than a 6Gbps Crucial C300 in some cases, and faster than a SandForce drive in others.




It's not all perfect though, you don't always get the best performance and you do lose TRIM. The question: is it worth it? Go ahead and click that fancy new Read More link to find out.

Crucial's RealSSD C300: An Update on My Drive

Earlier this morning I published an article looking into the performance of 6Gbps SATA controllers, both integrated and off-chip. In it I mentioned my recently deceased Crucial RealSSD C300 that decided to up and stop working one day. Given that Crucial is selling these drives, I wasn't too happy with the outcome.



Inside Crucial's RealSSD C300


The drive would not longer be detected on POST. In fact, with the C300 connected to any machine I couldn't get any OS to boot; the system would just hang at drive detection. After a couple of weeks of toying with my dead drive, Crucial came back to me with an explanation of what's going on.

6Gbps SATA Performance: AMD 890GX vs. Intel X58/P55

Seemingly overnight SSDs have changed the way in which we look at storage performance. With an order of magnitude of improvement in random I/O performance and at least a doubling in sequential speeds, SSDs have brought us a lot of joy and pain since their introduction.




Compatibility testing and validation should be a top priority for SSD makers, as many storage controllers don't play well with these new, ultra-fast devices. It also turns out that since we finally have a device that can push the limits of 3Gbps and 6Gbps SATA, not all controller implementations are created equal.


Performance can vary wildly from one controller implementation to the next. Even worse is how the new 6Gbps SATA controllers can perform in the wrong configuration. We ran through a barrage of tests to figure out what setup is best for your next SSD.

Intel's X25-V & Kingston's 30GB SSDNow V Series: Battle of the $125 SSDs

Last year Kingston introduced a 40GB version of Intel's X25-M G2 for less than $100 after mail in rebate. Since then, Kingston and Intel couldn't agree on terms for continuing to offer Kingston's 40GB drive. The two called it a day and Kingston is no longer making the drive.




In a clearly unrelated move, Intel has started shipping its first 40GB SSD: the X25-V. Effectively the same drive as last year's Kingston 40GB SSDNow V Series Boot Drive but with official TRIM support, the X25-V retails for $125.


We got our hands on an X25-V and put it through the paces against Kingston's newfound replacement: the Toshiba based 30GB SSDNow V Series.