Review: Intel 510 series 120GB SSD Reviewed by: Wendy Collins Robertson Provided by: Intel Model: SSDSC2MH120A2XX

Intel was kind enough to send me a 510 series 120GB SSD for
review. The 510 series is Intel’s first foray into SATA 6Gbps SSD, and also the
first SSD that Intel have shipped without their own SSD processor, instead
Intel have used the popular Marvell 88SS9174-BKK2 SSD processor coupled with
128GB of their own branded 32nm NAND.

As I write this article there are only two SSD processors in
the SATA 6Gbps consumer grade segment, the Marvell 88SS9174-BKK2 and the
SandForce SF-2281 SSD processor. Technically the SandForce SF-2281 is more
advanced and faster than the Marvell, but will this translate into a noticeable
difference in the real world? Let’s find out in this review.

Intel company information

Intel needs no introduction, if you haven’t heard of Intel
then you most likely have never owned a PC, but for those of you who would like
to find out more about Intel, you can visit their website.

The Intel 510 series 120GB SSD

Now it’s time to take a look at the drive itself and what
the drive came shipped with.

Box front

Box rear

The package contained the 510 series 120GB SSD, 3.5 inch to
2.5 inch converter bracket, 4 pin to SATA power converter, 2 packs of fixing
screws, instruction manual on CD-ROM, and quick installation booklet.

Specifications

Now let's head to the next page, where we look in more
detail at the Intel 510 series SSD.

 

Intel 510 series hardware.

Now let’s take a closer look at the hardware.

Drive internals

Intel 510 series
120GB SSD (PCB top-side)

On the top side of the PCB, we can see the Marvell
88SS9174-BKK2 SSD processor, eight 32nm MLC NAND chips manufactured by Intel,
and a 128MB cache chip.

Intel 510 series
120GB SSD (PCB underside)

On the underside of the PCB we can see another eight NAND
chips.

Marvell SSD controller

Above we can see the new revision of the Marvell 88SS9174
SSD controller designated 88SS9174-BKK2. The main purpose of the revision is to
provide far superior performance with regard to NAND maintenance.

The controller no longer has to rely totally on Windows 7
and TRIM, as the garbage collection algorithms alone are very capable of keeping
the SSD at near peak performance.

The controller still has 8 channels connecting it to the
NAND array, however the 120GB model having lower density NAND won’t be able to
use all 8 channels; therefore the 120GB model will not be as fast as the 250GB
model.

One of the other new features is to support a larger range
of NAND, such as toggle mode MLC NAND. Toggle mode NAND provides higher
throughput by providing DDR type qualities. Another feature is to allow the use
of 25nm MLC NAND. However, Intel has opted to use 32nm MLC NAND.

128MB DDR3 cache

Coupled to the Marvell controller is 128MB of DDR3 cache,
which provides a stable write buffer for the SSD controller, and also helps
provide an area for use with the new garbage collection features of the Intel 510
series SSD.

Intel 32nm MLC NAND

The Intel 510 series 120GB SSD has 128GB of NAND onboard,
and a user capacity of 111GB, which leaves a healthy 12.7%, spare area for
over-provisioning.

Drive maintenance features

For Windows 7 users and some distributions of Linux, the Intel
510 series supports ATA TRIM to keep the NAND clean. The Intel 510 series also
has, as I touched on above, advanced garbage collection to clean the NAND
during drive idle periods.

Intel also make available, via an Internet download, the Intel
Solid State drive Toolbox.

From the toolbox the user is able to monitor the SSD health
status, securely erase the drive, configure the PC for optimum performance, and
also optimise the SSD itself by sending a proprietary TRIM command to clean the
available user space on the SSD.

Test machine

For this review I will be using a computer with the
following configuration:

Hardware:

• Motherboard: AsRock Z68 Extreme 4 (Intel Z68 chipset)
• Processor: Intel 2^nd generation Core i7 2600K
• RAM: 8GB G.Skill RipjawX DDR3 1600MHz (dual channel)
• GFX: Onboard Intel HD 3000
• Sound: Onboard Realtek ALC889 HD audio controller
• Hard disk OS: OCZ Vertex 3 240GB SSD
• Hard disk storage: 1X 500GB Samsung Spinpoint F3, and 1X 1TB Samsung
  Spinpoint F1.
• Case: Antec 900
• PSU: Enermax Liberty 620W
• Display: Samsung Syncmaster 245B 24” widescreen LCD (HDCP
  compliant)
• Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit with Service Pack 1

The Intel 510 series SSD was connected to the Intel native SATA
6Gbps (port 0) on the Z68 motherboard of our review PC and all tests on the drive
were carried out with the drive connected to this port.

AHCI mode was also selected for all drives in the UEFI of
our test PC with “hot plugging” enabled, and all tests were carried out in this
mode.

The SATA 6Gbps drivers used on our review PC were the Intel
Rapid Storage Technology (RST) Version 10.6.0.1002.

Test applications

To test the performance of the Intel 510 series 240GB SSD, I
will be using the following test applications in this review.

• HD Tune Pro
• ATTO
• Iometer
• AS SSD
  Benchmark
• CrystalDiskMark
• MyCE Reality Suite
• Anvil’s
  Storage Utilities

Test procedures

I will start off our testing procedures explanation by
stating that I did not run many basic benchmarks on the Intel 510 series drive.
You may ask why I have run so few synthetic benchmarks?

SSD technology has moved so fast in the last couple of years,
that basic synthetic benchmarks alone are now of very limited use, as they don't
really tell us much about performance and how the drive will behave in the real
world. I have therefore decided to show some basic benchmarks of the Intel 510
series SSD, and will complement this with advanced benchmarks using IOMeter and
AS SSD benchmark. I will also show how the Intel 510 series performs in the real
world with our recently introduced MyCE Reality Suite test.

The reality of SSD performance

While I can easily show you which SSD is technically the
faster, when you use one of these modern SSDs as an operating system drive it
becomes very difficult to tell them apart as far as performance is concerned.

A typical use of a small capacity SSD at the moment is to
have your operating system and applications installed onto the SSD. The
performance difference compared to a traditional HDD is enormous, however when
you start to compare SSD to SSD the difference becomes almost impossible to
detect.

Let’s look at why this is the case.

Drive A can boot to the desktop in 8.11 seconds, and drive B
can boot to the desktop in 8.12 seconds, the difference in time is
milliseconds, and can one really tell the difference?

The fact is, all modern SSDs are only ticking over when they
are only running the OS and launching applications, it’s only when you get to
some of the larger capacity SSDs, with enough free space to be able to hold the
actual data that you’re going to be working with, be that video, audio or
pictures, for example, that you actually get a tangible difference in
performance. This is where the SSDs with the better sequential performance start
to pull well ahead of the SSDs which have lower sequential read/write
performance.

Small file random IOPS vs sequential performance

IOPS

This is a fairly complex subject, but I will do my best to
explain things in a manner that is easy to understand.

The term IOPS is the amount of input or output transactions
that can take place in a one second interval, so for example, if an SSD is
quoted as being able to cope with 20,000 4K random write IOPS, then the SSD
should be able to cope with 20,000 input transactions in a period of one
second. If the same SSD is said to be able to produce 20,000 4K random read
IOPS, then the same SSD should be able to produce 20,000 4K random read output
transactions in a one second interval.

Ok, now we have some figures to work with, the next question
is how many IOPS are actually required?

This will depend on your usage pattern. If you are a typical
desktop user who browses the internet, does some word processing or perhaps
some audio or video editing, and perhaps plays a few games, then in actual
fact, you don’t need to have massive 4K random read/write performance. The
actual amount of 4K random performance that is required for a fast and smooth
running system for a desktop user with a usage pattern similar to the above
will be well under 1,000 4K IOPS.

On the other hand, if the SSD is being used for running a
large and complex database server, then 4K random performance is the absolute
measurement of how fast that server will run, as this type of application does
most of its input and output transactions in the 4K domain.

So why would I need an SSD with 60,000 4K IOPS for a
desktop?

In fact you don’t need this type of performance for a
desktop, but an SSD which is capable of coping with 60,000 4K IOPS will be
faster than an SSD which can only cope with 20,000 4K IOPS.

OK, I just said if under 1,000 4K IOPS are actually required
for typical desktop usage, why is an SSD with 60,000 4K IOPS faster than an SSD
with only 20,000 4K IOPS, confused?

You may ask, if I only require 1,000 4K IOPS surely the rest
is wasted?

While you may never need 60,000 4K IOPS, IOPS is all about
latency. The reason that an SSD can cope with as much as 60,000 4K IOPS is
because latency in this domain is very low. With 4K files, even if you require
to process 500 of them at the same time, you are not talking about a huge amount
of data, it has far more to do with how long it takes the SSD to process a
single file, and the amount of time required to process a single 4K is all
about how long it takes for the SSD to access or store that data before it can
move on to the next transaction.

In other words an SSD with 60,000 4K IOPS performance will
handle those 500 files faster than the SSD with 20,000 IOPS.

So how will a desktop user even notice this faster speed if
so little 4K random IOPS and data are actually used?

Multitasking is a good example. The more tasks you run at
the same time, you more you will notice the speed difference.

Sequential performance

I have always maintained that sequential performance was
every bit as important as small random file performance for a desktop SSD. Some
highly regarded people on other sites found this statement quite funny a couple
of years ago when I made it, but my, how times have changed in the world of SSD
reviewing.

To me this was always so obvious for a desktop user. For
example, let’s say you want to launch an application or game. Both have some
fairly large files to load, and also a great many small files, but the point
is, even the smaller files are sequential in nature. Now let’s say you’re into
audio or video editing. Video files tend to be huge, and the files are written
or read sequentially. Isn’t this how many users are using their PCs these days?

Summary

So how does this shape up in the real world? Which is
better, massive 4K IOPS or massive sequential performance?

In an ideal world you want both, as an SSD with massive
random 4K IOPS and sequential performance will always be faster than an SSD
that has high sequential performance and moderate 4K random IOPS performance,
and the same applies to an SSD that has massive 4K random performance and
moderate sequential performance. The SSD which has high performance in both
patterns will always be the faster SSD.

However, you can still have an SSD that is very fast for
desktop use that has moderate random 4K performance and massive sequential
performance, the same can be said about a drive having massive random 4K
performance and moderate sequential performance, as it is about getting the
balance right if you have to compromise on one or the other.

Test drives

• 120GB OCZ Vertex SSD (firmware 1.5) SSD
• 500GB Samsung SpinPoint F3 (HD502HJ) HDD
• Seagate Momentus XT 500GB (Hybrid drive)
• OCZ Agility 120GB (firmware 1.5) SSD
• Intel X25-M 80GB (series G1) SSD
• OCZ Vertex 2 100GB SSD
• Plextor PX-256M2S SSD
• Crucial RealSSD C300 128GB SSD
• OCZ Vertex 3 240GB SSD
• Intel 510 series 120GB SSD

Drive preparation for running the tests

All the SSDs used in this article were in a clean and fresh
state when the testing period started. From then on, each drive had to rely on
its own NAND cleaning effectiveness for the remainder of the tests.

• Both our spinning HDD drives were defragged before the
  start of each test.

• All SSD and HDD used in this article had their partitions
  aligned to the Windows 7 x64 defaults.

Where I use graphs in this article to display results, I
will use the following colours to make it easier, for our readers to see which drive
we are reviewing.

 Intel 510 series 120GB SSD (SATA 3)

 Intel 510 series 120GB SSD (SATA 2)

 Comparison SSD

 Comparison HDD

Now let's head to the next page, where I look at some
basic benchmarks...

Reading Benchmarks

---

HD Tune Pro

SATA 3

SATA 2

I present the graph below for comparison with other recently
tested drives.

The Intel 510 series 120GB performance was extremely impressive
when the SSD was connected via SATA 3; however when the Intel 510 was connected
to SATA 2, the drive did not perform particularly well in this test.

ATTO disk benchmark

ATTO has become a standard tool for measuring the data
throughput of HDD and SSD. It measures the performance of reading and writing,
using different file sizes and block sizes.

SATA 3

SATA 2

The reading speed results on the Intel 510 series are
extremely impressive, topping out at over 468 MB/s, writing speeds are not so
impressive, topping out at 219 MB/s when the SSD is connected to a native SATA
6Gbps solution, however sequential writing speed is much improved from previous
Intel SSDs.

CrystalDiskMark 3.0

Crystal Disk Mark is quite a handy benchmarking application,
as it focuses on the file sizes that can cause a problem on a system drive.

SATA 3

SATA 2

As we can see in the above screenshots, the Intel 510 is
performing extremely well.

AS SSD Benchmark

AS SSD benchmark is a benchmarking tool specifically
designed to test SSDs. The application tests sequential reading and writing
performance, 4K random reading and writing performance.

AS SSD benchmark also tests 4K threaded performance. This is
very exciting, as this test is the first available test that I am aware of,
that simulates how a PC operating system actually works. A modern PC and OS,
such as Windows Vista/7 does not just run a single thread at a time, it runs
many threads. The AS SSD benchmark "4K 64Thrd" tests run 64 threads
simultaneously throughout the test. If this result is good, then you can be
pretty sure the drive will perform extremely well as a system drive.

After the tests complete, AS SSD benchmark derives a total
score for the drive being tested. This is based on all aspects of the test
results, and gives an indication of how the drive is performing overall.

Now let’s look at the result from the Intel 510 series in
the form of a screenshot. All our other comparison drives’ results are
presented in the form of a graph.

SATA 3

SATA 2

The Intel 510 series 120GB SSD is about mid table regarding
performance for this test, it is a long way behind the OCZ SandForce based
drives, and well behind the Crucial RealSSD C300 which uses an earlier version of
the Marvell SSD processor.

Summary:

It’s a mixed bag. The Intel 510 series SSD is fast, but
can’t compete with the SandForce SF-2281 based OCZ Vertex 3 in regards to
outright performance.

Let's head to the next page for our IOMeter test
results.....

I/O Performance

There is little point of having an SSD drive that has
blazing sustained reading and writing speeds, if the drive can't handle reading
and writing of small random files. If you intend to use your new SSD drive to
store and run your operating system, then the drive must be able to cope with
the many small random files that Windows will write to the drive continually.
So I feel it is very important to test how many of these random files that a
drive can handle in one second. I believe that anything over 1,000 I/O’s per
second would be enough for most users running a consumer grade mainstream PC,
and should provide a smooth running system. But obviously, the more I/O's that
a drive can handle, the faster the drive will feel and leave more headroom for
those huge multitasking sessions that users sometimes engage in.

The things that I will look at are the total I/O per second and
total MB/s.

Partition alignment and sector boundaries

Windows 7 and Vista will automatically align a partition to
4k boundaries during partition creation, Windows XP won’t. It is imperative
that an SSD’s partition is aligned. Windows XP is also restricted to sector
boundaries, while Windows 7 will use 4k boundaries if it can. The Intel 510 is
4k boundary aware, and will use these boundaries when it can. Of course it will
also remap LBAs for compatibility with the sector boundaries so the drive can
be used with Windows XP.

IOMeter allows us to set the sector boundaries for
conducting the tests, and I have therefore set the sector boundaries at 4K,
which means the IOMeter tests are valid for Windows 7 and Windows Vista users.
XP users will not be able to obtain such results.

I will provide a screenshot of the tests on the review drive
for those of you who like to see the actual test result. All the comparison
drive results are represented in the form of graphs.

If any of you would like to see a screenshot from any
IOMeter test on a particular drive, please feel free to request one, and I’ll
post the screenshot in the forum thread.

All the IOMeter tests create a 10GB data set on the target
drive, and each test is run for a duration of 3 minutes.

IOMeter 4K random (outstanding I/Os = 1) write test.

The first test involves creating continual 4KB random files
on the target drive with IOMeter. I use a 4KB file size, as it is believed that
Windows will create and modify many of this size of file constantly in the
background during a typical Windows session. It is said that most 4K random
writes take place at a queue depth of only one, and I have been requested to
include this test in my reviews. At the moment I only have data for three SSDs,
and will only include the results when the SSDs are connected to native Intel
SATA 6Gbps.

The results will only be displayed in MB/s.

Intel 510 120GB SATA
3 (QD1)

At 46.37 MB/s the Intel is performing very well indeed,
although it can’t compete with the might of the OCZ Vertex 3 and the Crucial
RealSSD C300.

IOMeter 4K random (outstanding I/Os = 4, 32) write test.

Our next test involves creating continual 4KB random files
on the target drive with IOMeter. I use a 4KB file size, as it is believed that
Windows will create and modify many of this size of file constantly in the
background during a typical Windows session. I will use queue depths of 4 and
32 for these tests on the Intel 510 series, OCZ Vertex 3, OCZ Vertex 2, Plextor
PX-256M2S, and Crucial RealSSD C300.

SATA 3

(Queue depth 4 SATA 3)

(Queue depth 32 SATA 3)

SATA 2

(Queue depth 4 SATA 2)

(Queue depth 32 SATA 2)

IOPS

MB/s

The Intel 510 series isn’t the fastest when faced with
creating 4K random files, and is a long way behind the SandForce based SSDs.
Queue depths above 4 yields no more performance, unlike the SandForce based
SSDs which scale all the way up to a queue depth of 32.

4K random write queue depth profile

For this test I used various queue depths from 1 – 32 to
give you an idea how this SSD performs at different queue depths. For a normal
desktop user for lightweight multitasking, the queue depth will rarely rise
above 2. For heavy multitasking, the queue depth is unlikely to rise above a
value of 8.

Only three SSDs were tested here. The Intel 510 series, the
OCZ Vertex 3 and the Crucial RealSSD C300 128GB which was only tested on SATA
6Gbps, while only the Intel 510 was tested on SATA 3Gbps as well as SATA 6Gbps.

For this test I have also used completely random data, and
the normal repetitive data IOMeter test patterns. This has been done to show
how various SSD processors deal with data that isn’t so easily compressed.

The result is below.

As we can see, the Intel 510 is a long way behind the other
SSDs in this test. The Intel 510 doesn’t really benefit from increasing queue
depths.

Below I present a table of the results in more detail.

IOMeter 4K random (outstanding I/Os = 1) Read test.

If there are many 4k files created, then that must also mean
that many 4k files need to be read. This test measures 4k reading performance.

It is said that most 4K random reads take place at a queue
depth of only one, and readers have requested that I include this test in my
reviews. At the moment I only have data for three SSDs, and will only include
the results when the SSDs are connected to native Intel SATA 6Gbps.

Intel 510 (Queue
depth 1 - SATA 3)

The Crucial RealSSD C300 shows our other tested drives a
clean pair of heels. This time the Intel 510 series SSD is faster than the OCZ
Vertex 3.

IOMeter 4K random (outstanding I/Os = 4, 32) Read test.

SATA 3

(Queue depth 4 SATA 3)

(Queue depth 32 SATA 3)

SATA 2

(Queue depth 4 SATA 2)

(Queue depth 32 SATA 2)

IOPS

MB/s

The Intel 510 series has performed well, but is still quite
a long way behind the Crucial RealSSD C300 and the SandForce based SSDs.

4K random read queue depth profile.

This test is much simpler than the 4K random write test, as
there is no need to include full random data.

Below I present a table of the results in more detail.

The Intel 510 series is performing very well here, and is
ahead of the SandForce based SSDs at lower queue depths, although starts to fall
behind at queue depths 8 and above. It can’t however compete with the Crucial
RealSSD C300.

IOMeter 512KB (outstanding I/Os = 2) write test.

Sequential writing performance is also very important; in
this test sequential writing performance is measured.

SATA 3

SATA 2

IOPS

MB/s

Once again the Intel 510 is about mid table for sequential
writes. It is faster than previous Intel branded SSDs, but still a long way
behind the SandForce based SSDs, and the Plextor PX-256M2S which uses the same
Marvell controller.

IOMeter 512KB (outstanding I/Os = 2) read test.

This test measures 512k sequential reading performance.

SATA 3

SATA 2

IOPS

MB/s

Sequential reading performance is very impressive, and the Intel
510 series is the third fastest reading drive.

IOMeter Workstation simulation (outstanding I/Os = 64).

When running applications you will find that there is a
mixture of small random files, and larger sequential files, being created and
read. Not only that, it isn’t just one file at a time. In this test I measure a
simulated workstation pattern, with a queue depth of 64 (threaded).

SATA 3

SATA 2

IOPS

MB/s

The Intel 510 series has done extremely well in the workstation
simulation, showing strong performance in this area. Interestingly the 510 is
faster when connected to SATA 2.

Summary

Once again, it is a mixed bag for the Intel 510. It performs
well, but is outgunned by the OCZ Vertex 3 in all areas, and beaten by the
Crucial RealSSD C300 on many occasions.

Now let’s head to the next page where we will look at how
the Intel 510 series 120GB SSD performs using a brand new benchmarking
application....

 

Anvil’s Storage Utilities

As well as performing SSD endurance tests. Anvil’s Storage
Utilities has a very nice SSD benchmarking application. The SSD benchmark tests
many different aspects of SSD performance, including 4K random at different
queue depths, and also sequential performance, but more important than this,
all using real test data.

Another very nice feature of Anvil’s SSD benchmark is the
fact that you can change the compression levels of the test data. The
compression levels of the data sets used for the tests can be varied from 0%
compression right up to 100% compressed data, and there are even a few data
profiles already included, such as database (8%) compression, and also an
application profile (46%) compression, which is designed to simulate real
application data being read and written to the SSD.

Anvil’s Storage Utilities is still in beta at the moment,
but the application is solid enough at the moment to use in this article, and I
have already verified the results obtained using an SATA analyser.

For this article, time only permitted running the tests on
two SSDs, the Intel 510 series 120GB and the OCZ Vertex 3, but I will of course
test any new SSD review samples that I am able to obtain, and add the test data
to the tables.

Since this is new benchmark, I will include the screenshots
of both SSDs, but in future reviews I will only include screenshots from the
tests obtained on the review drive.

I will be running four different compression profiles, and
they are as follows.

• 0 fill (100% compressible data)
• Database profile (8% compressed)
• Application profile (46% compressed)
• 100% (non compressible data)

 So let’s begin the tests.

0 fill

Intel 510 series
120GB (0 fill)

OCZ Vertex 3 240GB (0
fill)

With data that is 100% compressible it is no surprise that
the OCZ Vertex 3 is much faster than the Intel 510.

Database profile

Intel 510 series 120GB
SSD (database profile)

OCZ Vertex 3 240GB
SSD (database profile)

The OCZ Vertex 3, with its far superior random and
sequential performance is once again well out in front.

Application profile

Intel 510 series
120GB SSD (application profile)

OCZ Vertex 3 240GB
SSD (application profile)

This time the OCZ Vertex 3 is tamed a little by this test,
but is still much faster than the Intel 510 series.

100% incompressible

Intel 510 series
120GB SSD (100% incompressible)

OCZ Vertex 3 240GB
SSD (100% incompressible)

With data that is 100% incompressible, it could have been
expected that the Intel 510 closed the gap on the OCZ Vertex 3, but alas this
was not the case, and the Vertex 3 is still by a large margin, the faster of
the two drives.

Summary

There is nothing wrong with the performance of the Intel
510, it’s fast, but it just can’t match the shear grunt of the SF-2281 based
OCZ Vertex 3.

Now let's head to the next page for some real world tests....

It has become clear recently that simply conducting endless
benchmarks on SSD drives is pointless. Real users may run a few benchmarks when
they first fit their SSD drive, but most users just want a drive that performs
well in the real world. They want their drive to work "out of the
box" and work fast and smoothly.

Most of the latest SSD drives can deliver very fast
sustained reading and writing speeds, but these alone tell you very little
about how the drive will perform in the real world.

If you intend to use your SSD as your primary system drive,
with an operating system and applications installed and running from the drive,
real world performance becomes much more important than just fast sequential
read and write speeds.

Real world copy
tests

---

I will now conduct a few real world copy tests. These tests
simulate what real people do with their drives. I will be conducting writing
tests, using a large single file and a multiple file copy of various file
sizes. Then I will round off the tests by copying a folder of MP3 audio files,
and also a folder of JPG pictures.

I should point out that this is not a scientific way of
measuring performance. These timings were taken with a stop watch; we have
however ensured that the reading drive is well able to supply a data stream to
our writing drive, which is high enough not to be slowing down the performance
of the writing drive.

I will once again be comparing the obtained results with our
comparison drives, and will present the results in the form of graphs.

Multiple file copy writing test

For this test I copied the Nero Burning Rom install folder
from our review PC to the OCZ RevoDrive X2 240GB SSD, and then copied the
contents from the RevoDrive X2 to the Intel 510 series SSD and our other
comparison drives.

Our test copy contained 1,772 files of various sizes with a
combined capacity of 307MB.

The Intel 510 series is about mid table, it’s performing
well, but is quite easily outgunned by many SSDs in this test.

Single large file writing test (7.95GB)

For this test I used a single DVD9 ISO file which had been
copied to the OCZ RevoDrive X2 240GB SSD. The file was then copied to the Intel
510 series 240GB SSD and our comparison drives.

The Intel 510 series has done very well in this test, and
comes in fourth place overall.

Write a folder of JPG picture files.

For this test I copied a folder of JPG picture files from
our OCZ RevoDrive X2 SSD to the Intel 510 series SSD, and our other comparison
drives. The folder contained 3,714 JPG pictures, with a total capacity of 5.16GB.

Again the Intel 510 series SSD has done well, this time
climbing one place to third fastest.

Write a folder of MP3 audio files.

For this test I copied a folder of MP3 audio files from our
OCZ RevoDrive X2 SSD to the Intel 510 series SSD and our other comparison
drives. The folder contained 851 MP3 audio files, with a total capacity of
3.85GB.

Once again the Intel 510 has claimed third spot in our
table, and is performing very well.

Just for the fun of it, I grabbed a screenshot of the actual
copy taking place, and you can view it below.

MP3 file copy progress, showing the writing speed on the Intel 510 series SSD at
221 MB/s

Summary

The Intel 510 series 120GB SSD has performed well, but as
before, it is outgunned by the SF-2281 based Vertex 3. Nonetheless, it is
performing very well.

Single drive copy tests

These tests are to simulate a single drive in a PC or
laptop. In other words, I will copy a series of files from one folder on the
tested drive to another folder on the same drive. This means the drive is simultaneously
reading and writing during the tests. I also want to make this a realistic
test. So I have used a folder or MP3 music files, and then repeated the test
with a folder of JPG picture files.

Single drive copy tests – 851 MP3 song files (3.85GB total)

The Intel 510 series’ very good reading and writing
performance has made sure that it is among the fastest SSDs in this test.

Single drive copy tests – 3,714 JPEG picture files (5.16GB total)

Once again, the Intel 510 series 120GB is the third fastest
SSD in this test.

Windows start-up and closedown

For these tests, I simply used a stop watch and tested the
amount of time taken for a full installation of Windows 7 to boot to the
desktop, and then timed how long it took for Windows 7 to close down by the
normal start menu method.

The timing was started once the BIOS had initialised and
reached the “loading OS message”.

Windows 7 boot time

Windows 7 closedown

The Intel 510 series 120GB SSD takes second place in this
test, but in fact there is next to no difference in speed from all the SATA
6Gbps SSDs.

Installing applications

---

Installing applications is possibly something you don't do
that often. But should you replace your system disk, then you will most likely
have to re-install your applications. Most of the SSD drives I have tested up
until now are quite slow at installing applications, most likely because their
I/O performance was quite limited.

For these tests, we picked some popular applications and
copied the entire contents of the CD or DVD media to an OCZ RevoDrive X2 240GB
SSD. We did this to make sure that the reading speed of our CD/DVD reader would
not hamper the performance of the target drive.

We then installed these applications onto our comparison HDD
drives, which were all running mirror image installations of our Windows 7 Home
Premium 64-bit installation, and timed the amount of time taken to install the
application with a stopwatch on each of the drives.

MS Office 2007 Professional (full install)

MS Office is another of those applications that make you
cringe at the thought of re-installing it.

Let's find out how our drives coped with the MS Office 2007
full install.

This time the Intel 510 series SSD claims fifth spot.

Adobe Fireworks CS3

Adobe Fireworks CS3 is another popular package. Let's find
out how our drives coped with installing this application.

There isn’t a huge margin in the amount of time taken to
install this application with our modern SSDs. However, the Intel 510 series is
in fourth place in our table.

Summary

Our real world tests, though not scientific in nature, I
feel are more realistic than simply running benchmarks. What is clear from our
tests is that the Intel 510 series has very good performance in the real world.

Let’s check out application and game loading performance
on the next page of this article.....

These tests are very simple tests, but very important to
some users of SSD drives.

We simply started an application or game, and measured the time
taken for the application or game to fully load and start.

Application loading times

---

Adobe Fireworks CS3

These types of tests are becoming pretty pointless, as there
is so little difference in tangible performance between the modern SSDs.

Corel PaintShop Pro 12

Again, I doubt anyone could tell difference from the fastest
to the slowest modern SSD, as they are all very close.

Games loading times

---

FAR CRY 2

Once again, the results are all so very close. Too close to
make any tangible difference between the fastest and slowest modern SSD.

F.E.A.R. 2

It’s the same story again; the modern SSDs are all so very
close in terms of loading performance.

Now let’s round off this article with the MyCE Reality
Suite tests on the next page.....

 

MyCE Reality Suite (storage).

So what is the MyCE Reality storage test?

The MyCE Reality Suite of tests is made from real everyday
applications and real data, there are no simulated tests, and everything is in
the real world. The only thing that's synthetic is that everything is automated
to make the tests fair, no matter which drive the tests are run on.

Recorded user sessions, by means of a script, are used to
launch the applications, load data, edit data, and then finally write that data
back to the target drive. The scripts do load the system much more than a human
could with these tests, as the scripts do not make mistakes, or pause to think
about what has to be done next.

Measurement system (revision 2)

The measuring system is part hardware and part software. The
hardware is proprietary and under an NDA, but what I can tell you is: The
measuring system can now accommodate SATA2, SATA3, USB3, PCIe, and DMI.

Testing method.

Once all the test data files were complete, they were then
copied to a single folder. I then fitted an old 80GB HDD into the PC and did a
clean install of Windows 7 Home Premium x64. The latest hardware drivers were
installed and Windows update was run to install any new updates that were
available up to 13/05/2010. At this point the applications that were to be used
in the tests were installed and updated with the latest patches.

The folder containing the application test data files was
then copied over to our fresh Windows 7 HDD. The drive was cleaned up and then
the four test scenarios were recorded, with the scenario playback data file
which will run each test scenario saved to the desktop. A drive snapshot was
then taken of the complete HDD and the drive snapshot image copied to a second
HDD for safe keeping.

The image is then simply restored to each of the drives on
test. In the case of SSD’s the partition is then realigned “on the fly” and for
SSDs that support TRIM, the free space is filled and then deleted to force
TRIM. All other HDDs and SSDs in the system are then disconnected to make sure
the complete test can only run on the drive I am testing.

A 20 minute settling time is allowed before the tests are run,
then each of the 4 tests is run and the results gathered. This process is
repeated for each of the drives I am testing.

The test scenarios are as follows.

• Graphics content
• Video editing
• Audio import and compression
• Application multitasking

Let’s begin the tests.

MyCE Reality Suite – Graphics content.

Using ACDSee Pro 3, 100 JPG pictures with an average size of
10MB are imported into the ACDSee library, and then 12 of these JPG files are
then selected for a batch process, of resize, compress the quality to 80%, and
finally write the edited pictures back to the drive. The test is approximately
78% read and 22% write.

The Intel 510 series has performed extremely well with the
graphics suite, but once again it is a good way behind the SF-2281 based Vertex
3, and also comfortably beaten by the Plextor PX-256M2S.

MyCE Reality Suite – Video editing.

Using Vegas Pro, a 14GB HD MPEG2 video stream is loaded into
the editor, from which 2 segments are then cut and pasted into new segments. There
is a lot of disc caching going on in this test, and the test is approximately
55% read and 45% write.

This time the Intel 510 series 120GB has performed very
well, and claims third place in our table.

MyCE Reality Suite – Audio import and compression.

Using Sony Sound Forge 10, a batch process is run consisting
of 30 24bit (192000hz sample rate) .wav files, and 100 16bit (44100hz sample
rate) .wav files are imported and then converted to MP3 audio files with a bit rate
of 128kbps, and the converted files are written back to the drive. The test is
approximately 72% read and 28% write.

This time the Intel 510 series 120GB SSD drops a couple of
places and finishes in fifth place in this test.

MyCE Reality Suite – Application multitasking.

For this I used several popular applications, Microsoft Word
2007, Microsoft Access 2007, Microsoft Excel 2007, Microsoft Outlook 2007,
Adobe reader, Adobe Photoshop CS3, uTorrent, Windows media player, and Internet
Explorer 8.

This session runs for approximately 12 minutes. The test is
started by downloading a Linux distribution via uTorrent, Windows media player
is then opened and a 1080p video file is opened and played for the duration of
the test. Microsoft Outlook is opened and any new emails are received, read,
then replied too, a document in Adobe reader is opened and scrolled from start
to finish, 3 Microsoft Word documents with graphics content are opened, browsed
and some sections of the documents are copied and pasted into a forth document
and then saved back to the drive. The same applies to Microsoft Access and
Excel. 100 MP3 files are imported into Windows media library. Six JPG images
are loaded into Adobe Photoshop and some minor editing is done and the files
saved back to the drive.

Finally, Internet Explorer 8 is opened with 10 tabs, and the
contents of the 10 tabs refreshed, and browsed while the other applications are
busy in the background.

I would describe the multitasking pattern as moderate to
heavy.

During this test there is approximately 85% reading and 15%
writing.

Comfortably in fourth place in this test, the Intel 510
series 120GB SSD has performed very well.

Summary

I firmly believe that the MyCE Reality Suite gives a very
good overall picture of how a drive can perform in the real world, and in this
case, the Intel 510 series 120GB SSD is performing very well.

Now let’s head to the next page, and see how well the
drive performs after heavy use....

Speed degradation after heavy testing

On this page I will test how the SSD performs after heavy
testing and usage.

I now have a new policy as to how I go about testing an SSD.
In the past I would deliberately try and get an SSD into a “used state”, by
filling the drive several times before starting the tests. This seemed to work
quite well up until the SandForce based SSDs appeared, but because of the way
the SandForce controller works, it was near impossible to tell if deliberately
trying to get a SandForce based SSD into a “used state” had actually worked on
not.

A new strategy was required. So now I begin the tests with
the SSD in a clean state and allow it to look after itself during the testing
period. I start off the tests by running AS SSD benchmark. This gives me the
“as new” reading and writing performance of the SSD.

Once all the tests have been completed, the drive is then
tested as a system drive, and just used normally for many days (which is
something I have always done with a review sample). At the end of the period,
the drive is filled to capacity and then all files are deleted from the drive
and then a “quick format” is performed.

The last test is a rerun of AS SSD benchmark, and the result
from the final test is compared with the first run when the SSD was in an “as
new” state.

The results are below.

New state

New state 14/7/2011

Used state

Used state 23/7/2011

With 2.4 Terabytes of data already written to the drive
during the testing period, there is no evidence of speed degradation after some
very heavy testing, in fact the sequential reading speeds are higher, and
writing speeds have only dropped marginally at the end of the testing period.

If this is an indication of how this SSD will perform in the
long term, then it would pretty safe to say that the Intel 510 series is very
effective indeed at keeping the drive operating at, or very near to its “as
new” state.  

This concludes our review. To read the final thoughts and
conclusion, click the link below....

Final thoughts and the conclusion

---

User experience

A modern operating system such as Windows 7 rarely does one
thing at time; it processes hundreds of threads at once. Just take a look at
the processes and services that are running in task manager for an idea of how
much is going on, even with the PC idling at the desktop. When you start
running applications on top of this, the workload increases in line with the number
and type of applications you are running. It’s also fair to say that many of
these processes are already loaded into system RAM, but many are also loaded into
and unloaded from RAM from the system drive as and when they are required.

The fact of the matter is this. If you are running a mainstream
or high end modern PC with a powerful CPU and graphics card, and are still
running a traditional HDD as a system drive, regardless of how fast that HDD
is, it is still bogging the system down substantially. It has long since passed
the stage where one can meaningfully debate if an SSD is really faster than a
traditional HDD. The fact is they are, and not just by a little bit: they are
much faster.

If we look at the 3 basic requirements for a fast SSD, they
are as follows.

• Small file threaded performance needs to be high
• Small random file performance needs to be high
• Sequential read and write speeds needs to be high 

The Intel 510 series 120GB has all of the above attributes.

Stability

The Intel 510 120GB SSD proved more or less stable
throughout the tests. I say more or less stable because there are still ongoing
issues to be resolved on the Z68 platform that the Intel 510 had to run on.
Part of the issue was resolved by Intel updating the SATA option ROM with a
firmware update, and by providing a new RST driver.

These issues appear to affect P67, Z68, and H67 chipsets,
and the outcome seems to affect different SSD controllers in different ways.
Basically it appears you get a sudden unexpected power shutdown on the connected
drive. This was not caused on my review PC by the power cable being
disconnected, or the PC suddenly shutting down. The unexpected power loss
appears to be the actual SSD controller being unexpectedly internally shutdown
from an error on the SATA bus itself. This seems to register in S.M.A.R.T data,
and can be seen in the screenshot below.

As we can see in the screenshot, there are 15 unsafe power
shutdowns. When this occurred the Intel 510 120GB seemed to recover itself
within a few milliseconds, however this did cause the system to stutter. The
problem is more serious on SF-2281 based SSDs such as the OCZ Vertex 3, where
the power loss gives either a complete system freeze or a BSOD, as the SSD
seems to get into a panic and won’t recover until the power is recycled by
means of a complete system shutdown and restart.

There is also the ongoing IME bug (Intel Management Engine) which
is listed in a systems specification update for the 6 series chipset in the
form of errata
15. Below is a quote from the PDF file (errata 15).

“15.Intel® ME Clock Throttling Failure Causes Hang
Problem: When the Intel® Management Engine (Intel® ME) firmware sets the
internal clock frequency, the Intel ME clock may stop toggling, potentially
causing the Intel®
Management Engine Interface to become unresponsive.
Implication: Parts that exhibit this issue may hang during POST.
Note: No functional failures have been seen due to this issue.
An Intel® ME FW code change has been identified and may be implemented as a
workaround for this erratum.
Status: No Plan to Fix.”

Hopefully this will be fixed in the not too distant future
by means of a manufacturer released IME firmware update in the form of a
motherboard UEFI update.

Other than the above mentioned issue which appears to have
been resolved by the new SATA option ROM and RST driver update, the Intel 510
series 120GB remained completely stable throughout my testing. Unfortunately as
the drive is on loan from Intel, I will not be able to check for long-term
stability.

Conclusion:

Let us summarise the most important positive and negative
points below:

The main positive points:

---

Positive:

• Silky smooth operation as a system drive (during the test
  period).
• Excellent reading and writing performance.
• Good 4K random I/O performance.
• SATA 6Gbps support.
• Excellent multitasking potential.
• TRIM support under Windows 7.
• Lightning fast access times.
• Completely silent operation.
• Fast operating system start-up and shutdown times.
• 3 years warranty.

Negative:

• Slightly slow sequential writing performance by today’s
  standards.

---

The Intel 510 series 120GB SSD is a well-rounded drive, and
it has very good performance when connected via native Intel SATA 6Gbps.

4K random IOP performance is more than enough for typical
desktop use, and still has a fair bit of headroom for some fairly heavy
multitasking.

With TRIM support in Windows 7, the Intel 510 series should
remain at near peak performance during the expected life cycle of the drive.

Noise levels from the drive are nil; there are no moving
parts so the drive is completely silent.

The main negative points:

The only real negative with the Intel 510 series is it's
completely outgunned (performance wise) by the SF-2281 based Vertex 3. No doubt
the 250GB version of the Intel 510 is faster than the 120GB version, but we can
only test what we're given to test.

To sum up, this is what I
would say:

In the real world as an operating system drive, the Intel
510 series 120GB SSD feels as fast as any other SATA 6Gbps SSD, and that means
lightning fast. It’s only when one pushes the drive with large amounts of
sequential data, such as video content that the drive begins to lag behind the
SF-2281 based Vertex 3, and you can feel a tangible difference in performance
between the two. That isn’t to say that the Intel 510 120GB is a slow SSD, it
isn’t.

Let’s put it this way. If I had purchased the Intel 510
myself, then I would not be disappointed by its performance. It’s a fine SSD.

Price

As I write this article, I found the Intel 510 series 240GB
SSD at Scan
UK for £218.54 Inc VAT, which translates to €250.72 at the current
exchange rate.

 

Our parting sentence is

“The Intel 510 series is a well rounded SSD; it is
perhaps not the fastest SSD, but certainly faster than most”.

You may comment on this review below.

Thanks to:

---