Performance Consistency

Performance consistency tells us a lot about the architecture of these SSDs and how they handle internal defragmentation. The reason we don’t have consistent IO latency with SSD is because inevitably all controllers have to do some amount of defragmentation or garbage collection in order to continue operating at high speeds. When and how an SSD decides to run its defrag or cleanup routines directly impacts the user experience as inconsistent performance results in application slowdowns.

To test IO consistency, we fill a secure erased SSD with sequential data to ensure that all user accessible LBAs have data associated with them. Next we kick off a 4KB random write workload across all LBAs at a queue depth of 32 using incompressible data. The test is run for just over half an hour and we record instantaneous IOPS every second.

We are also testing drives with added over-provisioning by limiting the LBA range. This gives us a look into the drive’s behavior with varying levels of empty space, which is frankly a more realistic approach for client workloads.

Each of the three graphs has its own purpose. The first one is of the whole duration of the test in log scale. The second and third one zoom into the beginning of steady-state operation (t=1400s) but on different scales: the second one uses log scale for easy comparison whereas the third one uses linear scale for better visualization of differences between drives. Click the buttons below each graph to switch the source data.

For more detailed description of the test and why performance consistency matters, read our original Intel SSD DC S3700 article.

  Intel SSD 730 480GB Intel DC S3500 480GB Intel SSD 530 240GB SanDisk Extreme II 480GB Seagate 600 480GB
Default
25% Spare Area - -

Thanks to the enterprise DNA in the SSD 730, IO consistency is outstanding. We are looking at S3500 level consistency here, which isn't surprising given the similarity between the two. The faster controller and NAND interface mainly help with peak performance but IO consistency is built deep into the architecture of the drive. The only drive that can really challenge the SSD 730 is OCZ's Vector 150 while even the SanDisk Extreme II falls short once it reaches steady-state. Also of note is that Increasing the OP yields a healthy boost in performance and the SSD 730 actually manages more IOPS than the S3700 even though it has slightly less OP (25% vs 28%).

  Intel SSD 730 480GB Intel DC S3500 480GB Intel SSD 530 240GB SanDisk Extreme II 480GB Seagate 600 480GB
Default
25% Spare Area - -

Here you can see the differences a bit better with the linear scale. The SSD 730 manages around 15K IOPS compared to a slighly lower 10K IOPS on the SanDisk Extreme II. With the increased overprovisioning, the SSD 730 is in a class of its own, maintaining a minimum 30K IOPS.

  Intel SSD 730 480GB Intel DC S3500 480GB Intel SSD 530 240GB SanDisk Extreme II 480GB Seagate 600 480GB
Default
25% Spare Area - -

TRIM Validation

To test TRIM, I filled the drive with incompressible sequential data and proceeded with 120 minutes of incompressible 4KB random writes at queue depth of 32. I measured performance with Iometer after issuing a single TRIM pass to the drive.

Intel SSD 730 Resiliency - Iometer Sequential Write
  Clean After TRIM
Intel SSD 530 240GB 351.3MB/s 402.9MB/s

TRIM definitely works as performance is actually higher than after a secure erase.

Introduction, The Drive & The Test AnandTech Storage Bench 2013
Comments Locked

96 Comments

View All Comments

  • wpcoe - Monday, December 8, 2014 - link

    I bought the 240GB version at Fry's last Thursday for US$98.00. I figure that at 40¢/GB how bad can it be.
  • amddude10 - Thursday, November 27, 2014 - link

    Why does Intel list this as not having "enhanced power loss protection" for either size of the drive? I found no mention of power loss protection on Intel's own product information listing for this. By contrast, the listings for the old 320, S3500, and S3700 show that they do have "enhanced power loss protection." This article states that the 730 has "similar" power loss protection to the S3700, so why isn't this listed on the intel product info page for the 730? This isn't another case of a company letting reviewers believe something other than what is the case, is it? Here's the link: http://ark.intel.com/products/81039/Intel-SSD-730-...
  • mohaba - Friday, December 19, 2014 - link

    I'm curious to know the same thing. Every review across the internet mentions that feature, as well as the lack of encryption support and using HET nand, yet the intel documentation is exactly the opposite. I see intel did a documentation update in december.
  • Kob - Saturday, February 27, 2016 - link

    The critical difference between the info provided in this current review and Intel's own specs at
    http://ark.intel.com/products/81039/Intel-SSD-730-...
    regarding enhanced power-loss protection and encryption support diminishes the the trust in Intel public information and reviews in generals.
    See what Intel had to say on this in early 2015, and even after that they did not change their official specs as on 2/27/16. What gives?
    http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/news/storage-news/r...
  • NvidiaWins - Saturday, June 20, 2015 - link

    Intel is the only SSD manufacturer that didn't fail the stress test, every other SSD vendor FAILED miserably!! http://www.extremetech.com/computing/173887-ssd-st...
    I own 3 of the 520 series Cherryville 240GB's, 2 are almost 3 years old and still @100% life.
  • The Gambler - Wednesday, August 12, 2015 - link

    Hmm. I did put my 730 into a laptop. But considering how power hungry my laptop is anyway, it pretty much stays plugged in all the time.

    I could use it on my other PC, but that's a 10-year old Dell Dimension that recently got an HDD upgrade for archival purposes. No use there really.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now