| Crucial m4 Solid State Drive Tests |
| Reviews - Featured Reviews: Storage | |
| Written by Olin Coles | |
| Wednesday, 20 April 2011 | |
Crucial m4 Solid State Drive Review
Manufacturer: Micron Technology, Inc. Full Disclosure: The product sample used in this article has been provided by Micron. For those who can still remember the occasion, back on February 2010 Micron Technology introduced the Crucial RealSSD C300 solid state drive. This was the first consumer-level SSD to support the cutting-edge SATA 6Gb/s interface, known by some as SATA-III. Back then, Crucial's RealSSD C300 was able to reach 383/227 MBps read/write speeds on a Marvell controller in our lab tests. Just over one year later, they've returned to deliver its sequel rated for speeds up to 415 MB/s: the Crucial M4. Now I can guess what you might be thinking: how can the m4 be a sequel to the RealSSD C300? The answer is a little complex because this new storage device is actually getting two names, depending on the targeted market. Retail consumers will know this product as the Crucial m4 SSD, while an OEM version will be sold to system builders named the Micron RealSSD C400. Each of the device capacity will have different model numbers, replete with identical specifications. It's a little confusing, and it doesn't adhere to any logical naming convention from the previous generation, but we should be happy there won't be a third iteration produced for their Lexar Media brand. Although both versions of this storage product were designed using the same hardware and SSD technology innovation, Micron chose to establish separate brands for the retail and OEM drives to provide greater clarity around the service and support offered with each. The Micron RealSSD C400 drive offers a higher level of service and support for OEMs, while the Crucial m4 SSD provides a more streamlined support process for consumers. Both versions of this solid state drive will carry a 3-year limited warranty. In this article, Benchmark Reviews tests the Crucial m4 solid state drive against several of the fastest consumer storage devices available. Based on the Marvell 88SS9174-BLD2 SSD processor, this SATA 6Gb/s drive is claimed to provide 415 MB/s reads and 260 MB/s writes with up to 90,000 IOPS... which we prove later into this article. We've also tested the Crucial m4 SSD against its older sibling, the Crucial RealSSD C300, to measure comparative performance differences. The 256GB model CT256M4SSD2 Crucial m4 also competes with the latest SandForce and Indilinx-based solid state drives, and our SSD test results show which product leads the consumer storage market. 
Crucial m4 (top) and OEM Micron RealSSD C400 (bottom)After decades of design improvements, the hard disk drive (HDD) is still the slowest component in any personal computer system. Consider that modern desktop processors have a 1 ns response time (nanosecond = one billionth of one second), while system memory responds between 30-90 ns. Traditional hard drive technology utilizes magnetic spinning media, and even the fastest spinning mechanical storage products still exhibit a 9,000,000 ns / 9 ms initial response time (millisecond = one thousandth of one second). In more relevant terms, the processor receives the command and must then wait for system memory to fetch related data from the storage drive. This is why any computer system is only as fast as the slowest component in the data chain; usually the hard drive. In a perfect world all of the components operate at the same speed. Until that day comes, the real-world goal for achieving optimal performance is for system memory to operate as quickly as the central processor and then for the storage drive to operate as fast as memory. With present-day technology this is an impossible task, so enthusiasts try to close the speed gaps between components as much as possible. Although system memory is up to 90x (9000%) slower than most processors, consider then that the hard drive is an added 1000x (100,000%) slower than that same memory. Essentially, these three components are as different in speed as walking is to driving and flying. Solid State Drive technology bridges the largest gap in these response times. The difference a SSD makes to operational response times and program speeds is dramatic, and takes the storage drive from a slow 'walking' speed to a much faster 'driving' speed. Solid State Drive technology improves initial response times by more than 450x (45,000%) for applications and Operating System software, when compared to their mechanical HDD counterparts. The biggest mistake PC hardware enthusiasts make with regard to SSD technology is grading them based on bandwidth speed. File transfer speeds are important, but only so long as the operational IOPS performance can sustain that bandwidth under load. Bandwidth Speed vs Operational PerformanceAs we've explained in our SSD Benchmark Tests: SATA IDE vs AHCI Mode guide, Solid State Drive performance revolves around two dynamics: bandwidth speed (MB/s) and operational performance (IOPS). These two metrics work together, but one is more important than the other. Consider this analogy: bandwidth determines how much cargo a ship can transport in one voyage, and operational IOPS performance is how fast the ship moves. By understanding this and applying it to SSD storage, there is a clear importance set on each variable depending on the task at hand. For casual users, especially those with laptop or desktop computers that have been upgraded to use an SSD, the naturally quick response time is enough to automatically improve the user experience. Bandwidth speed is important, but only to the extent that operational performance meets the minimum needs of the system. If an SSD has a very high bandwidth speed but a low operational performance, it will take longer to load applications and boot the computer into Windows than if the SSD offered a higher IOPS performance. Crucial m4 Solid State DriveThe solid state drive (SSD) industry is quickly gaining popularity because the technology works equally well in PC, Linux, and Apple Macintosh computers. Likewise, these storage devices are installed into desktop and notebook platforms without modification. For this article Benchmark Reviews is testing the 256GB Crucial m5 SSD, which is advertised to reach speeds of 415 MB/s for sequential reads and 260 MB/s sequential writes. Crucial's performance specification suggest Iometer random 4K reads at up to 40,000 IOPS and 50,000 write IOPS, for a total combined performance of 90,000 IOPS. The CT256M4SSD2 model we've received for testing is built using the Marvell 88SS9174-BLD2 SSD controller, very similar to the previous generation. As mentioned in the introduction, Micron offers two versions of the same product depending on the market, and each brand comes in four solid state drives capacities: 64, 128, 256, and 512GB. Like most SSD products, expect for the mainstream capacities to reach the retail market first, such as 64/128/256GB varieties, with the 512GB version coming later. Once supplies have been stocked, the 480GB version will be soon to follow. With respect to Crucial's m4 SSD series, the 256GB version is expected to be the most popular of their offered capacities because of performance levels specific to this model.
The Crucial m4 SSD is best suited for performance-orientated personal computers, but also works extremely well for SOHO computer systems. If required, the Crucial m4 SSD could also be utilized for mission-critical backup systems. Marvell SATA 6Gb/s SSDs have generally been designed with a focus on high-performance operational and data transfer speeds, so they also make the ideal storage solution for performance-orientated computers. Although Crucial m4 SSDs do not offer an integrated USB Mini-B port, which appeared on some early-generation SSDs, the retail market offers several different 2.5" SATA enclosures that utilize the SuperSpeed USB-3.0 standard for high-performance portable file transfers.
Crucial understands that once installed, the SSD will be hidden away from view inside your notebook computer or desktop workstation, so they've remained conservative towards the appearance of their solid state drive. Both halves of the enclosure are given a gun-metal textured finish, which does not show fingerprints or smudges like a gloss surface would. A glossy label is attached to the top of the enclosure, denoting model and capacity. Standard 2.5" drive bay mounting points are pre-drilled and threaded into the Crucial m4 chassis, which allows for quick upgrade or addition into any existing notebook and other compact computer system. Fortunately, Crucial also includes a 3.5" to 2.5" tray adapter with their retail m4 SSD kit, so the drive will easily install into desktop computers. The mounting positions matched up to the drive bracket on my notebook computer, and after only a few minutes I was booting from a restored Windows 7 System Image without a hitch.
Unlike most Hard Disk Drive (HDD) storage products, SSDs are nearly impervious to impact damage and do not require (or benefit from) any kind of special vibration dampening or shock-proof enclosures. Crucial utilizes a standard two-piece metal enclosure for their m4 series SSDs, which reveals the internal components after removing four small screws located at each corner of this solid state drive. The seam along the side is covered with a 'Warranty Void' label, which Crucial attaches to warn consumers against taking apart their product. By removing the SSD cover it will also remove your consumer protection with it, but Benchmark Reviews takes the risk for you and reveals the internal components in our next section. If you're already familiar with previous generation Crucial RealSSD C300 storage product, you'll notice that the new m4/C400 hasn't changed its look beyond the product decal. While its outward appearance is similar to many other solid state drives, the functionality and value packaged inside are considerably unique. Now that you're acquainted with the basic exterior features of this SSD, it's time to peek inside the metal enclosure and inspect the internal components... Marvell 88SS9174-BLD2 SSD ProcessorThe Crucial RealSSD-C300 was the industry's first SATA 6Gb/s consumer solid state drive, and also the first SSD to use ONFI 2.1 synchronous NAND flash. But with a 355/215 MB/s read and write speed rating from its Marvell 88SS9174-BJP2 SSD processor, the C300 is so circa February 2010. Micron equips the RealSSD C400 with the revised Marvell 88SS9174-BLD2 SSD processor. This controller is based on the same processor that powered the C300, but its been tweaked to output 90,000 combined IOPS based on Micron's own Iometer tests. In this article, we examine just how much has changed 'under the hood' with the new Crucial m4/Micron RealSSD C400 series. Marvell's 88SS9174 (aka "9174") controller is used in the following solid state drives: Micron RealSSD C400/Crucial m4, Strontium SSD Matrix, Intel SSD 510 (BKK2 revision), Corsair Performance 3 (BKK2 revision), and many more.
Marvell's BLD2 revision of their popular 88SS9174 controller offers a few primary differences from the older BJP2 varient, and a few good reasons to consider their storage product over the competition. The 88SS9174-BLD2 offers faster transfer speeds, improved write IOPS, and support for Micron 25nm MLC NAND flash modules. The Marvell SSD printed circuit board (PCB) follows the same general design as several past products, with a familiar component layout complete with NAND flash modules, DRAM buffer, and Marvell 88SS9174 controller.
Marvell's solid state drive processor is joined by up to sixteen 25nm flash NAND flash memory arranged in an 8-channel design, and a single DRAM chip for buffered transactions. The Marvell 88SS9174 supports Native Command Queuing (NCQ) with 32 command slots. Similar to other modern SSD controllers, the Marvell 88SS9174-BLD2 processor was built to support native TRIM and Secure Erase commands. Additionally, the Self-Monitoring, Analysis, and Reporting Technology (SMART) command set is also supported. Bandwidth estimates for the Marvell 88SS9174-BLD2 SSD controller claim speeds up to 415 MB/s read-from and 260 MB/s write-to, however these are dependant on the flash-NAND and DRAM buffer used. 
Our Marvell test sample was pulled from a Crucial m4/Micron RealSSD C400 SSD. Since Crucial is a Micron brand, it's not surprising to see Micron NAND used in their solid state drive. The flash NAND used on the 256GB CT256M4SSD2/MTFDDAC256MAM-1K1 model are built with 25-nanometer technology and utilizes Micron's high-speed ONFI 2.1 NAND interface for 166 MT/s with 512-byte industry standard sector size. Each 32GB Micron 29F128G08CFAAB MLC NAND module requires 3.3V, and yields a total NTFS formatted capacity of 223 GB in Windows 7. In addition to Marvell 88SS9174-BKK2/BLD2 SSDs, this same 25nm Micron MLC NAND flash component is used on SandForce SF-2200 series SSDs such as the OCZ Vertex 3.
The ONFI 2.1 specification pushes NAND performance levels into a new performance range: 166 MB/s to 200 MB/s. This new specification is the first NAND specification to specifically address the performance needs of solid-state drives to offer faster data transfer rates in combination with other technologies such as SATA 6Gb/s, USB 3.0 and PCI Express Gen2.
After the SSD processor and NAND flash, all that remains is the DRAM buffer. While other 256GB Marvell-based storage devices such as the Intel SSD 510 and Corsair Performance 3 receive only a 128MB cache transaction buffer, the Crucial m4/Micron RealSSD C400 and Strontium SSD Matrix each get the benefit of a 256MB DRAM module. Micron's 256MB DDR DRAM module (ICD22-D9LGQ) offers decent cache performance for fast transaction buffering, which will become more important as SATA 6Gb/s transfers are observed.
Source: Micron Technology SSD Testing MethodologySolid State Drives have traveled a long winding course to finally get where they are today. Up to this point in technology, there have been several key differences separating Solid State Drives from magnetic rotational Hard Disk Drives. While the DRAM-based buffer size on desktop HDDs has recently reached 64 MB and is ever-increasing, there is still a hefty delay in the initial response time. This is one key area in which flash-based Solid State Drives continually dominates because they lack moving parts to "get up to speed". However the benefits inherent to SSDs have traditionally fallen off once the throughput begins, even though data reads or writes are executed at a high constant rate whereas the HDD tapers off in performance. This makes the average transaction speed of a SSD comparable to the data burst rate mentioned in HDD tests, albeit usually lower than the HDD's speed. Comparing a Solid State Disk to a standard Hard Disk Drives is always relative; even if you're comparing the fastest rotational spindle speeds. One is going to be many times faster in response (SSDs), while the other is usually going to have higher throughput bandwidth (HDDs). Additionally, there are certain factors which can affect the results of a test which we do our best to avoid. SSD Testing DisclaimerEarly on in our SSD coverage, Benchmark Reviews published an article which detailed Solid State Drive Benchmark Performance Testing. The research and discussion that went into producing that article changed the way we now test SSD products. Our previous perceptions of this technology were lost on one particular difference: the wear leveling algorithm that makes data a moving target. Without conclusive linear bandwidth testing or some other method of total-capacity testing, our previous performance results were rough estimates at best. Our test results were obtained after each SSD had been prepared using DISKPART or Sanitary Erase tools. As a word of caution, applications such as these offer immediate but temporary restoration of original 'pristine' performance levels. In our tests, we discovered that the maximum performance results (charted) would decay as subsequent tests were performed. SSDs attached to TRIM enabled Operating Systems will benefit from continuously refreshed performance, whereas older O/S's will require a garbage collection (GC) tool to avoid 'dirty NAND' performance degradation. It's critically important to understand that no software for the Microsoft Windows platform can accurately measure SSD performance in a comparable fashion. Synthetic benchmark tools such as HD Tach and PCMark are helpful indicators, but should not be considered the ultimate determining factor. That factor should be measured in actual user experience of real-world applications. Benchmark Reviews includes both bandwidth benchmarks and application speed tests to present a conclusive measurement of product performance. Test System
Storage Hardware TestedThe following storage hardware has been used in our benchmark performance testing, and may be included in portions of this article:
Test Tools
Test Results DisclaimerThis article utilizes benchmark software tools to produce operational IOPS performance and bandwidth speed results. Each test was conducted in a specific fashion, and repeated for all products. These test results are not comparable to any other benchmark application, neither on this website or another, regardless of similar IOPS or MB/s terminology in the scores. The test results in this project are only intended to be compared to the other test results conducted in identical fashion for this article. AS-SSD BenchmarkAlex Schepeljanski of Alex Intelligent Software develops the free AS SSD Benchmark utility for testing storage devices. The AS SSD Benchmark tests sequential read and write speeds, input/output operational performance, and response times. Because this software receives frequent updates, Benchmark Reviews recommends that you compare results only within the same version family. Beginning with sequential read and write performance, the 256GB Crucial m4 SSD CT256M4SSD2 produced 402.21 MB/s read speed, and 263.46 MB/s write performance. This compares well against the new SandForce SF-2281 controller on the OCZ Vertex 3, which produced 505.67 MB/s read speed, and 282.84 MB/s write performance Single-threaded 4K IOPS performance delivers 19.73 MB/s read and 57.70 MB/s write, nearly matching the OCZ Vertex 3 with 21.69 MB/s read and 61.58 MB/s write. The 64-thread 4K reads recorded 158.24 MB/s and 211.48 MB/s writes, compared to 164.88 MB/s and 221.39 MB/s for the OCZ Vertex 3.
Displayed in the chart below, the 64-thread 4KB IOPS performance results for several enthusiast-level storage products helps to illustrate which products offer the best operational input/output under load:
In the next section, Benchmark Reviews tests transfer rates using ATTO Disk Benchmark. ATTO Disk BenchmarkThe ATTO Disk Benchmark program is free, and offers a comprehensive set of test variables to work with. In terms of disk performance, it measures interface transfer rates at various intervals for a user-specified length and then reports read and write speeds for these spot-tests. There are some minor improvements made to the 2.46 version of the program that allow for test lengths up to 2GB, but all of our benchmarks are conducted with 256MB total length. ATTO Disk Benchmark requires that an active partition be set on the drive being tested. Please consider the results displayed by this benchmark to be basic bandwidth speed performance indicators.
ATTO Disk Benchmark: Queue Depth 4 (Default)
ATTO Disk Benchmark: Queue Depth 10 (Maximum)Our basic bandwidth speed tests begin with the Crucial m4 SSD attached to the Intel SATA 6Gb/s controller operating in AHCI mode. Using the ATTO Disk Benchmark tool, the test drive performs file transfers ranging from 0.5 KB to 8192 KB. The CT256M4SSD2 model we received reveals 446 MB/s maximum read speed that plateaus from 128-8192 KB file chunks, and 281 MB/s peak write bandwidth plateaus from 8-8192 KB. These both exceed Marvell specification, and meet manufacturer specification.
In the next section, Benchmark Reviews tests sequential performance using the CrystalDiskMark 3.0 software tool... CrystalDiskMark 3.0 TestsCrystalDiskMark 3.0 is a file transfer and operational bandwidth benchmark tool from Crystal Dew World that offers performance transfer speed results using sequential, 512KB random, and 4KB random samples. For our test results chart below, the 4KB 32-Queue Depth read and write performance was measured using a 1000MB space. CrystalDiskMark requires that an active partition be set on the drive being tested, and all drives are formatted with NTFS on the Intel P67 chipset configured to AHCI-mode. Benchmark Reviews uses CrystalDiskMark to illustrate operational IOPS performance with multiple threads. In addition to our other tests, this benchmark allows us to determine operational bandwidth under heavy load. Each of our tests with the Crucial m4 SSD were consistent, and the best results obtained were used in the chart below. Sequential tests on this Marvell solid state drive produced a maximum read speed of 410.0 MB/s while the write speed was 277.0 MB/s, compared to 500.6 and 300.5 MB/s for the OCZ Vertex 3. CrystalDiskMark 3.0 reported 512K results of 329.9 MB/s read and 276.9 MB/s write performance, which compares to 440.0 MB/s read and 295.6 MB/s write for the SandForce SF-2281 SSD. 4K tests produced 21.68 MB/s read and 68.94 write performance, while the OCZ Vertex 3 produced 33.33 MB/s reads and 80.11 writes.
Displayed in the chart below, the maximum 4KB queue depth 32 IOPS performance results for several enthusiast-level storage products illustrate which products offer the best operation under load:
In the next section, we continue our testing using Iometer to measure input/output performance... Iometer IOPS PerformanceIometer is an I/O subsystem measurement and characterization tool for single and clustered systems. Iometer does for a computer's I/O subsystem what a dynamometer does for an engine: it measures performance under a controlled load. Iometer was originally developed by the Intel Corporation and formerly known as "Galileo". Intel has discontinued work on Iometer, and has gifted it to the Open Source Development Lab (OSDL). There is currently a new version of Iometer in beta form, which adds several new test dimensions for SSDs. Iometer is both a workload generator (that is, it performs I/O operations in order to stress the system) and a measurement tool (that is, it examines and records the performance of its I/O operations and their impact on the system). It can be configured to emulate the disk or network I/O load of any program or benchmark, or can be used to generate entirely synthetic I/O loads. It can generate and measure loads on single or multiple (networked) systems. To measure random I/O response time as well as total I/O's per second, Iometer is set to use 4KB file size chunks over a 100% random sequential distribution at a queue depth of 32 outstanding I/O's per target. The tests are given a 50% read and 50% write distribution. While this pattern may not match traditional 'server' or 'workstation' profiles, it illustrates a single point of reference relative to our product field. The chart below illustrates combined random read and write IOPS over a 120-second Iometer test phase, where highest I/O total is preferred:
In our Iometer tests, which use 32 outstanding I/O's per target and a random 50/50 read/write distribution, SandForce SSDs clearly outperform the competition when tested which a larger queue depth. The PCI-Express based SandForce-driven RevoDrive SSDs lead the pack, followed by their latest SATA 6Gb/s storage solutions. The OCZ Vertex 3 peaks at 57553, and delivers the fastest IOPS performance we've measured on any SATA-based SSD. Crucial's m4 SSD produced 28826 IOPS in this particular test, leaving us to wonder what happened to the 90K it was suggested to produce. We dive into that topic later into this article, in the section named Proving Manufacturer Tests. In our next section, we test linear read and write bandwidth performance and compare its speed against several other top storage products using EVEREST Disk Benchmark. Benchmark Reviews feels that linear tests are excellent for rating SSDs, however HDDs are put at a disadvantage with these tests whenever capacity is high. EVEREST Disk BenchmarkMany enthusiasts are familiar with the Lavalys EVEREST benchmark suite, but very few are aware of the Disk Benchmark tool available inside the program. The EVEREST Disk Benchmark performs linear read and write bandwidth tests on each drive, and can be configured to use file chunk sizes up to 1MB (which speeds up testing and minimizes jitter in the waveform). Because of the full sector-by-sector nature of linear testing, Benchmark Reviews endorses this method for testing SSD products, as detailed in our Solid State Drive Benchmark Performance Testing article. However, Hard Disk Drive products suffer a lower average bandwidth as the capacity draws linear read/write speed down into the inner-portion of the disk platter. EVEREST Disk Benchmark does not require a partition to be present for testing, so all of our benchmarks are completed prior to drive formatting. Linear disk benchmarks are superior bandwidth speed tools in my opinion, because they scan from the first physical sector to the last. A side affect of many linear write-performance test tools is that the data is erased as it writes to every sector on the drive. Normally this isn't an issue, but it has been shown that partition table alignment will occasionally play a role in overall SSD performance (HDDs don't suffer this problem). The high-performance storage products tested with EVEREST Disk Benchmark are connected to the Intel SATA 6Gb/s controller and use a 1MB block size option. Read performance on the 256GB Crucial m4 SSD measured an average 373.6 MBps bandwidth with a maximum peak speed of 488.4 MBps. Our 240GB OCZ Vertex 3 SSD test sample measured an average 469.1 MBps in comparison, with a relatively close maximum peak speed of 484.2 MBps. Everest linear write-to tests were next...
The waveform chart below illustrates how the 256MB DRAM buffer manages file transfers, and makes linear write performance appears to have occasional dips in performance. The results seen here are still relatively consistent compared to most other SSD products we've tested in the past. Crucial's m4 solid state drive recorded an average linear write-to speed of 241.1 MBps, with a maximum performance of 262.9 MBps.
The chart below shows the average linear read and write bandwidth speeds for a cross-section of storage devices tested with EVEREST:
Linear tests are an important tool for comparing bandwidth speed between storage products - although HDD products suffer performance degradation over the span of their areal storage capacity. Linear bandwidth certainly benefits the Solid State Drive, since there's very little fluctuation in transfer speed. This is because Hard Disk Drive products decline in performance as the spindle reaches the inner-most sectors on the magnetic platter, away from the fast outer edge. We're trying something new for the next section: Proving Manufacturer Tests... Proving Manufacturer TestsBenchmark Reviews scrutinizes SSD product specifications with each new storage product we test, primarily because consumers purchase these SSDs based on their printed performance levels - qualified by an independent party or not. The companies that send these products for review often base their solid state drive product specifications on the maximum test results achieved within their own lab, using tools and settings unavailable the ordinary user. This section challenges these performance claims, and uses the exact same test configurations with matching settings we've obtained from their lab technicians. But these tests merely scratch at the surface, because there's always a bigger story beneath it all. The lack of consistant NAND condition creates an atmosphere of uncertainty. In full disclosure, many manufacturers have made strong suggestions as to how their solid state drive storage products are tested. For example, some brands adamantly require the reviewer to clean the NAND Flash with tools such as HDDERASE prior to every test in order to maintain maximum performance between benchmark runs. This artificially creates a best-case scenario that results in performance ratings above and beyond what the average user will experience. All of our SSD tests used Iometer 1.1.0 (built 08-Nov-2010) by Intel Corporation to measure IOPS performance. SandForce created for us the Iometer configuration file presently used for all SSD tests in the Iometer IOPS Performance section, which is what all of their SSD partners utilize to verify performance ratings. This section uses Iometer configuration files provided by Micron, and determines how accurate the product specifications are for their new Crucial m4 SSD. For our hardware enthusiast readers wanting to compare results, here are the files for use with Iometer:
Unlike those results displayed in our Iometer IOPS Performance section which rely on a 120-second test phase, Micron's configuration uses a 5-second phase for each test. We've used a few of the most popular solid state drive models to test with, including past and present SandForce and Marvell SSD controllers. The chart below illustrates combined random read and write IOPS performance, where highest I/O total is preferred:
G In the 8G-File-Numbers.icf Iometer test we observed the OCZ Vertex 3 (SandForce SF-2281) leading with nearly 128K IOPS, followed by Crucial's RealSSD C300 (Marvell 88SS9174-BJP2) with 106K IOPS, which narrowly outperformed the new Crucial m4 SSD (88SS9174-BLD2) which produced 102K IOPS combined. 
Positions remain unchanged for our Empty-Rd-1st-Numbers.icf Iometer tests, but the key here is that once again the Crucial m4 SSD posts more than 40K read and 60K write IOPS, which exceed their specified ratings and confirm Micron's assessment of maximum IOPS performance.
The Full-Rd-1st-Numbers.icf Iometer tests prove the previous results, as no positions change and IOPS performance remains relatively unchanged. In the next section I share my final thoughts on the struggle between SSD and HDD technology, as well as their new hybrid counterpart, before delivering my conclusion and final product rating. HDD vs Hybrid Drive vs SSDIt's been the same argument for over two years now: SSDs offer the best performance, but HDDs still offer the best capacity and price. Now that Solid State Hybrid drives are available, that argument changes. While the optimal blend of bandwidth speed, operational performance, storage capacity, and price value has yet to be delivered, products like the Seagate Momentus-XT offer an ultra-affordable start in the right direction Installed as a primary drive for notebook and value-conscious enthusiasts, the Solid State Hybrid Drive delivers up high-capacity storage space while starting Windows and opening programs like a SSD. The last days of old technology are always better than the first days of new technology. Never has this saying been more true than with the topic of storage technology, specifically in regard to the introduction of Solid State Drive technology a few years ago. The only things standing in the way of widespread Solid State Drive (SSD) adoption are high storage capacity and affordable price of Hard Disk Drive (HDD) devices. Because NAND flash-based SSD technology costs more per gigabyte of capacity than traditional magnetic hard drives, the benefits of immediate response time, transfer speeds, and operational input/output performance often get overlooked. Like most consumer products, it wasn't a question of how much improvement was evident in the new technology, it was price. I'll discuss product costs more in just a moment, but for now consider how each new series of SSD product employs greater performance than the one before it, convincing would-be consumers into waiting for the right time to buy.
There's also a gray area surrounding SSD performance benchmarks that has me concerned. You might not know this, but SSDs can be very temperamental towards the condition of their flash NAND. My experience testing dozens of Solid State Drives is that a freshly cleaned device (using an alignment tool) will always outperform the same device once it's been formatted and used. A perfect example are Indilinx Barefoot-based SSDs, which suffers severely degraded performance when writing to 'dirty' flash NAND. The reason that all of this will matter is simple: the performance results reported to consumers in product reviews (such as this one) often report the very best performance scores, and the process used to obtain these results is not applicable to real-world usage. This is where garbage collection techniques such as TRIM become important, so that end-users will experience the same performance levels as we do in our tests. Garbage Collection (GC) is the current solution for keeping flash NAND in 'clean' condition, while maintaining optimal performance. Windows 7 offers native TRIM support, and most retail SSDs also include this special GC function or at least offer a firmware update that brings the drive up-to-date. For anyone using an Operating System or SSD that does not offer Garbage Collection functionality, you'll be using 'dirty' flash NAND modules and suffering sub-optimal performance for each write-to request. A few SSD manufacturers offers free tools to help restore peak-level performance by scheduling GC to 'clean' used NAND sectors, but these tools add excessive wear to the NAND the same way disk defragmenting tools would. SLC flash modules may resist wear much better than MLC counterparts, but come at the expense of increased production cost. The best solution is a more durable NAND module that offers long-lasting SLC benefits at the cost of MLC construction. Adoption is further stalled because keen consumers aware of this dilemma further continue their delay into the SSD market. Getting back to price, the changes in cost per gigabyte have come as often as changes to the technology itself. At their inception, high-performance models such the 32GB MemoRight GT cost $33 per gigabyte while the entry-level 32GB Mtron MOBI 3000 sold for $14 per gigabyte. While an enjoyable decline in NAND component costs forced consumer SSD prices down low in 2009, the price of SSD products was on the rise during 2010 and continued into 2011. Nevertheless, solid state drives continue to fill store shelves despite price or capacity, and there are a few SSD products now priced dangerously close to the high-performance storage solutions. Despite being less expensive, the cost of SSDs may still price some budget buyers out of the market. Sales prices notwithstanding, the future is in SSD technology - or possibly a high-capacity SSD hybrid - and the day when HDDs are obsolete is nearing close. Crucial m4 SSD ConclusionIMPORTANT: Although the rating and final score mentioned in this conclusion are made to be as objective as possible, please be advised that every author perceives these factors differently at various points in time. While we each do our best to ensure that all aspects of the product are considered, there are often times unforeseen market conditions and manufacturer changes which occur after publication that could render our rating obsolete. Please do not base any purchase solely on our conclusion, as it represents our product rating specifically for the product tested which may differ from future versions. Benchmark Reviews begins our conclusion with a short summary for each of the areas that we rate. Our performance rating considers how effective the Crucial m4 solid state drive performs in operations against direct competitor storage solutions. For reference, specifications for the Micron RealSSD C400 suggest 415 MB/s maximum reads and 260 MB/s writes, as well as 40K read and 50K write IOPS. In our SSD benchmark tests, the Crucial m4 SSD performed at or above these ratings. Our test results proved the Crucial m4 was good for delivering 446/281 MBps peak read and writes speeds using ATTO Disk Benchmark SSD speed tests. Transfer speeds were generally very high, but were overshadowed by some of the latest competitor SSDs such as those from SandForce. Using Micron's own Iometer configuration files, we proved the m4 was capable of producing more than 90K combined IOPS. The 256GB retail Crucial m4 SSD CT256M4SSD2 kit that Micron sent us for testing uses firmware capable of 41K read and 62K write IOPS performance. In our own Iometer operational performance tests using a queue depth of 32 outstanding I/O's per target for a 120-second test, the combined IOPS performance measured closer to 29K. In this particular test, the formatted Crucial m4 SSD trailed behind other SATA 6Gb/s based storage devices. With the results we've received in our tests, hardware enthusiasts can expect very high operational performance and storage functionality for demanding applications and extreme I/O environments. Solid State Drives are low-visibility products: you see them just long enough to install and then they're forgotten. Like their Hard Disk Drive counterparts, Solid State Drives are meant to place function before fashion. Anything above and beyond a simple metal shell is already more than what's expected in terms of the appearance. Micron uses a bead-blasted textured metal finish on the Crucial m4 SSD, with branding labels on the top and bottom for identification. As solid state storage controllers become faster and more advanced, heat dissipation through the enclosure walls may demand that chassis designs become more beneficial than they previously needed to be. This isn't the case yet, and a smooth metal chassis suits modern SSDs nicely. Construction is probably the strongest feature credited to the entire SSD product segment, and Crucial products have never offered any exception. Solid State Drives are by nature immune to most abuses, but add to this a hard metal shell and you have to wonder what it would take to make this drive fail. If a Crucial m4/Micron RealSSD C400-series SSD product fails during the limited 3-year warranty period, end-users can contact Lexar/Crucial via the company website or SSD support forum. There's also a toll-free telephone number for support or customer service questions available at 800-336-8915. Micron officially launched the Crucial m4 SSD on 26 April 2011, roughly one week after this article was published. The current product pricing is as follows: 64GB Model $150, 128GB Model $260, 256GB Model $520, 512GB Model $1000. Having just reviewed a SandForce SF-2281 solid state drive, it's difficult to see where Marvell has dramatically improved the 88SS9174 controller with this BLD2 revision. Based on our tests, it seems that performance emphasis has switched read and write priority when compared to the previous RealSSD C300 series. The new Crucial m4 SSD stands strong all on its own, but it's too soon to tell how well these minor tweaks appeal to consumers. Compared head-to-head, SandForce 2200 SSDs appear to offer better performance than Marvell 88SS9174 revisions, which could make it difficult for the Crucial m4/Micron RealSSD C400, as well as Strontium SSD Matrix, Intel SSD 510, Corsair Performance 3, and others to thrive. For the Crucial m4 SSD to succeed it must be aggressively priced against the competition, but the five-year warranty certainly sweetens the deal. Pros:
|
|
Comments
I saw no mention of any built-in encryption tools. Not on-board?
But did note that the pricing as listed seems relatively consistent with SATA 3Gb SSD offerings, so it looks like the 25nm design is showing it's production benefits if nothing else.
Your Quote still gives me Sticker Shock, even though I can remember when VCRs were 1200.00 and a really good CD Player Was in Audiophile Magazine was $10,000.00 and my North Dakota, Gateway PIII 500 mhz was almost 2000.00, for the entire system.
"Micron will officially launch the Crucial m4 SSD on 26 April 2011, roughly one week from now. They current product pricing is as follows: 64GB Model $130, 128GB Model $250, 256GB Model $500, 512GB Model $1000. As soon as these SSDs reach retail shelves, we'll update this article with links to their online prices"
I personally would love the 256GB Model but "$500 dollars"? That is 70 to 80 percent of todays total build cost, without Mouse, Keyboard, Sound System and Monitor which I usually buy as I go, since I have most of those already.
Since the Speed of a System is also always equal to Weakest Link in the Chain having one of these Ferrari's in your system is a real boost to the system, but then you have to contend with the RAM only being able to deal with so much bandwidth or the processor is bottle necked because of a 1000 processes in the background or even worse the time it takes for the software to do its job can still bog a system down. I have a feeling that MS Windows 7 64 bit SP 1 would still take its time loading since it is loading so many files that the CIA could not handle it all.
Suffice to say, I want one of these Crucial or OCZ Drive, but when they get down in the Mid 2 hundred dollar level for 256 Gb if I have not died from old age by then.
Enigma8750
CMSSC COMMANDER AND CHIEF
What's with the trolls these days? They can't piece together a proper sentence, but they can complain about the color of money.