![]() The firmware changes are likely minor in nature, however one major change is the loss of Intel's E2/E3/E4 SMART attributes for quick endurance testing. Intel's SSD 330 also carries a different firmware version from the 520: 300i vs. And if it does its job really well, even the lower endurance parts should be more than good enough. If Intel does its job right, most of the stuff in the middle should be very good. Lower endurance parts are more plentiful (and thus cheaper) while the highest endurance parts will be sold for a premium (e.g. Just like with frequency binning for CPUs, there's endurance binning for NAND. the 520 is very similar to Kingston's HyperX 3K vs. I'll get to the math behind why this isn't an issue at all for most users shortly. ![]() The 330's primary differentiation comes from its use of cheaper, lower endurance MLC NAND. Updating to the latest version rectifies the latter: If you haven't updated to the latest Intel SSD Toolbox, the 330 is actually detected by the software as a 520: Despite the latter, Intel's SSD 330 is technically codenamed Maple Crest. Actually, if you look at the 330's PCB itself you'll see the same layout as the 520 and Cherryville codename silkscreened onto the board. They both use the same SF-2281 6Gbps controller, and they both use Intel's 25nm MLC NAND. Given the 330 uses the same controller as the 520, anyone who needs a larger drive can always buy the 520 instead.Īrchitecturally the 330 and 520 are identical. The limited launch capacities are a bit odd when you consider the Intel SSD 320 was available from 40GB all the way up to 600GB. The 330 is available in four capacities: 60GB, 120GB, 180GB and 240GB. For what it's worth, even Intel's own controllers have had issues. I'm still comfortable in saying Intel's SandForce drives are good and likely better tested than any other SF drive, but as with any SSD, there can be issues depending on your system configuration. The number of publicly reported problems is very low, but it's impossible to say if this is a function of time or a truly superior design. Despite Intel's best efforts, there are starting to be a small percentage of issues being reported in the wild. We have seen examples of better behavior from Intel's SF-2281 firmware internally, and even wrote about one in our original Cherryville review. The result is a solution that performs a little differently than a standard SandForce drive, but should be less prone to compatibility/stability/reliability issues that have plagued SandForce drives for the past year. The firmware is of course a collaboration between Intel and SandForce, although it's not clear if Intel ever had access to the firmware's source code or not. Regardless of how, this is where we are today: every new Intel SSD, with the exception of the high-end PCIe solution, is now powered by SandForce's SF-2281 controller and not Intel's own silicon. Apparently there's a good one behind why Intel's sequential write speed was capped at 100MB/s in the early days of the X25-M's controller. I don't doubt that I'll eventually get the story of how we got here. While Intel had previously reserved the 5xx line for 3rd party controllers, the 330 marks the first time Intel has used something other than its own branded controller in a mainstream or 3-series drive. Earlier this year Intel introduced its second SandForce based SSD: the Intel SSD 330.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |