10 months from ES and still not ready. :shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by neeyuese
How long would it normally take for a product to go from ES to retail?
Printable View
10 months from ES and still not ready. :shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by neeyuese
How long would it normally take for a product to go from ES to retail?
You really are after to discredit me, aren't you? It's not someone I speak with on a regular basis, I was only told about the controller and work on the firmware and I didn't bother to ask more since it's someone I respect very much. If you are after to discredit me - take it by PM. I will not give out any granular details in an open forum thread that could reveal the persons identity.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnw
EDIT: On the other hand I am not in the mood so just forget everything I said and move along, it's probably all just wrong precisely like you want it to be ;) This will be the last thread I visit when more information on Cherryville comes up. Why I and my patience even bothered with you is also a mystery.
No need to get excited. Strong statements ("confirmed") require solid evidence. I am not trying to "discredit" you, but rather trying to determine if there is any solid evidence to back up your strong statements. So far, I am not convinced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartidiot89
Below are the specs for an OCZ SF drive. I have cherry picked the fastest performance available over the spectrum of different capacity drives.
OCZ SF
0 fill:
Max Read: 550MB/s
Max Write: 520MB/s
Random Read 4KB: 50K IOPS
Random Write: 4KB: 50K IOPS (Logical Block Address (LBA) range: 85% of total drive capacity)
Random Write: 4KB: 85K IOPS (Logical Block Address (LBA) range: 8GB)
Non compressible (AS-SSD; 64 thread for 4K specs):
Max Read: 510MB/s
Max Write: 280MB/s
Random Read 4KB: 56K IOPS
Random Write: 4KB: 56K IOPS
Here are the specs for the 520 (from Anvils post #35). Again I have cherry picked the fastest specs. It is unclear how Intel established their specs, but I think they typically use a 8GB LBA range.
Intel 520
• Max Read: 550 MB/s
• Max Write: 520 MB/s
• Read IOPS: up to 85K
• Random Write 4KB: 70K
So capacities match, as do sequential speeds, but the 520 read IOPs are significantly higher. Write IOPS on the other hand are lower.
The other thing that Intel state on the pdf that Anvil linked is that:
“IOPs and endurance specifications are for client-based workloads”.
It would be a bit disingenuous of Intel to base their specs on 0 fill and then say the IOPS and endurance specs are based on client-based works loads, so based on specs only I’m not convinced yet, although there does appear to be an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence that it will be SF based. Guess we will soon see.
Also, don't you think the SF bug would have been fixed along time ago if Intel was involved at all with the FW.
I mean, SF (and their parteners in crime) pretty much tried to basically blamed it on the Intel chipset.
I always figured the 520 would have a Micron controller.
Something similar to what the Crucial m4 uses.
Seems plausible with all the close work they have been doing together on other projects. :shrug:
^
I expect you are thinking of the Marvell controller used on the m4/C300 etc.
(Micron does not currently offer an SSD controller for the masses)
There really is not much point in speculating, it can't be anything other than the SandForce-2XXX controller, even the delays point in that direction.
I was hoping for a release this year or some sneak preview, but...
That was the one I was refering to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
I know I read the Marvell was in the m4 on the endurance thread but had forgotten. My bad.
Thanks
IMHO I would think with an excessive amount of time and money involved in holding up production without a reasonably quick fix then Intel might have looked for a different solution. Maybe the problem was not confined to just firmware, who knows. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by bluestang
I would also like to think Intel would not use figures based on unreal world performance, i.e. highly compressible data such as 0-fill for example used with a controller that uses compression, but perhaps I'm just being naive.
CES
Quoted from legitreview
"Intel went on to say that it took a rather long period of time to bring the Intel SSD 520 to market as they had to validate it and make sure it was perfected. The drive will have an Intel written firmware that blends together reliability, functionality and performance. This means you get the longer than the industry average 5-year warranty, access to Intel Toolbox utility and other utilities to make life with an SSD easy. "
The article can be found here:
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1814/1/
Here it is in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx52qOgiP54
Thanks for the links
(the forum editor is not iPad friendly and so putting in links is a pain)
Intel had a side-by-side demo of their next generation SSD up against a 10,000 RPM hard drive.
That is so 80's!
Thanks for the link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ao1
But, ARGHHHHHHHH! :brick:
No! If all the Intel representative said was that it uses a "third party controller", then no, it does NOT cofirm rumors that Intel is "bringing a SandForce" controlled SSD to market. The Intel 510 uses a third party controller (Marvell).Quote:
Intel confirmed that this is an upcoming drive that will be out shortly that uses a third party controller. This confirms rumors that we heard at this show last year and that Intel really is bringing a SandForce Driven processor by LSI into their flagship SSD.
I did pick up on that. It's like saying 2 + 2 = 5. Hopefully Comp comes back with some info. :D
You’ve got to love the internetQuote:
Originally Posted by johnw
http://www.pcper.com/news/General-Te...-look-CES-2012
They (Legit Reviews ) got confirmation that Intel will indeed be using a Sandforce based controller in an upcoming SSD, the 520 Cherryville, which will replace the 510 series.
We all know there is only one third party controller available on the market so it would have to be SF. :shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ao1
1+1=11 so now we have confirmation. :ROTF:
gah forum doublepost...then try to delete one it deletes both!
yes they have not officially listed the SF yet.
The 520 is starting to pop-up in price-lists
(the prices are insane so don't bother looking at them)
Link to prisjakt
I wonder how long before it's removed from that page, no specs, just prices :)
review units will be in hand (not mine unfortunately :( ) on Tuesday. they overnight them monday, public availability soon thereafter.
I expected they were very close to release :)
Hopefully the prices will be more competitive than the 510 was.
well, we both know that wont happen LOL :)
Les will have the scoop very very quickly. He is waiting with a screwdriver...
Holy banana that 240GB is about Ł500 GBP if I'm correct about the currency conversion?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
Ł520 or $800 based on the current rate for the 240GB
(incl 25% vat)
Getting all the bugs out of the SF controller obviously didn’t come cheap :rofl: (sorry could't help it :D )
$10M fly swatter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ao1
I still don't think it is SF.
SF-2281 done right incoming... :cool: :up:
How about a photo of the PCB showing the SF-2281 chip? That would be solid evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartidiot89
*whistles innocently*
I can't hear you ;)
Are they ever going to release this drive?
At this rate, it seems that by the time it comes out, it will already be time for 20nm Kingcrest to replace it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ao1
It'll be released at the same time Intel gets around to pulling SB-E out of their butts...which is nearly when Ivy is due. Pretty sad when Intel launches their high margin processors and high performance processors last, and their run of the mill stuff a year prior...(1155 SB vs 2011 SB-E). Intel's strategy as of late feels like a disincentive to wait for the high performance parts...by the time they eventually materialize, the next generation of mainstream parts is right there with them in performance...:rolleyes:
Well.. it's already available in my country (New Zealand), and on sale since Monday.. see: http://www.computerlounge.co.nz/comp...p?partid=16216 (p.s. our SSD prices are very expensive so no point comparing directly). I'm waiting for information on the controller/benchmarks before I consider buying it though!
got 2 on the way, woohoo :)
It is strange if they are on sale already. The 520 is not listed on Intel's web page, and I cannot find any press releases or product announcements about the 520.
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/...d%20prod_flash
http://www.intel.com/content/www/au/...rives-ssd.html
Notice that it says "34NM SSD" in the product title. The 520 is supposed to have 25nm flash.Quote:
Originally Posted by lm358
They are not available yet.
I could have ordered a week ago but prices are insane and the stores that lists the drives show availability in February. (the dates have varied a lot)
The drives might already be in stock though, just not listed as available, Intel have been able to do so lately.
(There sure are repercussions on stores that don't follow their rules/release dates)
I noticed that one of the stores listed Endurance : Data retention 5 year(s) :) as part of the spec.
I'm sure it won't be long, could be that there still are some issues though.
I'm sure its merely a typographical error. Probably because the 510 series used 34nm. This is one of the "best" geek-type computer stores in the country, it's definitely available to purchase. Other NZ stores also list it: http://www.ascent.co.nz/productspeci...ItemID=8329326 those guys write 25nm :) I can only assume the distributor in NZ must have shipped stock early/before they were supposed to *shrug*Quote:
Originally Posted by johnw
"In stock as at 20 Jan"Quote:
Originally Posted by lm358
I've noticed that Intel always seem to release info on a Friday (at least when it has anything to do with SSD's).
I'm getting my hands on 520 this week! :)
How about some benches? :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by DooRules
(A read bench with HD Tune woould be great if you have any data on the drive).:up:
I'd like to see the SMART attributes as listed by Intel Toolbox (click on [SMART details]) rather than CDI. I'm sure CDI does not have the 520 in its database yet, so it is just guessing that the attributes are the same as, say, the 510.
Particularly, I am wondering if there is a "Flash writes" attribute, so that when divided by "Host writes" you can get the average compression ratio (assuming there is compression with the 520).
clean array right now, 128k stripe, tried aida, cdminfo, intel toolbox, ssdlife, can find no reference to controller
http://i546.photobucket.com/albums/h.../Capture11.jpg
http://i546.photobucket.com/albums/h.../Captureol.jpg
http://i546.photobucket.com/albums/h.../Capture88.jpg
The anvil bench score is about 1500 higher than I ever got with two M4's, atto is atto, as ssd not showing so well. I am on the enterprise drivers and they are not playing nice with the Intel toolbox yet. They are showing as 520's no problem, but when in an array they show no other data in the toolbox. When I tried the 11 series driver the Intel toolbox had full functionality.
Gone for supper.:)
'ID', 'Description', 'Raw', 'Normalized', 'Threshold', 'Action',
05, Re-allocated Sector Count, 0, 100, 0, Ready for use.,
09, Power-On Hours Count, 894803, 0, 0, Ready for use.,
0C, Power Cycle Count, 1, 100, 0, Ready for use.,
AA, Available Reserved Space, 0, 100, 10, Ready for use.,
AB, Program Fail Count, 0, 100, 0, Ready for use.,
AC, Erase Fail Count, 0, 100, 0, Ready for use.,
AE, Unexpected Power Loss, 1, 100, 0, Ready for use.,
B8, End-to-End Error Detection Count, 0, 100, 90, Ready for use.,
BB, Uncorrectable Error Count, 0, 120, 50, Ready for use.,
C0, Unsafe Shutdown Count, 1, 100, 0, Ready for use.,
E1, Host Writes, 64.00 MB, 100, 0, Ready for use.,
E2, Timed Workload, Media Wear, 65535, 100, 0, Ready for use.,
E3, Timed Workload, Host Read/Write Ratio, 51, 100, 0, Ready for use.,
E4, Timed Workload Timer, 65535, 100, 0, Ready for use.,
E8, Available Reserved Space, 0, 100, 10, Ready for use.,
E9, Media Wearout Indicator, 0, 100, 0, Ready for use.,
F1, Total LBAs Written, 64.00 MB, 100, 0, Ready for use.,
F2, Total LBAs Read, 96.00 MB, 100, 0, Ready for use.,
F9, Unknown Attribute, 0, 100, 0, Ready for use.,
'Word', 'Description', 'Value',
0, General Configuration, 0040,
, Bit 15 - ATA Device Identifier, 0,
, Bit 14:8 - Retired, 00,
, Bit 7:6 - Obsolete, 1,
, Bit 5:3 - Retired, 0,
, Bit 2 - Response Incomplete, 0,
, Bit 1 - Retired, 0,
, Bit 0 - Reserved, 0,
1, Obsolete, 3FFF,
2, Specific Configuration, C837,
3, Obsolete, 0010,
4, Retired, 0000,
5, Retired, 0000,
6, Obsolete, 003F,
7-8, Reserved, 00000000,
9, Retired, 0000,
10-19, Serial Number,
20-21, Reserved, 00000000,
22, Obsolete, 0000,
23-26, Firmware Version, 400i,
27-46, Model Number, INTEL SSDSC2CW120A3,
47, READ/WRITE MULTIPLE Support, 8010,
, Bit 15:8, 80,
, Bit 7:0 - Maximum Sectors, 10,
48, Trusted Computing Feature Set Options, 4000,
, Bit 15 - Must be set to 0, 0,
, Bit 14 - Must be set to 1, 1,
, Bit 13:1 - Reserved, 0000,
, Bit 0 - Trusted Computing Feature Set Supported, 0,
49, Capabilities, 2F00,
, Bit 15:14 - Reserved, 0,
, Bit 13 - Standby Timer Option, 1,
, Bit 12 - Reserved, 0,
, Bit 11 - IORDY Supported, 1,
, Bit 10 - IORDY May Be Disabled, 1,
, Bit 9 - LBA Supported, 1,
, Bit 8 - DMA Supported, 1,
, Bit 7:0 - Retired, 00,
50, Capabilities, 4000,
, Bit 15 - Must be set to 0, 0,
, Bit 14 - Must be set to 1, 1,
, Bit 13:2 - Reserved, 0000,
, Bit 1 - Obsolete, 0,
, Bit 0 - Vendor Specific Minimum Standby timer, 0,
51-52, Obsolete, 00000000,
53, Field Validity, 0007,
, Bit 15:8 - Vendor Recommended Free-Fall Control Sensitivity, 00,
, Bit 7:3 - Reserved, 00,
, Bit 2 - Word 88 is Valid, 1,
, Bit 1 - Words 70:64 are Valid, 1,
, Bit 0 - Obsolete, 1,
54-58, Obsolete, 3FFF0010003FFC1000FB,
60-61, Total Number of user addressable sectors, 0DF94BB0,
62, Obsolete, 0000,
63, Multiword DMA Transfer, 0007,
, Bit 15:11 - Reserved, 00,
, Bit 10 - Multiword DMA Mode 2 Selected, 0,
, Bit 9 - Multiword DMA Mode 1 Selected, 0,
, Bit 8 - Multiword DMA Mode 0 Selected, 0,
, Bit 7:3 - Reserved, 00,
, Bit 2 - Multiword DMA Mode 2 Supported, 1,
, Bit 1 - Multiword DMA Mode 1 Supported, 1,
, Bit 0 - Multiword DMA Mode 0 Supported, 1,
64, PIO Transfer Modes Supported, 0003,
, Bit 15:2 - Reserved, 0000,
, Bit 1 - PIO Mode 4 Supported, 1,
, Bit 0 - PIO Mode 3 Supported, 1,
65, Minimum Multiword DMA Transfer Cycle Time Per Word (ns), 0078,
66, Device Recommended Multiword DMA Cycle Time (ns), 0078,
67, Minimum PIO Transfer Cycle Time Without IORDY Flow Control (ns), 0078,
68, Minimum PIO Transfer Cycle Time With IORDY Flow Control (ns), 0078,
69, Additional Supported, 4000,
, Bit 15 - CFast Specification Support, 0,
, Bit 14 - Deterministic Read After Trim Supported, 1,
, Bit 13 - Long Physical Sector Alignment Error Reporting Control Supported, 0,
, Bit 12 - DCO IDENTIFY DMA and DCO SET DMA Supported, 0,
, Bit 11 - READ BUFFER DMA Supported, 0,
, Bit 10 - WRITE BUFFER DMA Supported, 0,
, Bit 9 - SET MAX SET PASSWORD DMA and SET MAX UNLOCK DMA Supported, 0,
, Bit 8 - DOWNLOAD MICROCODE DMA Supported, 0,
, Bit 7 - Reserved, 0,
, Bit 6 - Optional ATA Device 28-bit Commands Supported, 0,
, Bit 5 - Read Zero After Trim Supported, 0,
, Bit 4:0 - Reserved, 00,
70-74, Reserved, 000000000000 00000000,
75, Queue Depth, 001F,
, Bit 15:5 - Reserved, 000,
, Bit 4:0 - Maximum Queue Depth - 1, 1F,
76, Serial ATA Capabilities, 4706,
, Bit 15:13 - Reserved, 2,
, Bit 12 - Native Command Queuing Priority Information Support, 0,
, Bit 11 - Unload While NCQ Commands Outstanding Support, 0,
, Bit 10 - Phy Event Counters Support, 1,
, Bit 9 - Receipt of Host-Initiated Interface Power Managament Requests Support, 1,
, Bit 8 - Native Command Queuing Support, 1,
, Bit 7:4 - Reserved, 0,
, Bit 3 - Serial ATA Gen3 Signaling Speed (6.0 Gbps) Support, 0,
, Bit 2 - Serial ATA Gen2 Signaling Speed (3.0 Gbps) Support, 1,
, Bit 1 - Serial ATA Gen1 Signaling Speed (1.5 Gbps) Support, 1,
, Bit 0, 0,
77, Reserved for Serial ATA, 0004,
78, Serial ATA Features Supported, 004C,
, Bit 15:7 - Reserved, 000,
, Bit 6 - Software Settings Preservation Supported, 1,
, Bit 5 - Reserved, 0,
, Bit 4 - In-Order Data Delivery Supported, 0,
, Bit 3 - Device Initiating Interface Power Management (DIPM) Supported, 1,
, Bit 2 - DMA Setup Auto-Activate Optimization Supported, 1,
, Bit 1 - Non-Zero Buffer Offsets in DMA Setup FIS Supported, 0,
, Bit 0 - Must be set to 0, 0,
79, Serial ATA Features Enabled, 0044,
, Bit 15:7 - Reserved, 000,
, Bit 6 - SSP Enabled, 1,
, Bit 5 - Reserved, 0,
, Bit 4 - In-Order Data Delivery Enabled, 0,
, Bit 3 - Device Initiating Interface Power Management (DIPM) Enabled, 0,
, Bit 2 - DMA Setup FIS Auto-Activate Optimization Enabled, 1,
, Bit 1 - Non-Zero Buffer Offsets in DMA Setup FIS Enabled, 0,
, Bit 0 - Must be set to 0, 0,
80, Major Version Number, 03FC,
, Bit 15 - Reserved, 0,
, Bit 14 - ATA14 Support, 0,
, Bit 13 - ATA13 Support, 0,
, Bit 12 - ATA12 Support, 0,
, Bit 11 - ATA11 Support, 0,
, Bit 10 - ATA10 Support, 0,
, Bit 9 - ATA9 Support, 1,
, Bit 8 - ATA8-ACS Support, 1,
, Bit 7 - ATA/ATAPI-7 Support, 1,
, Bit 6 - ATA/ATAPI-6 Support, 1,
, Bit 5 - ATA/ATAPI-5 Support, 1,
, Bit 4 - ATA/ATAPI-4 Support, 1,
, Bit 3 - Obsolete, 1,
, Bit 2 - Obsolete, 1,
, Bit 1 - Obsolete, 0,
, Bit 0 - Reserved, 0,
81, Minor Version Number, 0110,
82, Features/Command Sets Supported, 746B,
, Bit 15 - Obsolete, 0,
, Bit 14 - NOP Command Supported, 1,
, Bit 13 - READ BUFFER Command Supported, 1,
, Bit 12 - WRITE BUFFER Command Supported, 1,
, Bit 11 - Obsolete, 0,
, Bit 10 - HPA Feature Set Supported, 1,
, Bit 9 - DEVICE RESET Command Supported, 0,
, Bit 8 - SERVICE Interrupt Supported, 0,
, Bit 7 - Release Interrupt Supported, 0,
, Bit 6 - Read Look-Ahead Supported, 1,
, Bit 5 - Write Cache Supported, 1,
, Bit 4 - Must be set to 0, 0,
, Bit 3 - Power Management Feature Set Supported, 1,
, Bit 2 - Obsolete, 0,
, Bit 1 - Security Mode Feature Set Supported, 1,
, Bit 0 - SMART Feature Set Supported, 1,
83, Features/Command Sets Supported, 7469,
, Bit 15 - Must be set to 0, 0,
, Bit 14 - Must be set to 1, 1,
, Bit 13 - FLUSH CACHE EXT Command Supported, 1,
, Bit 12 - Mandatory FLUSH CACHE Command Supported, 1,
, Bit 11 - DCO Feature Set Supported, 0,
, Bit 10 - 48-Bit Address Feature Set Supported, 1,
, Bit 9 - AAM Feature Set Supported, 0,
, Bit 8 - HPA Security Extensions Supported, 0,
, Bit 7 - Reserved for Address Offset Reserved Area Boot Method, 0,
, Bit 6 - SET FEATURES Subcommand Required to Spinup After Power-Up Supported, 1,
, Bit 5 - PUIS Feature Set Supported, 1,
, Bit 4 - Obsolete, 0,
, Bit 3 - APM Feature Set Supported, 1,
, Bit 2 - CFA Feature Set Supported, 0,
, Bit 1 - TCQ Feature Set Supported, 0,
, Bit 0 - DOWNLOAD MICROCODE Command is Supported, 1,
84, Features/Command Sets Supported, 6163,
, Bit 15 - Must be set to 0, 0,
, Bit 14 - Must be set to 1, 1,
, Bit 13 - IDLE IMMEDIATE With UNLOAD FEATURE Supported, 1,
, Bit 12 - Reserved for Technical Report, 0,
, Bit 11 - Reserved for Technical Report, 0,
, Bit 10:9 - Obsolete, 0,
, Bit 8 - 64-Bit World Wide Name Supported, 1,
, Bit 7 - WRITE DMA QUEUED FUA EXT Command Supported, 0,
, Bit 6 - WRITE DMA FUA EXT Command Supported, 1,
, Bit 5 - GPL Feature Set Supported, 1,
, Bit 4 - Streaming Feature Set Supported, 0,
, Bit 3 - Media Card Pass Through Command Feature Set Supported, 0,
, Bit 2 - Media Serial Number Supported, 0,
, Bit 1 - SMART Self-Test Supported, 1,
, Bit 0 - SMART Error Logging Supported, 1,
85, Features/Command Sets Enabled, 7429,
, Bit 15 - Obsolete, 0,
, Bit 14 - NOP Command Enabled, 1,
, Bit 13 - READ BUFFER Command Enabled, 1,
, Bit 12 - WRITE BUFFER Command Enabled, 1,
, Bit 11 - Obsolete, 0,
, Bit 10 - HPA Feature Set Enabled, 1,
, Bit 9 - DEVICE RESET Command Enabled, 0,
, Bit 8 - SERVICE Interrupt Enabled, 0,
, Bit 7 - Release Interrupt Enabled, 0,
, Bit 6 - Look-Ahead Enabled, 0,
, Bit 5 - Write Cache Enabled, 1,
, Bit 4 - Must be set to 0, 0,
, Bit 3 - Power Management Feature Set Enabled, 1,
, Bit 2 - Obsolete, 0,
, Bit 1 - Security Mode Feature Set Enabled, 0,
, Bit 0 - SMART Feature Set Enabled, 1,
86, Features/Command Sets Enabled, B449,
, Bit 15 - Words 119-120 Are Valid, 1,
, Bit 14 - Reserved, 0,
, Bit 13 - FLUSH CACHE EXT Command Enabled, 1,
, Bit 12 - Mandatory FLUSH CACHE Command Enabled, 1,
, Bit 11 - DCO Enabled, 0,
, Bit 10 - 48-Bit Address Feature Set Enabled, 1,
, Bit 9 - AAM Feature Set Enabled, 0,
, Bit 8 - HPA Security Extensions Enabled, 0,
, Bit 7 - Reserved for Address Offset Reserved Area Boot Method, 0,
, Bit 6 - SET FEATURES Subcommand Required to Spinup After Power-Up, 1,
, Bit 5 - Power-Up In Standby Feature Set Enabled, 0,
, Bit 4 - Obsolete, 0,
, Bit 3 - APM Feature Set Enabled, 1,
, Bit 2 - CFA Feature Set Enabled, 0,
, Bit 1 - TCQ Feature Set Enabled, 0,
, Bit 0 - DOWNLOAD MICROCODE Command Enabled, 1,
87, Features/Command Sets Enabled, 6163,
, Bit 15 - Must be set to 0, 0,
, Bit 14 - Must be set to 1, 1,
, Bit 13 - IDLE IMMEDIATE With UNLOAD FEATURE Enabled, 1,
, Bit 12 - Reserved for Technical Report, 0,
, Bit 11 - Reserved for Technical Report, 0,
, Bit 10:9 - Obsolete, 0,
, Bit 8 - 64-Bit World Wide Name Enabled, 1,
, Bit 7 - WRITE DMA QUEUED FUA EXT Command Enabled, 0,
, Bit 6 - WRITE DMA FUA EXT Command Enabled, 1,
, Bit 5 - GPL Feature Set Enabled, 1,
, Bit 4 - Streaming Feature Set Enabled, 0,
, Bit 3 - Media Card Pass Through Command Feature Set Enabled, 0,
, Bit 2 - Media Serial Number Enabled, 0,
, Bit 1 - SMART Self-Test Enabled, 1,
, Bit 0 - SMART Error Logging Enabled, 1,
88, Ultra DMA Modes, 407F,
, Bit 15 - Reserved, 0,
, Bit 14 - Ultra DMA Mode 6 Selected, 1,
, Bit 13 - Ultra DMA Mode 5 Selected, 0,
, Bit 12 - Ultra DMA Mode 4 Selected, 0,
, Bit 11 - Ultra DMA Mode 3 Selected, 0,
, Bit 10 - Ultra DMA Mode 2 Selected, 0,
, Bit 9 - Ultra DMA Mode 1 Selected, 0,
, Bit 8 - Ultra DMA Mode 0 Selected, 0,
, Bit 7 - Reserved, 0,
, Bit 6 - Ultra DMA Mode 6 and Below Supported, 1,
, Bit 5 - Ultra DMA Mode 5 and Below Supported, 1,
, Bit 4 - Ultra DMA Mode 4 and Below Supported, 1,
, Bit 3 - Ultra DMA Mode 3 and Below Supported, 1,
, Bit 2 - Ultra DMA Mode 2 and Below Supported, 1,
, Bit 1 - Ultra DMA Mode 1 and Below Supported, 1,
, Bit 0 - Ultra DMA Mode 0 and Below Supported, 1,
89, SECURITY ERASE UNIT Time, 0002,
90, ENHANCED SECURITY ERASE UNIT Time, 0001,
91, Advanced Power Management Level, 00FE,
, Bit 15:8 - Reserved, 00,
, Bit 7:0 - Level, FE,
92, Master Password Revision Code, FFFE,
93, Hardware Reset Result, 0000,
94, Current Automatic Acoustic Management Value, 0000,
, Bit 15:8 - Vendor's Recommended Value, 00,
, Bit 7:0 - Current Value, 00,
95, Stream Minimum Request Size, 0000,
96, Streaming Transfer Time - DMA, 0000,
97, Streaming Access Latency - DMA and PIO, 0000,
98-99, Streaming Performance Granularity, 00000000,
100-103, Maximum User 48-Bit LBA, 000000000DF94BB0,
104, Streaming Transfer Time - PIO, 0000,
105, Maximum 512-byte blocks of LBA Range Entries per DATA SET MANAGEMENT command, 0001,
106, Physical / Logical Sector Size, 4000,
, Bit 15 - Must be set to 0, 0,
, Bit 14 - Must be set to 1, 1,
, Bit 13 - Device has Multiple Logical Sectors Per Physical Sector, 0,
, Bit 12 - Logical Sector Size Larger than 256 Words, 0,
, Bit 11:4 - Reserved, 00,
, Bit 3:0 - 2^Value Sectors Per Physical Sector, 0,
107, Inter-Seek Delay for ISO7779 Standard Acoustic Testing, 0000,
108-111, World Wide Name, 5001517BB27D7BE1,
112-116, Reserved, 0000000000000000 0000,
117-118, Logical Sector Size, 00000000,
119, Features/Command Sets Supported, 401C,
, Bit 15 - Must be set to 0, 0,
, Bit 14 - Must be set to 1, 1,
, Bit 13:6 - Reserved, 00,
, Bit 5 - Free-Fall Control Feature Supported, 0,
, Bit 4 - DOWNLOAD MICROCODE Command With Mode 3 Supported, 1,
, Bit 3 - READ/WRITE LOG DMA EXT Optional GPL Commands Supported, 1,
, Bit 2 - WRITE UNCORRECTABLE EXT Command Supported, 1,
, Bit 1 - Write-Read-Verify Feature Set Supported, 0,
, Bit 0 - Reserved for DDT, 0,
120, Features/Command Sets Enabled, 401C,
, Bit 15 - Must be set to 0, 0,
, Bit 14 - Must be set to 1, 1,
, Bit 13:6 - Reserved, 00,
, Bit 5 - Free-Fall Control Feature Enabled, 0,
, Bit 4 - DOWNLOAD MICROCODE Command With Mode 3 Enabled, 1,
, Bit 3 - READ/WRITE LOG DMA EXT Optional GPL Commands Enabled, 1,
, Bit 2 - WRITE UNCORRECTABLE EXT Command Enabled, 1,
, Bit 1 - Write-Read-Verify Feature Set Enabled, 0,
, Bit 0 - Reserved for DDT, 0,
121-126, Reserved For Expanded Supported and Enabled Settings, 0000000000000000 00000000,
127, Obsolete, 0000,
128, Security Status, 0029,
, Bit 15:9 - Reserved, 00,
, Bit 8 - Master Password Capability, 0,
, Bit 7:6 - Reserved, 0,
, Bit 5 - Enhanced Security Erase Supported, 1,
, Bit 4 - Security Count Expired, 0,
, Bit 3 - Security Frozen, 1,
, Bit 2 - Security Locked, 0,
, Bit 1 - Security Enabled, 0,
, Bit 0 - Security Supported, 1,
129-159, Vendor Specific, 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 000000000000,
160, CFA Power Mode, 0000,
161-167, Reserved for CFA, 0000000000000000 000000000000,
168, Device Nominal Form Factor, 0000,
, Bit 15:4 - Reserved, 000,
, Bit 3:0 - Form Factor, 0,
169, Data Set Management Support, 0001,
, Bit 15:1 - Reserved, 0000,
, Bit 0 - Data Set Management Supported, 1,
170-175, Reserved, 0000000000000000 00000000,
176-205, Current Media Serial Number, 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 00000000,
206, SCT Command Transport, 0021,
, Bit 15:12 - Vendor Specific, 0,
, Bit 11:6 - Reserved, 00,
, Bit 5 - SCT Data Tables Supported, 1,
, Bit 4 - SCT Features Control Supported, 0,
, Bit 3 - SCT Error Recovery Control Supported, 0,
, Bit 2 - SCT Write Same Supported, 0,
, Bit 1 - SCT Long Sector Access Supported, 0,
, Bit 0 - SCT Command Transport Supported, 1,
207-208, Reserved, 00000000,
209, Alignment of Logical Blocks Within a Physical Block, 4000,
210-211, Write-Read-Verify Sector Count Mode 3, 00000000,
212-213, Write-Read-Verify Sector Count Mode 2, 01000000,
214, NV Cache Capabilities, 4000,
215-216, NV Cache Size In Logical Blocks, 00000000,
217, Nominal Media Rotation Rate, 0001,
218, Reserved, 0000,
219, NV Cache Options, 0000,
220, Write-Read-Verify Mode, 0000,
, Bit 15:8 - Reserved, 00,
, Bit 7:0 - Write-Read-Verify Feature Set Current Mode, 00,
221, Reserved, 0000,
222, Transport Major Version Number, 103F,
, Bit 15:12 - Transport Type, 1,
, Bit 11:5 - Reserved, 01,
, Bit 4 - SATA Rev 2.6 Supported, 1,
, Bit 3 - SATA Rev 2.5 Supported, 1,
, Bit 2 - SATA II: Extensions Supported, 1,
, Bit 1 - SATA 1.0a Supported, 1,
, Bit 0 - ATA8-AST Supported, 1,
223, Transport Minor Version Number, 0000,
224-233, Reserved, 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 00000000,
234, Minimum Number Of Blocks Per DOWNLOAD MICROCODE Mode 3, 0000,
235, Maximum Number Of Blocks Per DOWNLOAD MICROCODE Mode 3, 0000,
236-254, Reserved, 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 000000000000,
255, Integrity Word, F2A5,
'Item', '', 'Value',
Operating System, Name, Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate ,
, Version, 6.1.7601,
, Service Pack, 1,
Computer, Manufacturer, Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.,
, Model, To be filled by O.E.M.,
Processor, , Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3960X CPU @ 3.30GHz,
Controller, Name, Intel(R) Desktop/Workstation/Server Express Chipset SATA RAID Controller,
, Driver Version, 11.0.0.1032,
all i got for now
thanks bud!
Hmmm, I am disappointed. Nothing in the SMART attributes (except perhaps F9) that might tell us about the compression. But it clearly does have compression, judging by the 1022MB/s ATTO write vs. the 338 MB/s AS-SSD write.
Also, 338 MB/s sequential write (incompressible) is EXTREMELY disappointing for two 128GB SSDs in RAID-0. My single 256GB Corsair Performance Pro easily beats that at 415 MB/s. Heck, even a 128GB Performance Pro is specified for 340 MB/s sequential write.
For comparison, here is a 120GB Intel 510 AS-SSD:
http://www.ssdtrim.net/wp-content/up...-SSD-ASSSD.png
Thanks for posting. Did you realise you left the serial number on the last post?
Why do people worry about that? It is not like he obtained the product illegally (I hope).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ao1
Could you run a few more test using i.e. 46% or 25% compression.Quote:
Originally Posted by DooRules
Not that we really need it :) but still it would be great to know how they perform.
with the 11 series driver :)
http://i546.photobucket.com/albums/h...re11series.jpg
with 25%compression
http://i546.photobucket.com/albums/h.../Capture25.jpg
46% comp
http://i546.photobucket.com/albums/h...20125-2011.png
100% comp
http://i546.photobucket.com/albums/h...orules/100.jpg
safe to say drives are hammered pretty good, have done no SE's yet :)
If you get a chance to take them out of RAID for a minute, I'd like to see a single-SSD benchmark with ASU, at 100% (incompressible).
Thanks DooRules. :up: With my own RAID0 Sandforce based Agility drives both reads and writes take a huge hit with compression. Unlike the writes your reads seem little affected with compression so whether that means non-SF controller or caching of the drive IDK. To check the controller would probably mean opening the drive case which IIRC voids warranty so probably not too many people going to be doing that.
SF Agility 60GB RAID0 results 0-fill and 46% for comparison.
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/x2i94.png
secret firmware sauce. Guys cmon.... all should know what this processor is.
@Doorules- Kudos, you managed to get these drives before the NDA from Intel has expired... unbelievable:worship:
Im glad that it ended up in your hands though, instead of some idiot who had no idea what they are doing....nice to see it land in one of the 'guys' hands :)
Well, the AS-SSD could match 2xM4's, so maybe it's still Marvell with xtra treated fw, or revised controller ?
The Sandforce SSDs with synchronous flash exhibit little or no decrease in read speed for incompressible data when tested with ASU or AS-SSD (except in certain heavily-used states). But the Agility uses asynchronous flash, which has much worse performance than synchronous flash. I never recommend an SSD with async flash, because the sync flash is only a little more expensive but peforms a lot better.Quote:
Originally Posted by some_one
I'm sure Intel is using sync flash in the 520.
Very unlikely it is Marvell, since the SSD is clearly compressing the 0-stream data, and Marvell does not have built-in support for compression (yes, the data could be compressed with another chip before being sent to the Marvell, but that would be a mess that I do not believe Intel would make)Quote:
Originally Posted by felix_w
Now that we know the 520 is using compression, I think it is 99% certain that the controller is a Sandforce.
Thanks johnw, I realize synchronous offers better performance, just wasn't aware it was that great. Thanks for the heads up, something I will certainly consider next time purchasing a SSD.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnw
Superb!
Thanks again DooRules
@johnw
There's no point in arguing about it being SandForce or not, it's more a question of what have they been able to tweak.
To me it looks like a standard Sync SF2281 with negligible adjustments, it's really close to i.e. the Corsair Force GT 120GB.
I'd say they are late to the party though, if the prices are favorable and they have managed to make a "better" firmware then they have a winner.
I've been using the Vertex 3 240GB for some time now on the LSI-9265 and they are just as stable as the C300's I've been using on the Areca 1880, meaning no issues at all.
There are still driver issues so I would only expect it to get better. With the enterprise drivers Intel Toolbox is pretty much completely dysfunctional. With the 11 series drivers I have complete use of the toolbox, SSD optimizing works, forced trim, SE works a charm, shows all drive data for drives in R0 and single drives as well. Toolbox also shows all smart data for M4's and C300's.
OS installed, drives were SE'ed prior to install thru Intel Toolbox, this is with E drivers, in benching they are a fair bit slower than the 11 series.
http://i546.photobucket.com/albums/h...20126-1050.png
Huh? Who's arguing? I said I was 99% certain it is Sandforce.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
One thing that could make the 520 potentially better than most other Sandforce SSDs is if Intel included power-loss-protection capacitor(s), and did not screw up the implementation like they did with the 320. Any idea if that is the case?
;)
It looks like there are some differences to the SMART attributes vs the standard SandForce one, will compare to one running the latest official firmware.
The links to the 520 are nowhere to be found here in Norway, looks like they have been told to clean up all traces to the 520 both on the webshops and on "prisjakt".
01 Raw read Error rate is gone from the Intel
AA Available Reserved Space is Added on the Intel
B1 Wear Range Delta is removed from the Intel
B8 End-to-End Error detection is Added on the Intel
B5 Program fail count
B6 Erase fail count are both removed from the Intel
C0 Unsafe shutdown is Added on the Intel
C2 Temperature
C3 Hardware ECC Recovered
C4 Reallocated Event count
C9 Soft Read Error rate
CC Soft ECC correction are all gone from the Intel
E1 Host writes
E2 Timed Workload Media Wear
E3 Timed Workload Host Read/Write Ratio
E4 Timed Workload Timer Added on the Intel
E6 GMR Head Amplitude
E7 SSD Life Left are both removed
E8 Available Reserved space
F9 'Unknown' are both Added
From what I can see, the Raw "NAND" Writes are missing from the Intel implementation :(
Hey DooRules, how easy do those case screws come out? :p: It would be great to see the SF controller and if it has a power cap. :up:
E1 to E4 will makes things interesting though for calculating wear using different levels of compressionQuote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
It certainly adds something so it might look like they are aiming at using the 520 more as a semi-professional drive.
(targeted at SMBs)
Very easy in fact. I can say with 100% conviction that it is a SF 2281 VB1-SDC :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ao1
Thanks. :cool: Is there a power cap :D
I apologize if this sounds like a nitpick, but it is really not. A "power capacitor" is a capacitor that is usually used together with a power supply to filter or smooth out the signal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ao1
What we are wondering about here is a power-loss-protection capacitor. I suppose we could call it a PLP cap.
It's often called super capacitor.
It was mentioned in an article where the V3 was discussed (very early, before release) and iirc it was said that there would be no super capacitor on the SF2281.
No. A supercapacitor is a type of capacitor with very high charge density that can be used as a PLP cap. But super capacitor is NOT another name for a PLP cap. Actually, in some ways a super capacitor is a poor choice for a PLP cap, since it very expensive and makes a single point of failure. If there is room on the circuit board to achieve the same capacitance with multiple inexpensive capacitors, that is a better design. That is how Intel designed the 320 series (except that the firmware initially had problems with shutting down the SSD under PLP cap power)Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
As for whether the SF2281 supports PLP capacitor(s), I would be surprised if it cannot. It certainly has not been enabled on any of the 2281 SSDs that I have heard of, but perhaps Intel insisted on it. Or not. It would be interesting to know.
I didn't say it was another name for "PLP"
"super capacitor" is often used as a term when describing protection mechanisms against data corruption/data loss when power is lost.
Mistakenly used. A super capacitor is a specific class of device that can be used for the application of power loss protection, but so can many other kinds of capacitors. It is similar to saying "Kleenex" when you actually mean "tissue". That sort of thing is acceptable for discussing mundane things like tissues, but it is prone to cause confusion in technical discussions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
By the way, here is a nice picture of the six capacitors (not super capacitors) that Intel used for PLP in the 320 series.
http://techreport.com/r.x/intel-320-...controller.jpg
Then there is a lot to fix on various review sites as well as wikipedia :)
I'm sure that "PLP" is a more correct term but not often used.
@ Johnw You beat me to it :)
The Intel 320 controller holds very little data in cache, but it still has an array of six 470µF “caps” in parallel. An SF drive holds a lot more data in cache so it would be surprising if it doesn’t have “caps”. AFAIK all SF drives have the capability to deploy “caps”
The shot of the SF cap below is from anandtech review.
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/6029/capss.png
I agree, the quality of most Internet journalism is extemely poor. I have often stated this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
As for wikipedia, please provide a link of where it uses "super capacitor" when it really means "capacitor" for power loss protection.
Hmmm, I thought the only cache Sandforce SSDs use is on-controller cache. But I do not know how the size of the SF2281 on-controller cache compares to the DRAM cache chip used in the Intel 320 series.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ao1
The SF2582 and SF2682 both support "Power Fail Circuit Support"
None of the "Client" drives initially supported this, it might have changed?
edit;
@johnw
Here's a link to Wikipedia on SSDs, you'll find a snippet on "Battery or super capacitor" Link a bit down the page.
The question I have long had is how much the actual silicon differs between Sandforce's different chips, and how much is just features being turned on or off (with firmware or other methods), which features are still present on the chip even if disabled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
Notice that they got it right in the first sentence, but then slipped and made a mistake in the last sentence. They should have said just "capacitor" both times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anvil
By the way, wikipedia has a decent article on super capacitors (aka electric double-layer capacitors):Quote:
Another component in higher performing SSDs is a capacitor or some form of battery. These are necessary to maintain data integrity such that the data in the cache can be flushed to the drive when power is dropped; some may even hold power long enough to maintain data in the cache until power is resumed.[citation needed] In the case of MLC flash memory, a problem called lower page corruption can occur when MLC flash memory loses power while programming an upper page. The result is data written previously and presumed safe can be corrupted if the memory is not supported by a super capacitor in the event of a sudden power loss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electri...ayer_capacitor
Not a 100% match but as close as I can find for the SF cap.
http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/1299/supercaps.png
http://www.cap-xx.com/products/products.php
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnw
I'm almost 100% sure that its just a case of fetaures being turned off or on. Just like most SF dives not having temp sensors. The capability is there but its not used. SF1xxx controllers have the capability to run at SATA 3 speeds, but its disabled in f/w.
No large capacitors of any kind visible on the circuit board. I am completely disappointed with the 520. The incompressible sequential write speeds are lower than the 510, and it has no PLP capacitors. I don't see the point of the "upgrade" from 510 to 520. I suppose for people who need high QD random write performance. But that must be a very small market segment.
yay, a lot less pedantry and a little more pcb pr0n!
The pcb appears to be completely different to the reference SF board. I agree though the 520 is way too late to market and they don’t seem to have done anything special with performance. With the amount of work that seems to have gone into this drive you just wonder why Intel bothered with SF.
I'm... a little disappointed, but until I get mine (at this point I have no way of knowing when it will ship) I will reserve judgement.
I was hoping for a little more, and I had always said "I hope it's N.J.A.Fing.SF."
Perhaps there is something redeeming about it... some magic longevity advantage that can only be known through endurance testing....
I won't be selling my 510 on Ebay anytime soon.
and most are not 'endurant' to high heat, for server environments and ruggedized units, Tantalum is a must :)Quote:
Actually, in some ways a super capacitor is a poor choice for a PLP cap, since it very expensive and makes a single point of failure.
I know I'm a lot more excited about the 711 series which should be out shortly as well. A new 711 34nm SLC 32GB will be SATA II, somewhere in the neighborhood of $350. If random performance is improved, I'm getting one.
Actually, I just looked -- C'ville is back in stock but the retailer has removed the 711 listings.
John, can you find me one component manufacturer that calls it a PLP or Power Loss Protection capacitor? Have fun on that one.
They are either called supercapacitors, just plain old capacitors, and sometimes charge capacitors. They are either Electrolytic or Tantalum.
Now how you use or implement them in an apllication (for power loss or correction) is different than what they are named. Don't confuse the two.
BTW, if you want, I can charge up some of the ones we have in our RF Transmitters here, ship it to you and it would restart a heart if need be.
Just my 2 cents (oh, and the electronics industry as well).
Bluestang, can you find one quote where I claimed that any component manufacturer calls a capacitor being used for power loss protection a "power loss protection capacitor". Have fun on that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluestang
They are NOT called supercapacitors if they are not supercapacitors. They are called supercapacitors if they are supercapacitors. In all cases, they can be called capacitors, since they are capacitors.
Do you really find that so difficult to understand? Don't confuse yourself.
Just my 2 cents (oh, and people who can read, too).
John...it's Friday!...check PM.
John is right, a super capacitor is a super capacitor and may or may not be used for power-loss protection. The latest Samsung SM825 review on storagereview explains it pretty well. They call it simply "Cache Power Protection" which essentially describes the functional purpose, however I do think power-loss protection is a nicer term for it. BTW, comparing the size and number of the capacitors with that on the Intel 320 is rather telling :eek: