Quote Originally Posted by Computurd View Post
well there is a 'push' in that direction amongst several of the manufacturers. But you would run into that same old issue, other companies wouldnt do it! Joe Blow is still gonna buy the SSD with '800 MB/S!!!!!'
I can understand marketing pressure, but I expected more from Intel. What next, they bring out the next SF controller without any validation just to get to market at the same time as other vendors that do not bother with validation?

They were actively involved in developing the client performance test. The performance test recognises that FOB is not representative, yet that is exactly what Intel has specified for the 520.

Whilst the test is based on non-compressible data there is nothing to stop a vendor using compressible data as long as they state clearly that compressible data has been used. The test also requires all volatile caches to be disabled, which should be an advantage for an SF drive.

I do not trust the review sites that make up their own synthetic benchmarks, when it is abundantly obvious that in some cases they have been developed to make certain SSD shine rather than reflect true performance in a client environment. It’s quite common to see vendor A being directly compared to vendor B when vendors A’s drive is double the capacity. The simple way to avoid confusion is for vendors to specify performance using SNIA.