OK so lets talk SSD performance in general a bit.
I'm like to assume you've read at least these articles
Intel X25-M SSD: Intel Delivers One of the World's Fastest Drives
by Anand Lal Shimpi on 9/8/2008
The SSD Anthology: Understanding SSDs and New Drives from OCZ
by Anand Lal Shimpi on 3/18/2009
The SSD Update: Vertex Gets Faster, New Indilinx Drives and Intel/MacBook Problems Resolved by Anand Lal Shimpi on 3/30/2009
Intel's 34nm SSD Preview: Cheaper and Faster?
by Anand Lal Shimpi on 7/21/2009
Intel X25-M G2: Dissected and Performance Preview
by Anand Lal Shimpi on 7/22/2009
Intel Forces OCZ's Hand: Indilinx Drives To Drop in Price
by Anand Lal Shimpi on 7/23/2009
The SSD Relapse: Understanding and Choosing the Best SSD
by Anand Lal Shimpi on 8/30/2009
The SSD Improv: Intel & Indilinx get TRIM, Kingston Brings Intel Down to $115 by Anand Lal Shimpi on 11/17/2009
OCZ's Vertex 2 Pro Preview: The Fastest MLC SSD We've Ever Tested
by Anand Lal Shimpi on 12/31/2009
OCZ’s Vertex Limited Edition Review & SSD State of the Union
by Anand Lal Shimpi on 2/19/2010
Western Digital SiliconEdge Blue Review: WD Enters the Consumer SSD Market by Anand Lal Shimpi on 3/3/2010
Intel's X25-V & Kingston's 30GB SSDNow V Series: Battle of the $125 SSDs by Anand Lal Shimpi on 3/19/2010
6Gbps SATA Performance: AMD 890GX vs. Intel X58/P55
by Anand Lal Shimpi on 3/25/2010
and thus know what I mean when I use the phrase "the four corners of SSD performance".
Marketing types love to promote big numbers because bigger is better is more easily understood by the masses. So lets look at the "four corners" and see which play into the big numbers game. Keep in mind that in 2008 Anand didn't test the "four corners" at all. It was spring 2009 when Anand finally started testing SSDs in depth. I'll post some highlights for a time line
2009 spring Anthology
seq read: 250 MB/s OCZ Vertex
seq write: 195 MB/s OCZ Summit
random read: 55 MB/s Intel Gen 1
random write: 23 MB/s Intel Gen 1 (I'm ignoring the SLC X25-E)
and we get the quote "Random write performance is merely one corner of the performance world. A drive needs good sequential read, sequential write, random read
and random write performance. The fatal mistake is that most vendors ignore random write performance and simply try to post the best sequential read/write speeds; doing so simply produces a drive that's undesirable. "
2009 Summer
seq read: ~260 MB/s Intel G1 and G2 160GB
seq write: 177 MB/s OCZ Summit*
random read: 58 MB/s Intel Gen 2
random write: 34 MB/s Intel Gen 2
* what changed to make the Summit slower? Probably a moot point but feel free to research it if you are curious.
anyway we get this quote "There are four basic pillars to SSD performance that I like to look at: random read, random write, sequential read and sequential write speed. A good SSD must be strong in all four categories, but some are more noticeable than others.
Random read and write speed, particularly of small files (e.g. 4KB) are normally what make our desktop hard drives feel so slow. These random operations are everything from file and table updates to search queries and loading applications; they aren't random over the entire space of the disk but they are random enough to bring conventional hard drives to their knees."
2009 Fall SSD Relapse
seq read: ~260 MB/s Intel G1 and G2 160GB
seq write: 186 MB/s Patriot Torqx
random read: 64 MB/s Intel Gen 2 **
random write: 36 MB/s Intel Gen 2 (41 MB/s Intel Gen1)**
** The seq read scores haven't changed but the random got better.
2009 winter SSD Improv
seq read: ~260 MB/s Intel G1 and G2 160GB
seq write: 186 MB/s Patriot Torqx
random read: 64 MB/s Intel Gen 2 **
random write: 39 MB/s Intel Gen 2 (41 MB/s Intel Gen1)**
** The seq read scores haven't changed but the random got better again.
2010 spring 6Gbps SATA Performance (C300 used on all tests)
seq read: 343 MB/s Gigabyte X58 (Marvell controller) 6Gb/s
seq read: 268 MB/s Intel X58 (Intel controller) 3Gb/s
just here to show where the 3Gb/s limit kicks in in.
2010 spring SSD State of the Union
seq read: ~268 MB/s Crucial C300 (337 MB/s if you use 6Gb/s SATA)
seq write: 206 MB/s Crucial C300 (253 MB/s if you allow sandforce in the mix without randomizing data)
random read: 77 MB/s Crucial C300
random write: 39 MB/s Intel Gen 2 (51 MB/s if you allow sandforce in the mix without randomizing data)
Notice how if raw speed is all you want the C300 wins in the big numbers game. But on the task that slows down the drives the most Intel/Sandforce have controllers that handle the load better.
2010 Winter Kingston SSDNow V+100 Review
seq read: ~227 MB/s Kingston SSDNow V+100***
seq write: 193 MB/s Kingston SSDNow V+100***
random read: 79 MB/s Crucial C300
random write: 120 MB/s Sandforce 120GB (164 MB/s if you allow sandforce in the mix without randomizing data)
*** what, why is 227 MB/s in this review better than 268MB/s in other reviews? HMMMMM, maybe its
because in the prior years reviews sustained reads and writes were tested with 2MB but in this review they switched to 128KB. Nothing like changing the rules of the game for a single review to make a specific product look better. Yep, there are 3 kinds of lies. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.
I mean sure the 2MB read test was bottle necked by 3Gb/s SATA but is it any more valid to switch to 128KB? Maybe if I get the time I'll see if I can find comparable 2MB read and write numbers for the Kingston V+100 to see where it stands vs the older benchmarks.
So lets try a timeline by metric
Seq Read
250 MB/s OCZ Vertex 2009 spring Anthology
260 MB/s Intel G1 and G2 160GB 2009 Summer
260 MB/s Intel G1 and G2 160GB 2009 Fall SSD Relapse
260 MB/s Intel G1 and G2 160GB 2009 winter SSD Improv
268 MB/s Crucial C300 2010 spring SSD State of the Union
227 MB/s Kingston V+100 2010 Winter Kingston SSDNow V+100 Review
Obviously the Intel and Crucial drives didn't get that much slower in a few months time. The test was changed.
Seq Write
195 MB/s OCZ Summit 2009 spring Anthology
177 MB/s OCZ Summit 2009 Summer
186 MB/s Patriot Torqx 2009 Fall SSD Relapse
186 MB/s Patriot Torqx 2009 winter SSD Improv
206 MB/s Crucial C300 2010 spring SSD State of the Union
193 MB/s Kingston V+100 2010 Winter Kingston SSDNow V+100 Review
again the test changed for the V+100 review
Random Read
55 MB/s Intel Gen 1 2009 spring Anthology
58 MB/s Intel Gen 2 2009 Summer
64 MB/s Intel Gen 2 2009 Fall SSD Relapse
64 MB/s Intel Gen 2 2009 winter SSD Improv
77 MB/s Crucial C300 2010 spring SSD State of the Union
79 MB/s Crucial C300 2010 Winter Kingston SSDNow V+100 Review
the random tests didn't change for the new review
Random Write
23 MB/s Intel Gen 1 2009 spring Anthology
34 MB/s Intel Gen 2 2009 Summer
36 MB/s Intel Gen 2 2009 Fall SSD Relapse
39 MB/s Intel Gen 2 2009 winter SSD Improv
41 MB/s Intel Gen 2 2010 spring SSD State of the Union
120 MB/s Sandforce 120GB 2010 Winter Kingston SSDNow V+100 Review
in this test the Sanforce drive was finally tallied with random data so I allowed it into the list. But even if I didn't the Crucial C300 made 110 MB/s and the Intel Gen2 made 46 MB/s while the Kingston V+100 only made ~5 MB/s.
Man that firmware update sure did a job of improving C300 random write performance from 15 MB/s in the SSD State of the Union to 110 MB/s in the newest review. Obviously the early firmware wasn't ready for prime time.