The SSD Review The Worlds Dedicated SSD Education and Review Resource | 
BENCHMARK PROTOCOL AND THE TEST BENCH
This is The SSD Review Test Bench Number One. A quick click on the photo will give you a better look.
In testing, our main objective is to obtain results as pure and as accurate as possible and we want to ensure that no anomalies slip through. Simply put, we want to provide you with the absolute best results the tested hardware can provide. Repetition in testing is standard and, if necessary, we may conduct specific tests in Windows 7 safe mode to ensure the OS has little to no influence on the end result.
In order to validate and confirm our findings, testing is supported by industry accepted benchmark programs. All results are displayed through capture of the actual benchmark for better understanding of the testing process by the reader.
We would like to thank Gigabyte, Corsair, MSI, OCZ, and Fractal-Design, for sponsoring components of our Test Bench.
BENCHMARK SOFTWARE
Software used for testing by The SSD Review consists of ATTO Disk Benchmark, Crystal DiskMark, AS SSD, Anvil Storage Utilities, along with FutureMark PCMark Vantage.
All do a great job of showing us the numbers that we want to see, or dont want to see in some cases, while PCMark Vantage x64 is an excellent program which recreates tests that mimic the average users activity, all the while providing a medium to measure each.
Benchmark software used by The SSD Review can be obtained by clicking on the title of each application as all may be downloaded without cost to the consumer.
SSD COMPRESSION AND TESTING FLUCTUATIONS
All SSDs are not created equal and many new SSD enthusiasts realize that when they test their new drive to confirm specifications and ensure all is in order. SandForce controlled SSDs use compression techniques in storage whereas many others do not. This creates a bit of confusion when enthusiasts test the drive with random data through benchmarking programs such as AS SSD and Crystal DiskMark (random data sample). The results seem to be lower than the listed specifications.
The results actually present a false portrayal of the drives ability when compared to other drives such as the Samsung 830 Series and Crucial M4 SSDs that we have reviewed previously. It is for this reason that all of our comparison testing is done through PCMark Vantage. PCMark Vantage HDD Suite simply provides evaluation results based on transfer speeds reached through typical user patterns. Vantage provides a better testing medium, in that, it sees through the typical synthetic benchmarks and provides us with true to life results of the drive.
Crystal Disk Info provides some excellent information about the SSD itself to include its health, product information, power on information as well as the characteristics of the SSD. We can see that the SSD is capable of TRIM as it is not greyed out as with AAM.
somethin’s not right…vantage score should be ~85,000…
Thats not true. All of our testing is run within the same set of circumstances and this is indicative of the results we have consistenlty received within our site test benches. I would be concerned if this SSD hit 85,000 and the highest outside of that was only 74,000. Our guide which was provided by Sandusk, in fact, showed much lower results which could have been from dirty testing or a different configuration.
This is the beauty of using several different benchmarks; different results show through in different ways, however, it in no way negates what a great drive this is.
Your TRIM is FUBAR too just like mine was. It shows you using 10.6 drives, just like I was. I also tried 10.8, 11.0 and 11.1. My guy at RWL had the same issue and my new guy at RWL also ran into the issue with a brand new build two days ago.
This drive is faster than the Intel and is the fastest SF drive on the market. I spent two weeks backtracking my steps and testing different configurations of ORAM, chipset driver and RST driver. I found several combinations that do not work correctly.
Where are you seeing this?
The tell is in your CDM 4K single command numbers. I’m replying to your email now. I just walked in the door.
Maybe the same issue as TT?
https://www.tweaktown.com/articles/4613/24nm_flash_ssd_faceoff_sandisk_extreme_retake_and_plextor_m3_pro/index1.html
I don’t compare our results to that of other reviewers, however, appreciate your sending that along. I have no reason to believe TRIM was not working and, in fact, every indication seems to say that it was and that our results are accurate.. I will be using the Sandisk and will watch performance results closeley in the next few weeks.
Hey Les, nice review! Minor correction, page one paragraph 8 “heart and sole” should be “heart and soul”. Nice to see SanDisk making such a splash on the pricing end of this market as well as holding their own on performance. As you say, it may just be a great indicator of things to come!
S.
Amended and thanks for the heads up… It was a great review to complete.
Also, “its” and “it’s” are frequently confused:
it’s is a contraction for “it is”, e.g. it is well known that Les is enthusiastic!
its is the possessive form, e.g. its impact is predicted to be huge!
I know: this appears backwards, but THAT ENGLISH!! 🙂
«The total RAW capacity of the SSD is 256GB as each module is 32GB in size, however, firmware and over provisioning needs reduce the Extreme to the advertised capacity of 240GB. Formatting reduces this further and leaves the consumer with an end capacity of 224GB»
As usual, the capacity figures are based on ignoring the distinction between gigabytes (power-of-10 units) used by storage vendors and gibibytes (power-of-2 units) used by chip vendors and operating systems.
In particular the advertised capacity is 240 gigabytes, but MS-Windows reports capacity as 224 gibibytes, which is the same. The NTFS formatting has a small overhead that does not change the outcome significantly.
The analysis should be:
* The raw capacity of the chips is 256GiB (which is 275GB), as there are 8x 32GiB flash chip modules.
* Over-provisioning accounts for around 14% of total capacity, leaving 240GB (which is 224GiB) as the visible volume capacity.
As much as we appreciate your clarification, this SSD is greared towards the consumer who would not understand such. For simplicity sake, each module has a capacity of 32GB (gigabyte) which totals 256GB. Over provisioning and firmware reduce that to the advertised 240GB. In my own opinion, the units of GiB and GB are an absolutely unnecessary distinction which only serves to cloud something that is a very simple and clear explanation.
Yes, I see: this is not a technical site (with technically correct formalism), but a consumer oriented site, with consumer-oriented lack of formalism.
no one uses GiB/KiB/MiB on any site that i am aware of. it is unnecessary for the purposes of general reviews.
Usually only people who like to argue bring this up….this sounds like someone i know ;o