The SSD Review The Worlds Dedicated SSD Education and Review Resource | 
REPORT ANALYSIS AND FINAL THOUGHTS
We started this report with a bit of a discussion regarding the unique position that SanDisk holds with respect to pricing and their ability to reduce the ‘line in the sand’ further. If this drive can prove to be a ‘top performer’ and is priced right, it just might be a bit of an indication of things to come. At the time of the report, we checked out the pricing of the 240GB version of the SanDisk Extreme and are happy to say that it was only ten dollars higher than the lowest priced SSD of the same caliber. This is very unusual for a new release as the Extreme is.
Performance of the SanDisk Extreme was a bit unexpected as it maintained the superior results that are typical of ‘SandForce Driven’ SSDs, however, it went a step further with the equally strong IOPS results for both read and write testing which is not typical of any SSDs that I can think of off hand. This is a definite strength.
Another positive of the SanDisk Extreme is that it uses SanDisks own 24nm NAND flash memory which now sits them with others to include Intel, Micron, and Samsung.
It’s performance is competitive with the best and the question might now be raised as to whether SanDisk will make their memory available to other SSD manufacturers as the others do. This would be a good thing.
FINAL THOUGHTS
The SanDisk Extreme 240GB SATA 3 SSD is a definite recommendation as it’s introductory price is as good to see as it’s performance. In fact, the entry of the Extreme into the market is very encouraging as it might be a sign of lower prices to come.
If there were to be any recommendations for SanDisk execs, I might suggest a five year warranty vice three, a desktop adapter bracket, and I have to admit that I think a migration kit would have been a no brainer for this SSD, especially because of it’s low price.
Congratulations to SanDisk as this SSD has earned our Editors Choice!
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