Corsair Performance Series Pro (256GB) Reviewby Kristian Vättö on May 14, 2012 9:10 AM EST
- Posted in
- Corsair Performance Pro
Shortly after our Plextor M3 review went live, I received numerous emails asking us to review Corsair's Performance Series Pro. Your voice was heard and we went and asked Corsair for a review sample, and here we are with the results.
There aren't too many Marvell SSDs on the market so the Performance Pro stole my attention immediately. When testing a SandForce drive, you pretty much know what to expect. Only Intel uses an in-house firmware whereas the rest of the SandForce OEMs are stuck with the firmware that SandForce provides. That limits differentiation a lot. When it comes to Marvell, things are a lot more open and interesting. Firmwares are often proprietary and that's why you never know what to expect.
Personally I'm all for differentiation. The more different SSDs there are, the more competition there is, which is always good from a consumer's standpoint. SandForce is competitive for sure, but most SandForce drives can only compete against each other in price. That's where Marvell and others come in; they offer differentiation in performance and compatibility for instance.
Price competition is not a bad thing but especially since most SandForce OEMs are fabless, it's fairly limited. You buy controllers from SandForce and choose NAND from a few sources; every other SandForce OEM (except Intel) does exactly the same. While every OEM can negotiate their own pricing with SandForce and the selected NAND supplier(s), it's unlikely they will get a significant discount. That's why most SandForce SSDs are priced so similarly. If a certain NAND supplier drops their NAND prices, it always affects more than one SSD OEM.
A Marvell based SSD can still stand out even if it's more expensive since there may not be a comparable drive on the market. Performance is only one aspect; especially garbage collection and power consumption should not go unmentioned as firmware can have a huge impact on them, and hence make drives different.
The Corsair Performance Series Pro
Corsair sampled us with a 256GB unit. Below is a specification table of the Performance Series Pro:
|Corsair Performance Series Pro Specifications|
|Raw NAND Capacity||128GiB||256GiB|
|Number of NAND Packages||8||8|
|Number of Die per Package||2||4|
|4K Random Write||60K IOPS||65K IOPS|
Interestingly, Corsair offers only 128GB and 256GB models. I can understand the lack of a 512GB model because of price and low popularity, but 64GB is often one of the most popular models. Corsair does offer 60GB Force Series 3 and Force Series GT drives, and they recently released Accelerator series aimed at caching. There is no specific reason to why Corsair has decided to exclude 64GB from the Performance Series Pro lineup, but it's possible that 64GB was not profitable enough.
64GB SSDs are usually the most expensive in terms of price per GB because the share of NAND in the bill of materials is smaller. In other words, all the other expenses such as controller and manufacturing are the same as in bigger drives. Moreover, 64GB isn't exactly a performance category either. Users who buy such small SSDs are already making a compromise in performance, so they are more likely to grab the cheapest drive instead of paying a bit more for a faster drive.
The Performance Pro does well on paper. Sequential write speeds are very good for a Marvell drive. These days I'm more interested in pricing than the actual specifications, though, mainly because the real world performance difference between most SATA 6Gb/s SSDs is so small that paying more for a slightly faster drive may not be worth it unless your workload is heavily I/O bound. Let's see how Corsair's Performance Series Pro stacks up against other drives in a NewEgg price comparison:
|NewEgg Price Comparison (5/14/2012)|
|Corsair Performance Series Pro||N/A||$200||$340||N/A|
|Intel 520 Series||$113||$179||$331||$825|
|Samsung 830 Series||$100||$130||$310||$710|
|OCZ Vertex 3||$165||$110||$250||$650|
|OCZ Vertex 4||N/A||$150||$300||$650|
The Performance Pro is definitely not the cheapest drive. The 128GB model is actually the most expensive 128GB drive in our comparison and there is $20-40 premium even over the Plextor M3, Intel 520 Series, and Samsung 830 Series, all of which are considered to be high-end drives. The 256GB version is a bit more reasonably priced at $320, although there are still cheaper, competitive drives such as the Samsung 830 Series.
In any case, I would like to point out that SSD prices fluctuate a lot. The price you see today may be different tomorrow. I borrowed the pricing table from our Plextor M3 review and nearly all prices had changed, some even dramatically. If you're buying an SSD, my advice would be to follow the prices for at least a couple of days before pulling the trigger as you may be able to catch a hot sale that way.
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
FunBunny2 - Monday, May 14, 2012 - link-- Only Intel uses in-house firmware whereas the rest use the firmware that SandForce provides.
OCZ seems to say that they do their own firmware. How to know which is which?
SilthDraeth - Monday, May 14, 2012 - linkDoesn't Samsung use their own firmware also?
Operandi - Monday, May 14, 2012 - linkSamsung uses their own everything.
vol7ron - Monday, May 14, 2012 - linkCan someone do a follow-up to see that those Sequential Read numbers are right for the Vertex 4?
It just seems odd that the Vertex-4 bested the Vertex-3 on everything, but was significantly lower with Seq.Read
SSD_Privacy - Thursday, May 17, 2012 - linkYes Samsung does, but does it erase your data when it says it does? The Corsair, OCZ etc.?
According to this paper SSD's are very insecure. One drive reported that the data was gone when in fact all of the data was recoverable.
Which drive was that? This paper does not tell us that. It would be very helpful if Anandtech would replicate this study and tell us which drives performed in what capacity. Much more helpful than whether drive A performed a write/read 10kb/sec faster than drive B.
appliance5000 - Friday, May 18, 2012 - linkI might be misunderstanding what's being said here, but unless you do a "secure empty trash" all that's happening when you empty the trash is that you're telling the computer that it can write over the sectors that were "emptied". The trashed data is actually still there until overwritten and thus recoverable. This is true with all drives.
SSD_Privacy - Saturday, May 19, 2012 - linkSSD drives do not store data as platter drives do. An SSD drive has a controller on board that is independent of the operating system. Data is stored all over the drive at random and tracked by the controller and firmware. When you use Secure Delete Trash or Eraser on a file stored on a platter drive it will erase the data, but used on an SSD the operating system is blind to the actual location of the file.
The controller removes data using its firmware "garbage collection" to prepare it for new writing. In addition, some drives have significant space that is not accessible by the user that stores and rewrites data, so if you do a full wipe none of that data will be wiped. Also some data was found to be recoverable on one drive after twenty wipes had been performed due to how the wipe was implemented by the controller on that SSD.
exallium - Monday, May 14, 2012 - linkI believe Crucial uses the Marvell controller on the M4
Kristian Vättö - Monday, May 14, 2012 - linkTo clarify: I was referring strictly to SandForce based SSDs. Only Intel has a custom firmware in their SandForce based 520 and 330 series SSDs - other OEMs use the firmware that SandForce provides.
When we hop off the SandForce train, custom firmwares are much more common. Samsung makes everything from DRAM to firmware, Micron/Crucial uses Marvell controller but everything else is in-house, OCZ uses (possibly custom) Marvell controller in Vertex 4 but in-house firmware, and so on.
Tommyv2 - Monday, May 14, 2012 - linkHow come there's no Plextor M3 Pro review, or at least including it in the charts? That's the one to beat, not the stock M3. It's supposed to be the "best of the best" of Marvell drives and AT has ignored it...