Super Talent 128GB SATA II SSD
Introduction
Published: 25th September 2009 | Source: Super Talent | Price: $315 |
Introduction
Today I have the pleasure of taking a look at one of the latest SSD Drives, the FTM28GX25H; a 128GB SATA II SSD drive. Within this review I will be measuring the drives performance and seeing how it matches up to its competitors.
First off a few specifications taken from the manufacturers website:
Physical Specifications
Form Factor 2.5’’
*Capacity 128GB
Dimension 69.85mm x 100.20mm x 9.50mm
SATA Interface Serial ATA-II
NAND Flash MLC
Power Supply 5.0Vcc ± 5%
Package Complete metal housing
* Usable capacity may be less than specified after formatting.
Environmental Specifications
Operating Shock 1500G
Operating Vibration 16G
Operating Temp. 0°C to +70°C
Performance Specifications
Sequential Read Max 260MB/Sec
Sequential Write Max 195MB/Sex
Internal Cache 64MB
Reliability Specifications
MTBF +1,000,000 hours
Data Reliability Built-in EDC/ECC function
Data Integrity 10 years
Endurance Specifications
Read Unlimited
Write 70.1 years @ 50GB write-erase/day
Form Factor 2.5’’
*Capacity 128GB
Dimension 69.85mm x 100.20mm x 9.50mm
SATA Interface Serial ATA-II
NAND Flash MLC
Power Supply 5.0Vcc ± 5%
Package Complete metal housing
* Usable capacity may be less than specified after formatting.
Environmental Specifications
Operating Shock 1500G
Operating Vibration 16G
Operating Temp. 0°C to +70°C
Performance Specifications
Sequential Read Max 260MB/Sec
Sequential Write Max 195MB/Sex
Internal Cache 64MB
Reliability Specifications
MTBF +1,000,000 hours
Data Reliability Built-in EDC/ECC function
Data Integrity 10 years
Endurance Specifications
Read Unlimited
Write 70.1 years @ 50GB write-erase/day
As you can see the specifications certainly look good on paper, the drive is based on MLC technology, while not being as fast as SLC it helps keeps the costs down for us the end user and as long as the performance is there then its a win win situation for all involved.
Lets take a look at the packaging and the drive itself shall we?
Most Recent Comments
SSDs are easily the most desirable piece of hardware around. Silent, super fast, cool. This one is fast and reasonably priced. What's more to ask?
It scores 10 on the VB want-o-meter.
It scores 10 on the VB want-o-meter.
In a climate where we often see the judgement of particularly graphic cards as a matter of £/fps, despite the performance. Would it be a reasonable request to add £/G at the bottom of the comparison table for the range of tested drives ?
Could be a good inclusion in cpu comparisons also being as, looking from the gaming pov, anything above a 3.2g (or so) P4 is regarded as a "minimum" requirement.
Could be a good inclusion in cpu comparisons also being as, looking from the gaming pov, anything above a 3.2g (or so) P4 is regarded as a "minimum" requirement.
In a climate where we often see the judgement of particularly graphic cards as a matter of £/fps, despite the performance. Would it be a reasonable request to add £/G at the bottom of the comparison table for the range of tested drives ?
Could be a good inclusion in cpu comparisons also being as, looking from the gaming pov, anything above a 3.2g (or so) P4 is regarded as a "minimum" requirement.
Hi Rasta,
Its a good idea and something i was going to include with this review, but as I was unable to find a uk price for the drive it would be unfair to just convert the $ to £ as we know that just does not happen when it comes to pc hardware. If i can find a uk price in the future its something I will be sure to include :D
VB,
100% Agree with you fella, now I would love to find out how they would perform in a raid 0 setup :D Will have to wait until their available in the uk though.
When you say £/G do you mean per GB???
If it's to be likened to the £/FPS comparison, then surely it would need to be £/Read & Write speed.
Think I know what I'm getting at.
If it's to be likened to the £/FPS comparison, then surely it would need to be £/Read & Write speed.
Think I know what I'm getting at.
In a climate where we often see the judgement of particularly graphic cards as a matter of £/fps, despite the performance. Would it be a reasonable request to add £/G at the bottom of the comparison table for the range of tested drives ?
Could be a good inclusion in cpu comparisons also being as, looking from the gaming pov, anything above a 3.2g (or so) P4 is regarded as a "minimum" requirement.
Hi Bungral
Nope £/G should b3 £ cost per Gb as in Gigabyte.
Pound cost per Gigabyte.
Say a 128Gb drive costs £300 that would be 128 divided by 300 giving you an approc cost of £2.34 per Gigabyte for the drive
Hope thats makes sense. Doing as £ per read/write speed wouldnt work.
Cheers
Nope £/G should b3 £ cost per Gb as in Gigabyte.
Pound cost per Gigabyte.
Say a 128Gb drive costs £300 that would be 128 divided by 300 giving you an approc cost of £2.34 per Gigabyte for the drive
Hope thats makes sense. Doing as £ per read/write speed wouldnt work.
Cheers
Yeah that's what I said... £/GB
But my point is that if take the ratio on the GFX card which is basically the cost divided by the performance, then doing £/GB isn't really cost by performance. It's cost by capacity.
I get that HDD's are generally considered on their capacity, but then it's difficult as performance should be factored in.
But my point is that if take the ratio on the GFX card which is basically the cost divided by the performance, then doing £/GB isn't really cost by performance. It's cost by capacity.
I get that HDD's are generally considered on their capacity, but then it's difficult as performance should be factored in.
Hi Bungral
Nope £/G should b3 £ cost per Gb as in Gigabyte.
Pound cost per Gigabyte.
Say a 128Gb drive costs £300 that would be 128 divided by 300 giving you an approc cost of £2.34 per Gigabyte for the drive
Hope thats makes sense. Doing as £ per read/write speed wouldnt work.
Cheers
Yeah cost per gb is the way to go.
It's arguable that the gfxcard's primary concern is to put up a display, but it's critiqued on fps amongst other things.
All things being equal, a hard drive's primary concern is to store information, it's speed to do so may well be it's critique.
However if the gfxcards had 128m of memory on the one hand and 1g on the other, the matter that the 128m model ran crysis on a 320x200x8 screen at 2000fps would be neither hear no there.
It's arguable that the gfxcard's primary concern is to put up a display, but it's critiqued on fps amongst other things.
All things being equal, a hard drive's primary concern is to store information, it's speed to do so may well be it's critique.
However if the gfxcards had 128m of memory on the one hand and 1g on the other, the matter that the 128m model ran crysis on a 320x200x8 screen at 2000fps would be neither hear no there.
UK shop selling this? or do we import and wait 4 months but get t cheaper :S
Oh and I have Super Talent DDR3 2000MHz Dual Channel RAM its the fricking shiznit. 2016MHz on AIR :O summer will stop this though and it will return to 2005MHz :(
Oh and I have Super Talent DDR3 2000MHz Dual Channel RAM its the fricking shiznit. 2016MHz on AIR :O summer will stop this though and it will return to 2005MHz :(
Will oc3d be doing any reviews of the PCI-Express based SSD storage?
CSS Valid
[IMG]http://www.overclock3d.net/gfx/articles/2009/09/04162100259s.jpg[/IMG]
[B][B]Super Talent 128GB SATA II SSD[/B][/B]