WEBVTT 00:00:00.480 --> 00:00:07.599 today I've got a pretty interesting video for you guys this is featuring the 00:00:03.639 --> 00:00:11.160 Intel SSD 510 series 00:00:07.599 --> 00:00:13.599 SSD anyway I ran some PC Mark Vantage 00:00:11.160 --> 00:00:18.680 benchmarks on these particular ssds I actually ran them with an Intel p67 00:00:16.600 --> 00:00:24.160 motherboard so I've got a few different configurations to show you first of all 00:00:20.920 --> 00:00:25.760 I ran single drive on the SATA 36 gbit 00:00:24.160 --> 00:00:30.960 per second controller as well as on the SATA 2 3 GB per second controller and 00:00:28.400 --> 00:00:35.879 the objective of that was to demonstrate how much of a performance Advantage you 00:00:32.960 --> 00:00:41.039 get by pairing this SSD up with a proper SATA 3 6 GB per second controller versus 00:00:38.440 --> 00:00:46.239 running it on an older Legacy SATA 2 controller I also ran the two Drives 00:00:43.680 --> 00:00:50.120 together in raid zero again in both configurations so on both different 00:00:47.920 --> 00:00:56.280 speed controllers to see what kind of a performance benefit we get from jumping 00:00:52.039 --> 00:00:57.840 from one SSD to two ssds uh just as a 00:00:56.280 --> 00:01:04.559 point of comparison I compare the onboard raid against an LSi 926 8i raid 00:01:01.800 --> 00:01:09.560 card um which I believe is configured optimally but I'm not actually an expert 00:01:06.880 --> 00:01:13.520 at configuring The Raid bio so I'm sure as the community plays around with these 00:01:11.720 --> 00:01:18.320 more they will find ways to eek more performance out of it and also for 00:01:15.479 --> 00:01:24.200 context I've compared these two ssds against an ocz Revo Drive X2 to 40 gig 00:01:22.560 --> 00:01:28.759 so that's going to show us what four sand Force drives so that is 4 60 gig 00:01:26.560 --> 00:01:33.880 sand Force drives essentially in raid zero will be able B to do against these 00:01:32.320 --> 00:01:38.680 all right so you can come in close here and have a look but basically I'll we'll 00:01:36.280 --> 00:01:41.880 go we'll go from by column so the First Column here is our single drive 00:01:40.079 --> 00:01:48.079 performance and you can see that we actually gain 30% performance going from 00:01:45.079 --> 00:01:51.040 a SATA 2 3 GB per second connection to a 00:01:48.079 --> 00:01:56.360 SATA 3 6 GB per second connection now when we actually go down to the hard 00:01:53.840 --> 00:02:00.320 drive Suite results we can see which applications are really making use of 00:01:58.159 --> 00:02:05.640 this extra bandwidth so there's certain things that actually don't get nearly as 00:02:03.000 --> 00:02:11.120 much benefit as others so when you're talking small files okay so such as 00:02:08.720 --> 00:02:15.120 adding music to Windows Media Player you're not going to see as huge a 00:02:13.000 --> 00:02:20.200 performance benefit as when you look at much bigger files like say for example 00:02:17.360 --> 00:02:24.360 video editing using Windows Movie Maker so basically the larger the files are 00:02:22.599 --> 00:02:27.879 and the more sequentially we're reading from them or writing to them the more 00:02:26.319 --> 00:02:32.000 benefit we're going to get from that wider interface so as we move over here 00:02:30.599 --> 00:02:36.560 I'm just going to bring these back up to show you guys the total scores as we 00:02:34.080 --> 00:02:41.040 move over we find our raid zero results so you can see that on the SATA 2 00:02:39.080 --> 00:02:46.080 connection we actually get more benefit from raid Zero versus on the SATA 3 00:02:43.800 --> 00:02:51.040 Connection and I guess the reason for that would be that what we're doing when 00:02:48.159 --> 00:02:54.200 we add raid zero is we are doubling the amount of bandwidth available although 00:02:52.440 --> 00:02:57.640 we're doubling the number of drives so certain things are going to be less 00:02:56.280 --> 00:03:02.599 bottlenecked and certain things are going to be equally bottlenecked so 00:02:59.560 --> 00:03:04.680 let's have a look at where the SATA 3 6 00:03:02.599 --> 00:03:09.879 GB per second interface is really able to pull away from the slower interface 00:03:07.640 --> 00:03:15.159 and there aren't as many huge examples of that but you look 00:03:13.080 --> 00:03:20.920 at video editing again so that's where you're looking at a huge performance 00:03:17.200 --> 00:03:23.120 benefit from The Wider interface okay 00:03:20.920 --> 00:03:26.120 Vista startup once again gets a lot of benefit actually I'm going to scroll 00:03:24.360 --> 00:03:30.920 down over here and let's see how much Vista start up yeah so that one actually 00:03:28.200 --> 00:03:35.040 didn't improve much from the sing Drive configuration H 00:03:33.080 --> 00:03:40.239 interesting okay so let's move over let's have a look at our raid Card 00:03:36.760 --> 00:03:43.040 results so here we can see that it 00:03:40.239 --> 00:03:49.280 actually doesn't score as high as the onboard raid okay but some of the 00:03:46.400 --> 00:03:53.280 results here are actually better so you can see here Windows Defender actually 00:03:51.439 --> 00:03:58.959 performed significantly better than the onboard raid we're talking on the order 00:03:55.239 --> 00:04:00.840 of about 15% better so the reason for 00:03:58.959 --> 00:04:05.760 that I would spe calculate based on the crystal dis Mark results that we saw 00:04:02.760 --> 00:04:07.360 before is that the onboard the onboard 00:04:05.760 --> 00:04:12.000 RAID controller doesn't perform as well as the dedicated RAID controller in 00:04:09.200 --> 00:04:15.840 random reads and writes gaming once again the dedicated RAID controller 00:04:13.760 --> 00:04:20.799 absolutely blows away the onboard in fact many of these results are 00:04:18.479 --> 00:04:25.600 significantly better than the onboard raid the only reason that we're seeing 00:04:23.320 --> 00:04:30.039 this low overall score seems to be that Windows Media Center doesn't perform 00:04:27.520 --> 00:04:33.639 nearly as well on the dedicated raid card so that's something to bear in mind 00:04:32.199 --> 00:04:39.479 when you're looking at the overall results where you see the onboard raid 00:04:36.880 --> 00:04:44.520 just destroying well you know hundreds of dollars dedicated RAID controller so 00:04:42.840 --> 00:04:50.600 let's move on down here to the revo Drive X2 once again we see a very low 00:04:46.759 --> 00:04:51.639 overall score but as we move down and 00:04:50.600 --> 00:04:55.160 try it here you know what I'm going to move this one next to it or above it so 00:04:53.960 --> 00:05:00.320 that we can have an easier point of comparison so this is the revo Drive X2 00:04:57.440 --> 00:05:04.400 this is 2 510s on the board RAID controller because that's sort of the 00:05:02.039 --> 00:05:09.479 configuration I'd consider most likely we see that there oh okay that won't fly 00:05:07.080 --> 00:05:14.600 okay we see that the revo Drive X2 actually does outperform the Dual 510s 00:05:12.520 --> 00:05:20.039 in some applications but there are others where it just gets demolished 00:05:17.479 --> 00:05:24.960 such as the video editing uh Benchmark where yeah there's absolutely no 00:05:22.680 --> 00:05:29.720 comparison but you look at some things like application loading as well as the 00:05:27.520 --> 00:05:34.600 antivirus test and it actually outper performs it so that probably again also 00:05:32.319 --> 00:05:42.000 reflects the better performance that the revo Drive X2 has in random uh heavy 00:05:38.759 --> 00:05:44.000 usage scenarios versus the Dual Drive 00:05:42.000 --> 00:05:50.759 config so thank you for checking out my PC Mark comparison uh of the Intel SSD 00:05:47.440 --> 00:05:52.560 510 against itself on a SATA 2 versus a 00:05:50.759 --> 00:05:55.720 SATA 3 interface as well as a couple other points of reference for us don't 00:05:54.160 --> 00:06:00.720 forget to subscribe to Linus Tech tips for more unboxings reviews and other 00:05:57.160 --> 00:06:00.720 computer videos