Performance in FC-Test
For this test two 32GB partitions are created on the drive and formatted in NTFS. A file-set is then created, read from the drive, copied within the same partition and copied into another partition. The time taken to perform these operations is measured and the speed of the drive is calculated. The Windows and Programs file-sets consist of a large number of small files whereas the other three patterns (ISO, MP3, and Install) include a few large files each.
You should be aware that the copying test not only indicates the speed of copying within the same disk but is also indicative of the latter’s behavior under complex load. In fact, the tested SSD is processing two data threads then, one for reading and another for writing.
This test produces too much data, so we will only discuss the results obtained in the Install, ISO and Programs file-sets. You can use the following link to view the full results for FC-Test.
We want to note how efficient the OS’s data caching mechanisms are. It is because of them that the SSDs are faster in the Install pattern than in the ISO one. If we had more system memory (some of our readers ask us to add it to our testbed), the whole file-set might fit into Windows 7's file cache, resulting in unrealistic speeds.
Here, we can see that the quad-controller models have an advantage over the products with the same capacity but a different number of controllers. The RevoDrive x2 is expectedly as fast as the same-capacity IBIS. Our JBOD-based sample is the only disappointment. It proves the importance of multichannel access to flash memory and this point is also confirmed by the junior RevoDrive models which lack some of the memory chips and do not use all of the memory channels of their SF1200 controllers.
We’ve got rather surprising results at reading. It is good that the quad-controller products are as fast as 400 MBps. This is below their specifications, yet not as low as we might expect after their results in the multithreaded tests (with a single data thread). We guess it is due to Windows 7 algorithms that managed to perform the reading of large files in multiple threads. But why did the IBIS 160 GB perform so poorly with the Install file-set? We guess the test caught this SSD reordering its memory blocks. And the most inexplicable thing is that the 50GB RevoDrive is ahead of its 80GB cousin.
We don’t see anything new in the copying test. The SSDs are limited by their write speeds which are less affected by caching. The load itself is all right for them because, as we already know, these SSDs are fond of multithreading.