Page 1 of 1
Corsair Force GT & Performance Pro SATA III SSD Roundup
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:11 am
by Apoptosis
Corsair Force GT & Performance Pro SATA III SSD Roundup
Corsair has been putting out SSDs for awhile now and we have the chance to give some of their best drives a side-by-side test run to flush out any differences that may help with your purchasing decision. Featuring both Marvell and SandForce controllers, the Performance Pro and Force GT drives out up some impressive numbers but which one, if either, stand out? Read on and see.
So, what have we learned from this little round up? First off, you can't go wrong with any of the drives here. All feature very fast SATA III performance and come with a standard three year warranty. The Force GT drives promise read and write specifications of up to 555MB/s reads and 525MB/s writes. This is something we observed on the ATTO benchmark where highly compressible data was used. On other benchmarks, the scores were a fair bit lower as the SandForce controllers rely on real time compression of data to optimize performance and the referenced benchmarks used already compressed data. The 240GB fared a little better than the 180GB drive as higher density NAND tends to be a little faster along with slightly different architecture.
Article Title: Corsair Force GT & Performance Pro SATA III SSD Roundup
Article URL: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1804/1/
Re: Corsair Force GT & Performance Pro SATA III SSD Roundup
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:41 pm
by Sttm
The Performance Pro expected longevity is less than that of the Force GT's at 1.5M hours versus 2M hours.
Notice that the Performance Pro drive has thermal pads that rest on the NAND and there is one that rests on the controller as well. The SandForce drives lack this and frankly, I'm not sure even the Marvell drives need it.
I wonder if its because the Marvell Controller consumes more power. I noticed on the info page it lists the power consumption at 2.5w for the SF 180GB, 4.6w for the SF 240GB, and 1.4 A for the the Marvell one. If I remember my schooling correctly, watts = amps x volts. Corsair lists its voltage as 5v. So then its 5V x 1.4A = 7 Watts, so it consumes 65% more power then the 240GB drive. Not a significant amount in the overall system but interesting if its just a difference in the controller that causes that energy increase.
Re: Corsair Force GT & Performance Pro SATA III SSD Roundup
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:55 pm
by Major_A
If I were walking by a rack of these and saw the names on the box I'd immediately think the Performance Pro was the faster drive. Then I would be mistaken.
Re: Corsair Force GT & Performance Pro SATA III SSD Roundup
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:27 pm
by Sttm
Major_A wrote:If I were walking by a rack of these and saw the names on the box I'd immediately think the Performance Pro was the faster drive. Then I would be mistaken.
Guess they need to put a racing stripe on the Force GT then!
Re: Corsair Force GT & Performance Pro SATA III SSD Roundup
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:34 pm
by Major_A
Or name it xForce GT. Because we all know that if something starts with an X it is the baddest, hippest product available.
Re: Corsair Force GT & Performance Pro SATA III SSD Roundup
Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:19 pm
by Apoptosis
Here is the Corsair Performance Pro 256GB SSD in the ASUS K53E Notebook as the primary drive:
- drive.png (77.83 KiB) Viewed 3946 times
- drive2.png (52.55 KiB) Viewed 3946 times
Re: Corsair Force GT & Performance Pro SATA III SSD Roundup
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:43 am
by Major_A
Why the speed difference between the laptop and the desktop review? Different board chipsets?
Re: Corsair Force GT & Performance Pro SATA III SSD Roundup
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:33 pm
by Apoptosis
Major_A wrote:Why the speed difference between the laptop and the desktop review? Different board chipsets?
Different everything... In the laptop it was used as the primary drive with a slower CPU and different chipset, drivers and so on.