Archive Home arrow Reviews: arrow Storage arrow Patriot Pyro SE Solid State Drive
Patriot Pyro SE Solid State Drive E-mail
Reviews - Featured Reviews: Storage
Written by Olin Coles   
Monday, 05 December 2011
Table of Contents: Page Index
Patriot Pyro SE Solid State Drive
Closer Look: Patriot Pyro SE
Features and Specifications
SSD Testing Methodology
AS-SSD Benchmark
ATTO Disk Benchmark
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 Tests
Iometer IOPS Performance
EVEREST Disk Benchmark
PCMark Vantage HDD Tests
Patriot Pyro SE SSD Conclusion

SSD Testing Methodology

Solid State Drives have traveled a long winding course to finally get where they are today. Up to this point in technology, there have been several key differences separating Solid State Drives from magnetic rotational Hard Disk Drives. While the DRAM-based buffer size on desktop HDDs has recently reached 64 MB and is ever-increasing, there is still a hefty delay in the initial response time. This is one key area in which flash-based Solid State Drives continually dominates because they lack moving parts to "get up to speed".

However the benefits inherent to SSDs have traditionally fallen off once the throughput begins, even though data reads or writes are executed at a high constant rate whereas the HDD tapers off in performance. This makes the average transaction speed of a SSD comparable to the data burst rate mentioned in HDD tests, albeit usually lower than the HDD's speed.

Comparing a Solid State Disk to a standard Hard Disk Drives is always relative; even if you're comparing the fastest rotational spindle speeds. One is going to be many times faster in response (SSDs), while the other is usually going to have higher throughput bandwidth (HDDs). Additionally, there are certain factors which can affect the results of a test which we do our best to avoid.

SSD Testing Disclaimer

Early on in our SSD coverage, Benchmark Reviews published an article which detailed Solid State Drive Benchmark Performance Testing. The research and discussion that went into producing that article changed the way we now test SSD products. Our previous perceptions of this technology were lost on one particular difference: the wear leveling algorithm that makes data a moving target. Without conclusive linear bandwidth testing or some other method of total-capacity testing, our previous performance results were rough estimates at best.

Our test results were obtained after each SSD had been prepared using DISKPART or Sanitary Erase tools. As a word of caution, applications such as these offer immediate but temporary restoration of original 'pristine' performance levels. In our tests, we discovered that the maximum performance results (charted) would decay as subsequent tests were performed. SSDs attached to TRIM enabled Operating Systems will benefit from continuously refreshed performance, whereas older O/S's will require a garbage collection (GC) tool to avoid 'dirty NAND' performance degradation.

It's critically important to understand that no software for the Microsoft Windows platform can accurately measure SSD performance in a comparable fashion. Synthetic benchmark tools such as HD Tach and PCMark are helpful indicators, but should not be considered the ultimate determining factor. That factor should be measured in actual user experience of real-world applications. Benchmark Reviews includes both bandwidth benchmarks and application speed tests to present a conclusive measurement of product performance.

Test System

  • Motherboard: ASUS P8P67 EVO (Intel P67 Sandy Bridge Platform, B3 Stepping)
  • Processor: Intel Core i7-2600K 3.4 GHz Quad-Core CPU
  • System Memory: 4GB Dual-Channel DDR3 1600MHz CL6-6-6-18
  • SATA 6Gb/s Storage HBA: Integrated Intel P67 Controller
    • AHCI mode - Intel Rapid Storage Technology Driver 10.1.0.1008
  • SATA 3Gb/s Storage HBA: Integrated Intel P67 Controller
    • AHCI mode - Intel Rapid Storage Technology Driver 10.1.0.1008
  • Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate Edition 64-Bit with Service Pack 1

Storage Hardware Tested

The following storage hardware has been used in our benchmark performance testing, and may be included in portions of this article:

Test Tools

  • AS SSD Benchmark 1.6.4067.34354: Multi-purpose speed and operational performance test
  • ATTO Disk Benchmark 2.46: Spot-tests static file size chunks for basic I/O bandwidth
  • CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1a by Crystal Dew World: Sequential speed benchmark spot-tests various file size chunks
  • Iometer 1.1.0 (built 08-Nov-2010) by Intel Corporation: Tests IOPS performance and I/O response time
  • Lavalys EVEREST Ultimate Edition 5.50: Disk Benchmark component tests linear read and write bandwidth speeds
  • Futuremark PCMark Vantage 1.02: HDD Benchmark Suite tests real-world drive performance

Test Results Disclaimer

This article utilizes benchmark software tools to produce operational IOPS performance and bandwidth speed results. Each test was conducted in a specific fashion, and repeated for all products. These test results are not comparable to any other benchmark application, neither on this website or another, regardless of similar IOPS or MB/s terminology in the scores. The test results in this project are only intended to be compared to the other test results conducted in identical fashion for this article.



 

Comments 

 
# SweetMergatroid 2011-12-12 16:32
I've owned a Patriot Inferno for almost a year now and it's been very reliable. The Pyro looks like it's continuing a solid reputation for a quality product.

Great review, and I enjoyed reading about your benchmark selections and reasoning. This latest generation of SSDs sure provide amazing performance.
Report Comment
 
 
# Comparison Between Modelsredwolfe_98 2011-12-16 10:49
i would have liked to have seem a comparison of the performance of the 60 GB, the 120 GB and the 240 GB models of the patriot pyro SSD's.. i understand that if all of those were not provided, then they couldn't be tested.. from what i have seen, there can be big differences between the smaller and larger capacity SSD's..

to me, the prices on the patriot pyro SSD's look good, compared to what i have seen with other SSD's, which, incidentally, are too expensive, for me..
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: Comparison Between ModelsOlin Coles 2011-12-16 13:47
Thanks for your comment. To be honest, I would have liked to receive one of every capacity so they could be tested as well. Sadly, that's not how these manufacturers send samples. In terms of maximum performance the differences are very small, but those differences get big once the NAND gets filled (but not with the Pyro SE series because it uses synchronous NAND flash components).
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: Patriot Pyro SE Solid State Driveredwolfe_98 2011-12-16 10:54
to add to my last post (since i can't edit it), i should have said that the price on the 120 GB unit looks good, to me.. the price on the 240 GB unit is comparible to those from other vendors, which is too expensive for me..
Report Comment
 
 
# Dudemjpatter63 2012-01-07 17:29
Nice review. You should test these on AMD chipsets/mobos. You will get very different results, not only with the Pyro SE but all of the Sandforce controller used SSD'd. I have tested the Kingston HyperX and Vertex 3 Max IOPS and the Pyro SE. With compressed sequential data they get similar results as the SSD's on Intel chipsets using iStor. On an AMD board ( I've tested on SB850 and 9 series chipsets, using the AMD sata controller) and the 4K, 4KQD32, and especially random reads drops to 60% less than the Intel boards. The SSD's that have worked best for me and test well across the board are the Crucial C30, M4(Marvell contr) and Samsung 830(Samsung Contr.)These were 120gb drives. Just my findings for the AMD folks out there.
Report Comment
 
 
# Re: SB850Shanon 2012-01-17 20:26
I agree with this comment as far as the need for testing hardware on more than one platform. Did you notice any stability issues when testing the Crucial M4 or the Samsung 830 on the SB850? I've been looking at both of these SSD's, after having experienced the "disappearing drive" issue with the OCZ Vertex 3 (which I've come to understand as a compatibility issue between the Sandforce Controller and the SB850). I'd love to add a 256GB SSD as the application drive for my system, but not enough to have to upgrade my mobo (and consequently my CPU): I just built this system 7 months ago.
Report Comment
 
 
# Mr.Tim 2012-01-17 15:39
"after only a few minutes I was booting from a restored Windows 7 System Image"
Can I assume that if I have already done a W7 install on a HD that I can use this procedure to move W7 over to the ssd if I purchase one? I am new to W7 and system image? Currently all I have installed on a new build is the W7 OS..Thanks

Do you reply to email also??? or do I check back here...guess I will find out if you respond to my email...preferred...thanks
Report Comment
 
 
# RE: Mr.Olin Coles 2012-01-17 15:47
Yes, you can clone from a hard drive to the SSD without re-installing Windows. See here:
benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=439
Report Comment
 
 
# OffsetMergatroid 2012-01-17 17:28
SSDs requite a particular "offset" for the format. If this offset is not correct, you can end up writing to two blocks instead of one for every write, which will kill performance and reduce the lifespan of the SSD.

Some imaging software is offset aware for SSDs and some is not. If your software does not work properly with an SSD and you create a hard drive image, when you restore the image to the SSD you will have the wrong offset.

Some imaging software will use whatever offset is in the image. Under these conditions a restore will provide the wrong offset. If the image was made from an SSD in the first place, then it should restore the correct offset.

Some imaging software has been updated so that it will use the correct offset when restoring even a hard drive image to an SSD.

This all depends on the software. You MUST check your software and if necessary contact the publisher and find out how it handles offsets. If you restore a hard drive image to an SSD with the incorrect offset, as far as I know the only way to correct it is to completely do a fresh install of Windows 7. I have seen people claim they can correct the offset after an incorrect image restore, but I tried it and the performance was not what it should have been. I had to load the recovery console, command line interface and run the diskpart software to format the drive and apply the correct offset.

All that can be avoided in two ways:
1: Do a fresh clean install to begin with and windows 7 will do everything correctly.

or

2: Create and restore your hard drive image using image software that is SSD offset aware.
Report Comment
 
 
# Re Offsetspitcake 2013-03-06 15:00
AS SSD Benchmark will tell you if the drive's not aligned to 4k boundaries. If that happens, best to purchase Paragon Alignment tool.
handy to have for anyone playing with SSD's, and you re-use it once you buy it. There's other ways to re-align, but for $30 the Paragon Tool will save you a lot of headaches.
Report Comment
 

Comments have been disabled by the administrator.

Search Benchmark Reviews
QNAP Network Storage Servers

Follow Benchmark Reviews on FacebookReceive Tweets from Benchmark Reviews on Twitter