Archive for April, 2011

PostHeaderIcon Intel Maintains Massive x86 Market Share Lead

The numbers are in and once again, they favor Intel in a big way. According to industry analyst firm Mercury Research, Intel continues to dominate the competition in the x86 space and controls an 81 percent share of the market. Rival AMD, meanwhile, held on to an 18.2 percent share, and like Intel, showed little change from the same time period in 2010.

According to an eWeek report, Mercury Research’s x86 market share numbers include both PC and server processors. There hasn’t been a whole lot of movement among the major chip makers, with Intel claiming an 81.2 percent share in the first quarter of 2010 and 81 percent in the fourth quarter of 2010. AMD also stayed flat, claiming an 18.1 percent share in the first quarter of 2010. Neither company has budged more than 0.2 percent within the past year. The same holds true for VIA, which bumped up its share from 0.7 percent during the first quarter of 2010 to 0.9 percent in Q1 2011.

Overall, x86 chip revenues in Q1 grew 1.1 percent, well above the seasonal average of an 8.6 percent decline, but that number is deceiving. There are usually 13 weeks in the first quarter, but this time there were 14 weeks. When adjusted for 13 weeks, Mercury Research noted that revenue was down 6.2 percent, still above the seasonal average.

“This is the third quarter in a row of significantly below normal year-on-year growth,” McCarron said in a release. “However, the decline in the yearly comparable growth appears to have stopped this quarter, hinting at a possible resumption of on-year growth in the coming quarters of 2011.”

Image Credit: Intel

Similar Posts:

Article Source: The Only Yard For The Internet Junkie
If you like all this stuff here then you can buy me a pack of cigarettes.

PostHeaderIcon Post-Panda, Your Original Content is Being Outranked by Scrapers & Partners

Posted by BryanCrow

This post was originally in YOUmoz, and was promoted to the main blog because it provides great value and interest to our community. The author’s views are entirely his or her own and may not reflect the views of SEOmoz, Inc.

A weird thing has happened as a result of panda. Something you might have expected Google’s Search Quality testers to catch before rolling the update out. Due to the domain-wide nature of the signal, high-quality, original content produced by the websites who were negatively impacted are now being ranked below the exact same content, republished by partners to whom they syndicate. Even more egregious, they are also being outranked by scrapers who effectively steal and republish the same content without permission or credit.

I have seen this briefly mentioned by observers, but I haven’t seen this phenomenon transparently documented either in SEO press or in the Panda Google forum. The purpose of this post is to transparently share data from the site (of which I am the CTO) and locate others experiencing a similar phenomenon.

Pre Panda

For three years, we at WonderHowTo organized the sprawling world of HowTo with taxonomical zeal and very human curation. By January, we had grown to more than 10mm monthly uniques. As our community formed, we began to shift our efforts towards the concept of covering timely news in the HowTo space (there is astounding innovation each day among the 427 subcategories we follow).

Our journalistic cred grew, and at the beginning of the year, two fantastic syndication partners Business Insider, and Huffington Post recognized our quality and eagerly published our articles in their sections (primarily Technology). On occasion, we noticed that our articles were outranked by our partners, but over the course of a few days, Google always got it right, recognizing the source as WonderHowTo. For the record, pre-Panda, we cannot recall one instance when a scraper outranked us with our own content in Google. Never. There seemed to be order in the universe.

Post Panda

Our Google traffic fell by 40%. Among our 1 million indexed pages, we experienced plenty of displaced rankings. Before getting into the what, how, & why, one thing has stood out as alarmingly egregious: Original content created by us is no longer able to rise to the top above our partners or even scrapers who republish our content. Ever. Panda branded us the Rosa Parks of content, forcing us to the back of Google’s ranking bus, along with all the other sites which fit its profiling.

Crediting the Original Source – Google vs Bing

I took a look at the articles we’re promoting on our home page and syndicating to Business Insider and Huffington Post. As I mentioned earlier, our articles also tend to get scraped and republished on dozens of sites within minutes of them being published. Post panda, it turns out Bing is doing a better (though still imperfect) job of ranking the original source (WonderHowTo) above the scrapers & syndication partners. Here are examples from a few recent posts (For simplicity, I searched for each article’s exact title):

"How To Remove Your Name and Profile Picture from Facebook’s Social Ads"

Original Source is #9 on Google

"Transform Your Android Home Screen into a 3D Environment with the SPB Shell 3D Launcher App"

Original Source is #7 on Google

"How to Add a Dislike Button to Your Facebook Page"

Original Source is #14 on Google

The larger implication is that if Google cannot rank the source first when searching for the exact title, then the source will also lose out on traffic from any additional keyword variations that the very same content ends up receiving on scraper and partner sites.

Deconstructing The Panda Damage

Our process has always revolved around human curation with the goal of weeding out anything low quality, it seemed odd that the hit would be so large. We did a deep analysis on a variety of signals (article word count, title word count, how many links, embedded media, how many comments, how many favorites, bounce rate, etc) to try to determine which individual pieces of content were getting hit the most.

We separated the content that gained the most traffic to compare against the content that had lost the most traffic, comparing signals & looking for trends. The results seemed random. Very short video descriptions would rank quite well, while long, detailed original transcriptions and guides were suffering. Every time we thought we’d found an influencing signal, we’d go on to find enough exceptions to negate it.

It became abundantly clear that Panda does not work by filtering out individual low quality content as was originally implied. It works by punishing entire domain names if an undetermined percentage of the content on that site meets the undefined "low-quality" criteria. Soon after we came to this realization, Google confirmed it in a statement to Search Engine Land, and an interview with WIRED.

This Site-Wide Approach Punishes High Quality Results

With this signal hitting an entire site instead of just its individual low quality content, the results fundamentally oppose the stated goal of search quality and fairness in attribution. The collateral damage results in Google burying the original source of high quality content, promoting those who steal, scrape, and republish above them. Furthermore, it ends up demoting other top quality results simply because of the domain on which the content resides. It’s counter-intuitive to think that prejudicially branding every piece of a particular site’s content, past, present and future is an effective way to promote top quality results.

Trying To Resolve Your Site-Wide Demotion

Within a week, several search analysis reports started popping up with post-mortem break-downs. Most were fundamentally flawed in that they only looked at the number of ranking places each site would loose without taking search quantity and click through rate into account. The bottom line is that the difference between ranking 1st and ranking 2nd is mammoth. As such if your site ranked #1 for a couple hundred popular queries and you got flagged by panda, the bulk of your traffic loss would be from those #1 positions changing to #2 to #10 positions. Shifts between #4-#8 don’t make nearly as much of a difference. But I digress.

A consensus has been forming across the web stating that if you remove duplicate and otherwise low-quality content from your site, or do the work of telling Google not to index it, your classification as low-quality under panda would be lifted. The idea that you can get out from under this cloud started to gain traction as a couple of stand out examples started showing up.

Find Your "Problem Content"

The vast majority of content on WonderHowTo was written by our team of editors, researchers, and curators. It has always been our policy to write original descriptions for the videos our curators approve for our library so as to ensure authenticity, accuracy, and relevance. It is part of the added value we bring to the table when embedding how-to videos from youtube, vimeo, or any of the other 17,000 creators we’ve curated in our hunt for useful and excellent HowTos (Talented video creators often produce an excellent tutorial with zero regard to title or description, rendering them invisible to search. To these compelling voices, we have sent a steady stream of deserved traffic).

Over the years we have also consummated one-off agreements with a handful of partners who requested that we use their own specific descriptions, word-for-word, when including their content on our site. As was the Pre-Panda norm, Google would always rank the original source 1st, so there was no need for any one-off no-index tags to keep rankings in their correct place.

With the growing consensus that such republishing could be a major signal in getting a domain flagged, it seemed apparent that our biggest problem might be this content from our partners. After auditing our library, we found that about 16% of our content had been republished word for word from one of these partners. We would have to noindex these to take them out of search visibility.

Enact Your Sweeping Changes to Remove Your Problem Content

Once you’ve identified all your problematic content, it’s time to noindex it. Digital Inspiration made a number of similar changes and saw his rankings restored within two weeks. Here are the changes we made to WonderHowTo as of March 25, 2011:

1. Duplicate Content from Syndication Partnerships
We added a robots noindex meta tag to each page where content was republished from one of our partners.

2. Related Video Pages
We realized that the pages we have that show all the related videos to a particular video were allowed to be indexed. So, we added a robots noindex meta tag to each of those pages.

3. Un-embeded Video Pages
When we don’t embed how-to videos from around the web that we feel meet our quality guidelines for inclusion on our library, we provide a link for people to watch that video on the source site. As people who land on these pages from a google search may find this page to be an intermediary page, we think these may tripping the signal as well. So, we added a robots noindex meta tag to each of those pages.

4. Tag Pages
According to Digital Inspiration, allowing tag pages with inadequate content to be indexed may also trip this flag, so we added a robots noindex meta tag to all topic pages with fewer than 4 useful videos on them.

5. Page Link Count
I read that too many links on a page may have also been a signal. So, we cut the limit of the number of related topics to show on any given page down by 50%.

Wait for your Changes to Take Effect

Within a week, Google had re-crawled enough of our content to start removing the no-indexed pages from the index. We knew this would result in an additional drop in search traffic, but the hope was to rectify the side effect of Google ranking our high-quality content lower than the scrapers who republish it.

We are hopeful that the changes we’ve made will remove this site-wide flag, or that Google will tweak the algorithm to only target low quality content as opposed to an entire site. But as of today, (4/19/2011), the problem still exists. Google continues to drive people who search for our content to the republished versions on our partners sites and the sites who scrape us without permission or attribution. Our search traffic has declined (now partially because of our noindexing changes), and our high quality content continues to be outranked by less helpful results.

If you have a site that is experiencing a similar phenomenon, let us know in the comments. This behavior seems contrary to the fundamentals of search quality, and Panda specifically. Without making some noise about it, it may never be corrected.

Do you like this post? Yes No

Similar Posts:

Article Source: The Only Yard For The Internet Junkie
If you like all this stuff here then you can buy me a pack of cigarettes.

PostHeaderIcon SSD Showdown: 4 Top Drives Reviewed

Breaking the 250MB/s barrier with no moving parts

If the automotive world progressed as fast as the computer industry, the old joke goes, we‘d all have $1,000 cars that get 400 miles to the gallon, never need maintenance, and crash catastrophic-ally every eight weeks for no reason. Ancient punch lines aside, comparing this year’s storage options to those of even half a decade ago would be like entering a Bugatti Type 35 in the Preakness Stakes.

Half a decade ago, we were all still chasing the fastest mechanical hard drive. Today, solid-state drives are where the action is. And the progress made in SSDs over the past three years has been staggering. During our first SSD roundup in November 2008, the cream of the crop offered sustained-read and -write speeds on par with a mechanical drive, at 20 times the cost, and most were much worse.

In 2009 and 2010, the first really excellent consumer SSDs arrived, powered by Indilinx’s Barefoot controller, SandForce’s SF-1200, as well as Intel’s and Samsung’s proprietary controllers. 2011’s crop of controllers brings 6Gb/s SATA support, enabling much faster transfer speeds. Some are also using smaller-process NAND. Marvell’s 9174 controller (the one from last year’s Crucial C300) powers three of the drives in our roundup, while the fourth is the first SF-2200 drive we’ve been able to get our hands on. Where’s the best bang for your buck? Does 6Gb/s SATA really make a difference? And who would ever buy a horseless carriage?

Pole Positions

1. OCZ Vertex 3 240GB

Will the new SandForce SF-2200 controller in the Vertex 3 dominate the field the way its predecessor did? The other SSDs here hope not.

2. Crucial m4 256GB

Virtually the same drive that Micron is selling to OEMs with the RealSSD C400 moniker, the Crucial m4 is the follow-up to the C300 6Gb/s SSD.

3. Intel 510 250GB

In a surprise move, Intel enters the 6Gb/s field with a third-party controller—the same Marvell 9174 powering all but one of the drives here—instead of one of its own.

4. Plextor M2 Series 128GB

Plextor has yet to make a name for itself in the SSD market after debuting with the unimpressive M1S. Perhaps the new Marvell 9174 controller will help it out.

How We Tested

New hardware, new software for our most comprehensive SSD tests ever

Regular readers of our drive reviews might notice a few changes in our benchmark chart at the end of the article. HDTune and HD Tach, the low-level drive benchmarks, are gone, replaced by CrystalDiskMark, AS SSD, and ATTO. Several factors played into this decision. First, the low-level benchmarks work on the raw disk level, on unformatted and unpartitioned drives. This is useful on rotary drives, but less so on solid-state ones. CrystalDisk-Mark and AS SSD are designed from the ground up to test solid-state storage at the partition level, which better mirrors real-world use. AS SSD’s 4KB low-queue-depth random benchmark gives results that match well with HDTune’s, while CrystalDiskMark’s 32QD 4KB read and write benchmarks parse well with Iometer’s, giving another level of robustness to our storage tests. ATTO shows read and write speeds for a wide array of different block sizes; we use 64KB as a good middle-of-the-road benchmark. Premiere Pro and PCMark Vantage, as real-world tests, remain in our toolbox.

AS SSD is built from the ground up to measure SSD performance.

We still ran HD Tach and HDTune on all the drives in this review, but the end results were not as useful as those from CrystalDiskMark and AS SSD.

We’ve also moved our SSD test bed to a Sandy Bridge motherboard—Asus’s P8P67 Pro with the B3 chipset. Our previous test bed was based on the X58 chipset, which used a Marvell 6Gb/s SATA controller. The P67 chipset’s native Intel 6Gb/s offers better, more stable 6Gb/s SATA performance.

OCZ Vertex 3 240GB

First of the next batch of SandForce drives

Some amount of wheeling and dealing got OCZ access to special firmware for its last-gen SandForce drives, enabling faster random-write performance than the competition. Despite OCZ’s recent acquisition of Indilinx, it seems there’s still a spark to OCZ’s relationship with SandForce, as the company was able to get us an SF-2200 drive before anyone else. Since the Vertex 3 is the first SF-2200–powered SSD we’ve tested, we don’t know how it compares to the rest of the SF-2200 field, but we do know it kicks the pants off of most every other SSD we’ve reviewed.

OCZ retains the solid-state crown with stellar overall performance.

The Vertex 3 uses 25nm-process NAND and, like all SandForce drives, no cache. That SF-2200 controller really cooks, setting records in most of our benchmarks and performing competitively in the rest. No single drive in our roundup matches the Vertex 3 on all fronts, though the Crucial m4 is close in random read/write performance and the Intel 510 comes close to its sequential reads and surpasses its sequential writes. OCZ continues its tradition of blazing-fast random-write performance, both at low- and high-queue depths, serving up more than 85,000 IOPS in our Iometer QD32 4KB random-write test. That’s nearly 80 percent faster than the Vertex 2, the previous SATA champion.

It’s too early to tell whether the rest of the SF-2200 lineup will be able to compete with OCZ’s Vertex 3. But for the few weeks until we get our hands on more next-gen SandForce drives, the Vertex 3 reigns supreme.

OCZ Vertex 3 240GB SSD


Blazing-fast performance on all fronts.


Sequential-write speeds slightly behind Intel 510.



Crucial m4 256GB

Company debuts second 6Gb/s SSD

At first blush, the Crucial m4 seems virtually indistinguishable from its predecessor, the Crucial RealSSD C300. After all, it’s available in the same capacity with the same Marvell 9174 6Gb/s SATA controller and same amount of DRAM cache—256MB for the 128GB, 256GB, and 512GB versions, and 128MB for the 64GB drive.

What’s the difference between the Crucial m4 and a Micron RealSSD C400? Branding.

That isn’t to say the Crucial m4 is identical to the C300. For one thing, the m4’s firmware has been substantially updated from the sometimes-flaky firmware of the C300. For another, the m4 uses 25nm-process NAND, while the C300 used 34nm NAND. Smaller-process NAND means lower cost per gigabyte (thus, cheaper SSDs), but with a slight durability hit, albeit one probably unnoticeable to the end user.

In our tests, the m4 (and every drive in this roundup) positively smoked our best-of-the-best 3Gb/s SATA drive, the OCZ Vertex 2—sustained- read and -write scores as measured by Crystal-DiskMark and AS SSD were more than twice the Vertex 2’s scores, and the m4 scored higher 4KB random reads and writes across the board, from single-queue depth to QD 32. The 256MB of cache doubtless helped the m4 in PCMark Vantage’s HDD subtest, where it posted the highest score we’ve seen from a non–PCI-E drive. The m4 doesn’t have the fastest sustained speeds, but its random-access speeds are top-notch. And 400MB/s reads and 250MB/s writes would have been unthinkably fast a couple of months ago.

The Crucial m4 represents a great implementation of the Marvell 9174 controller, and a great demonstration of the advantage of native 6Gb/s SATA.

Crucial m4 256GB


Great random-access speeds; 400MB/s reads, 250MB/s writes.


Not the fastest.



Intel 510 250GB

Intel’s new SSD, powered by… Marvell?

Nobody panic. Intel is still coming out with its much-delayed third-generation solid-state drive. The 320 Series will use 25nm NAND and Intel’s latest controller, on 3Gb/s SATA, and will focus on what made Intel drives great: high read speeds and random writes, and rock-solid reliability. Intel, recognizing that 250MB/s read speeds ain’t gonna cut it in 2011 (and holy cow, do we love typing that), is also bowing to popular demand and releasing an SSD with 6Gb/s SATA capability, but rather than design its own controller for that, Intel is using a third-party component. Intel wouldn’t officially tell us which controller, but thanks to the mysterious and powerful technol-ogy known as screwdriver, we can say with confidence that it’s Marvell’s 88SS9174-BKK2.

Intel’s 510 SSD isn’t part of the same family as its X25-M drives, but it’s special in its own way.

Intel’s 510 Series SSD uses 34nm Intel NAND chips and 128MB DDR3 DRAM cache—and, of course, the same 6Gb/s Marvell 9174 controller as the Crucial and Plextor drives. The 250GB model that we tested showed the strongest sustained-write speeds of any drive in our roundup—more than 300MB/s—and its sustained reads of more than 480MB/s bested every Marvell-based drive. But its 4KB random-read and -write speeds, at any queue depth, were good by 2009’s standards, but no match for Crucial’s offering or either of the last- or current-gen Vertex drives.

If you go solely by sequential-read and -write speeds, the Intel 510 is one of the fastest drives we’ve ever tested, but its random-read and -write performance lags far behind the front-runners. By splitting its SSD line into two segments (3Gb/s SATA, random-write-centric versus 6Gb/s, sequential-speed-centric), Intel risks having two less-than-compelling options. And in a crowded field, consumers might not go with either one, especially given the jaw-dropping $614 street price of the 250GB 510 Series SSD.

Intel 510 250GB


Fast sequential reads and writes; vaunted Intel longevity.


Expensive; noncompetitive 4KB random reads/writes.



Plextor M2 Series 128GB

Second verse, better than the first!

We’ll say this for the Plextor M2 Series SSD: It’s a huge step up from Plextor’s last SSD. The M1S Series SSD we tested in our June 2010 roundup used Marvell’s “Da-Vinci” 88SS8014-BHP2 controller, which suffered from instability and slow writes. We gave that drive a 5 verdict. To our great relief, the M2 series SSD instead uses Marvell’s newer 6Gb/s SATA controller, the 88SS9174-BLD2—marking the third appearance of a Marvell 9174 controller in this roundup.

With the M2 series, Plextor pairs the Marvell 9174 controller with 128MB of DDR3 DRAM cache, and the result is an undeniable improvement over its previous-gen drive. As reported by Crystal-DiskMark and AS SSD, sustained reads hover near 400MB/s, with sustained writes around half that. That’s around double the read speed of the OCZ Vertex 2, but 25MB/s slower than the Vertex 2’s write speed. 4KB random reads and writes also suffered in comparison to the Vertex 2.

Plextor’s M2 series manages to up the company’s SSD track record from abysmal to middlin’.

The Plextor M2 is much better than Plextor’s last SSD, and in many benchmarks it’s superior to last generation’s top drives—mostly in read speeds. But its write speeds and random-access times lag behind the other 6Gb/s SATA drives in our roundup, and even high-performing drives from last year. The M2, like Plextor’s last drive, comes with a copy of Acronis True Image Home to ease your transition from a smaller or slower drive, which is nice.

If you’re shopping for your first SSD, Plextor’s M2 makes a decent offering. But it’s not the best of what’s available in the 6Gb/s SATA SSD market—or even the best Marvell-controlled drive.

Plextor M2 Series 128GB


Better than their last drive; includes Acronis imaging software


Middling performance can’t match other drives w/ same controller.



Today’s Drives, Yesterday’s Motherboards

Even if you’re stuck with 3Gb/s SATA, these drives can be worth it

Are you contemplating buying a brand-new solid-state drive, but worried that your motherboard is draggin’ you down? Even if your motherboard has no 6Gb/s SATA ports (or, like many X58 boards, has a crappy onboard 6Gb/s SATA controller), you can still benefit from running a 6Gb/s SATA drive.

See, most last-gen drives had to deal with the 3Gb/s SATA interface, which tops out in the real world at around 250MB/s, so there was no incentive to push performance. But 6Gb/s drives don’t have that limitation—they’re built to far surpass it. And though you won’t see 400MB/s read speeds on a 3Gb/s SATA port, you can still push closer to the 3Gb/s barrier with a current-gen drive than you can with a last-gen one.

We tested OCZ’s Vertex 3 6Gb/s SATA drive on our test bed’s 3Gb/s SATA controller, and found that it far surpassed the Vertex 2 that was our previous champion, offering sustained-read and -write speeds around 260MB/s and 220MB/s, respectively. Even constrained by the 3Gb/s SATA interface, the Vertex 3 matched or bested the Vertex 2 in nearly every benchmark.
The performance difference on 3Gb/s SATA isn’t so great that you should upgrade to a current-gen SSD if you’re already rocking a SandForce 1200, Intel, or Samsung drive and you don’t have 6Gb/s SATA ports available. But if you’re in the market for your first SSD and still rocking a last-gen motherboard, don’t rule out 6Gb/s SATA drives. If your current mobo can’t take advantage of all that speed, your next mobo can. Or you can grab a PCI-E-to-6Gb/s SATA host bus adapter, like HighPoint’s Rocket 600 series, to get 6Gb/s SATA on your current board.



Post-Race Wrap-Up

Team SandForce maintains dominance in a field of strong performers

We’ve been anxiously awaiting the SF-2200 controller for a while—could the company that sprung out of stealth mode to take the solid-state drive market by storm in 2010 pull a repeat in 2011? Though we’re still a few months away from seeing multiple vendors shipping SF-2200 drives, if the performance of the OCZ Vertex 3 is any indication, it’s going to be another good year for SandForce.

The SandForce-powered OCZ Vertex 3 is the clear winner of our little roundup, posting race-winning scores in virtually every benchmark. In CrystalDiskMark and AS SSD, which are solid-state-specific synthetic benchmarks, the Vertex 3 posted average sequential reads of 500MB/s and average writes of 280MB/s, second only to the Intel 510. In queue-depth 32 4KB random-read and -write benchmarks (both Crystal-DiskMark and Iometer), the Vertex 3 again bested the rest of the field, though Crucial’s m4 SSD came within spitting distance of OCZ’s drive. PCMark Vantage, which mirrors real-world applications, actually gives the top spot to Crucial’s m4 SSD, with the Vertex 3 a close second.

One interesting result our testing shows is the importance of good firmware. Three of the drives in our roundup share the same Marvell 9174 controller (albeit with varying amounts of cache), but they all post different benchmark results. Intel’s 510 shows the strongest sequential-read and -write scores by far, but its random-access scores are no better than those of the Plextor M2. Crucial’s m4, on the other hand, shows random-read and -write speeds almost as high as the Vertex 3, but its sequential speeds were much lower than the Intel or OCZ drives. Intel’s and Crucial’s offerings each excel in at least one area, while the Plextor M2 is competent compared to last-gen drives but unexceptional compared to this generation.

We should make explicit that any of these solid-state drives deserves your purchasing consideration. They’re all powerful performers that really take advantage of the increased bandwidth of the 6Gb/s SATA bus. Depending on your needs, either Crucial’s or Intel’s drives should be near the top of your list, though the OCZ Vertex 3 combines the best features of each—for a price.



Plextor M2 Crucial m4 Intel 510 OCZ Vertex 3 OCZ Vertex 2 (6Gb/s SATA) OCZ Vertex 3 (3Gb/s SATA)
Capacity 128GB 256GB 250GB 240GB 100GB 240GB
Controller Marvell 9174 Marvell 9174 Marvell 9174  SF-2200 SF-1200 (6Gb/s ports) SF-2200 (3Gb/s ports)
Sustained Read (MB/s) 415.2 404.5 480.1 485.5* 206.2 269.6
Sustained Write (MB/s) 197.5 257.3 328.9* 289.8 87.92 228.4
4KB Read, 32QD (MB/s) 75.58 167.9 80.02 171.2* 111.1 166.2
4KB Write, 32QD (MB/s) 47.72 235.8 49.7 247.4* 81.56 182.8
AS SSD      
Seq. Read (MB/s) 387.33 407.73


506.2* 208.46 262.77
Seq. Write (MB/s) 186.67 249.73 308.03* 280.19 71.7 218.84
4KB Read (IOPS) 3,729 5,091 4,674 5,539* 5,249 5,213
4KB Write (IOPS) 9,961
13,837 9,923 14,263* 12,910 12,302
Read Access (ms) 0.232
0.105* 0.207 0.157 0.13 0.168
Write Access (ms) 0.093*
0.278 0.095* 0.222 0.235 0.209
64KB File Read (MB/s) 391.3 284.9 449.2* 446.5 257.6 253.9
64KB File Write (MB/s) 216.9 260.2 341.5 505.3* 269.1 264
4KB Random Write 13,169.8 56,087.81 12,123.95 85,144.43* 47,647.11 46,655.39
Max Access Time (ms) 576 143 318 61* 30.2 52.37
Premiere Pro Encode Write (sec) 438 429 424 422* 443 433
PCMark Vantage x64 HDD 37,792 61,758* 39,053 59,978 42,290 38,281

Asterisk (*) denotes highest score. Our current test bed is a 3.1GHz Core i3-2100 processor on an Asus P8 P67 Pro (B3 chipset) running Windows 7 Professional 64-bit. All tests used onboard 6Gb/s SATA ports with latest Intel drivers, except 3Gb/s SATA tests, which used onboard 3Gb/s Intel SATA ports.

Similar Posts:

Article Source: The Only Yard For The Internet Junkie
If you like all this stuff here then you can buy me a pack of cigarettes.

Free premium templates and themes
Add to Technorati Favorites
Free PageRank Display
Our Partners


Related Links
Resources Link Directory Professional Web Design Template