Patriot Pyro 120GB SSD Review, RAID0 Performance Tested

By Jos
Sep 20, 2011
Post New Reply
  1. Per Hansson

    Per Hansson TS Server Guru Posts: 1,921   +178

    Why is it so much slower when using the same controller as other drives?
    Is it due to the NAND flash being used?
    I know Anand had an article showing dramatic speed diffrences in the various models of Flash memory (you wont know what you get when buying the drive, akin to what sort of DRAM is actually on the stick of RAM you buy...)
  2. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Editor Posts: 2,047   +1,057

    You should know better than to ask questions before reading :p

    It was mentioned a few times in the review. The Pyro uses asynchronous NAND flash memory while the Vertex 3 uses pricier synchronous memory.
  3. spydercanopus

    spydercanopus TS Evangelist Posts: 794   +87

    I'm reading 66bps on the drive's sticker. xD
  4. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Editor Posts: 2,047   +1,057

    Are the photos really that bad? :D

    Still I do see it as well, poor choice of font haha.
  5. Per Hansson

    Per Hansson TS Server Guru Posts: 1,921   +178

    Steve: that was not what I meant.
    The differences in async vs sync memory should not make such a tremendous difference.
    There must be some more difference, there are other drives using async memory and posting much better speeds.
    Anandtech did a good writeup on different NAND memory and their effect on drive performance.

    The same NAND in the same configuration and node size can still have a large impact on performance, as you can see 2 pages into that article...
  6. godrilla

    godrilla TS Rookie Posts: 16

    What firmware did you use for the M4 ssd? Vanilla or version 09 which has upto 25% boost in perfomance. And priced @ $385. For 256 gig one.
  7. Tanstar

    Tanstar TS Guru Posts: 324   +46

    Which drives using async are posting much better speeds?
  8. spydercanopus

    spydercanopus TS Evangelist Posts: 794   +87

    Who can navigate Corsair's SSD firmware downloads to tell? They're officially buried deep in their public forum and reliant on third party software to use.
  9. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Editor Posts: 2,047   +1,057

    Its a Crucial drive the m4. To answer godrilla's question we used the first release firmware when testing.
  10. godrilla

    godrilla TS Rookie Posts: 16

    thanks for the response, if you used the later firmware (09) the raid 0 setup would look even worse.
  11. From the article: "Once formatted in Windows, the original 120GB drops to 111GiB, meaning you lose 7.5% from the GB to GiB conversion."

    Nothing was lost. 120 GB is 111 GiB.

    It's like going to a cable vendor and asking him for 8 km of wire, and they give you a reel with 5 miles of wire on it. You got what you asked for.

    The only confusing issue is that Windows advertises sizes in GB, but measures them in GiB.

    This is why e.g. a 500 GB harddrive appears in Windows as 465 GB, it's not, it's 465 GiB.

    You haven't lost anything.
  12. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Editor Posts: 2,047   +1,057

    Yep, we get it. Windows still displays it as GB so to the user they went from 120GB to 111GB. We explained that it is GiB so yes while lost is not technically right your argument is probably best directed at MS.

Similar Topics

Create an account or login to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...

Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.