Patriot Pyro 120GB SSD Review, RAID0 Performance Tested

By on September 20, 2011, 1:07 AM

On the heels of its performance-orientated Wildfire series, Patriot has developed a more cost effective solution for mainstream system builders. Based on SandForce's SF-2281 controller, the Pyro series appears to take aim at the Agility 3. OCZ's budget offering uses the same SandForce controller and similar NAND flash memory.

Despite costing more, the Pyro claims to offer slightly more speed, citing blazingly fast 550MB/s sequential reads and up to 515MB/s sequential writes using SATA 6.0Gb/s. At first glance, it seems the Pyro might be fairly priced against the Agility 3, but we have a sneaking suspicion this isn't the case and Patriot will have to lower its prices.

We're also curious to test the Pyro's RAID0 performance. At $410, pair of Pyro 120GB drives cost considerably less than a single Patriot Wildfire 240GB drive ($515), which could reveal some compelling results. We could speculate on drive performance all day, but let's press onward and see where Patriot's budget contender stands in the market…

Read the complete review.




User Comments: 12

Got something to say? Post a comment
Staff
Per Hansson Per Hansson, TS Server Guru, said:

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...)

Staff
Steve Steve said:

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...)

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.

spydercanopus spydercanopus said:

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

Staff
Steve Steve said:

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

Are the photos really that bad?

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

Staff
Per Hansson Per Hansson, TS Server Guru, said:

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.

[link]

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...

godrilla said:

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.

Tanstar said:

Per Hansson said:

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.

Which drives using async are posting much better speeds?

spydercanopus spydercanopus said:

godrilla said:

What firmware did you use for the M4 ssd? Vanilla or version 09 which has upto 25% boost in perfomance.

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.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

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.

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

godrilla said:

Steve said:

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.

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

thanks for the response, if you used the later firmware (09) the raid 0 setup would look even worse.

Guest said:

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.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

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.

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.

Load all comments...

Add New 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.