News Headlines
- Fri, Aug 12
- Corsair and MSI team up to release liquid cooled GTX 1080 for $749
- South Park: The Fractured But Whole's Nosulus Rift will let you smell your farts
- Nordic Games reincorporates as THQ Nordic, announces 13 new projects
- Thu, Aug 11
- Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Spirit of Justice objects in North America September 8
- Mega Man X now available on New Nintendo 3DS Virtual Console
New Articles
Related Articles
Patriot Pyro SE 120GB & 240GB SSD Review - PAGE 1
Chris Ledenican - Monday, January 9th, 2012 Like ShareOver the last few months we have examined Patriot’s high-end Wildfire SSD, along with their more cost effective Pyro model. Both of these SSDs were based on the SandForce SF-2281 processor and supported fast speeds via the SATA 6Gbps support. However, each drive utilized a separate NAND design which meant the performance difference between the two was so vast, anyone looking for bleeding edge performance really had to shell out for the Wildfire. This no longer needs to be the case however, as Patriot now has a new drive on the market designed to fill the gap between the Wildfire and Pryo.
The new drive is the Pryo SE (Second Edition) and like its predecessor is based on the SandForce controller. However, the design has been tweaked as the Pyro SE utilizes 25nm synchronous MLC NAND flash memory, as opposed to asynchronous. This should improve the drive's performance when it comes to transferring files of incompressible data, thus improving the performance over the standard Pyro drive. The Pyro SE offers read and write speeds of 500+ MB/s, and delivers IOPS at up to 85,000 (4K random write).
Patriot was kind enough to send us both their 120GB and 240GB Pyro SE models. While both utilize the same design and offer similar performance, the 240GB model has an MSRP of $449, while the 120GB model retails for a more modest $204. Also, since we have two drives on hand it gives us the chance to rn the drives together in RAID to really unleash their potential.
|
Specifications |
|
|---|---|
|
Availability |
60GB, 120GB and 240GB capacities |
|
Performance |
Max Read: up to 525MB/s Max Write: up to 500MB/s Random Write 4KB: 45,000 IOPS Maximum 4K Random Write: 85,000 IOPS |
|
NAND |
MLC NAND Flash |
|
Interface |
SATA 6Gbps / Backwards compatible 3Gbps |
|
TRIM Support |
Yes |
|
Seek Time |
.1ms |
|
Design |
Slim 2.5" design |
| dimensions | 99.8 x 69.63 x 9.3mm |
|
Weight |
77g |
|
Operating Temp |
0°C ~ 70°C |
|
Ambient Temp |
0°C ~ 55°C |
|
Storage Temp |
-45°C ~ 85°C |
|
Power Consumption |
2.7W Active, 1.5W Idle |
|
Shock Resistant |
Up to 1500G |
| compatibility | Windows 7, Vista, XP, Mac OSX and Linux |
|
MTBF |
2 million hours |
|
Warranty |
3 years |
Article Index |
|
The 4K test seems it's pretty consistent across all SSDs (including my own) to the point that it seems nearly pointless to perform...Hell, my 4K write speed is listed as beating the Raid0-ed (and even the 240GB SE, sans RAID0).
What I'm really shocked on is how much write speeds have improved over the last several years. It seems pretty recently that one of the big problems with SSDs compared to HDDs is write speed, but it seems like the better SSDs on the market are beating conventional HDDs by a wide margin. My OCZ Vertex2 can't beat my 7200RPM HDD for sequential write speeds however (the read speeds are a good 30% higher though). Totally destroys the 4K write speeds though (about 50MB/s versus 1.2MB/s. Though those numbers seem very wonky to me.).
However, putting aside the obvious $/GB issue with SSDs, isn't one of the big problems with SSDs the total number of writes before they start failing? HDDs have a big advantage there, last I checked?
Not sure about operational time either. Don't HDDs have operational times in the millions of hours?